Defendant was in a rental 4Runner than the police had found large quantities of marijuana in before, rented from a rental agency that seemed to cater to drug traffickers. The movements of the vehicle when being followed was reasonable suspicion that it had picked up drugs for delivery. United States v. Brown, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28459 (D. Ariz. January 4, 2013).* [How often can the exact same vehicle be found with drugs in it? At what point does the presence of the vehicle itself provide reasonable suspicion? Ever? Never?]
Seeing somebody reach in defendant’s car was consistent here with a hand-to-hand drug transaction, particularly since the officer saw one in the same spot three weeks earlier. State v. Twinam, 2013 Ohio 720, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 639 (2d Dist. March 1, 2013).*
Similarly, reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a car going to a regular drug house for a pickup. State v. Roth, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 258 (February 27, 2013).*
D.Ariz.: Same rental car with drugs twice before seen again; reasonable suspicion based on route driven
↧
↧
Staatsanwaltschaft ermittelt wegen möglichem Betrug mit Bio-Eiern
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg ermittelt gegen hunderte Landwirtschaftsbetriebe wegendes Verdachts des Betrugs. Die Bio-Höfe sollen mehr Hühner in ihren Ställen gehalten haben, als es nach den Bio-Vorgaben erlaubt gewesen sei. Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat deswegen bereits mehrere Betriebe durchsucht. Es soll um Millionen falsch deklarierter Eier gehen. Rund jeder fünfte Betrieb in Niedersachsen ist von den . . . → Read More: Staatsanwaltschaft ermittelt wegen möglichem Betrug mit Bio-EiernÄhnliche Beiträge:Umsatzsteuerbetrug: Staatsanwaltschaft ermittelt gegen…Mutmaßlicher Millionenbetrug mit MedikamentenBetrug: Staatsanwaltschaft ermittelt gegen ErgoKrankenkassen decken 53.000 Fälle des Abrechnungsbetrugs…Steuerhinterziehung: Dolce & Gabbana drohen…
↧
Rolling the Crazy Dice
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">When James Holmes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting" target="">shot up a theater full of people</a> at the midnight
showing of <em>The Dark Knight Rises</em>, killing 12 and wounding 58, in Aurora, Colorado, most immediately thought the dude had to be insane. Who else but a crazy person would commit
such an atrocity?<br>
<br>
But as any criminal lawyer knows, crazy isn't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense" target="">legally insane</a>. Under Colorado law, which was changed in 1995 following the
attempted assassination ...</font>
↧
The Lowest Comment Denominator
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">This is a shameful navel gazing post about blawging and its love/hate relationship with other forms of social media. If it's not of interest, don't
waste your time reading any further.<br>
<br>
Following a <a href="http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/03/02/can-live-survive.aspx" target="">post yesterday</a>, there were a bunch of comments on twitter. I responded as I typically do, with my
not-quite-subtle point that comments about a post would be better made in the comments to the post rather than twitter. There may also be comments ...</font>
↧
DONATE TO ZUKERBERG’S CAMPAIGN TO REFORM DC MARIJUANA LAWS
Marijuana law reform is coming to DC – if you can help. A special election for DC Council is set for April 23, 2013. Paul Zukerberg needs your support to bring marijuana law reform to our nation’s capital. If you believe that current law, which criminalizes possession of personal use amounts of marijuana, is counterproductive [...]![]()
↧
↧
PLEASE HELP PAUL BRING MARIJUANA LAW REFORM TO OUR NATION’S CAPITAL
Paul Zukerberg is running for DC Council in an April 23, 2013 special election. He needs your support to bring marijuana law reform to DC, and later Maryland and Virginia too. Please show your support by donating to his campaign at www.zukerbergatlarge.com Donations can be made by PayPal, Visa or Mastercard. With your help, we [...]![]()
↧
Cal.4: Exclusionary rule does not apply in sexually violent predator proceedings
The exclusionary rule does not apply in SVP proceedings. Here, the DA acquired boxes of information about the defendant years after the conviction and even proceeded in court for authority to open the boxes and whether defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is not a criminal proceeding, and the need to deter is gone. People v. Landau, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 158 (4th Dist. February 7, 2013), published March 1, 2013:
[...] Read more!
