Last week, I wrote in this space about a child pornography possession case in which a dispute arose over financial compensation to the victims of the child porn. As I’ve noted here before, there are at least three people who routinely seek financial compensation from people caught in possession of “their” child pornography. They say knowing that people possess pictures of their childhood sexual abuse re-injures them, causing substantial psychological damage that makes it difficult for them to live normal lives. However, courts have been divided on whether and how they should be awarded restitution, because the law was written with in-person victimization in mind. In In re Amy & Vicky, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revisited a previous appeal by those two young women, pseudonyms for two victims, rejecting a call for joint and several liability just after the Sixth Circuit did the same.
The case had been to the Ninth Circuit before, on an appeal filed only by Amy and Vicky. In the underlying case, Joseph Cantrelle was caught in possession of child pornography that included images of both Amy and Vicky. The Eastern California district court denied both young women’s petitions for restitution, adopting a presentencing report that did not recommend restitution because there was not enough evidence supporting it. However, the first Ninth Circuit panel reversed, finding adequate evidence supporting restitution provided by the petitioners themselves. That panel nonetheless rejected the petitioners’ argument that U.S. v. Kennedy, the controlling precedent on these restitution issues from the Ninth Circuit, should be overruled. That case requires petitioners to show proximate causation between the defendant’s crimes and the victims’ losses. The issue has split the circuit courts; the Fifth Circuit recently declined to require proximate causation.
The new Ninth Circuit panel re-heard the case after the district court, on remand, calculated the restitution order using the formula created by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Gamble. This calls for excluding the damages sustained by the petitioners before the defendant had their materials, then dividing the proportion of remaining damages by the number of standing restitution orders. The victims’ new appeal renews their argument that Kennedy should be overturned, and also argues that the district court should have imposed joint and several liability because the Crime Victims Rights Act says restitution should be paid for “the full amount of the victim’s losses.” The Ninth said the district court committed no errors; how to calculate restitution “is an open question in this Circuit,” it said. Joint and several liability is not authorized in the relevant laws; and of the circuit courts to consider it, only the Fifth has imposed it, while others have expressly declined to impose it. The panel added that there is still no reason to overturn Kennedy and upheld the award.
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion notes that the arguments against Kennedy were made primarily to preserve the issue for a larger Ninth Circuit panel or the U.S. Supreme Court. While I do not believe Kennedy should be overturned, I would welcome Supreme Court review of child pornography restitution rules because some clarity would be welcome. Joint and several liability is better for victims because it makes each possession defendant liable for the full amount, and requires the defendants, rather than the victims, to sort out who owes how much money to whom. But it’s also not realistic to ask people who are already in prison for child pornography possession to sort this out, and of course prisoners are unlikely to have enough money to pay the full amount. For this reason, I would welcome a court ruling or federal legislation intended to address this issue.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Ninth Circuit Rejects Call for Joint and Several Liability for Child Porn Possessors – In re Amy & Vicky
↧
↧
Invasion of Privacy in Utah
When you use your cell phone in public, don’t be surprised if others overhear your conversation—that’s not considered illegal invasion of privacy. However, it is possible to be charged with a crime if you do any of the following: • Trespass on property with the intent to eavesdrop on someone or use other forms of [...]
↧
Anonymous, Islamist Hackers Plan Major Assault for Tuesday
Anonymous and various Islamist groups claim that they will take down nine U.S. government websites on May 7, including those of the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, the FBI and the White House, along with over 130 bank websites, such as those belonging to Bank of America, Capital One and TD Bank… Read more..
↧
Appraiser Gets Probation for Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy
Bryan Joseph Lenton, 33, Oakdale, Minnesota, was sentenced for his role in a mortgage fraud scheme that caused losses to lenders exceeding $7 million. On May 2, 2013, United States District Court Judge David S. Doty sentenced the defendant to three years of probation on one count of conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud through interstate wire. [...]
↧
Fallout Continues From Massive Indian Ponzi Scheme As Details Emerge, Suicides Mount
As investors begin to come to terms with a Ponzi scheme that is estimated to have duped hundreds of thousands of Indian investors out of billions of dollars, details are beginning to emerge about the scheme and its mastermind, while suicides continue to mount in a grim reminder of the true human toll of Ponzi schemes. In a script perhaps better suited for a Hollywood movie, there are tales of bribes paid to politicians, a factory where workers pretended to work to impress potential investors, and a mastermind so opposed to having his picture taken that his website simply features a picture of an empty chair in his stead. Now, two weeks after the scheme unraveled, many are trying to piece together what is likely the largest scam in India's history.
Ripples began emanating out of India in late April that Sudipta Sen, the man behind an Indian conglomerate known as the Saradha Group, was missing amid rumors of financial irregularities and increased scrutiny from India's Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI"). Sen's Saradha Group operated a series of companies that offered 'depositors' the ability to invest in a wide range of ventures ranging from real estate to motor vehicles to even bio gas. Investors were offered the ability to make short-term investments with promised returns based on the duration.
Sen was able to promote his investments to the masses through a wide range of sources, including an extensive presence in television and newspapers and connections to members of one of the leading Indian political parties. Sen also employed an extensive network of approximately 300,000 agents that were paid commissions to recruit new investors into the scheme. In total, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Indian investors may have entrusted billions of dollars to Sen's many ventures.
However, as details have emerged from India, it is now becoming increasingly apparent that Sen's massive business empire may have been nothing more than a devastating Ponzi scheme. As the Hindustan Times reports, Sen appears to have taken elaborate measures to attract investors to his scheme - even creating a full motorcycle factory spanning nearly 8 acres and manned by 150 employees who did little more than perform for busloads of potential investors. As the article relates,
For two years since January 2011, employees at the Saradha group-owned Global Automobiles were forced to pose in front of the conveyor belt to give the impression that the plant was operating in full swing.
They pretended to work whenever truckloads and busloads of prospective depositors of Saradha Realty visited the plant for a first-hand check before investing.
Just before the depositors reached the factory, the workers would get dressed in their blue uniforms, rush to the shed where the assembling of motorbikes used to be done and pose in front of the conveyor belt as if they were really assembling the twowheelers.
They also used to turn on the fountains inside the campus. The prospective investors had no way of doubting that the plant had actually stopped production in January 2011.
There has also been an immense amount of scrutiny directed towards the ruling Trinamool Congress that has been linked to Sen. Some politicians had extensive ties to Sen's businesses, including Kunal Goosh, a member of the Trinamool Congress Parliament who also served as head of Sen's media operations. As the Hindu BusinessLine has reported, Sen filed an 18-page complaint letter wth the Central Bureau of Investigation shortly before he fled, accusing at least two members of Parliament for receiving bribes in return for protecting him from potential prosecution. Additionally, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has made several comments that have been ill-received by investors, including admonishing victims that "what's gone is gone."
Minister Banerjee has since proposed the establishment of a relief fund that would provide $9.2 million for defrauded investors, that plan too has sparked a backlash - this time from Banerjee's announcement that 30% of the fund would be collected by increasing cigarette taxes. Said Banerjee,
"Smoke a little more to help the investors,"
Finally, in a grim reminder of the true devastation of Ponzi schemes, there have been multiple reports of suicides linked to the scheme. Two victims are believed to have committed suicide in the immediate aftermath, with one woman setting herself on fire while another man hung himself. Additionally, another deliberately drank poison and remains in critical condition. Recent news reports out of West Bengal suggest that two more individuals committed suicide within the past several days, including the father of an individual who served as a commission agent for the scheme who was being heckled by investors at his house. According to the Hindustan Times, this brings the total number of deaths attributable to the scheme to ten - with seemingly no end in sight.
Sen remains in police custody, and recent news reports have indicated he is cooperating with authorities.
↧
↧
Will Tamerlan Tsarnaev Be Sent to Russia?
Update: A Denver mosque has offered to bury Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
How exactly does one go about sending a body back to Russia for burial?
In Boston, there's at least one company, Casper Funeral Services, that advertises such services. ...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
FL - Leaders mull changes to sex offender policies
See Also:Orlando wants to distance sex offenders even farther from schools
Video Link© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Teen sex offenders remain on sex offender registry for years
↧
New Bill Would Send Sex Offenders Back to Prison
Some sex offenders are required as part of their probation to wear GPS tracking devices. It is against the law to tamper with a GPS tracker and a new bill that is currently under consideration will send offenders who remove their devices to state prison. According to a news report in The Los Angeles Times, the bill passed its first legislative committee on April 30. If it becomes law, a first offense would result in a mandatory 180 days in county jail. A second offense would result in up to one year in county jail and a third offense would be punishable by a prison sentence. If it passes, this new bill would affect about 8,000 paroled sex offenders who are currently required to wear electronic monitors.
