A new ProPublica article about the case review of the work of former NYPD detective Louis Scarcella questions if the inquiry will examine the prosecutors who worked alongside him. Scarcella handled some of Brooklyn's most notorious murders in the 1980s and 1990s. The review was ordered by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' Conviction Integrity Unit who has yet to say if prosecutors' will come under scrutiny.
But legal experts, defense lawyers for the men Scarcella helped incarcerate, and Hynes's political rivals have all said that any investigation of Scarcella's cases that does not extend to the prosecutors who worked with him would be fundamentally suspect.
Scarcella had a 26-year career with the New York Police Department, which means the number of current and former prosecutors he worked with to secure convictions extends across generations. Two are now New York State judges, others are accomplished lawyers and some are now senior officials in the Brooklyn District Attorney's office.
The role and responsibility of prosecutors in their work with detectives has been the subject of considerable debate as, with each succeeding year, the examples of wrongful convictions has grown. A prosecutor's mandate -- to win convictions or to determine the truth - too often gets confused or clouded, experts say.
Many of the prosecutors who worked with Scarcella on cases were there from the beginning and attended suspect line-ups and accepted the confessions he obtained. They relied on Scarcella's evidence to win convictions.
"Only on TV do these cases stand up on their own; the reality is they are usually held together with a string," Eugene O'Donnell, former New York police officer and prosecutor in Queens and Brooklyn who now teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice said. "If you're trying to make a case against a guilty person you don't want to pull too hard on that string and have the whole thing collapse. The more you know, the less sanguine you can be. It's a dirty system, it's an unsavory system: built from the bottom-up with troubling tactics and techniques, born in coercion and deception."
Read the full article. Read other coverage of the Scarcella investigation.
ProPublica Questions Prosecutorial Accountability in Brooklyn Murder Case Review
↧
↧
When Is a Misdemeanor Treated As a Felony?
According to the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, when a felony conviction is reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed, it will still be considered a felony for enhancement purposes should the defendant suffer a future conviction. California Penal Code Section 17(b)(3) permits the court to convert a ...The post When Is a Misdemeanor Treated As a Felony? appeared first on Law Office of Domenic J. Lombardo.
↧
Florida Legislature Considering a Law That Would Make Selling Bongs and Pipes Illegal
In its never ending effort to increase the size of government and continue the famously unsuccessful war on drugs, the Florida legislature is considering enacting a law that would make it a first degree misdemeanor to sell certain items commonly used to smoke marijuana. These would include certain pipes and bongs. A first degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 12 months in jail in Florida. The law would also allow the government to revoke the license of someone convicted of selling such items.
As it stands now, most of these items are permitted to be sold by stores that derive at least 75% of its sales from tobacco and less than 25% of its sales from this paraphernalia. That is a dumb rule- either it is legal or illegal to sell these pipes and bongs and one look at the ridiculous war on drugs should tell any reasonable person the government has better things to do than waste time, money, effort and prison space on people using marijuana or selling marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia to people who do.
We will keep an eye on this bill to see if it passes and becomes one more law in the government's war on drugs arsenal.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Bigamy in Las Vegas?
Bigamy: When what Happens in Vegas Doesn’t stay in Vegas It’s difficult to tell how many Vegas elopements result in bigamy charges elsewhere. Unfortunately, many who come here on vacation have been persuaded to marry over the years, even if they are not yet divorced from their current spouses. A Texas man faced charges in
↧
Thomas Cahill on Capital Punishment
Best-selling author Thomas Cahill writes, "Why do we keep executing people?" for CNN. Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning of this must-read: Killing people by lethal injection will soon be as distant a memory as burning heretics at the...
↧
↧
Lafayette woman accused of offering child up for sex
A Lafayette woman was arrested recently for allegedly making her minor daughter available in a sex-for-money scheme many years ago. The 37-year-old woman is likely to be charged with prinicple to molestation of a juvenile and trafficking a child for...
