Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Calls for National Cell Phone Ban in Cars

Illinois native and Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood thinks he has the answer to traffic fatalities; A national ban on cell phone use in automobiles.

When we talked about Illinois's proposed ban on cell phone use, we discussed how many would argue that such laws seem more like money-making enterprises than actual traffic-safety laws. Secretary LaHood seems to try to rebut the argument that restrictions on cell phone use are likely to be ineffective. The Secretary called for federal legislation to ban cell phone use in cars.

Interestingly, The Secretary's own statistics seem to betray him. His own National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that about 5,474 fatalities each year "involved distracted driving', but only 995 of those are related to cell phone use. The NHTSA also has a funny definition of  "involved" when it comes to cell phone use as it considers a cell phone "involved" in fatal accident when a cell phone was "in the presence of the driver" at the time of the accident. This definition is similar to their definition of "alcohol-related" vehicle accidents, as in "alcohol-related" to the NTHS means that either a driver or a passenger had some blood alcohol content. Such a broad definition of "involved" when it comes to cell phones appears to conflict with Secretary LaHood's own definition when he say that police should have "the opportunity to write tickets when people...use a cell phone and text and drive". The Secretary's definition seems to imply active use of a cell phone only, but his own agency's definition is much more expansive.

If you look at the statistics for fatal crashes, only 3% "involve" cell phone use. For comparison, roughly 6% of fatal crashes involved drivers with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .01-.07 (Which is below the legal limit in every state). Some would argue that if the secretary were really serious about reducing fatal car crashes he should advocate lowering the legal BAC limit to .00. Calling for banning cell phones also ignores that "distraction related traffic crashes" actually declined from 2004-2009 (From 1,303,000 in 2004 to 959,000 in 2009).

However, all of these statistics ignore that the majority of accidents occur to drivers that are not intoxicated nor are they distracted. Alcohol-related fatal car crashes have declined in proportion with the decline of all fatal auto accidents. Much of this decline is due to increased safety features in automobiles. One could argue that if  the Secretary really wants to reduce traffic fatalities, he should focus on increasing safety features in cars. That would be the surest way to decrease all traffic deaths.

Are you facing speeding tickets, moving violations, DUI/DWI, drivers’ licenses suspension, or a similar matter? The Crosby Law Firm offers flat fee pricing for most traffic matters. Click here or call 815-397-2006 to arrange for a free consultation today! 

The Return of Debtor's Prisons?

How do you go to jail for owing $280?



That is the question one Illinois resident wished she had the answer to before sheriff's deputies showed up at her house to arrest her.



Debtor's prisons used to be ubiquitous throughout the world. In centuries past people could be thrown in prison merely for not paying their debts. Imprisonment for debt was so common that nations such As Great Britain would ship people off to distant islands. Australia was originally a penal colony for debtors. Debt imprisonment was so common that even historical greats  like Charles Dickens and Robert E Lee spent time in debt prison.


We do not hear much about them, because debt prisons in most nations were abolished in the mid-19th century. But some states, including Illinois, allow individuals to be jailed for some procedural reasons connected with debt. Lisa Lindsay was jailed for failing to respond to court summons related to a lawsuit filed by a collection agent. Some legislators in Illinois are trying to stop what some would consider modern debt-imprisonment by enacting new legislation that would prevent you from going to jail merely because you owe money.

It is important to note, however, that this legislation may not become law. That is why if you have debt collectors calling you, you need someone who can help you understand your legal rights. There are laws that limit what debtors can say to you and when they can call you. Having an attorney on your side will help you to get those creditors off of your back.


If you are experiencing creditor harassment, are facing foreclosure, or if you have received a court summons call the Crosby Law Firm right now ( 815-397-2006 ). We want to help you get out from under the burden of debt and get back to normalcy. If you want to get more information about your specific situation use our free consultation center.

What Is a Transfer On Death Instrument (TODI), And Why Would I Need One?

We previously mentioned some new laws for 2012, but one that we didn't mention was the new Transfer on Death Instrument (TODI) that went into effect on Jan 1, 2012. The TODI isn't anything particularly revolutionary, but it is an important tool to consider in your Advanced Care/ Estate Plan.

What is a TODI?

The Transfer On Death Instrument is just one of the tools that allows you to pass on residential property at death. It is very much like a having a Payable on Death (POD) on your bank account, except the TODI is used to transfer residential real estate. In Illinois, the TODI can be used to transfer most pieces of residential real estate to another person upon death.

Why would I need a TODI?

The TODI is another option to use in your Advanced Care Planning. A TODI allows you to transfer real property, such as your home or vacation residence, outside of probate. Probate is a long and often costly process that many people wish to avoid. In Illinois if you own real property that is not transferred at death, you cannot avoid probate. A TODI can help you avoid this process by transferring the property and helping you avoid probate.


What is the difference between a TODI and regular deed?

The Main differences between a TODI and a deed are:

1. Effective Date- A Deed is effective as of the date listed on the deed, a TODI only takes effect at the death of the owner.
2. Requirements- Usually to make an inter vivos gift you would need to have notice and delivery of the instrument. A TODI does not require notice and delivery. However, a TODI does require that the beneficiary of a transfer accept the property that was given to them.
3. Consideration- Usually a deed requires some amount of money to be given for the transfer (i.e. consideration). On a deed this is usually a nominal sum like $10. But a TODI doesn't require any consideration, therefore nothing has to be exchanged

But remember, even thought notice and deliver are not required, you still must record the TODI with the county recorder before the death of the person granting the transfer.

