Latest / Ask the Lawyer / 07/09/2026 Ask the Lawyer with Tom Peyton

Transcript

07/09/2026 Ask the Lawyer with Tom Peyton · Ask the Lawyer

0:00
Speaker 1: The views and opinions expressed on this program do not
0:02
Speaker 1: necessarily reflect the views and opinions of five eight WHS
0:06
Speaker 1: it's employees or WVRC media.
0:09
Speaker 2: Of course, Oh creation equal, well, nuch, come here in
0:20
Speaker 2: a katy can rock up top.
0:25
Speaker 1: There's no reason to fight the law this morning. You
0:34
Speaker 1: can put the law on your side. Harvey or Tom
0:37
Speaker 1: Payton from the Peyton Law Firm is here with us
0:39
Speaker 1: this morning, taking your phone calls. Threes are A four
0:41
Speaker 1: three four five fifty fifty eight. Threes are A four
0:43
Speaker 1: three four five fifty eight fifty eight. Thomas and Studio
0:45
Speaker 1: with this morning. Tom, Good morning, How you doing this morning?
0:47
Speaker 3: I'm doing great this morning. How you doing?
0:49
Speaker 1: Code? Man? I can't complain. It's uh, it seems like
0:52
Speaker 1: we took the top off the heat a little bit.
0:54
Speaker 1: You know, yesterday it was hot, but it was just
0:55
Speaker 1: like a regular summer day. You have a little storm
0:57
Speaker 1: and stuff. It's nice. Yeah.
0:58
Speaker 3: My garden, I guess, although I kind of have to
1:02
Speaker 3: mo now having to mow. Actually I don't. I quit
1:05
Speaker 3: momo and grass sadly years ago. I actually enjoy mo
1:08
Speaker 3: in the grass. It just got to where I didn't.
1:11
Speaker 3: I kind of cherished my time when I'm home and
1:14
Speaker 3: h other things i'd rather do. And uh, once you
1:17
Speaker 3: start paying somebody to mow, it's kind of hard to
1:19
Speaker 3: go go back, but soothing to go of course. I
1:22
Speaker 3: have a nice flat yard. It's pretty. It's an easy
1:25
Speaker 3: mode job. You know. Yeah that's about an hour and
1:27
Speaker 3: get it, bag it and everything. But but I do
1:31
Speaker 3: enjoy garden. I have a small garden. Mostly I get
1:34
Speaker 3: some airloom tomatoes. I got mister Stripe's this year, so
1:36
Speaker 3: they're we got family vacation in two weeks. They'll probably
1:40
Speaker 3: are all ripen right when we're gone. But uh but anyway, yeah,
1:44
Speaker 3: it's good to get. Although I'm a heat person, i'd
1:47
Speaker 3: rather it be ninety five than fifty five.
1:51
Speaker 1: I generally like it horder too. I mean, one hundred
1:53
Speaker 1: degrees is a little much. But uh, like, if we're
1:55
Speaker 1: sitting here in the eighties or nineties somewhere, typically I'm
1:58
Speaker 1: okay with that. I would prefer that than like cold,
2:01
Speaker 1: rainy days. I don't I'm not a big clean of those,
2:02
Speaker 1: but here where you're coming from.
2:03
Speaker 3: All right, I probably wouldn't be a fan if I
2:05
Speaker 3: didn't have air conditions. Grew up without it. You know,
2:09
Speaker 3: I grew up in kind of a older style house
2:13
Speaker 3: in Saint Albans and we didn't have central air growing up,
2:17
Speaker 3: and we had the old for heat. We had the
2:19
Speaker 3: old boiler radiators system. You have these big radiators in
2:24
Speaker 3: your house with water hot water that flows through them,
2:26
Speaker 3: which were you got to watch. If the cover was
2:29
Speaker 3: off of it, you could burn yourself. It was really hot,
2:31
Speaker 3: but it was really great. You could. It made for
2:33
Speaker 3: a really good towel warmer, you know, or clothes warmer
2:36
Speaker 3: when you're getting out of the shower and get ready
2:38
Speaker 3: to get dressed and everything's nice and warm.
2:40
Speaker 1: Some of the heat from those radiators that just seemed
2:42
Speaker 1: more heaty. There was just something about them. It was
2:45
Speaker 1: more comfort anywhere to go to.
2:46
Speaker 3: Get get warm. But anyway, some you know, we talked
2:54
Speaker 3: about some of the mostly Dad talked about he's got
2:57
Speaker 3: a lot of time to read the news these days.
2:59
Speaker 3: Yet last week, the recent Supreme Court decisions and kind
3:03
Speaker 3: of a mix of local and federal level issue on
3:08
Speaker 3: the top of the Metro news feed here the last
3:11
Speaker 3: couple of days, and that was so what's happened is
3:14
Speaker 3: apparently it went to all fifty states, although initially reported
3:19
Speaker 3: is only going to maybe thirteen or so, with the
3:23
Speaker 3: implication that this letter maybe only went to the states
3:28
Speaker 3: that are refusing to provide the federal government some private
3:32
Speaker 3: voter data. And there's lawsuits across the country, including involving
3:37
Speaker 3: our secretary of State, where the federal government is suing
3:41
Speaker 3: to try and force our chief election official to turn
3:45
Speaker 3: over what the secretary of state has deemed private confidential
3:49
Speaker 3: information about voters to the federal government. And don't think, well,
3:54
Speaker 3: I know, there hasn't been a ruling as far as
3:56
Speaker 3: I know in the US District Court here locally in
3:59
Speaker 3: regards to West Virginia, but I think ten to twelve
4:04
Speaker 3: other courts across the country have already ruled in favor
4:07
Speaker 3: of the states they do not have to turn over
4:12
Speaker 3: private confidential details about voters. And initially it looked like
4:20
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice sent letters to kind of targeted
4:23
Speaker 3: secretary of states maybe that had resisted providing that information. However,
4:27
Speaker 3: it now appears that these letters went to all fifty states.
4:32
Speaker 3: Most states have secretary of states. Sometimes they're labeled lieutenant governors,
4:36
Speaker 3: but they're chief election officials of each state. Got this
4:39
Speaker 3: letter from the Department of Justice, I think earlier this week,
4:43
Speaker 3: but it's from the Civil Rights Division attorney General that
4:51
Speaker 3: was of course appointed or hired by President Trump, and
4:55
Speaker 3: it's I mean, I read it as a lawyer and
4:59
Speaker 3: thinks this is kind of a bush league threat letter
5:01
Speaker 3: that it doesn't outright threaten, but it strongly implicates the
5:07
Speaker 3: fact that somebody could be charged with a crime. And
5:10
Speaker 3: what it does is that it's an attempt to at
5:15
Speaker 3: least it's on its face, it's an attempt to address
5:19
Speaker 3: non citizens voting, which I think is has to be
5:23
Speaker 3: in West Virginia exceedingly exceedingly rare. If that happens. Now
5:30
Speaker 3: human factors and it's a human system, naturally, there's going
5:35
Speaker 3: to be some instances across the country of maybe non
5:40
Speaker 3: citizens voting or voter fraud. I mean, you're not going
5:43
Speaker 3: to be able to eliminate all of it and have
5:51
Speaker 3: free and fair voting procedures. I mean, that's just going
5:53
Speaker 3: to be practically and in reality impossible. But this letter,
6:00
Speaker 3: which was sent to our Secretary of State, and I
6:03
Speaker 3: read that particular letter, I think they all basically read
6:05
Speaker 3: the same, except they plug in the different state names.
6:10
Speaker 3: It's a reminder of federal election laws, as if the
6:13
Speaker 3: Secretary of State is not already attunely or acutely aware
6:18
Speaker 3: of what those laws are. But you know, okay, here's
6:23
Speaker 3: the law. But it says, you know, this could be
6:30
Speaker 3: civil violation and a criminal violation and notes that anyone
6:36
Speaker 3: and then the word anyone is emphasized via italics. So
6:42
Speaker 3: the laws that I read that they cited really cite
6:47
Speaker 3: or address the person attempting to vote illegally. So they
6:54
Speaker 3: filled out a form or something claiming they meet the
6:58
Speaker 3: qualifications to vote, and really, for example, they're a non citizen,
7:01
Speaker 3: said they were. But then the letter goes on to say, well,
7:05
Speaker 3: anyone can be charged with this, implying someone beyond what's
7:10
Speaker 3: expressed in those statutes. And then the letter continues by
7:15
Speaker 3: saying state election officials can be charged, including the chief
7:22
Speaker 3: election officer of the state could be charged, and a
7:26
Speaker 3: reference kind of general law that can make somebody criminally
7:31
Speaker 3: liable when they're not the principal actor, like aiding in
7:33
Speaker 3: a betting or you know, being an accessory for example
7:37
Speaker 3: in West Virginia and I think every other state, if
7:39
Speaker 3: you were an accessory or maybe a involved in a conspiracy.
7:43
Speaker 3: Even though you didn't take affirmative action yourself to commit
7:46
Speaker 3: the act, if you had an agreement or you somehow
7:51
Speaker 3: facilitated it in some way, you can actually be charged
7:54
Speaker 3: with a crime, just as if you were the person
7:55
Speaker 3: that actually did the conduct. And that's so this letter
8:00
Speaker 3: is basically telling chief election officials in each state that, uh,
8:06
Speaker 3: you know, we could charge you with aiding and a
8:11
Speaker 3: betting for valing these laws if you they do. They
8:15
Speaker 3: do not it to knowingly, I guess, assist somebody in
8:20
Speaker 3: voting illegally. And then what they do at the end
8:26
Speaker 3: of the letter again just kind of two face to
8:29
Speaker 3: my opinion. They conclude that the DJ concludes the letter
8:33
Speaker 3: by saying, well, uh, and here send us your plan
8:36
Speaker 3: on how to deal with this within the next five days,
8:41
Speaker 3: which is really a tight deadline for something like this,
8:46
Speaker 3: and and the DJ will be glad to assist to
8:50
Speaker 3: making sure you comply with these laws, which is just goofy.
8:55
Speaker 3: So it'd be interesting to see. And then they didn't
9:00
Speaker 3: know that it was sent to all fifty states because
9:04
Speaker 3: apparently once we'll just call them secretaries of state for
9:09
Speaker 3: the different states to realize other states were getting it.
9:11
Speaker 3: They started to kind of scour their their records or
9:16
Speaker 3: their email addresses, se do we get this letter or not?
9:18
Speaker 3: And apparently this letter been sent just like to general
9:22
Speaker 3: like if you want to go and email a public
9:25
Speaker 3: relations person for the chief election official like info at
9:28
Speaker 3: Secretary of State dot com. It had just been sent
9:31
Speaker 3: willi nilly through a general email address or website sinking information.
9:39
Speaker 3: So that's just that's in the headline. We'll see how
9:42
Speaker 3: our Secretary of State.
9:45
Speaker 1: That last thing you just mentioned is really weird. That's
9:47
Speaker 1: just really and that's like if somebody just was looking
9:49
Speaker 1: it up on the Internet and they had no other
9:50
Speaker 1: resources to their to their disposal than just the public
9:55
Speaker 1: information that's available on a website, you would think somebody
9:57
Speaker 1: in the government would have.