↧
Bonners Ferry Man Sentenced for Unlawfully Possessing Firearm
COEUR D’ALENE – Donald Paul Hankey, 28, of Bonners Ferry, Idaho, was sentenced yesterday in United States District Court to 18 months in prison for felon in possession of a firearm, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson announced. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge also ordered Hankey to serve three years of supervised release, and pay a fine of $1,500. He pleaded guilty to the charge on March 5, 2013.According to court documents, on November 13, 2012, Hankey knowingly and illegally possessed a Springfield Armory 9 millimeter handgun. Hankey is prohibited from possessing firearms due to a previous felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Hankey will forfeit the firearm he unlawfully possessed.The case was investigated by the North Idaho Violent Crimes Task Force (NIVCTF). The NIVCTF members include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Idaho State Police, Kootenai County Sheriff's Office, Shoshone County Sheriff's Office, Bonner County Sheriff's Office, Coeur d'Alene Police Department, Post Falls Police Department, and the Coeur d'Alene Tribal Police Department. The NIVCTF investigates a myriad of violent crimes, including armed robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault and drug trafficking.The case was prosecuted as part of Idaho’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, which seeks to reduce gun violence in Idaho.
↧
Designated Drivers Often Drunk, Study Concludes
A study published in the July 2013 edition of Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs reveals that one-fifth of all designated drivers are intoxicated. ![theykeys.jpg]()
Our Birmingham DUI defense lawyers don't doubt that this may be particularly true on college campuses, where the study took place. But this is one of the major shortfalls of the research: its limited scope.
The researchers from Rutgers focused their study on a Florida college community restaurant and bar district. There, they conducted interviews and examinations involving some 1,070 bar patrons over the course of three months. The sample was nearly 73 percent white, 63 percent male and 65 percent college students. The average age of the subjects was 28.
In other words, it's a small segment of the population, and one that has been proven more prone to binge drinking. Also, this subset, being in college, may not have the same kind of resources as older adults to hire a sober driver. Thus, one of their own is tapped for the job.
Before explaining the results, it's worth noting that drinking before driving - despite every public service announcement you've ever heard - is not illegal, so long as you are at least 21 years of age and you aren't under any kind of community control that would expressly bar you from doing so.
However, what is illegal is driving while intoxicated. Ideally, designated drivers would abstain from any alcohol or substance consumption, just to be on the safe side. However, having a beer or two, particularly over the course of a few hours, should not land you in the legal range of intoxication (though every person metabolizes the drug differently).
That said, the study found that about 35 percent of designated drivers in the sample had consumed alcohol at some point during the evening. About 20 percent consumed enough alcohol to be considered legally impaired.
Of the designated drivers who drank alcohol, about half had blood-alcohol levels that were higher than 0.05 percent. That's the new recommended standard being proposed by road safety advocates, though the current limit is still 0.08 percent.
Again, it's preferable not to drink and drive if it can be avoided. If you all want to imbibe, consider planning on public transportation or having someone who hasn't been out drinking all night come pick you up later.
If you choose to take on the role of designated driver, consider the following:
--Establish who will be the designated driver before the party starts. Larger groups may require more than one designated driver. Taking turns on this can make it fair for everyone.
--If you are going to have a drink and still plan to drive later, have your drink earlier in the evening. Limit yourself to one or two and follow it up with plenty of non-alcoholic hydration and maybe some food.
--Collect others' keys before they start drinking. That way, it won't turn into an argument later if your friends are intoxicated and belligerent.
--Once you have stopped drinking for the night (or if you never started) make it clear to anyone who offers you an alcoholic beverage that you can't because you're driving. This should minimize any pressure.
--If you are afraid you might have overdone it on the alcohol, even though you were the designated driver, don't be afraid to speak up. Better to call a cab than wind up in jail - or worse.
If you are arrested for a DUI, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to see how we might be able to mitigate the circumstances of your arrest and minimize your chances of a conviction.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Our Birmingham DUI defense lawyers don't doubt that this may be particularly true on college campuses, where the study took place. But this is one of the major shortfalls of the research: its limited scope.
The researchers from Rutgers focused their study on a Florida college community restaurant and bar district. There, they conducted interviews and examinations involving some 1,070 bar patrons over the course of three months. The sample was nearly 73 percent white, 63 percent male and 65 percent college students. The average age of the subjects was 28.
In other words, it's a small segment of the population, and one that has been proven more prone to binge drinking. Also, this subset, being in college, may not have the same kind of resources as older adults to hire a sober driver. Thus, one of their own is tapped for the job.
Before explaining the results, it's worth noting that drinking before driving - despite every public service announcement you've ever heard - is not illegal, so long as you are at least 21 years of age and you aren't under any kind of community control that would expressly bar you from doing so.