As the law stands now, the maximum penalty you can face for removing a GPS device is 180 days in county jail. This new bill substantially increases the penalties, but it is not the toughest bill that has recently come up for debate. At least one measure backed by Republican leaders called for prison sentences for first-time offenders.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
Swan on Triangulating Rape
Sarah Lynnda Swan (Columbia University - Law School) has posted Triangulating Rape (New York University Review of Law & Social Change, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Civil actions for rape and sexual assault have recently been undergoing significant...
↧
Whitten on Marijuana Possession and Jury Trial
Taylor E. Whitten has posted Under the Guise of Reform: How Marijuana Possession Is Exposing the Flaws in the Criminal Justice System's Guarantee of a Right to a Jury Trial (Iowa Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:...
↧
Krent on Retroactivity and Crack Sentencing Reform
Harold J. Krent (Chicago-Kent College of Law) has posted Retroactivity and Crack Sentencing Reform on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This article argues that the strong presumption against retroactive application of reduced punishments articulated in the Supreme Court’s recent decision...
↧
More Surveillance Not the Answer to Terror Threats
Cindy Cohn and Trevor Timm have an excellent article at Electronic Frontier Foundation explaining why more government surveillance is not the appropriate response to the Boston bombings or terrorism.
The capture of the Boston suspect was made...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
Monday Night Open Thread
Time for an open thread for those who are interested in topics other than the Boston bombing.
All topics welcome.
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Los Angeles Petty Theft News: Elderly Woman’s Theft Trial Costs Nearly 30 Times the Value of the Object She Stole
The courts have financial incentive to avoid dealing with trivial Los Angeles petty theft cases.![JC-Penney-los-angeles-petty-theft.jpg]()
Here's a bold illustration why.
Up in Monterey, 75-year-old Lilia Estoesta just got convicted of a single petty theft charge for stealing $60 worth of jewelry. The cost of the trial – just for the translator! – exceeded $2,000.
Estoesta pled guilty to pilfering jewelry from a JC Penny Store at a Salinas mall, prior to Christmas. She said that she wanted presents for her grandkids for the holidays.
Estoesta is a Filipino woman who speaks a language called Ilocano – so the court had to hire a special translator, plus reimburse that translator for lodging and mileage. All told, just the translator’s fees tallied at $2,018. Estoesta’s attorney argued that the court would not have had to spend that money (and waste time) had they agreed to come to a plea agreement. After all, the woman had no criminal record.
A local district attorney, James Perry, counter-argued that “Justice requires equal protection of the law and mandates that we treat similarly situated defendants equally.” Perry said that court would have let Estoesta off with community service without probation, if she agreed to a guilty plea on a misdemeanor. But her defense wanted to plea the charges down to a ticket, and a settlement could not be arranged prior to the trial.
Perry defended the court’s actions: “The Constitution does not take costs into consideration.”
The Superior Court Judge, Alert Maldonato, imposed no punishment on the 75-year-old, but Estoesta needs to pay all court-mandated fees.
The big takeaway here – if you or someone you care about faces a Southern California petty theft charge – is that the court system is pretty bureaucratic. That can be both good and bad news for your case. You need to understand the system and play within its rules and constraints.
If you've never been charged before, you probably don’t know what those rules are. Thus, you could easily make mistakes that could drag your situation out or lead to needless additional punishments and stress, particularly if your L.A. petty theft charge is connected with other crimes, like grand theft, robbery, hit and run, etc. The Los Angeles theft defense team at the Kraut Law Group is ready and able to help you prepare your defense and make smart, sensible choices going forward.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Here's a bold illustration why.
Up in Monterey, 75-year-old Lilia Estoesta just got convicted of a single petty theft charge for stealing $60 worth of jewelry. The cost of the trial – just for the translator! – exceeded $2,000.
Estoesta pled guilty to pilfering jewelry from a JC Penny Store at a Salinas mall, prior to Christmas. She said that she wanted presents for her grandkids for the holidays.
