Archive for the ‘News’ Category

US Supreme Court: Arizona v. Gant

Before the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant, police could arrest you and then search your car for “officer safety.”  The reasoning, from a previous Supreme Court ruling (New York v. Belton), was that an arrestee standing near the car might reach into the vehicle to grab a weapon and injure the police officer.

Many legal scholars and attorneys thought that this standard failed to meet the standard of probable cause.  That is, after arresting someone, the police officers wouldn’t have probable cause to search the vehicle because the arrestee wouldn’t have access to the vehicle.

Thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling, police officers cannot simply arrest someone and then search the car.  The only way police can search an arrestee’s car is if they reasonably believe that (1) the arrested individual might access the vehicle at the time of the search; or (2) the arrested individual’s vehicle contains evidence of the offense that led to the arrest.

Remember, if you are arrested and police ask to search your car, refuse!  If they do search the car without your consent, do not argue and let them.  This is a legal issue that can be dealt with later by your attorney.

When dealing with the police remember the three golden rules:
1. Don’t trust or believe the police.
2. Don’t resist being handcuffed.
3. Don’t say a damn thing.

News: DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated

Jesse, on the topic of  News
0comment
Photo: j / f / photos

Photo: j / f / photos

The New York Times recently reported on a recent study published in Forensic Science International: Genetics.  The scientists concluded that DNA evidence can be fabricated and is not as reliable as we once thought.

What does this mean for criminal defense?  A jury is likely to seek and believe the results of DNA evidence.  If fabricated DNA evidence is presented and believed, innocent people will be sent to prison.  The good news is that most people who commit crimes will not go to the trouble of fabricating DNA evidence.  The bad news is that people who can afford the fabrication might be able to frame innocent people.

Utah Supreme Court overturns 20-year-old rape conviction

Jesse, on the topic of  News
0comment

The Utah Supreme Court overruled the conviction of a man who was convicted of raping a woman over twenty years ago.  The Court found that the defendant’s rights were trampled on and he now deserves a new trial.

Three days before the defendant’s trial in 1988, his attorney quit and went to work for the Utah County Prosecutor’s office (the same office that was prosecuting the defendant).  After being appointed another attorney, the defendant was convicted and his attorney was replaced to work on his appeal.  His attorney changed again, and then again.  The defendant’s appeal was ultimately dismissed because his fourth attorney did not file a brief to the court.  Finally, the defendant had a fifth attorney who succeeded in his appeal to get the defendant resentenced.

However, the Utah Supreme Court wrote in their opinion, “[f]or nearly ten years, McClellan remained unaware he had been resentenced and was once again able to exercise his right to appeal his conviction of sixteen years earlier.  McClellan was not made aware of the resentencing order until the spring of 2004…”

The defendant had a string of bad attorneys who mismanaged his case.   The defendant, now granted a new trial, has sat in prison for twenty years because the five attorneys he had did not manage his case well.

The lesson in his case is that a defendant must hire an excellent attorney to ensure that their rights will not be trampled on.

The case is State v. McClellan, 2009 UT 50.

School Strip Searches: Supreme Court says Illegal

Jesse, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, News
0comment
Photo: swissrolli

Photo: swissrolli

Fourth Amendment rights when they strip searched her to look for prescription-strength ibuprofen.  The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches.  In this case, school officials ordered the student to take off her clothes and show them the inside of her underwear.

Although this didn’t happen in Utah, the Supreme Court’s ruling applies to all states.  Therefore, if your child is asked to remove his or her clothing by a school official, your child should refuse and immediately call you.  While school officials can strip search students if it is truly warranted, it is more than likely that a situation involving your child will not reach that level.  It is more likely that a school official is misusing their power.

If this situation occurs, or your child consents to a strip search at school without your permission, you should contact a qualified attorney as soon as possible to discuss your legal options.

Tasers in Utah: Too Quick on the Draw

Jesse, on the topic of  News, police
0comment
Photo: jasonbain

Photo: jasonbain

The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported on the use of tasers in Utah.  They analyzed 180 Taser deployments to see the circumstances under each one and found some interesting results:

21% of suspects were fleeing the cops
12% of suspects were ignoring police
39% of suspects resisted without violence by laying on their hands or refused to get out of vehicles.
79% of suspects didn’t have a weapon
73% of suspects were never given a verbal warning

It seems like police are using Tasers as a “quick fix” to getting suspects to calm down.  Rather than verbally warn a suspect or use less dangerous methods to subdue them, police are resorting to currents of electricity to do the dirty work.

It would be one thing of Tasers were used exclusively on suspects who were accused of murder or rape, or if the suspect had a knife and was a serious threat to the safety of the public.  However, a Taser was used against an 11th grader in Logan who ran away from police because he was suspected of carrying alcohol.  Was a Taser really necessary for this non-threatening and minor crime?

Taser use against harmless suspects is dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed.  Officers know nothing of the medical history of a suspect and putting jolts of electricity through their body is dangerous if the person’s health cannot handle it.  Rather than risking the death of the suspect, police should use less dangerous means to subdue a suspect.  Until Tasers are 100% safe, their use should be restricted.

Taser proponents argue that Tasers save lives because police do not have to resort to using traditional firearms.  This is probably true.  But because Taser’s are seen as non-lethal, police officers feel like they can use them more often.  When an officer uses a Taser against an old woman resisting arrest, it should be obvious that this is a problem.

Requiring police to only use Tasers as a substitution for firearms should be the policy of Utah police departments.  This would save lives of suspects, and it would also prevent against situations where Tasers are used against suspects who do not warrant that level of force.