However, what is illegal is driving while intoxicated. Ideally, designated drivers would abstain from any alcohol or substance consumption, just to be on the safe side. However, having a beer or two, particularly over the course of a few hours, should not land you in the legal range of intoxication (though every person metabolizes the drug differently).
That said, the study found that about 35 percent of designated drivers in the sample had consumed alcohol at some point during the evening. About 20 percent consumed enough alcohol to be considered legally impaired.
Of the designated drivers who drank alcohol, about half had blood-alcohol levels that were higher than 0.05 percent. That's the new recommended standard being proposed by road safety advocates, though the current limit is still 0.08 percent.
Again, it's preferable not to drink and drive if it can be avoided. If you all want to imbibe, consider planning on public transportation or having someone who hasn't been out drinking all night come pick you up later.
If you choose to take on the role of designated driver, consider the following:
--Establish who will be the designated driver before the party starts. Larger groups may require more than one designated driver. Taking turns on this can make it fair for everyone.
--If you are going to have a drink and still plan to drive later, have your drink earlier in the evening. Limit yourself to one or two and follow it up with plenty of non-alcoholic hydration and maybe some food.
--Collect others' keys before they start drinking. That way, it won't turn into an argument later if your friends are intoxicated and belligerent.
--Once you have stopped drinking for the night (or if you never started) make it clear to anyone who offers you an alcoholic beverage that you can't because you're driving. This should minimize any pressure.
--If you are afraid you might have overdone it on the alcohol, even though you were the designated driver, don't be afraid to speak up. Better to call a cab than wind up in jail - or worse.
If you are arrested for a DUI, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to see how we might be able to mitigate the circumstances of your arrest and minimize your chances of a conviction.
↧
North Idaho Man Enters Felony Plea for Illegally Cutting Timber
COEUR D’ALENE – Norman Leroy Bogart, 54, of Kingston, Idaho, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court to illegally cutting timber on national forest lands, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson announced. An information charging him with one felony count of willful injury or depredation to property of the United States was filed in United States District Court in Coeur d’Alene on June 17, 2013.According to the plea agreement, the defendant admitted that between April and October, 2012, he cut and hauled timber illegally from an area within the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, near his home in Kingston, Idaho. The U.S. Forest Service began to investigate after discovering that 40 green trees had been cut within the one area. U.S. Forest Service investigators used a deer camera to capture Bogart’s vehicle traveling to and from the cut location.On October 3, 2012, the U.S. Forest Service executed a search warrant at Bogart’s residence and seized more than 58 cords of timber cut into firewood. One pile was estimated to be 40 feet long, 10 feet wide and 10 feet tall, according to the plea agreement. Investigators determined that most of the timber was green when cut. Investigators matched some of the larger timber seized from Bogart’s property to several stumps at the cut location within the Idaho Panhandle National Forests.“We are pleased to see this case prosecuted and want to emphasize that timber theft will not be tolerated on national forest system lands,” said Mary Farnsworth, Idaho Panhandle National Forest Supervisor. “I especially would like to thank our law enforcement officers who invested many hours investigating this case to ensure the public is reimbursed for their losses.”The charge of willful injury or depredation to property of the United States is punishable by up to ten years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release.Sentencing is set for September 16, 2013, before U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge at the federal courthouse in Coeur d’Alene.The case was investigated by the U.S. Forest Service, with the assistance of the Idaho State Police, the North Idaho Violent Crimes Task Force, and the Shoshone County Sheriff’s Office.
↧
↧
"Leahy/Paul and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing"
From Bill Otis at Crime & Consequences. In part: Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have introduced a bill (S.619) that would effectively end mandatory minimum sentencing in federal law. Judges would be able to sentence at any...
↧
Colorado's Continuing Debate
"In defense of Nathan Dunlap's reprieve," is the Denver Post OpEd by Bill Thiebaut. He's the former Pueblo, Colorado District Attorney. Much criticism has been levied against Gov. John Hickenlooper's decision to grant a reprieve to Nathan Dunlap, preventing him...