Estoesta is a Filipino woman who speaks a language called Ilocano – so the court had to hire a special translator, plus reimburse that translator for lodging and mileage. All told, just the translator’s fees tallied at $2,018. Estoesta’s attorney argued that the court would not have had to spend that money (and waste time) had they agreed to come to a plea agreement. After all, the woman had no criminal record.
A local district attorney, James Perry, counter-argued that “Justice requires equal protection of the law and mandates that we treat similarly situated defendants equally.” Perry said that court would have let Estoesta off with community service without probation, if she agreed to a guilty plea on a misdemeanor. But her defense wanted to plea the charges down to a ticket, and a settlement could not be arranged prior to the trial.
Perry defended the court’s actions: “The Constitution does not take costs into consideration.”
The Superior Court Judge, Alert Maldonato, imposed no punishment on the 75-year-old, but Estoesta needs to pay all court-mandated fees.
The big takeaway here – if you or someone you care about faces a Southern California petty theft charge – is that the court system is pretty bureaucratic. That can be both good and bad news for your case. You need to understand the system and play within its rules and constraints.
If you've never been charged before, you probably don’t know what those rules are. Thus, you could easily make mistakes that could drag your situation out or lead to needless additional punishments and stress, particularly if your L.A. petty theft charge is connected with other crimes, like grand theft, robbery, hit and run, etc. The Los Angeles theft defense team at the Kraut Law Group is ready and able to help you prepare your defense and make smart, sensible choices going forward.
↧
Defendant argues WI child porn law unconstitutional; if you're texted CP and open it, are you guilty of possessing CP?
Could someone texting you child porn, a text you unwittingly open, get you charged with a felony? Also, is it fair to charge adult males with child porn possession but not the underage females that texted the images to them, if they both technically possess child pornography? The case below raises both issues.
In State v. Perino, No.'s 2012-CF-0217, 2012-CM-0116 (Wis. Cir. Ct. filed Jan. 18 & Feb. 23, 2012) the defendant is charged with two counts of possessing child pornography (2012-CF-0217 - link has case history) and two counts of sex with a minor over age 16 (2012-CM-0116). In March of 2013, the defendant filed three motions to dismiss based on the following: (1) that the charged statute (Wis. Stats. § 948.12, see infra) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, as applied; (2) that the images are not "lewd" as required by the statute; and, (3) that the prosecutor is selectively prosecuting the case.
Copies of the Wisconsin Circuit Court documents:
1. Defendant's Motions
2. Prosecutor's Responses
The defendant was later indicted in federal court, as well, where he was "charged . . . with one count of producing child pornography and [the indictment] refers to two victims A and B. Four other counts appear to refer to the same former student in the state charges, and a sixth count seeks forfeiture of Perino's computers and cellphone." (Vielmetti, infra). You can find the indictment, here: E.D. Wisconsin Perino IndictmentState of Wisconsin Case
Wis. Stat. § 948.12 states:
948.12 Possession of child pornography.(1m) Whoever possesses, or accesses in any way with the intent to view, any undeveloped film, photographic negative, photograph, motion picture, videotape, or other recording of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct under all of the following circumstances may be penalized under sub. (3): (a) The person knows that he or she possesses or has accessed the material. (b) The person knows, or reasonably should know, that the material that is possessed or accessed contains depictions of sexually explicit conduct. (c) The person knows or reasonably should know that the child depicted in the material who is engaged in sexually explicit conduct has not attained the age of 18 years.
Bruce Vielmetti has a good synopsis of the case in his Journal-Sentinel article - Lawyer wants girl charged for nude photos she sent to teacher:
The attorney for a former Hales Corners teacher facing charges he had sex with a female student has asked a judge to charge the girl with distributing child pornography - for sending nude photos of herself to the teacher....Craig Perino was charged in Racine County in January 2012 with two counts of sex with child 16 or older, both misdemeanors. According to the complaint, he and the girl had encounters last year at his home in Waterford that involved drinking and intercourse.A month later, prosecutors added two counts of possession of child pornography, both felony offenses, after nude photos of the girl were found on Perino's phone and computer. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.…Perino's attorney, John Birdsall, has moved to dismiss the child pornography charges on several grounds. He argues the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it makes anyone who might open and view an unsolicited texted or emailed image of child pornography subject to criminal prosecution.
Birdsall also argues that the texted photos, while nude, are not "lewd" under the statute.