9:58
Speaker 3: Like it's half hazaror it's it's incompetency at the top
10:05
Speaker 3: level and or lack of oversight. I mean, you know,
10:11
Speaker 3: if you have a you just take it a law firm,
10:13
Speaker 3: you have a new employee or something he's not familiar with.
10:17
Speaker 3: How do you send official business mail or correspondence to
10:20
Speaker 3: a company, Well, they have you go to the Secretary
10:26
Speaker 3: of State's websites see if they're registered as a company
10:28
Speaker 3: they have when they're registered, they have a notice of
10:31
Speaker 3: process or an official person and a and an address
10:36
Speaker 3: that they have to appoint where official business is sent.
10:39
Speaker 3: And if I didn't teach a new employee how to
10:43
Speaker 3: do that correctly, they're not going to know. They might
10:46
Speaker 3: just go to you know, info at what at Walmart
10:51
Speaker 3: dot com an email a legal document to them.
10:53
Speaker 2: You know.
10:53
Speaker 3: It's just not so yeah, it's and it's really sad
10:58
Speaker 3: to me that it comes all the way from the
11:02
Speaker 3: top levels of federal government to just have this kind
11:04
Speaker 3: of bush league behavior and these yeah, either it almost
11:12
Speaker 3: express threats, at least strongly implied threats to state election officials.
11:17
Speaker 3: You never know, I mean, maybe it's just something it's
11:19
Speaker 3: a perhaps it's just a political letters so they can
11:25
Speaker 3: reference it in ad campaigns and support a certain candidates.
11:32
Speaker 3: That's part of it.
11:33
Speaker 2: You know.
11:34
Speaker 3: Maybe if a state doesn't respond, maybe then they're going
11:38
Speaker 3: to be spun in the media.
11:41
Speaker 1: Battleground state gets has a close election and then suddenly
11:45
Speaker 1: the mediate well they didn't turn in their voter registration.
11:49
Speaker 3: And then that will that will you know, just spread
11:52
Speaker 3: like wildfireed other you know, they'll find somebody in the
11:57
Speaker 3: country illegally that committed crimes and maybe make a connection
12:00
Speaker 3: to that. It's just ridiculous. And and then the you know,
12:05
Speaker 3: the this age where you can get so much mass
12:09
Speaker 3: media information out so fast and so many people, and
12:11
Speaker 3: it's so hard to figure out what's really when you.
12:14
Speaker 1: Roll it out with an AI video, and we all
12:16
Speaker 1: know the first impression gets the most in the correction
12:18
Speaker 1: doesn't get nearly as much follow up. And so I
12:20
Speaker 1: mean that's ay.
12:21
Speaker 3: I just there's a new movie out. I watched a
12:26
Speaker 3: the AI documentary or something, and it's I tell you,
12:29
Speaker 3: I've I've talked about it before a little bit here,
12:31
Speaker 3: but AI is coming and we need to all get ready.
12:34
Speaker 3: And that's maybe rather than writing letters like this. You know,
12:38
Speaker 3: AI is going to be able to do good things
12:41
Speaker 3: I think medically as far as diagnosis and treatment of disease.
12:47
Speaker 3: But it's also dangerous, uh in a in a multitude
12:50
Speaker 3: of ways, not just socially. I mean, it could have
12:53
Speaker 3: major impacts. I don't know, you know, if the government
12:59
Speaker 3: had any sense, which as an oxymoron even say that,
13:02
Speaker 3: but there ought to be massive studies about AI, how
13:06
Speaker 3: to regulate it. All the on this movie, they have
13:11
Speaker 3: all the chief executives of the biggest AI companies in
13:16
Speaker 3: the world talking and they very few say there isn't
13:21
Speaker 3: some dangerous element to it, and they all said the
13:24
Speaker 3: way to to kind of make it safe is for
13:29
Speaker 3: the governments to coordinate and start a massive right I mean,
13:35
Speaker 3: do we even have massive studies with people that have
13:40
Speaker 3: the knowledge to first project what's coming? And too, do
13:44
Speaker 3: we need to regulate it in some way? The answer
13:46
Speaker 3: to both those is obviously they need to. But are
13:49
Speaker 3: we I mean, We're just getting stuck on these side issues.
13:54
Speaker 3: I don't know what the government's doing about it. Maybe
13:56
Speaker 3: there is some secret you know.
13:58
Speaker 1: From a constituents stamp. When I look at some of
14:01
Speaker 1: the somebody who's been you know, I'm in my early
14:04
Speaker 1: fifties and so I've been on sort of riding the
14:07
Speaker 1: wave of most of these technologies that have come up.
14:09
Speaker 1: You know, you know, I was early adapted to BBS's
14:12
Speaker 1: as far as the Internet and stuff goes fallowing along
14:14
Speaker 1: with One of the things that concerns me when I
14:16
Speaker 1: see some decisions, see some of these discussions that are
14:18
Speaker 1: televised within committees and stuff like that, is I fear
14:21
Speaker 1: there is a lot of lawmakers that do not understand technology,
14:25
Speaker 1: maybe even judges and things like that that do not
14:28
Speaker 1: understand the technology. And I think that there is a
14:30
Speaker 1: real concern there in the gap on decisions that are
14:33
Speaker 1: being made where they don't understand the the domino effect
14:37
Speaker 1: of these decisions in this environment that we're currently in.
14:40
Speaker 3: Well, that's certainly true. And the thing about artificial intelligence,
14:46
Speaker 3: which the next thing coming is artificial general intelligence, is
14:49
Speaker 3: that it's all data driven. I mean, it's think of
14:55
Speaker 3: you know, it diagnoses and then you know, spits out
14:58
Speaker 3: information based on patterns data that's been fed to it
15:01
Speaker 3: in massive level levels. That's where we get to these
15:03
Speaker 3: data centers to a certain extent, but even the greatest
15:08
Speaker 3: minds in the world once that quote intelligence unquote gets
15:16
Speaker 3: so complicated in so much data even we even they
15:19
Speaker 3: don't understand exactly how it works, but it still gets
15:24
Speaker 3: results with some error rates. So you know, the politicians
15:28
Speaker 3: don't understand how it works. I just don't see. I mean,
15:33
Speaker 3: that's to me, that's one of the number one things
15:36
Speaker 3: that need to be addressing. But you know, well we'll
15:38
Speaker 3: see how that plays out. But you're gonna feel I mean,
15:41
Speaker 3: everybody feels it now if you have on the internet,
15:42
Speaker 3: you get pushed to AI search tools and things like that,
15:46
Speaker 3: which you know, I don't use it. I haven't used
15:49
Speaker 3: chat GPT. I know there's been some some of the
15:53
Speaker 3: biggest personal injury law firms in the world have been
15:56
Speaker 3: sanctioned for using AI to draft their documents and do
16:01
Speaker 3: their work. By the way that it's a good segue.
16:03
Speaker 3: I noticed that day that one of the biggest personal
16:09
Speaker 3: injury law firms in the world may be the biggest,
16:11
Speaker 3: I don't know. Uh. They got sued by former clients,
16:16
Speaker 3: and what I found interesting was that firm moved to
16:23
Speaker 3: have those former clients cases dismissed because they have an
16:27
Speaker 3: arbitration clause in their attorney client agreement. So arbitration like
16:33
Speaker 3: jury trials are really important, are means in the constitution,
16:37
Speaker 3: but you can waive it, and so a lot of
16:41
Speaker 3: large corporations will have, you know, even employment contracts, employment policies,
16:50
Speaker 3: other big companies. When you don't read the small print,
16:52
Speaker 3: sometimes there's arbitration clauses in there. And what that does
16:56
Speaker 3: is it pulls your if you have a controversy and
16:59
Speaker 3: try to before a jury, it pulls you out of
17:01
Speaker 3: that system. And sends you to a private arbitration system
17:06
Speaker 3: which is generally favorable to the bigger uh, the one
17:14
Speaker 3: with the person with the most bargaining power and the
17:16
Speaker 3: most money, and you still get your case decided. Maybe
17:20
Speaker 3: with a little different mechanism, maybe you can't get the
17:22
Speaker 3: same remedies, but it's usually one to three mostly lawyers
17:27
Speaker 3: that get appointed and they decide the case, and it's
17:29
Speaker 3: kind of a summary proceeding versus a full jury trial
17:32
Speaker 3: where you get to present your case. But to your peers,
17:38
Speaker 3: about interesting that the one of the biggest, maybe the
17:42
Speaker 3: biggest personal jurry law firm in the world, they when
17:44
Speaker 3: they got sued, they enforced their arbitration provision so that
17:48
Speaker 3: their clients or former clients couldn't get a jury trial
17:51
Speaker 3: against them, which I thought was quite the hypocrisy considering
17:58
Speaker 3: I'm sure that when they file case on behalf of
18:00
Speaker 3: their clients, they certainly want to get in front of
18:02
Speaker 3: a jury and not go to arbitration. But then when
18:05
Speaker 3: their clients, it would be kind of hard to argue
18:08
Speaker 3: that arbitration clauses are bad or invalid as a public
18:13
Speaker 3: policy when you've got one in your attorney client agreement
18:16
Speaker 3: and when you mess up and your client sous you,
18:19
Speaker 3: you moved to enforce the arbitration clause, which it was
18:22
Speaker 3: enforced in the case that I read. They they are
18:27
Speaker 3: generally enforceable these days, so that was interesting. So I
18:31
Speaker 3: would say one thing out there, if you're if you're
18:33
Speaker 3: signing up with a lawyer on a contingency fee where
18:37
Speaker 3: they only get paid if they prevail, which is mostly
18:40
Speaker 3: what we do. There's there's a lot of legal jargon
18:45
Speaker 3: those agreements, but look for the word arbitration if you
18:48
Speaker 3: are signed up with a lawyer that wants to force
18:52
Speaker 3: you into arbitration. If you if your lawyer messes up
18:55
Speaker 3: and you have to make a claim against them, I'd
18:57
Speaker 3: steer real clear that law firm.
19:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that seems like a bit of a red flag,
19:04
Speaker 1: like if they're almost laying the permissive ground that we
19:07
Speaker 1: might mishandle your case in the future. And obviously, I
19:10
Speaker 1: mean things happen sometimes, I mean whatever, but I mean
19:12
Speaker 1: to have that be part of like your policy seems
19:15
Speaker 1: a little a bit of a red flag.
19:17
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, so are we like trying cases to juries.
19:20
Speaker 3: That's where we do well. We enjoy doing it, you know,
19:22
Speaker 3: I like doing the radio show talking to regular people.
19:25
Speaker 3: We mostly represent you know, let's say regular but where
19:29
Speaker 3: everyday folks. We do some small business work certainly, but
19:32
Speaker 3: you know, we don't represent large corporations or insurance companies.
19:36
Speaker 3: There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not what we
19:38
Speaker 3: like to do. And we're like trying cases to juries.
19:41
Speaker 3: We promote and you know, really push the value of
19:46
Speaker 3: a jury trial, of evening the playing field between maybe
19:50
Speaker 3: somebody lives in a little house in Nitro versus the
19:54
Speaker 3: biggest guys insurance company in the world, and you can
19:57
Speaker 3: go toe to toe with them. Six people in Charleston,
20:01
Speaker 3: West Virginia, or Winfield, West Virginia or Clay Western sit
20:05
Speaker 3: there and decide your case. Now, how would that be
20:08
Speaker 3: if in our agreement with our clients, we say, well,
20:11
Speaker 3: except if we have a problem and you sue us.
20:15
Speaker 3: Then now in that case you have to go to arbitration.
20:18
Speaker 3: You don't get your chance to go in front of
20:20
Speaker 3: a jury. I mean, it's it's just hypocritical, and that's
20:25
Speaker 3: that's there's not a personal injury or law firm in
20:30
Speaker 3: the in the country. I don't think that would not
20:35
Speaker 3: push the value of a jury trial. So that's the
20:38
Speaker 3: that's the hypocrisy of it. But we do not have
20:40
Speaker 3: arbitration clauses in our agreements.
20:42
Speaker 1: And UH and UH licensed to practice in the state
20:45
Speaker 1: of West Virginia as well.
20:48
Speaker 3: And other states do. Actually, we do a good bit
20:50
Speaker 3: of I mean it's a it's a small percentage of
20:52
Speaker 3: what we do just because of the way it happens.
20:55
Speaker 3: But we get a lot of clients that kind of overlap,
20:58
Speaker 3: you know, the Mason Care in the area, Huntington area.
21:01
Speaker 3: So I'm practice licensed to practice law in Ohio. I've
21:03
Speaker 3: tried a few cases there to Jerry's and actually had
21:07
Speaker 3: an appeal all the way to the six Circuit Court
21:09
Speaker 3: of Appeals which is the equivalent to the Fourth Circuit
21:11
Speaker 3: in West Virginia. Got a good ruling there years ago
21:16
Speaker 3: when a judge in Columbus wrongfully dismissed our case, we
21:18
Speaker 3: actually got that one reversed, went back and tried it,
21:21
Speaker 3: won and got a good verdict. But we'll do injury
21:26
Speaker 3: I mean any kind of injury cases or contingency fee
21:28
Speaker 3: cases we take. We'll operate anywhere throughout the state if
21:31
Speaker 3: it's something that makes sense for us. And then we've
21:34
Speaker 3: done well in the State of Ohio as well.
21:36
Speaker 1: Tom pat is here from the Peyton Law Firm. What
21:38
Speaker 1: we're gonna do is we're gonna take a break. We
21:39
Speaker 1: do have a text message that concerns flock cameras flock surveillance.
21:43
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about that a little bit when
21:45
Speaker 1: we come back. In general, if you have any questions
21:47
Speaker 1: though for the Peyton Law Firm about anything that is
21:50
Speaker 1: waiting on your mind, about a situation in your personal life,
21:53
Speaker 1: for a topic that Tom and Harvey have touched on
21:55
Speaker 1: in the past, you're welcome to give us a call
21:56
Speaker 1: or text. If one non number is three zero four,
21:58
Speaker 1: three four five fifty eight fifty eight or five fifty
22:00
Speaker 1: eight fifty eight, you can also text three zero four
22:02
Speaker 1: non three five five zero zero eight three zero four
22:04
Speaker 1: non three five five zero zero eight will take a
22:06
Speaker 1: break and be back right after this. You're listening to
22:08
Speaker 1: ask the lawyer with the Payton Law Firm. Tom is here.
22:10
Speaker 1: When five adwchs the Boys of Charleston.
22:13
Speaker 4: Why do so many West Virginians choose the Peyton Law
22:16
Speaker 4: Firm after an injury? Because Tom and Harvey Payton are
22:19
Speaker 4: from here and they fight for their neighbors every day.
22:22
Speaker 4: When you're dealing with an injury claim, you need experience,
22:25
Speaker 4: straight answers and results you can trust. Don't let insurance
22:29
Speaker 4: companies or out of state firms push you around. Call
22:32
Speaker 4: seven five five fifty five fifty six or visit Peyton
22:35
Speaker 4: Lawfirm dot com.
22:37
Speaker 1: The attorney's referenced in this ad our lifelong residence and
22:40
Speaker 1: our license to practice law in the state of West Virginia.
22:43
Speaker 5: Hello, this is doctor Stephen Garib with Gharib Dental Group.
22:46
Speaker 5: If you've been dreaming of a brighter, more confident smile,
22:49
Speaker 5: start with a free consultation. You won't be disappointed. From
22:53
Speaker 5: in visi ligne to Veneer's to professional teeth whitening, We'll
22:56
Speaker 5: create a custom plan design just for you. Take the
22:59
Speaker 5: first step toward the confidence you deserve. Schedule your whitening
23:03
Speaker 5: consultation today at Garibdentalgroup dot com or call one eight
23:07
Speaker 5: hundred Great Care Gharib Dental Group, where we love to
23:10
Speaker 5: see your smile.
23:27
Speaker 1: You're listening to ask the lawyer A five awchs the
23:30
Speaker 1: voice for Charleston. I'm del Cooper. Tom Paton is in
23:32
Speaker 1: studio with us this morning. Taking your phone calls at
23:34
Speaker 1: threes are A four three four five fifty fifty eight year.
23:36
Speaker 1: Texts at threes are A four nine three five five
23:38
Speaker 1: zers here have a couple of texts that we'll get
23:40
Speaker 1: to in this segment. Be You're more than welcome to
23:42
Speaker 1: call in as well. Right before the break, we had
23:44
Speaker 1: somebody that wanted to know about flock surveillance cameras. I'm concerned.
23:48
Speaker 1: This is from the seven to six zero nine hundred.
23:50
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about flock surveillance tracking. Why is the government
23:53
Speaker 1: allowing that to happen.
23:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, I don't know a whole lot about it.
23:57
Speaker 3: I mean, flock surveillance tracking. It's kind of similar to
24:01
Speaker 3: some states allowed. I don't I think question has a
24:04
Speaker 3: statute that bars it. You know, you have the cameras
24:08
Speaker 3: that capture maybe at an intersection or even just driving
24:13
Speaker 3: down the road. I think maybe the Eastern you know,
24:16
Speaker 3: the Eastern Panandle has these cameras or sensors for speeding
24:20
Speaker 3: or maybe it's maybe you're driving through Maryland on the
24:23
Speaker 3: on the way to Eastern Panhandle. But anyway, you know,
24:27
Speaker 3: it's automated cameras or surveillance that will take a picture
24:30
Speaker 3: of a license plate and maybe a passenger compartment and
24:34
Speaker 3: then charge you with the crime, or charge the vehicle.
24:38
Speaker 3: They don't really know who's driving the vehicle, but obviously
24:41
Speaker 3: they can tell from the license plate who it's registered to.
24:44
Speaker 3: In charge with speeding or running a red light or
24:46
Speaker 3: something like that. I don't think that's allowed in West Virginia.
24:51
Speaker 3: But the flock cameras are or systems are as. I
24:56
Speaker 3: understand some kind of network surveillance system operated by the
25:01
Speaker 3: government that it doesn't go so far as issuing tickets
25:07
Speaker 3: or citations because of it to avoid that issue, but
25:10
Speaker 3: it would. It essentially allows the government to, if there's
25:14
Speaker 3: enough of them, just to track everywhere that you are. Now,
25:18
Speaker 3: I haven't seen one of these get to the highest
25:21
Speaker 3: level or really any appellate court rulings on this particular issue.
25:25
Speaker 3: I know, you know generally you have a reasonable expectation
25:33
Speaker 3: of privacy in your vehicle, but it's not the same
25:36
Speaker 3: as something on your body or being in your home. So, however,
25:42
Speaker 3: being on a public road, in what in plane view anywhere,
25:48
Speaker 3: I don't know that you're really I'm not aware of
25:50
Speaker 3: you that you have any real reasonable expectation of privacy. Now,
25:53
Speaker 3: we had the US Supreme court case we talked a
25:56
Speaker 3: little bit about last week about the geo fencing where
25:59
Speaker 3: somebody gone and robbed a credit union or a bank,
26:03
Speaker 3: and the government uh compelled Google to turn over all
26:07
Speaker 3: their data within a geographic area of where that where
26:12
Speaker 3: that occurred. It's the geo fence goes around, and then
26:18
Speaker 3: Google turned over in that massive amounts of data showing
26:23
Speaker 3: locations of people that were within that area, that kind
26:25
Speaker 3: of thing, and then the government used that to pare
26:28
Speaker 3: it down, eliminate and actually found the perpetrator. But the
26:32
Speaker 3: US Supreme Court said that was an unreasonable search and
26:34
Speaker 3: seizure and that one of the key issues was that
26:38
Speaker 3: you still have a right of privacy even though you've
26:41
Speaker 3: you know, we've all if you used Google or Gmail
26:44
Speaker 3: or any of the apps. I'm sure we've clicked some
26:48
Speaker 3: terms and conditions, we've agreed to it. Let's some use
26:51
Speaker 3: your data somehow. But that wasn't sufficient to overcome the
26:57
Speaker 3: right of privacy. So, you know, I don't know if
27:00
Speaker 3: that that case could have some some implications on the
27:08
Speaker 3: flock camera or surveillance systems. But again it's a difficult
27:12
Speaker 3: one because if you're driving down the road, I mean
27:14
Speaker 3: anybody can see your license plate. Now, maybe the court
27:19
Speaker 3: will draw the line on technology used to I mean,
27:22
Speaker 3: certainly there's nothing wrong with say a law enforcement officer
27:26
Speaker 3: surveying somebody that can follow them on a public road.
27:30
Speaker 3: They can stay on the public area and probably take pictures.
27:36
Speaker 3: If you're on your private property out in your yard.
27:39
Speaker 3: Now you get and I don't remember the result means
27:41
Speaker 3: then you get other issues like thermal imaging inside homes
27:44
Speaker 3: and things like that. I think that's been ruled unconstitutional.
27:48
Speaker 3: So depending on how advanced the technology is and whether
27:54
Speaker 3: it does something more than the human eye can do.
27:56
Speaker 3: With some enhancement, perhaps the courts will draw the line there.
28:00
Speaker 3: But for the most part, though, I think versus privacy
28:05
Speaker 3: issues from a constitutional standpoint, that's a political issue that
28:10
Speaker 3: you know, like I said, I think West Virginia's taking
28:11
Speaker 3: that on in relation to issuing citations based on you know,
28:16
Speaker 3: automated systems and barred it. But that's probably what will
28:20
Speaker 3: need to happen from a either state by state or
28:24
Speaker 3: from the federal government to kind of rein that in.
28:27
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know, an interesting to see what
28:28
Speaker 3: the public thinks about it. I mean, if you if
28:32
Speaker 3: you can. I mean you can literally if you have
28:35
Speaker 3: so much surveillance out there and contract where a vehicle
28:40
Speaker 3: is almost at all times, it will help solve crimes
28:45
Speaker 3: and track people that need to be caught. But it's
28:50
Speaker 3: just a balancing, I mean, how much privacy do you
28:54
Speaker 3: want to have and how much power do you want
28:55
Speaker 3: to give the government to track you or citizens.
29:02
Speaker 1: There's just stories that might jog your memory. One of them, Flock,
29:05
Speaker 1: really got public sentiment during the Super Bowl because they
29:07
Speaker 1: had originally partnered with the Ring Cameras and so their
29:10
Speaker 1: whole their whole sort of perspective was saturation of cameras.
29:15
Speaker 1: And it was this nice, cute little commercial where they
29:18
Speaker 1: helped find a missing dog they like got.
29:20
Speaker 3: Out of the yard.
29:21
Speaker 1: But people that were watching it were savvy, were like,
29:23
Speaker 1: wait a minute, if you can track a dog going
29:25
Speaker 1: from neighborhood to like from house to house to house
29:27
Speaker 1: in the neighborhood, what else can you track That seems
29:29
Speaker 1: a little bit creepy. And then just this week it
29:33
Speaker 1: was I think this was down in somewhere down south,
29:35
Speaker 1: I think in Florida or Georgia, where there was a
29:37
Speaker 1: police officer that was found to be using flock systems
29:40
Speaker 1: to track a former girlfriend, right and so and so,
29:43
Speaker 1: like there were all these flags of where she was
29:45
Speaker 1: going around and who she was seeing, and he was
29:47
Speaker 1: following her around, and sure you.
29:48
Speaker 3: Got the human factors where there's you're always going to find, right,
29:51
Speaker 3: I mean, there will always be mis use like that.
29:58
Speaker 3: So that's all you got to figure. That's always going
29:59
Speaker 3: to happen at some level. But you just you know,
30:04
Speaker 3: it's really I think it's gonna be a tough one
30:07
Speaker 3: for the courts to handle because if it's if you're
30:09
Speaker 3: out in public, you don't know about a ring camera.
30:11
Speaker 3: I mean that's when you're private property. But if you've
30:15
Speaker 3: got I don't know, drones everywhere, or you know, maybe
30:19
Speaker 3: there's leases for private entities or government entities to mount
30:24
Speaker 3: sensors or cameras on power polls or traffic lights everywhere,
30:31
Speaker 3: then and then AI or just computer systems are able
30:37
Speaker 3: to cross reference all of that to track where you
30:40
Speaker 3: are almost all the time. I don't know, I think
30:43
Speaker 3: that'll be a tough one for the courts because if
30:45
Speaker 3: it's out in public, I mean you generally, the general
30:50
Speaker 3: concept is that you don't have an expectation of privacy.
30:53
Speaker 3: I mean, there's the plain view doctrine. If something if
30:55
Speaker 3: a law enforcement officers it's somewhere what are legally entitled
30:59
Speaker 3: to be and they see contraband with the human eye
31:04
Speaker 3: or a basic camera, I mean, they can use that
31:07
Speaker 3: as evidence in a case. So I don't I think
31:10
Speaker 3: probably it's going to have to be controlled through legislation
31:15
Speaker 3: and we'll see where it goes. I haven't heard much
31:18
Speaker 3: about it through the court system, but it will start
31:22
Speaker 3: trickling to the top, I'm sure, just like the g
31:24
Speaker 3: offense in case did.
31:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's just let's see another case this past week
31:28
Speaker 1: where a man was arrested off the partial flock data
31:33
Speaker 1: ended up and he was completely innocent. They were false
31:35
Speaker 1: hits and it was discovered that if you would have
31:38
Speaker 1: actually taken the full picture of the data that was provided,
31:40
Speaker 1: they could have found that out anyway. But the police
31:42
Speaker 1: in this case narrowly focused in when one piece of
31:44
Speaker 1: the data made to arrest and ended up being not
31:47
Speaker 1: good arrest. So this is I mean, this is all
31:49
Speaker 1: new technology. I mean, there's it's going to be messy.
31:52
Speaker 1: Like you said, I'm thinking back on it now. You know,
31:53
Speaker 1: we had some of that with the you know, it
31:56
Speaker 1: was when there was this stricter enforcement last year of
32:00
Speaker 1: all the customs, the ICE issues out in the Midwest,
32:09
Speaker 1: there were multiple you know, they had used a I
32:11
Speaker 1: or some system to you know, say, well, this person
32:15
Speaker 1: is likely here, and then they went into you know,
32:18
Speaker 1: they use that to get a search warrant where I
32:21
Speaker 1: think in some cases an administrative search warrant, which is
32:24
Speaker 1: not from a neutral and detached judicial officer but from
32:27
Speaker 1: an employee of the agency, and went into the wrong
32:30
Speaker 1: homes because they relied on AI or computer data to
32:35
Speaker 1: determine where somebody might be located that's in the country illegally,
32:40
Speaker 1: and then they got it wrong. So how much of
32:43
Speaker 1: that you know, basically in the in search warrants and
32:47
Speaker 1: things like that. If it's a mistake made in good faith,
32:54
Speaker 1: sometimes the courts will let it go and not bar
32:56
Speaker 1: the information gathered. If it's if it's reckless or you know,
33:03
Speaker 1: they intentionally rely on bad information, then that's a different story.
33:07
Speaker 1: But where you draw the line on that when you've
33:11
Speaker 1: got complicated computer data systems that you know, folks getting
33:18
Speaker 1: that information don't understand how it works, and they're placing
33:21
Speaker 1: it in a search warrant application and where's that fall.
33:25
Speaker 1: That's all things that are going to be trickling through
33:27
Speaker 1: the court system probably in the next few years. I'll
33:29
Speaker 1: be interesting to see how it falls out. It's always
33:33
Speaker 1: good questions, and private concerns are always good questions. But
33:36
Speaker 1: you're welcome to call in with the last couple of
33:38
Speaker 1: minutes with any concern that you might have, whether it
33:40
Speaker 1: be in your life, for some other topic that we've
33:42
Speaker 1: touched on here this morning. Three zerre four three four
33:44
Speaker 1: five fifty eight fifty eight three four five fifty to fifty.
33:46
Speaker 1: We might have a couple minutes left for a phone call,
33:48
Speaker 1: or you can text threes are four non three five
33:49
Speaker 1: five zero zero eight? Do have another text that came
33:51
Speaker 1: in from the three zero four five four to one.
33:53
Speaker 1: Please ask Tom on the birthright citizenship decision. Was he
33:57
Speaker 1: surprised that there were actually three descending votes on an
33:59
Speaker 1: item that was actually written into the constitution. Harvey tackled
34:02
Speaker 1: this just a little bit last week.
34:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, not really surprised. I mean the language I think
34:12
Speaker 3: the dissent was kind of came from political views. I mean,
34:20
Speaker 3: you I never really read that part of the constitution
34:25
Speaker 3: because until this came up because it just seemed like,
34:28
Speaker 3: this is what the law is, and it's rather obvious.
34:30
Speaker 3: But it does say subject to the jurisdiction of the
34:34
Speaker 3: United States of America, and so what did you know,
34:37
Speaker 3: anybody born here to parents that are subject to the jurisdiction,
34:42
Speaker 3: what does that mean? So, you know, it's been historically
34:47
Speaker 3: and now presently interpreted to mean that everyone in the
34:53
Speaker 3: United States, except for very few exceptions. You know, if
34:57
Speaker 3: you're here in the onslatter embassy or something from another country,
35:02
Speaker 3: then you're not subject to our jurisdiction. All we can
35:04
Speaker 3: do is send you back and send you out of
35:08
Speaker 3: the country versus charging you with the crime. But it
35:11
Speaker 3: seemed pretty clear to me, but there's some wiggle room there.
35:15
Speaker 3: So based on the dissenting opinions, I wasn't real surprised
35:20
Speaker 3: about it, and it was you know, what they did
35:22
Speaker 3: in the discent was just kind of give examples of
35:27
Speaker 3: folks that would come, you know, citizenship tourism, come here
35:30
Speaker 3: when you're eight months pregnant, stay and then have a child,
35:33
Speaker 3: and now they're a US citizen. And then of course
35:37
Speaker 3: President Trump put out that, well, Congress needs it's a
35:40
Speaker 3: constitutional ruling so they can't change the language of the
35:43
Speaker 3: Constitution abs and going through that process, which will be
35:45
Speaker 3: virtually impossible. I guess Congress could maybe control immigration or
35:51
Speaker 3: who visits the country based on their pregnancy status or
35:56
Speaker 3: something like that to prevent the cases from happening intentionally,
36:01
Speaker 3: but not real surprising to me that based on who
36:05
Speaker 3: the dissenters were. I think the ruling was you kind
36:09
Speaker 3: of get worried when it gets all the way to
36:10
Speaker 3: the US Supreme Court, but I think they they stayed
36:13
Speaker 3: with precedent, which is appropriate. There was another ruling over
36:17
Speaker 3: the last few weeks. I know, we're big, big Second
36:20
Speaker 3: Amendment state. And remember when Hunter Biden was charged with
36:26
Speaker 3: a crime. Maybe he entered a plea I think, or
36:28
Speaker 3: was convicted where there's a federal law that says an
36:35
Speaker 3: unlawful user of controlled substances cannot possess a firearm, but
36:40
Speaker 3: it doesn't. I mean, that's that's all it really says
36:43
Speaker 3: on that front. And so a man had been charged
36:47
Speaker 3: he admitted he I think I don't know if he
36:49
Speaker 3: had a medical card. Maybe it was just a recreational
36:52
Speaker 3: user of marijuana and he had a firearm in his
36:55
Speaker 3: home when the police went in there and so they
36:56
Speaker 3: charged him under this federal statute. And so all the
37:00
Speaker 3: out there that have maybe medical marijuana cards, which is
37:03
Speaker 3: legal in West Virginia, we don't have recreational still illegal.
37:07
Speaker 3: But if you're kind of a casual medicinal user of marijuana,
37:13
Speaker 3: now this this law said that that that's unconstitutional. The
37:16
Speaker 3: language is too broad. Now, if you're addicted or something
37:20
Speaker 3: like that, it could be different. But just an everyday user,
37:24
Speaker 3: occasional maybe of marijuana for example, that it no longer
37:27
Speaker 3: is illegal under federal law because it's protected by the Constitution.
37:31
Speaker 3: So all those out there with a medical marijuana car
37:33
Speaker 3: are cards. And now it can't be intoxicated with one.
37:36
Speaker 3: That that's a whole different ball game. But when you
37:39
Speaker 3: check the box as a as a user, when you
37:42
Speaker 3: get to purchase a firearm, if just medical marijuana should
37:45
Speaker 3: not be a crime any mangers, So all right round.
37:49
Speaker 1: Town out of time. You can get ahold of the
37:51
Speaker 1: Payton Law from.
37:51
Speaker 3: Though, Yeah, I give us a call to the office
37:53
Speaker 3: three at four seven five five five five five six,
37:57
Speaker 3: or you can go through our website at Peyton Lawfirm
37:58
Speaker 3: dot com and you submit an inquiry through email. When
38:01
Speaker 3: it comes to my computer and dads and we'll usually
38:04
Speaker 3: get back with you the same day or the next day.
38:06
Speaker 3: Be glad to talk to you. If you have any
38:08
Speaker 3: questions or issues, don't hesitate to contact us.
38:12
Speaker 1: Threes are four seven, five, five, fifty five fifty six
38:14
Speaker 1: pathon Law firm dot com. Have a great day, everyone.
38:16
Speaker 1: Listening to five adw c HS the Voice of Charleston.
38:25
Speaker 4: Five ad w c HSA M ninety six point five FM,
38:27
Speaker 4: Charleston one oh four point five Cross Lanes w UVRC
38:30
Speaker 4: Media Station.
38:33
Speaker 1: We're proud to live here too.