↧
No Probable Cause, and No Good Faith
In United States v. Buffer, No. 12-5052 (unpublished), the Sixth Circuit was presented with the "unusual case" in which a search warrant affidavit was "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable."The affidavit alleged that police had received an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold from 2147 Turner Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee. Based on the tip, officers surveilled the residence and observed "several visits," each of which lasted "one to three minutes." When police officers performed a traffic stop on one of the visitors who had "ma[de] a transaction" at the residence, they recovered 2.2 grams of marijuana. The court gave several reasons why these facts do not establish probable cause of illegal conduct at the residence. First, the anonymous tip needed corroboration in order to support a finding of probable cause. Second, the "observation of as few as three visits, lasting as little as one minute each, over a possible twenty-four-hour span, simply does not support a conclusion that there was a fair probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the Residence." Third, there was "no clear nexus" between the marijuana recovered during the traffic stop and the residence, given that the "small quantity" recovered "hardly suggests a recent drug sale," and that there was no admission or description of the "allegedly criminal nature of the 'transactions' that occurred."That finding alone was not enough to justify suppression, however. Under the "good faith" exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 918 (1984), “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Given the paucity of information to corroborate the anonymous tip of drug activity, the court found that this case satisfies that difficult standard.
↧
Happy Birthday, George Orwell!
Today is George Orwell’s birthday. He was born on June 25, 1903 and would be 110 today if he had octogenarian genes in him. Unfortunately, it was quite the opposite, as Orwell succumbed to tuberculosis at the age of 46. … Continue reading →![]()
↧
↧
Have You Been Racially Profiled? . . . There’s an App for That!
In an attempt to counter the effects of the Arizona law (SB 1070) known as “show me your papers”, the American Civil Liberties Union has announced that it is unveiling a smartphone app that will permit users to review the … Continue reading →The post Have You Been Racially Profiled? . . . There’s an App for That! appeared first on David Black.
↧
DORCHESTER GRADUATION PARTY IS THE SCENE OF A TRIPLE MURDER
It is graduation time. Graduations often mean graduation parties. Parties, sometimes, bring violence. In the case of one such Dorchester party, that violence ended up being the death of three individuals.
Witnesses to the triple Massachusetts murder remain in shock over the violence which ensued after uninvited guests crashed the graduation party.
“I was close enough I could’ve got shot…Everybody scattered from the back to the front”, described a woman who identified herself as the Intervale Street party’s hostess.
She said the party started with 10 to 15 close friends and family members. Then, her boyfriend said that people from the street below heard the music and started to fill up the apartment.
“We tried to lock the door. As soon as I walked away all of a sudden I hear a commotion. It was in my house! I’m a mother! I was scared.”
She said she was on the other side of the apartment when the shots rang out.
She ran toward the front of her children’s bedroom to hide and comfort her three daughters, who awoke from the noise.
“Then I see two people over here, one person over there. I was in shock,” she said. “I never seen that before in my life.”
Two young men and a young woman were shot. They have been identified as Brian Tirado, 22, Ana Cruz, 22, and Felix Garcia, 22, all of Dorchester. All three died by those wounds.
The co-host of the party, apparently the boyfriend of Ms. Cruz, described the chaos as follows:
“Bottles were being thrown. I tried pushing people out the way, and that’s when you hear the shots go off, ‘Pop, pop, pop! Pop, pop!’ ” he said. “My friend was bleeding on the floor, holding her belly. The other dude was on the floor. It looked like he was already done because he was white. ... His friend was holding him saying ‘Don’t die on me! Don’t die on me!’ The other guy was saying ‘I’m hit! I’m hit!’ ”
The slayings on Intervale Street bumped the city’s murder count up by 13 percent. As of last Tuesday, the city had 20 murders, two fewer than last year.
There are now 26 murders so far this year compared to 23 at the same time last year, police said.
The party’s hostess and her boyfriend declined to give their names due to fear of retaliation.
Attorney Sam’s Take On Mirth, Murder And Criminal Investigations
As a long-time Boston criminal lawyer, I can tell you that this tragic story is not as unusual as you might think. Sometimes it is some other kind of party. I have brought to you a story about it happening at a wedding in the past. Sometimes it is at a dance club.
The bottom line is that fights between people happen at such occasions. In the past, fists would be used. Now, guns are often used.
Now, what do we already know about this case, beyond the obvious?
Well, first of all, it would appear that nobody is in custody yet. This means that the criminal investigation is ongoing. Thus, anyone either actually at the party or alleged to have been at the party is a potential target for law enforcement.
“Why would that be, Sam?”
Because this is another high profile case. Three people are dead. The police want answers. Sometimes people are reluctant to give statements to the police. Sometimes this is out of fear, such as the above-quoted individuals who asked not to be identified. Other times it is because of a mistrust of the police.