Finally, Birdsall asks that the charges be dismissed because they represent selective prosecution. His motion notes that the girl was 17 when she reported her sexual encounters with Perino and is 18 now. If the prosecutors believe the images amount to child pornography, the girl should be charged as an adult with producing, distributing and possessing them, the motion states.…Refusing to charge the girl, Birdsall argues, amounts to an admission by prosecutors that the images are not in fact lewd under the Wisconsin statute and therefore don't support the child porn charges against Perino.…In his responses to Birdsall's motions, Assistant District Attorney Robert Repischak argued that the issues were raised too late, that the question of whether the photos are lewd is one a jury should decide, and that Perino's constitutional challenge relies on hypothetical situations that differ from his own.
"The defendant seemingly forgets" that he told an investigator he had stored images on his employer's computer and deleted them once he learned of the investigation and that he "clearly . . . was not an unwitting recipient of the images at issue," Repischak said in his written response to the motions.
![]()
↧
The Impact of McNeely: Fundamental Changes For Minnesota DWI Law
Nobody can deny the tremendous impact the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely will have on how we handle Minnesota DWIs in the future. The McNeely decision breathed some much needed life into what many perceived as an ailing and weary Fourth Amendment - an Amendment that, together with the First Amendment, forms the absolute bedrock of a free society.
We've been preparing for years in the hopes that our Courts - as stewards of the Constitution - would interpret the Fourth Amendment in a way that makes sure that it actually does apply to DWI arrests. And now they have.
But change is difficult, even when it is staring you in the face. As every state in the union comes to terms with the new legal landscape post-McNeely, Minnesota is facing a particularly difficult upheaval, much more than most other states. This is due to two unique aspects of Minnesota law - the criminalization of test refusal (coerced consent) and the codification of suppression (I'll explain that in a minute).
First, consent: The vast majority of states didn't take the extreme step of outright criminalizing test refusal; Minnesota is in the minority of jurisdictions that makes it a crime to withhold your consent to a warrantless search. So, many states can safely wade through their pending and future DWI cases relying on the fact that most people will say "yes" when asked to submit to a blood, breath or urine test, and their consent eliminates the need to obtain a warrant.
But that's not Minnesota - in Minnesota, "yes" comes at the barrel of a gun, and can hardly be considered to be true consent. When saying "no" is a crime, it will always be nearly impossible for the government to persuasively argue that anyone is actually consenting to submit to a test.
Second, suppression: the courts have had a long-standing rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in court, referred to as the "exclusionary rule." There are a lot of policy reasons behind this rule, but it is sufficient to point out that if this illegally obtained evidence wasn't suppressed, we could just as well delete the entire Fourth Amendment and call it the "Bill of Guidelines" instead of the Bill of Rights.
Now, the federal courts have recently developed a new doctrine dealing with suppression, calling it the "good faith" exception to the warrant requirement. Again, it suffices to say that if an officer conducts a search that he believes to be constitutional, but that law is later overruled, this "good faith" exception basically means that even though the search was illegal, the evidence is still admissible in court.
Again, in many other states this means that all of the DWI cases put on hold pending McNeely didn't gain much from that decision. Their searches may have been illegal (unless they were consented to), but the evidence comes before the jury anyway, so it's a pretty hollow victory.
But Minnesota is different - where our Legislature made the questionable decision of criminalizing the act of not consenting to a warrantless search, they also made the inspired decision to pass a specific law that mandates the suppression of evidence for any illegal search. Minnesota Statute 626.21 says in no uncertain terms that illegal searches = suppressed evidence. Our own Minnesota Supreme Court has also repeatedly rejected the need for such a rule.
So Minnesota is in a pickle (to be fair, it's a pickle that could have easily been avoided): prosecutors can't say with a straight face that everyone has been consenting to their blood, breath and urine tests. The best they can say is that drivers keep saying "yes" after being properly threatened. And then, prosecutors have no "good faith" exception to fall back on, meaning if they want to maintain their DWI cases against our clients, they are going to have to prove that there simply wasn't enough time to get a warrant before our client's slipped below the legal limit. Considering the fact that we're still not properly training our officers on the simple task of obtaining a telephonic warrant, I don't see that argument being very successful.