↧
Austin Post interviews Grits
For anyone interested, the Austin Post published an interview with me last week about the blog. Check it out.
↧
D.C. Motion to Suppress Proves Valuable in Murder Case Ending in Mistrial
A mistrial has been declared in the case of a Prince George County defendant charged with double murder. ![gavel22.jpg]()
Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand that, as is so often the case with mistrials, a technical error was to blame. Specifically, the matter goes back to a suppression of evidence hearing, with a defense request granted, followed by a prosecution witness who then violated that agreement.
According to The Washington Post, the 30-year-old was on trial for two second-degree murder charges, accused of strangling to death two women - mother and daughter - during a home invasion robbery. Prior to the start of the trial, defense attorneys requested that evidence of other home invasions in which the defendant may have been involved should be suppressed, as it would unduly prejudice the jury against him and it wasn't necessarily relevant to the case at hand.
The judge agreed, but did say that prosecutors would be allowed to put forth evidence of one other home invasion involving the defendant - but that was it.
However, a federal agent who took the stand for the prosecution and under questioning mentioned multiple home invasions involving the defendant.
That was enough for the judge to declare a mistrial - something even prosecutors would later say was the right decision.
While none of this matters a whole lot to the defendant in this case - he's already been sentenced to more than 100 years in prison in connection with a separate federal case for the home invasions - such an incident could matter a great deal for you. It illustrates why it's critical for your defense attorney, when preparing for trial, to push for the blockage of as much information as possible.
First of all, the less prosecutors have to work with, the weaker their case. Secondly, approval of such motions give us better grounds on which to challenge prosecutorial overreach or sweeping statements by witnesses.
There a number of ways that your defense attorney might raise a request for evidence suppression.
One of those ways regards the way in which that evidence was collected in the first place. If law enforcement somehow illegally obtained the evidence being used against you, it would fall under the exclusionary rule. For example, if you officers continued to press you for a confession even after your clearly stated your desire for an attorney , it's likely we could have anything you said after that point suppressed. Likewise, if officers entered and searched your home without a warrant, anything they found there might be subject to suppression.
This is sometimes referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. That is, if an officer searches you illegally and finds drugs in your pocket, the "poisonous tree" is the illegal search and the drugs are the "fruit" - and your defense attorney should seek to get it tossed. That could mean dismissal of the entire case, depending on the circumstances.
Another way a judge might decide that evidence should be suppressed is if prosecutors intentionally or improperly hide it from the defense prior to trial. This is rare, but it does happen and it's a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which means it's likely to result in a mistrial.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand that, as is so often the case with mistrials, a technical error was to blame. Specifically, the matter goes back to a suppression of evidence hearing, with a defense request granted, followed by a prosecution witness who then violated that agreement.
According to The Washington Post, the 30-year-old was on trial for two second-degree murder charges, accused of strangling to death two women - mother and daughter - during a home invasion robbery. Prior to the start of the trial, defense attorneys requested that evidence of other home invasions in which the defendant may have been involved should be suppressed, as it would unduly prejudice the jury against him and it wasn't necessarily relevant to the case at hand.
The judge agreed, but did say that prosecutors would be allowed to put forth evidence of one other home invasion involving the defendant - but that was it.
However, a federal agent who took the stand for the prosecution and under questioning mentioned multiple home invasions involving the defendant.
That was enough for the judge to declare a mistrial - something even prosecutors would later say was the right decision.
While none of this matters a whole lot to the defendant in this case - he's already been sentenced to more than 100 years in prison in connection with a separate federal case for the home invasions - such an incident could matter a great deal for you. It illustrates why it's critical for your defense attorney, when preparing for trial, to push for the blockage of as much information as possible.
First of all, the less prosecutors have to work with, the weaker their case. Secondly, approval of such motions give us better grounds on which to challenge prosecutorial overreach or sweeping statements by witnesses.
There a number of ways that your defense attorney might raise a request for evidence suppression.
One of those ways regards the way in which that evidence was collected in the first place. If law enforcement somehow illegally obtained the evidence being used against you, it would fall under the exclusionary rule. For example, if you officers continued to press you for a confession even after your clearly stated your desire for an attorney , it's likely we could have anything you said after that point suppressed. Likewise, if officers entered and searched your home without a warrant, anything they found there might be subject to suppression.
This is sometimes referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. That is, if an officer searches you illegally and finds drugs in your pocket, the "poisonous tree" is the illegal search and the drugs are the "fruit" - and your defense attorney should seek to get it tossed. That could mean dismissal of the entire case, depending on the circumstances.
Another way a judge might decide that evidence should be suppressed is if prosecutors intentionally or improperly hide it from the defense prior to trial. This is rare, but it does happen and it's a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which means it's likely to result in a mistrial.
↧
↧
Federal Judges Consider Alternative Sentencing in Drug Cases
Some thought it would never happen. Others thought it was inevitable. Regardless, the time is upon us. Federal judges are turning to drug courts and deferred prosecutions in drug cases, a policy that...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Florida Trafficking in Hydrocodone Case Gets Reversed Due to Prescription Defense
In a recent trafficking in Hydrocodone case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police executed a search warrant at the defendant's home and found a pill bottle with pain pills beside his bed. The pill bottle indicated they were prescribed to the defendant's mother who was not present at the time. They also found cocaine in a different room. The defendant was charged with trafficking on hydrocodone and possession with intent to sell cocaine.
At the trial, the defendant's mother testified that she injured her back and obtained the prescription for Hydrocodone from her doctor. She left the pills at her son's house when she recently visited him. The state's position was that they only had to prove that the defendant possessed the Hydrocodone knowing that the pills were in fact Hydrocodone. However, there is a defense to possessing prescription drugs. If the defendant can establish that he had a valid prescription for the pills, he would not be guilty of trafficking in Hydrocodone. This defense would also apply to someone else who had a valid prescription for the pain pills who gave the defendant authority to possess them. For instance, if a wife had a valid prescription for pain pills and kept them in her purse and asked her husband to hold her purse while she helped the kids, the husband would be in possession of hydrocodone, possibly a trafficking amount, without a valid prescription. Obviously, in that situation, the husband would not be guilty of trafficking in hydrocodone because he had the wife's authority to possess the pills, although we have seen the state try for a conviction in similar circumstances.
Additionally, what if someone's mother went out, forgot her pain pills, had a flare up and called her son to pick up her pills from home and take them to her? If the son was stopped by police for speeding and the police officer found the pain pills in a bottle with someone else's name on it, you can be sure there is a good chance that police officer would be looking to make an arrest for illegal possession of the pain pills or trafficking. At that point, it would be a credibility contest where a lot would be riding on whether a jury believed the son and the mother. But that is the nature of things during the never-ending war on drugs.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Corrections Corporation of America's legal settlements are subject to TN Open Records law.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled that Corrections Corporation of America's legal settlements are subject to the state Open Records law (opinion).In a ruling filed on Feb. 28, the court said it disagreed with CCAs assertion that the company shouldn't have to turn over settlement-related records because they aren't part of the "official business" of running a prison.The request for settlement agreements from CCA was part of a public records request made in 2007 by Alex Friedmann, the editor of Prison Legal News.The company turned over some documents after a 2009 Appeals Court ruling that CCA is subject to the state's Open Records law, but the legal settlements weren't included.CCA argued that the settlements didn't fall under the statute's definition of a public record and that because they were created for litigation — not the running of the prison — they weren't subject to the law.The court rejected both arguments. Here is the full opinion.
↧
Case o' The Week: The Fruits of One's Labor - Davis, Resitution, and Forfeiture
Take a bunch of apples from a farmer, then take the same number of oranges, and you’ve doubled the size of your fruit basket. But, “[m]oney levied as a punitive fine does not ‘double’ the money intended to compensate a loss anymore than the addition of apples to one’s store doubles the orange stock.” United States v. Davis, 2013 WL 387908 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013), decision available here.If you’re the Ninth Circuit, forfeiture and restitution are apples and oranges. If you’re the farmer, just feels like you’ve lost a lot of fruit.Players: Decision by Sr. Judge Wallace. Concurring opinion by Judge Berzon, joined by Judge Thomas. Facts: At the request of undercover FBI agents, Davis laundered money and took a percentage of the funds as his cut. Id.at *1. By the time of the indictment, Davis had laundered over $1.2 million, and kept around $73,000 for his efforts. Id.When convicted, Davis was ordered to pay over $95,000 in restitution to the FBI. Id. After some procedural wrangling, the district court alsoimposed a criminal in personam forfeiture judgment against Davis of $1,290,000. Id. Issue(s): “Davis's only argument on appeal is that his forfeiture amount should be offset by his restitution amount to avoid a double recovery by the government.” Id. “Davis argues that, because the FBI is essentially a part of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the two entities are functionally the same. Thus, he argues, requiring him to pay forfeiture to the DOJ and restitution to the FBI will result in an impermissible double recovery for the government.” Id.Held: “[W]e [have previously] stated that requiring a defendant to pay both forfeiture and restitution would not, on its own, result in double recovery. However, because the victims of the crimes in that case were private financial institutions, we did not address the issue of whether payment of both forfeiture and restitution to the government created an impermissible double recovery. . . . We now address that question.” Id. at *2 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “Even if the same government entity will receive both forfeiture and restitution, there simply is no double recovery. The two payments represent different types of funds: punitive and compensatory. They are different in nature, kind, and purpose. Money levied as a punitive fine does not ‘double’ the money intended to compensate a loss anymore than the addition of apples to one's store doubles the orange stock. Nor is the collection of forfeiture and restitution based on the same crime an impermissible doubling insofar as a defendant is concerned. . . . It is therefore irrelevant to what extent the FBI and the DOJ are distinct entities, and the district court did not clearly err when it did not offset Davis's forfeiture amount.” Id. (citation omitted).Of Note: The Fifth, the Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have all held or implied that “if two government entities are related closely enough, restitution or forfeiture should be reduced” to avoid double payment. Id.at *2. (E.g., restitution to the FBI and forfeitureto its parent agency, DOJ, see chart here.). Judge Wallace pulls the Ninth away from these three courts: our Circuit appears to stand alone in allowing a single federal entity to twice collect. Id. As noted above, Judge Wallace sees no double counting because a dollar taken for forfeiture is different than a dollar taken for restitution. (A distinction that may be lost on our clients). How to Use: In a concurring opinion, Judge Berzon (joined by Judge Thomas) writes to note the “narrowness of our holding.” Id.at *3. Judge Berzon notes that Davis was ordered to forfeit $1.29 million, the money that he laundered for the FBI. Id.at *3-*4. She correctly observes, however, that Davis only kept roughly $73,000 as his fee. Id. at *3. Why Davis was ordered to forfeit money he “never had in the first place” is a mystery to Judges Berzon and Thomas (and to us!) Id.at *3. Judge Berzon therefore leaves “to another day the question whether a defendant who essentially is paid a commission on other people's money he handles as part of an illegal scheme can be made to ‘forfeit’ funds that passed through his hands but, it appears, were never his.” Id. at *4. For Further Reading: Wondering how sequestration will impact the defense of indigent clients, for Federal Public Defenders and Criminal Justice Act attorneys? For a thoughtful description of this budget reduction and its impact on one district, see the letter from Executive Director Daniel Stiller, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., available here. Image of apples and oranges from http://anyaworksmart.com/2013/02/04/comparing-the-incomparable/Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender, N.D. Cal. (Refreshed!) website at www.ndcalfpd.org , thanks to AFPD Candis Mitchell ..
↧
↧
NY - What is the real agenda?
Original Article03/03/2013
Why was my family used to try to make a legal precedent? The reason why is that their hasn’t been a case yet were any class of people, because of there mere presence was considered neglect so that CPS can take your children. Just for you being with your family. This is being done all over the country to veterans also. How long before this precedent get turned on gun owners as well as other classes of people.Video Link© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues![]()
↧
"Should defendants’ age, health issues be sentencing factors?"
The question in the title of this post is the sub-heading of this notable article appearing in my own local Columbus Dispatch, which carries the main headline "Seniors argue for less time in prison." Here are excerpts: Is prison more...
↧
Sequester Cuts: Payments to Medicare Doctors
Due to the sequester, doctors face a 2% cut in Medicare reimbursements:
The bottom line is that doctors who treat Medicare beneficiaries will only be reimbursed 98 cents on every dollar for a...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
RI DUI Attorney Matthew Marin Announces a NOT GUILTY VERDICT on Behalf of a Client Facing a Charge of Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test
Attorney Matthew T. Marin announces a NOT GUILTY verdict for a client facing the charge of refusal to submit to a chemical breath test. If you need assistance or are facing Rhode Island Drunk Driving or Breathalyzer Refusal Charges, contact Attorney Matthew T. Marin at 401-228-8271 or mm@matthewtmarin.com.CHARGE: REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST (First Offense)POLICE REPORT: A local Police Officer was on routine patrol on Route 95 North in the City of Warwick at 1:45 a.m. The Officer observed a vehicle traveling in the high speed travel lane swerve multiple times over the yellow fog line. As the suspect vehicle approached Exit 14 and the Route 37 overpass the Officer initiated a motor vehicle stop. Upon speaking with the operator, the Client, the Officer detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from her breath and her eyes appeared to be bloodshot and watery. As they spoke, the Officer observed the Client to have slurred speech. The Client was asked to step from the vehicle and submit to a battery of field sobriety tests. Three tests were conducted: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Walk and Turn, and the One-Leg Stand. According to the Officer, the Client failed all three phases of the field sobriety tests. She was arrested and transported to the Police Station. At the Police Station, the Officer requested the Client to submit to a chemical breath test to determine whether if she was intoxicated. The Client refused to submit to the chemical test at the Officer’s direction and was charged with refusal to submit to a chemical test in violation of R.I.G.L. Section 31-27-2.1. RESULT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL on February 25th, 2013 based upon the fact that the arresting officer, a Warwick Police Officer, conducted his DUI investigation and arrest in the City of Cranston which is outside of his lawful jurisdiction (See Map for location of pursuit and arrest)For More Information About Our Rhode Island Drunk Driving Defense Lawyers Visit Our Website at: www.matthewtmarin.com/Rhode_Island_DUI_Defense_Lawyer.html![]()
↧
↧
Cook County jail overcrowding: inmate population almost at maximum capacity
10,136. That’s the maximum number of inmates the Cook County jail can hold. And according to Sheriff Tom Dart, the jail has almost reached that limit. Jail administrators are concerned because the while the jail is not yet at capacity right now, the population swells during the summer months when more offenders are arrested. The [...]
↧
Drug courts come to federal system (and New York Times' front page)
Regular readers know about the drug courts movement and its (varied but still very important) success as an alternative means to process certain drug offenders through the modern criminal justice system. But, thanks to this big new front-page article in...
↧
Sunday Open Thread
I'm spending today getting acquainted with my new iMac. Since syncing has always been a problem for me -- I always end up erasing something I want to save or with outdated versions of my contacts...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