Let’s face it. Sometimes statements get twisted. Sometimes the wrong people are charged.
So, what would I suggest to those who may find themselves pursued by law enforcement in this case?
It will probably not surprise you to learn that my advise is to retain the services of an experienced criminal attorney.
“Why should I do that if I did not shoot anyone?”
I am not saying that the attorney will necessarily advise you not to say anything (in counsel’s presence) to the police. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, you never know when things are going to turn and you are going to be suspected of being a part of the shooting. After all, we have many times discussed the prosecutorial theory of “conspiracy” and “ joint enterprise”. You could be charged being part of the violence even if you were simply there if someone whom the police decide to believe says so.
Confusing scenes like this make for interesting cases. Not only are they often tailor-made for incorrect charges, but also for defense theories such as self-defense.
Of course, I am not involved in this case; I do not know the details of what the police have or think they have. However, if you turn out to be a person of interest, you would be well advised to show some interest in your own liberty and engaged the services of someone who can advise and, if necessary, represent you.
For the original story upon which this blog was based, please go to http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/06/triple_murder_witnesses_detail_chaotic_party_scene#sthash.kV9Zc18p.dpuf
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Utah Man with Mental Illness Kills Wife’s Grandma
A 40-year-old Sandy man is in custody while being investigated for allegedly beating his wife’s grandmother to death with a golf club. The man’s wife called police after her husband, whom she said was having a psychotic episode and carrying a golf club, went into the older woman’s bedroom and locked the door behind him. [...]
↧
16-year-old Bay City Boy Alleges Gun Shop Owner Molested and Raped Him Repeatedly
On Tuesday, June 25, a 16-year-old male testified that he was sexually assaulted by 37-year-old Kevin J. Lijewski, owner of GunRunners, after being plied with alcohol. The alleged victim testified that he was molested and raped by Lijewski as the defendant sat listening in a Bay City courtroom.
According to the victim's testimony at the preliminary examination, he did odd jobs for Lijewski as he lived next door to the gun shop, located at 207 S. Henry St. The teen said that the first incident occurred at Lijewski's apartment when the defendant invited to boy over for drinks as he was closing up shop for the day. This alleged incident took place in December of 2012; the alleged victim went on to say that there were a few people at Lijewski's apartment who were hanging out, and that he was supplied whiskey and beer by the defendant. He believed he was the only minor at the apartment, and testified that throughout the evening some of those in attendance partially removed their clothes.
A news article at Mlive.com states that the victim testified that after the others left the apartment, the defendant put on some porn and started making undesired physical advances toward him, resulting in a sexual encounter in Lijewski's bedroom. Following that evening, the sexual contact continued on through December both at the defendant's apartment and his business, according to the teen. He admitted that Lijewski had forced him to participate in some of the sexual acts, and that he participated in others willingly. However, he went on to say that he was threatened by Lijewski not to go to police on one occasion.
Lijewski's defense attorney Jeffrey Rupp said in his cross-examination that there were discrepancies in the victim's story, that what he had said in court and in a recorded interview with a Nathan Weidner Children's Advocacy Center forensic interviewer was not consistent. After reviewing the recording of the teen's interview at Rupp's request, Bay County Chief District Judge Timothy J. Kelly bound Lijewski over to Circuit Court on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
It is often difficult to determine what really happened in situations alleging sexual misconduct, particularly when teens and alcohol/drugs are involved. As all Michigan sex crime lawyers are aware, an individual may be convicted of third-degree CSC if the alleged victim is between 13 and 16 years of age and sexual penetration occurs, according to Michigan's Penal Code 750.520d.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
Michigan Supreme Court Affirms Court of Appeals Judgment; Conviction for Criminal Sexual Conduct Overturned
On Tuesday June 18, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in a case involving a 25-year-old Bay City man convicted for sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl. David B. Burns' conviction was overturned in a unanimous 7-0 decision, the justices agreeing with a ruling made by the Michigan Court of Appeals in June of 2012 regarding hearsay statements which were allowed and admitted as evidence by the judge in Burns' trial.
In his April 2011 trial, Burns was found guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a person younger than 13 after the jury deliberated only an hour and a half. Burns was then sentenced by Bay County Chief Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Schmidt to 25 to 41 years in prison.