There will be some significant growing pains in Minnesota as a result of the McNeely decision. There is a good chance many DWIs will be thrown out of court. But in the end, everyone will have a renewed respect for the Fourth Amendment; courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, the legislature, and the general public. And that, too, makes us all safer.↧
↧
The Impact of McNeely: Fundamental Changes For Minnesota DWI Law
Nobody can deny the tremendous impact the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely will have on how we handle Minnesota DWIs in the future. The McNeely decision breathed some much needed life into what many perceived as an ailing and weary Fourth Amendment - an Amendment that, together with the First Amendment, forms the absolute bedrock of a free society.
We've been preparing for years in the hopes that our Courts - as stewards of the Constitution - would interpret the Fourth Amendment in a way that makes sure that it actually does apply to DWI arrests. And now they have.
But change is difficult, even when it is staring you in the face. As every state in the union comes to terms with the new legal landscape post-McNeely, Minnesota is facing a particularly difficult upheaval, much more than most other states. This is due to two unique aspects of Minnesota law - the criminalization of test refusal (coerced consent) and the codification of suppression (I'll explain that in a minute).
First, consent: The vast majority of states didn't take the extreme step of outright criminalizing test refusal; Minnesota is in the minority of jurisdictions that makes it a crime to withhold your consent to a warrantless search. So, many states can safely wade through their pending and future DWI cases relying on the fact that most people will say "yes" when asked to submit to a blood, breath or urine test, and their consent eliminates the need to obtain a warrant.
But that's not Minnesota - in Minnesota, "yes" comes at the barrel of a gun, and can hardly be considered to be true consent. When saying "no" is a crime, it will always be nearly impossible for the government to persuasively argue that anyone is actually consenting to submit to a test.
Second, suppression: the courts have had a long-standing rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in court, referred to as the "exclusionary rule." There are a lot of policy reasons behind this rule, but it is sufficient to point out that if this illegally obtained evidence wasn't suppressed, we could just as well delete the entire Fourth Amendment and call it the "Bill of Guidelines" instead of the Bill of Rights.
Now, the federal courts have recently developed a new doctrine dealing with suppression, calling it the "good faith" exception to the warrant requirement. Again, it suffices to say that if an officer conducts a search that he believes to be constitutional, but that law is later overruled, this "good faith" exception basically means that even though the search was illegal, the evidence is still admissible in court.
Again, in many other states this means that all of the DWI cases put on hold pending McNeely didn't gain much from that decision. Their searches may have been illegal (unless they were consented to), but the evidence comes before the jury anyway, so it's a pretty hollow victory.
But Minnesota is different - where our Legislature made the questionable decision of criminalizing the act of not consenting to a warrantless search, they also made the inspired decision to pass a specific law that mandates the suppression of evidence for any illegal search. Minnesota Statute 626.21 says in no uncertain terms that illegal searches = suppressed evidence. Our own Minnesota Supreme Court has also repeatedly rejected the need for such a rule.
So Minnesota is in a pickle (to be fair, it's a pickle that could have easily been avoided): prosecutors can't say with a straight face that everyone has been consenting to their blood, breath and urine tests. The best they can say is that drivers keep saying "yes" after being properly threatened. And then, prosecutors have no "good faith" exception to fall back on, meaning if they want to maintain their DWI cases against our clients, they are going to have to prove that there simply wasn't enough time to get a warrant before our client's slipped below the legal limit. Considering the fact that we're still not properly training our officers on the simple task of obtaining a telephonic warrant, I don't see that argument being very successful.
There will be some significant growing pains in Minnesota as a result of the McNeely decision. There is a good chance many DWIs will be thrown out of court. But in the end, everyone will have a renewed respect for the Fourth Amendment; courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, the legislature, and the general public. And that, too, makes us all safer.↧
Utah Public Servant Misconduct and Illegal Legislative Bill Alterations
Many people serve as public servants throughout Utah, and you can count on the average public servant to do his job well and without misconduct. There are laws, however, to help deter a public servant from doing the wrong thing and ending up with fines or jail time. Official Misconduct—Using Inside Information for Unlawful Acts [...]
↧
Tracey Maclin's new book on the exclusionary rule (Dripps)
Anyone teaching crim pro/police who has not already seen Tracey Maclin’s new book, The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule (OUP 2013) should do so before teaching Mapp, Linkletter, Alderman, Calandra and Leon. The book does not break...
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
