James Radig recognized with AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating

We would like to take a moment to congratulate our very own James “Jim” Radig, a Senior Associate with Arenson Law Group, PC, on his 2016 AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating. In order to earn the AV® certification mark from Martindale-Hubbell®, lawyers must be reviewed and ranked by their peers as possessing the highest degree of professional excellence.

The Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings are used by attorneys to refer clients to other attorneys who possess both the high ethical standards and professional abilities that are requisite for AV® certification. Jim’s areas of practice include estate planning (wills and trusts), business law, real estate law, corporate law, probate, and litigation.


U.S. crane maker Terex and Finnish competitor Konecranes to merge

Amid a more stringent competition and weak European and Chinese markets, U.S. cranes and heavy equipment manufacturer Terex and its Finnish competitor Konecranes have recently agreed to a $10 billion all-share merger, Reuters reported on Tuesday, August 11.

According to the deal, Terex investors will own 60% of the combined company while shareholders from Konecranes will own the rest of the company. The enlarged entity, which will be called Konecranes Terex, will be based in Hyvinkaa, Finland, as well as Westport, Connecticut.

The two companies said the deal would help them save costs and aim for cross-selling amid market challenges. They also hope that the move will generate $119 million in annual net income benefits three years after its completion.

The merger is expected to end early next year.

Mergers such as this are strategic – especially when dealing with market challenges. At Arenson Law Group, PC, we guide businesses in Cedar Rapids when pursuing such transactions. Call us at (319) 363-8199 for assistance today.


AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING CELLPHONES FROM BEING SEARCH BY POLICE OFFICERS

The United States Supreme Court has yet to consider whether the Search Incident to Arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to searches of cellphones, I-Pads, Laptops and other “smart” devices seized pursuant to a lawful arrest. The majority of jurisdictions to have considered the issue have determined the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to search your cellphone if it is recovered from your person or presence during a lawful arrest.
Allowing police officers to search items recovered incident to your arrest probably makes sense when law enforcement officers search a three dimensional object like a cigarette pack, but makes little sense when law enforcement officers search your cellphone or other “smart” device which possesses a “fourth dimension”, and the search may be better understood as a search of a place rather than as a search of a thing.
The depth and breadth of the information “housed” in your cellphone makes the part of your cellphone that “houses” your pictures and videos look like your living room, makes the part of your cellphone that “houses” your business and financial records look like your office, and makes the part of your cellphone that “houses” your private, personal information look like your bedroom.
Once courts abandon the three dimensional perspective, at least in the context of cellphones and other “smart devices”, and acknowledge the reality that such devices possess a fourth dimension and more closely resemble a “place” than an object, it becomes less defensible to treat these devices like cigarette packs. Because, from the fourth dimensional perspective, a search of such devices resembles the search of a place or “home” the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and particularity requirements become increasingly necessary to safeguard your significant privacy interests in the your phone.
Such an approach represents not only a more “workable” framework, but also a more intuitive and desirable one. Respect for our privacy rights only strengthens this position. Practically, if courts permit searches of the cellphone’s “fourth dimension”, courts should at the very least prohibit law enforcement officers from searching these devices incident to an arrest for a minor offense. The law simply cannot permit law enforcement to invade our smart devices incident to an arrest for a minor offense like a seatbelt violation.