During Burns' trial, an associate minister of the church the 4-year-old girl attended, Viola Gonzales, testified that the little girl told her that the defendant was abusing her; Gonzales said that the girl went into "graphic" detail about the sexual assault. A news article at Mlive.com states that prosecutors in the case attempted on four occasions to get the girl to testify, but each time she refused to speak. The jury was allowed by Judge Schmidt to use Gonzales' testimony not as corroborating evidence, but as evidence of proof. Schmidt said that this was allowed because of an exception to the hearsay rule due to the alleged 4-year-old victim's unwillingness to testify, perhaps due to Burns telling her not to speak of the alleged sexual assault.
Additionally, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner testified to the fact that she performed a physical examination on the girl after being told she was abused, however conclusive evidence could not be obtained to substantiate the child's allegations.
Ultimately the Supreme Court admonished Schmidt for permitting Gonzales to testify on behalf of the alleged victim; the justices also agreed that it was not proven by prosecutors that the girl would not testify because the defendant had instructed her to keep quiet or intimidated her. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and has remanded Burns' case for a new trial.
Bay City attorney Edward M. Czuprynski who defended Burns said that his client is innocent, and that the entire case was a prosecution "built on a house of cards, on assumptions and hearsay."
Michigan criminal appeals attorneys would agree that the evidence in this case is questionable, and that the evidence allowed by the judge was hearsay. Every individual deserves the right to a fair trial.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
What is a Search Warrant?
It seems like the latest thing that I'm seeing a lot in my cases are search warrants. What exactly is a search warrant and how do you challenge a search warrant it? A search warrant is a court order that allows the police to be able to search or to take items related to a specific crime. Search warrants are commonly issued in DUI cases to try to obtain somebody's blood when they refuse a chemical test, or during the typical criminal case when an individual is suspected to have contraband or some sort of item that the police are wanting to obtain.
Search warrants can be issued to search any number of things including a person's vehicle, a person's home, a person's camper any sort of place where any sort of contraband could be found. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from having unlawful searches and seizures done on either their person or in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In those circumstances, police officers seeking to search those areas have to follow a few requirements for obtaining a warrant. The first requirement is that they must have probable cause that a crime is being or has been committed and the search warrant will help in the investigation. Once they feel they have probable cause they have to draft the search warrant and submitted to a judicial officer who will review it and decide whether or not to issue the warrant. The language in the search warrant must be specific as to both the items sought and the location to be searched. For example an officer who believes that there is drug paraphernalia located inside somebody's home will draft a search warrant that would allow them to look in anyplace inside that home where drug paraphernalia could be found. This would include dresser drawers, bookshelves, or under mattresses. However if the police were searching for a stolen motorboat, the search warrant would have to be sufficiently specific as to where that motorboat would be looking and officers would not be able to search in an area where motorboat couldn't be found, such as under a mattress. As a defense attorney there a few ways that we can challenge the validity of a search warrant. The first by attacking the probable cause the officer had to seek the search warrant in the first place. If there was no probable cause than the warrant should not have issued and any contraband that may have been found would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible. The second way to challenge a search warrant is to demonstrate that it lacks specificity as to what it is looking for. The officer has to be narrow it down so that is just not an end-all be-all type of search looking for anything and everything that can be found. They have to be looking for specific items that they feel helped or are part of the commission of a crime. Additionally it is not uncommon for officers to find other items of contraband while they are conducting their initial search that are outside the scope of the initial search warrant. If this circumstance occurs the officer should stop the search get a new warrant before continuing to search. If the officer fails to do that there is the potential to challenge search on the grounds of that search was outside the scope of the warrant. In short search warrants are an investigative tool that officers use to obtain information. However, it also becomes an additional avenue challenge a case in a court of law. If you were a loved one or friend has been charged with a criminal offense in the state of Arizona, feel free to give me a call to discuss your options at 480-331-7568 or you can reach me on my website at www.arizonaattorneykg.com
↧
Prosecutors Move for Partial Stay of Discovery in Steinberg SEC Insider Trading Case
Today, federal prosecutors moved to intervene in the SEC’s civil insider trading case against SAC Capital portfolio manager Michael Steinberg, seeking a limited stay of discovery in the SEC action. The government has filed a parallel criminal case against Steinberg based on his alleged insider trading in stocks of Dell and NVIDIA. That case is set for trial in November 2013. Federal prosecutors want to stay deposition and interrogatory discovery in the SEC case until the conclusion of the criminal trial. They based their request, in part, on the need to further the public’s “important interest in ensuring that civil...
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