Can I revoke the TODI later?


Yes! TODI's are revocable instruments, meaning that you can cancel them at any time. But to do so you will need to draft another TODI or some other instrument that specifically revokes the original TODI.

Can I get a TODI online?

A TODI is a legal document, like a deed, and you should have a lawyer draft it for you. There are very specific legal requirements for a TODI, for example, the TODI must give a legal description of the property to be transferred. There are other technical legal formalities with property transfers like the TODI that your attorney should discuss with you.

If you need a TODI or any other estate planning document prepared, you should call the Crosby Law Firm today at 815-397-2006 or click on our Free Consultation Center. We can provide you with a complete Advanced Care Planning solution.

Paying for Bankruptcy with your Tax Return

Debt seems like a treadmill sometimes. You get a little ahead, and it forces you right back.

USA Today is reporting that tax returns are being used to pay the filling fees for bankruptcy.

For many people it is the only thing that they can use to get caught up on their credit card bills, or help pay that missed mortgage payment. But the treadmill pulls them back eventually, and next year's tax return already seems spent.

More and more people are seeing past the stigma of bankruptcy. According to the USA Today report more than 200,000 thousand people will be using tax returns to declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy isn't a failure, it is a tool that helps you regain control over your debt. Declaring bankruptcy shows that you are committed to rebuilding your financial future and that you want a plan to help you get there. It also means that you do not want your next tax return to be used to catch up on your debt, you want it to be used to build a better future for your family.

If you are thinking of using this year's tax return to make debt payments, it is time to call us and get a free consultation. We can help you get a clear sense of your financial situation, and help you get a handle on your money. Please do not waste another tax return on debt payments, you owe it to yourself.

You can also call us at 1-815-397-2006 to talk about your issues.

Bankruptcies of the Rich and the Famous

Bankruptcy seems all the rage today.

Just look at the news coverage of NFL star Warren Sapp's bankruptcy filing. Bankruptcy seems to be everywhere in the news this week.

This week, we learned about Newt Gingrich's consulting firm is filing for bankruptcy, you can read about it in the bankrupt Chicago Tribune.

But few of these stories ever seem to capture the average American's struggle with debt. You never see a story about a Rockford factory worker who has been laid off for over a year, and is struggling to make his unemployment check cover his rent and utilities. Why don't we here about the Illinois teachers who were just laid off.  How  many of them will not be able to find work for months because of the "sluggish" recovery? What are they going to do when their debts keep piling up? 

It can be difficult when creditors are calling every single day, leaving harassing messages for you and your loved ones to hear. It may seem impossible, but there is help. If you or someone you care about is struggling with debt, we would like to help you. We can discuss your case for free, and you can get a real sense of how to get a handle on your debt. We are not concerned with the stories of big celebrities, or multi-billion dollar corporations. We want to hear your story. 

The Crosby Law Firm

Strip Searches for Minor Offenses? Supreme Court Says Yes!

Should people who are charged with minor offenses be strip searched? That was the question put before the Supreme Court this week. The Case, Florence v. County of Burlington (a.k.a. Florence v. Baord of Chosen Freeholders), involved the following facts:

 Albert W. Florence was driving in a BMW sport-utility vehicle in New Jersey with his wife and three children when he was pulled over for a traffic offense. The officer looked up Florence in the police computer database and discovered an outstanding warrant issued in Essex County. Florence had paid the fine, but the computer erroneously listed an outstanding warrant. Florence was placed under arrest in Burlington County and spent six days in jail before being transfered to Essex County's jail. At both jails, prison guards "conducted a visual inspection of his body, instructing him to open his mouth, lift his tongue, lift his arms, and then lift his genitals." Florence went before a judge and was quickly released from jail.

A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled that strip searches for an inmate admitted to any jail can be strip searched  even if they are charged with a minor offense. Strip searches may be used even if the accused has not appeared before a court. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that dangerous criminals such as Timothy McVeigh and some of the 9/11 hijackers were stopped for routine traffic offense around the time of their crimes. However, Justice Kennedy did not mention how strip searching would have aided law enforcement in these particular cases.

While both Justice Alito and Justice Roberts joined in the majority holding, they both wrote separate concurring opinions. Both of the Justices were worried about the breadth of the ruling. Justice Alito was specific to state that in this ruling "The Court does not address whether it is always reasonable...to strip search an arrestee before the arrestee’s detention has been reviewed by a judicial officer." Alito's concurring opinion seems to raise significant questions about how the ruling actually applies, as he seems to suggest that the ruling only applies to prisoners in the general population of a jail. He also states that most minor offenders are not held in the general population of a prison and should therefore not be subject to such a search.


The dissenting Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) noted that strip searches are an extreme invasion of privacy that should not be used unless the minor offense involved violence or drugs, or in cases where prison officials have "reasonable suspicion"  that the suspect may have contraband.

The Full Supreme Court Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf