President Obama is speaking now.
There are unanswered questions. Why did these men resort to violence? How did they plan it? Did they receive help?
Public safety is at risk and we will investigate. We won't rush to judgment about their...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Obama Press Conference on Boston Bombing Suspect
↧
↧
Today, Saturday, DC Vote 4-20 Rally & Concert
Info on this Facebook link.![]()
↧
MT - Gallatin County officials react to new sex offender law
Original Article04/18/2013By JODI HAUSEN
A new law may have some convicted sexual offenders undergoing renewed scrutiny.
Gov. Steve Bullock signed House Bill 335 (PDF) into law this week, allowing prosecutors to have undesignated offenders re-evaluated for possible placement on the state’s tiered sexual offender system.
Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert said he plans to review about 50 undesignated offenders.
“Yes, I’m going to take a look at that list to see who’s appropriate for designation,” he said. “You bet. Particularly those with more of propensity to reoffend.”
The state adopted a three-tier system in 1997 for judges to assign offenders as Level 1, 2 or 3 based on a psycho-sexual evaluation.
Level 1 offenders are a low risk to reoffend, Level 2 moderate and Level 3 high. Level 3 offenders are also deemed sexually violent predators and a threat to public safety.
People sentenced before the 1997 law or in states without a tiered system have no designation and are treated as Level 1.
The new law will allow prosecutors to decide whether an undesignated sex offender should be listed at a higher level and be more closely monitored. Officers said they do regular address checks on offenders, particularly Level 3 offenders who are required to update their registration in-person every 90 days.
Bozeman Deputy Police Chief Rich McLane said there are 26 registered sex offenders in Bozeman. Of those, six are Level 1, six are Level 2 and 14 are undesignated.
But it’s “not an exact science as to how they are designated in the first place” and keeping track of them is really more critical, he said.
“It’s more important to know where they’re at, where they’re living and that they are complying with court conditions and not re-offending,” McLane said. “It’s not going to change what we do, but it’s going to change the public’s perception of the offender.”
The Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office monitors 46 sexual offenders, 26 undesignated.
Sheriff Brian Gootkin said he likes the new law because it will make offenders more accountable.
In Belgrade, where officers monitor 40 sex offenders, 25 undesignated, Sgt. Dustin Lensing also welcomed the change.
“It will be a useful tool because it will be good to get a handle on where they should be designated so we know how much of a risk they pose to the public,” he said. “Obviously, it’s our concern if there’s someone out there who is undesignated and should be designated at Level 3 and that person isn’t getting the stringent monitoring they should.”
Bozeman therapist Fred Lemons provides sex offender treatment and called the new law great.
The law could remove stigma from an undesignated offender who receives a low-risk, Level 1 designation, he said.© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Bringing Out The Worst In Us
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">These are the times that test us. Will we prove ourselves worthy?<br>
<br>
No one can dismiss that efforts of law enforcement in the capture of alleged Boston Marathon Bomber, murderer of 26-year-old MIT campus police officer Sean Collier, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. They
resisted the opportunity of killing him in a hail of return gunfire and took him alive. Such patience is unfortunately rare, and to be recognized.<br>
<br>
What becomes of him now? There are angry people who want him to hang high now, ...</font>
↧
Freispruch nach angeblicher Vergewaltigung im Rahmen eines Trinkgelages
Fünf russische Männer und zwei russische Frauen sollen mit großen Mengen Wodka in St. Mauritz gefeiert haben. Vor dem Landgericht Münster behauptete eine dieser Frauen nun, dass sie an diesem Abend vergewaltigt worden sei. Die 29-Jährige, die den 30-jährigen Angeklagten im Internet kennengelernt hatte, hatte nach eigenen Angaben damals zehn bis zwölf Gläser Wodka . . . → Read More: Freispruch nach angeblicher Vergewaltigung im Rahmen eines Trinkgelages
↧
↧
Chairing last meeting as Illinois State Bar Association's Chair of Standing Committee for Continuing Legal Education
This morning, I will chair the Illinois State Bar Association's Standing Committee on Continuing Legal Education's spring meeting. For two years, it has been my pleasure to serve in this position. The Illinois State Bar Association is one of the premier providers of continuing legal education. During my tenure as chair, the CLE committee has implemented the Board of Governors' manda [...]
↧
House-to-House Searches and the Fourth Amendment
Volokh Conspiracy: House-to-House Searches and the Fourth Amendment by Orin Kerr:
Current events in Boston raise the question of whether the Fourth Amendment allows the government to conduct house-to-house searches for an armed and dangerous suspect on the loose. Assume the police enter a home without consent searching for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; does the entry violate the Fourth Amendment? The answer depends on whether such home entries are “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, which requires a case-by-case balancing of the government’s interest in making the searches and the scope of the privacy invasion. The constitutional question would seem to depend on whether the searches are reasonably limited in scope (such as limited to a specific geographic area), the dangerousness of the suspect (here, very high), and the strength of the government’s case that the suspect may be in the area and cannot be caught another way. Fortunately there aren’t a lot of cases on anything like we’re seeing in Boston, at least as far as I could find. ...
Kerr notes that the suspect wouldn't have standing to contest the entry and arrest because of wrongful presence, and any civil case against the government by a homeowner would be lost on qualified immunity.
I thought the same thing watching it on TV yesterday. Add this: What would the founders have thought about a house to house search for a wanted terrorist? I don't think it would bother them at all on "reasonableness" because it's something that might happen once in a lifetime. Balancing need against scope of intrusion (akin to a protective sweep and then quickly gone to the next house), it would be reasonable. If they happened on a little dope in their house to house sweep would the police even care? No; they certainly don't have time to seize it and write a report. The homeowner gets a pass.
Kerr doesn't mention this memorable phrase from Justice Jackson in 1949 from Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 182-83, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting), which pretty much sums it up:
With this prologue I come to the case of Brinegar. His automobile was one of his "effects" and hence within the express protection of the Fourth Amendment. Undoubtedly the automobile presents peculiar problems for enforcement agencies, is frequently a facility for the perpetration of crime and an aid in the escape of criminals. But if we are to make judicial exceptions to the Fourth Amendment for these reasons, it seems to me they should depend somewhat upon the gravity of the offense. If we assume, for example, that a child is kidnaped and the officers throw a roadblock about the neighborhood and search every outgoing car, it would be a drastic and undiscriminating use of the search. The officers might be unable to show probable cause for searching any particular car. However, I should candidly strive hard to sustain such an action, executed fairly and in good faith, because it might be reasonable to subject travelers to that indignity if it was the only way to save a threatened life and detect a vicious crime. But I should not strain to sustain such a roadblock and universal search to salvage a few bottles of bourbon and catch a bootlegger.
↧
W.D.N.Y.: Questioning about drugs beyond the traffic infraction “d[id] not measurably extend the stop's duration”
Questioning about drugs beyond the traffic infraction “d[id] not measurably extend the stop's duration” under Arizona v. Johnson. United States v. Wiggins, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55151 (W.D. N.Y. April 16, 2013).*
Stop was justified by alleged speeding, despite the subjective reason of drug investigation. Reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Garreau, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55395 (D. S.D. April 18, 2013).*
Broken taillight justified defendant’s stop. Reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Poole, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55554 (N.D. Ill. April 18, 2013).*
Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that would lose. State v. Massey, 2013 Ohio 1521, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 1412 (10th Dist. April 16, 2013).*
“[F]ailure to file a frivolous motion to suppress can never constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” Aguirre v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55652 (D. S.D. April 18, 2013).*
↧
S.D.Fla.: 2255 so bad maybe USAO should consider perjury charges
Defendant would lose the search issue in his IAC claim on the merits of the search, as he should on all issues in it. As to the 2255 petition as a whole, it is rife with false statements, omissions, and documents of questionable origin, a recurring theme. “At the outset, the undersigned notes that the movant, a proactive litigant, has filed numerous pleadings and exhibits, some of questionable origin and authenticity, making allegations and representations that, when viewed in light of the entire evidence of record, are fraught with misrepresentations and/or omissions. The undersigned, however, takes no position on whether the information that has come to light in this proceeding should be subject to further investigation by the United States Attorney's Office, or whether the district court would recommend referral for further perjury and/or fraud proceedings.” Oh, and attorney-client privilege is waived. Garcon v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187686 (S.D. Fla. April 26, 2012):
[...] Read more!
↧
↧
Law.com: Judge, Counsel Tempers Flare at Stop-and-Frisk Trial
Law.com: Judge, Counsel Tempers Flare at Stop-and-Frisk Trial by Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal:
[...] Read more!
↧
D.Mass.: 72 hour psych ward hold didn't show defendant couldn't consent
The mere fact defendant was in a psychiatric ward on a 72 hour hold did not show that he couldn’t consent. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court credits the FBI agent that defendant knew what he was talking about and wasn’t psychotic at the time. United States v. Greer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54009 (D. Mass. March 26, 2013):
[...] Read more!
↧
TX: Defendant had standing in aunt's back yard where he kept his dogs
Defendant had standing to challenge the police entry into his aunt’s backyard. He used to live with her, but he moved out, and she let him keep his dogs in her back yard, and he came everyday with her permission to water and feed the dogs. The yard was fenced by a two wire fence on three sides and a neighbor’s privacy fence on the fourth. It was in her back yard. State v. Betts, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 705 (April 17, 2013).
Alaska requires a warrant for a two-party recording, not one party consent. A warrant that was shown to anticipate a drug deal was not overbroad because the police also learned about felon in possession of a firearm. Bearden v. State, 2013 Alas. App. LEXIS 44 (April 10, 2013).*
↧
Chicago Physician Facing Federal Charges For Illegally Prescribing Hydrocodone To A Hospital Patient Using Another Physician's DEA Number
A Chicago physician Dr. Kenneth S. Nave associated with Sacred Heart Hospital on the city’s west side was arrested on April 17, 2013 and is facing federal charges for allegedly illegally prescribing hydrocodone to a hospital patient without having a valid license and registration to prescribe controlled substances. Dr. Nave allegedly illegally used the Drug Enforcement Administration registration number of another physician when he prescribed the hydrocodone last December. There is no allegation that the prescription was not medically necessary.The public is reminded that a complaint is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.According to the federal complaint against Dr. Nave, the investigation has revealed that between at least November 2012 and February 25, 2013, he issued approximately 101 prescriptions for controlled substances to approximately 33 patients at Sacred Heart using the DEA registration issued to another physician. It is specifically alleged that on December 7, 2012, Dr. Nave allegedly prescribed a particular patient 90 pills containing hydrocodone, a narcotic controlled substance, using this other physician registration number.The illegal prescription count carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. Dr. Nave’s licensing status appears to have been a role in this case according to the affidavit. Dr. Nave’s Illinois license to practice medicine was suspended between 2002 and 2008. It was restored to probationary status on Dec. 20, 2012, but his state license to prescribe controlled substances was not restored until February 26, 2013, according to the complaint affidavit. Separately, Nave was not registered with the DEA to prescribe controlled substances but an application for DEA registration that was submitted on March 6, 2013 is pending, the affidavit adds.On April 18, 2013, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued an order suspending Nave’s license to practice medicine.This case is related to an investigation of Sacred Heart Hospital overall. On April 16, 2013, the owner and chief executive officer of Sacred Heart was arrested, along with the hospital’s chief financial officer and four physicians affiliated with the hospital on federal charges alleging a conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks in exchange for referral of Medicare and Medicaid patients to the hospital. Federal agents also executed search and seizure warrants as part of an ongoing investigation of Medicare fraud allegations involving medically unnecessary emergency room admissions and in-patient tracheotomy procedures.Any questions or comments should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced physican attorney, white collar criminal defense attorney and DEA attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com. The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in criminal matters in California and throughout the country. You can contact Ms. Green at 213-233-2260 or email her at tgreen@greenassoc.com. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com
↧
↧
Joe Guford Attorney Receives 19th Circuit Pro Bono Award
Joe Gufford, a Family Law Attorney in Martin Couny, received the 19th Judicial Circuit Pro Bono Service Award. Pictured are Joe Gufford and Chief Circuit Judge Steven J. Levin![]()
↧
A FEW WORDS ABOUT DZOKHAR TSARNAEV AND MIRANDA
A few words about Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Miranda. Last night, literally within minutes of the announcement that Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarneav had been arrested, certain news outlets (I noticed MSNBC) began reporting that police hadn’t read Tsarnaev his Miranda warnings. To some, this might have seemed an odd focus of media attention at [...]The post A FEW WORDS ABOUT DZOKHAR TSARNAEV AND MIRANDA appeared first on Ed Folsom.
↧
New Florida DUI Manslaughter Trial for Polo Mogul?
A columnist with the Sun-Sentinel recently penned an article he claimed pained him.
In it, he wrote that as much as he hated to say it, the wealthy businessman convicted of DUI manslaughter in the 2010 death of a 23-yaer-old college student deserved another round in the courtroom. ![gavel41.jpg]()
Our Broward DUI manslaughter defense attorneys know that even if an appellate court agrees to the defense's request, it's the kind of opportunity defendants rarely get. That's why it's so critical for defendants to get it right the first time, with a defense attorney who is experienced, skilled and tireless in his approach.
The reason this case may result in another trial has little to do with the facts of the case itself, and a lot to do with the actions of one of the jurors.
The facts of this case have been well-publicized. The defendant, who is a multimillionaire polo magnate, reportedly had been drinking prior to getting in his vehicle and striking another vehicle, driven by a 23-year-old man, whose vehicle ended up in a canal, where he drowned. The defendant reportedly drove away without calling for help.
The conviction was handed down a year ago.
But the juror in question has been quite busy since then. He has written a string of self-published books. In one of those, the juror revealed that he had conducted his own at-home drinking experiment during the deliberation phase of the trial. He consumed as much vodka as the defendant was alleged to have consumed. Part of the defense's argument had been that while the defendant had been drinking, he was not actually intoxicated. The juror set out to find out for himself how intoxicated one might be after consuming that much.
There are so many problems with this, it's hard to know where to begin. First, jurors are only supposed to decide a case based on the evidence before them. They aren't supposed to be conducting their own investigations in the midst of the trial.
Secondly, an at-home experiment like this lends itself to a great deal of inaccuracy. Even slight physical differences between the two could mean that one person could consume a certain amount and not be inebriated, while the other clearly might be. Tolerance levels might affect this as well, depending on how much alcohol each individual regularly drank.
Defense lawyers recognized this and requested a new trial - especially after other jurors said that this one had mentioned in during the course of deliberations.
Then, in a second publication, this same juror revealed that his former wife had once been under arrest for DUI. This was something he did not mention during the jury selection.
As the Sentinel columnist points out, the defense team has been grasping at whatever straws are available to try to get this conviction overturned, as it carries a 16-year prison sentence. However, this one juror and his improprieties may hold the key to actually getting this man a new trial.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for later this month.
The bottom line is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. It's our job to make sure you get one.
If this defendant did not receive one, he deserves to have another day in court.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Our Broward DUI manslaughter defense attorneys know that even if an appellate court agrees to the defense's request, it's the kind of opportunity defendants rarely get. That's why it's so critical for defendants to get it right the first time, with a defense attorney who is experienced, skilled and tireless in his approach.
The reason this case may result in another trial has little to do with the facts of the case itself, and a lot to do with the actions of one of the jurors.
The facts of this case have been well-publicized. The defendant, who is a multimillionaire polo magnate, reportedly had been drinking prior to getting in his vehicle and striking another vehicle, driven by a 23-year-old man, whose vehicle ended up in a canal, where he drowned. The defendant reportedly drove away without calling for help.
The conviction was handed down a year ago.
But the juror in question has been quite busy since then. He has written a string of self-published books. In one of those, the juror revealed that he had conducted his own at-home drinking experiment during the deliberation phase of the trial. He consumed as much vodka as the defendant was alleged to have consumed. Part of the defense's argument had been that while the defendant had been drinking, he was not actually intoxicated. The juror set out to find out for himself how intoxicated one might be after consuming that much.
There are so many problems with this, it's hard to know where to begin. First, jurors are only supposed to decide a case based on the evidence before them. They aren't supposed to be conducting their own investigations in the midst of the trial.
Secondly, an at-home experiment like this lends itself to a great deal of inaccuracy. Even slight physical differences between the two could mean that one person could consume a certain amount and not be inebriated, while the other clearly might be. Tolerance levels might affect this as well, depending on how much alcohol each individual regularly drank.
Defense lawyers recognized this and requested a new trial - especially after other jurors said that this one had mentioned in during the course of deliberations.
Then, in a second publication, this same juror revealed that his former wife had once been under arrest for DUI. This was something he did not mention during the jury selection.
As the Sentinel columnist points out, the defense team has been grasping at whatever straws are available to try to get this conviction overturned, as it carries a 16-year prison sentence. However, this one juror and his improprieties may hold the key to actually getting this man a new trial.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for later this month.
The bottom line is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. It's our job to make sure you get one.
If this defendant did not receive one, he deserves to have another day in court.
↧
The CFAA on trial - the latest from the Nosal case on remand
Vanessa Blum from The Recorder has been covering the Nosal trial almost in its entirety. Her coverage has been fantastic, and can be found further below. We have also written extensively on the case for over a year. Our previous posts (for reference) can be found here:9th Circuit Related Posts:
4/11/2012 - Jeffrey Brown, Ninth Circuit en banc adopts narrow reading of CFAA
4/16/2012 - Justin P. Webb, Why Nosal's dissent is surprisingly persuasiveNosal on Remand Post:
3/13/2013 - Justin P. Webb, Nosal on remand - another reading of CFAA's "exceeds authorized access"; court denies motion to dismissVanessa's ongoing coverage can be found here:
4/5/2013 - Amid Calls for Reform, a Rare Trial of Hacking Law
4/9/2013 - Lawyer Takes Stand in Hacking Case
4/15/2013 - Prosecutors Get Key Testimony From Ex-Lover in Hacking Trial
4/17/2013 - What Does 'Nosal' Mean for Nosal?
4/19/2013 - Korn/Ferry Hacking Case Sent to Jury![]()
↧
↧
D.C. Drug Sentence Minimums Fought by Mom of Convicted Twins
Back in the spring of 1998, two young brothers, twins, were gearing up for graduation with political science degrees. They had plans to attend law school together, and from their go into practice with one another. ![hand cuffs.jpg]()
It was not to be.
Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that the two were swept up in a wave of anti-drug sentiment, accompanied by harsh drug laws that unfairly targeted and punished young, minority males.
Their mother was recently profiled in The Washington Post for activism efforts to educate the community on unfair sentencing laws and other aspects of the D.C. criminal justice system.
It started when a nearby auto repair shop business owner had confessed to dealing drugs. He implicated the twins in a conspiracy plot that involved some 500 grams of crack cocaine and 10 kilos of the powder form of the drug.
U.S. Marshals arrived at the door of the home the two shared. The home was searched. There were no drugs. There was no money.
And yet, the two were convicted in a joint trial, with one receiving 15.5 years and the other receiving 19.5 years.
The drug dealer who had implicated them? The stiff anti-drug laws in the 1980s meant that his "substantial assistance" to the government in those cases meant he got a major break on his own sentence.
Laws governing the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine crimes were handed down back when the crack epidemic was sweeping the country.
Despite the fact that these two were college-educated, had no criminal backgrounds, the evidence against them slim and the witness against them questionable, the minimum mandatory guidelines meant they would not walk out of prison in under 15 years.
There was a law passed in 1994 that would have allowed for significantly-reduced sentences for offenders who committed first-time crimes. However, that would have required that the brothers give information that was "complete and truthful," according to the government's definition. Problem was, the brothers had always maintained that the truth was, they were innocent.
The twins' mother decided she could not rest until wrongs like this were righted. Not only did she want her sons free, but she wanted to ensure such unfair sentencing wouldn't continue to hurt others in the future.
She told her story over and over again - with the Open Society Institute, the Justice Policy Alliance and the Sentencing Project. She joined Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She lobbied Congress for a change in the laws. She hosted her own online radio program from her kitchen, detailing all the injustices of the day stemming from minimum mandatory guidelines.
Then, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges should not be subjected to mandatory sentencing guidelines. Two years later, another legislative tweak in the law with regard to crack cocaine sentencing meant that her sons were able to have their sentenced reduced by 3 and 4 years respectively.
But it wasn't until 2010 that Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which put sentencing for crack cocaine offenses more in line with others of equal caliber.
By that time, however, one of the twins was already at home and another was soon to arrive.
Now, the pair are working to rebuild their lives. They have found jobs. They are slowly trying to pick up the pieces.
Meanwhile, their mother continues their activism, refusing to shy away now that her sons have returned.
We applaud her continued dedication.
While the sentencing laws have changed dramatically, drug offenses still carry significant weight. Hiring an experienced lawyer is critical in these cases, where you could still potentially be facing years behind bars.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
It was not to be.
Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that the two were swept up in a wave of anti-drug sentiment, accompanied by harsh drug laws that unfairly targeted and punished young, minority males.
Their mother was recently profiled in The Washington Post for activism efforts to educate the community on unfair sentencing laws and other aspects of the D.C. criminal justice system.
It started when a nearby auto repair shop business owner had confessed to dealing drugs. He implicated the twins in a conspiracy plot that involved some 500 grams of crack cocaine and 10 kilos of the powder form of the drug.
U.S. Marshals arrived at the door of the home the two shared. The home was searched. There were no drugs. There was no money.
And yet, the two were convicted in a joint trial, with one receiving 15.5 years and the other receiving 19.5 years.
The drug dealer who had implicated them? The stiff anti-drug laws in the 1980s meant that his "substantial assistance" to the government in those cases meant he got a major break on his own sentence.
Laws governing the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine crimes were handed down back when the crack epidemic was sweeping the country.
Despite the fact that these two were college-educated, had no criminal backgrounds, the evidence against them slim and the witness against them questionable, the minimum mandatory guidelines meant they would not walk out of prison in under 15 years.
There was a law passed in 1994 that would have allowed for significantly-reduced sentences for offenders who committed first-time crimes. However, that would have required that the brothers give information that was "complete and truthful," according to the government's definition. Problem was, the brothers had always maintained that the truth was, they were innocent.
The twins' mother decided she could not rest until wrongs like this were righted. Not only did she want her sons free, but she wanted to ensure such unfair sentencing wouldn't continue to hurt others in the future.
She told her story over and over again - with the Open Society Institute, the Justice Policy Alliance and the Sentencing Project. She joined Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She lobbied Congress for a change in the laws. She hosted her own online radio program from her kitchen, detailing all the injustices of the day stemming from minimum mandatory guidelines.
Then, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges should not be subjected to mandatory sentencing guidelines. Two years later, another legislative tweak in the law with regard to crack cocaine sentencing meant that her sons were able to have their sentenced reduced by 3 and 4 years respectively.
But it wasn't until 2010 that Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which put sentencing for crack cocaine offenses more in line with others of equal caliber.
By that time, however, one of the twins was already at home and another was soon to arrive.
Now, the pair are working to rebuild their lives. They have found jobs. They are slowly trying to pick up the pieces.
Meanwhile, their mother continues their activism, refusing to shy away now that her sons have returned.
We applaud her continued dedication.
While the sentencing laws have changed dramatically, drug offenses still carry significant weight. Hiring an experienced lawyer is critical in these cases, where you could still potentially be facing years behind bars.
↧
Levin: 'Look Askance Before You Enhance'
The headline to this post is the title of a two-page policy brief from Marc Levin at the Texas Public Policy Foundation giving legislators guidance when considering new criminal penalty enhancements. Here are the questions Levin says legislators should be asking. (See the full document for more detail.)Have sentences already gotten tougher?Is there evidence that current penalties are ineffective?Will an enhancement deter the conduct?Does the enhancement reduce the discretion of judges, juries and corrections officials?Will the enhancement make the penalty for the offense more or less commensurate with other penalties?Are there other solutions?This is a sequel to his 2011 document, "Analyze Before You Criminalize."Please use the comments to suggest other potential, rhyming titles along these themes for Marc's 2015 edition, e.g., "Don't enhance with insouciance," or "New crime weaning time."
↧
Concerned Citizen can Be Basis for a Traffic (and DUI) Stop in Florida
Most traffic stops, whether it is just a traffic ticket situation or one that leads to criminal charges like DUI or possession of drugs, result from a police officer claiming to observe a person violate some traffic law. It is not common for police officers to make a traffic stop based on prior information with the exception of certain drug investigations. However, a police officer may be permitted to stop a driver based on a tip from a concerned citizen.
A traffic stop is considered a seizure under the Constitution. This means that a police officer cannot conduct a traffic stop without specific, reliable evidence of criminal activity or at least a traffic violation. As indicated, normally that comes from a patrol officer's own alleged observations. Less often, police officers will follow up on information provided by a concerned citizen who has flagged down an officer or called 911. The question then is whether the police officer is permitted to stop a person based on such a tip.
In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, a driver called 911 and said that a suspect was driving recklessly on the highway and almost went off the road a few times. The caller gave specific information about the suspect's vehicle and also provided her own name and contact information. A police officer responded and stopped the suspect. This ultimately led to a DUI arrest of the suspect.
The criminal defense attorney moved to suppress any evidence of the DUI based on the argument that the initial stop was not valid. The criminal defense lawyer argued that the police officer did not observe the suspect drive recklessly or violate any traffic laws so he could not stop the suspect based on an uncorroborated tip from a citizen. There was no way for the police officer to determine if the citizen's information was reliable or the citizen had some other motive to call the police on the suspect.
The court disagreed and determined the stop was lawful. The court held that there are times when an uncorroborated tip can be sufficient for a police officer to make a traffic stop. In this case, the information could indicate that the driver was driving while impaired from drugs or alcohol, i.e. DUI. Therefore, the police officer had a right to investigate both to see if a crime was being committed and also to determine if the suspect or other drivers might be in danger. As for the reliability of the information, if the citizen made an anonymous call, there is a good chance the stop would have been illegal. However, since the citizen provided her name and contact information, this lended more credibility to the caller's information under the law.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
