Posts Tagged ‘Evidence’

Common Medications can Cause False Positives on Drug Tests

Jessica, on the topic of  Evidence, drugs
0comment
photo: ep_jhu

photo: ep_jhu

The result of a drug test may be positive, but that does not mean that the one being tested used the alleged substance. The test may have revealed a false positive. There are many reasons for a false positive result on a drug test. The lab that performs the test may have tainted the sample, the lab may also have poor quality equipment or lab technicians, or you may another type of medication or food in your system that taints the results. Some of the more common prescribed and OTC drugs that can cause a false positive on a drug test are:

  • Vitamin B2 – (THC false positive)
  • Tylenol 3 – (may detect traces of opiates)
  • Robitussin DM – (Heroin, Opiates, Morphine false positives)
  • Adderall – (could, as an amphetamine show a false positive for Meth)
  • Ibuprofen – (false positive for THC/Marijuana)

A longer list can be found at this AskDocWeb article as well as a long list of references providing information on the numerous types of false positives. If you have incorrectly failed a drug test it is important to contact a qualified criminal defense attorney who can accurately prove in court that your diet or use of vitamins and prescription medication may have created an inaccurate result. A failed drug test could cause you to be fired from your job, prevent you from applying for new jobs, impose large fines and perhaps even create jail time. Therefore, having a lawyer equipped to deal with drug scarios is important in mainting your job and life.

An Automobile Tracking Device can Easily be Used in Utah

Jessica, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Evidence
0comment
photo: OldOnliner

photo: OldOnliner

On January 11, 2010 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers neighboring states like Arizona, Nevada and Idaho & has influence over what the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (which governs Utah Federal caselaw)  ruled on the case of the US v. Pinedo-Moreno. In this case evidence was used from a tracking device that was attached to the undercarrage of the Defendant/Appellant’s car.  The court stated that the evidence was legally obtained and could be used even though the tracking device was attached to the car when it was parked in the owner’s driveway.  This was largely due to the fact that there was no gate or sign barring entry to the driveway and the car was clearly visible from the street.

Since anyone could potentially be on the driveway,  look under the car, and you could easily be followed in your vehicle, this car had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” at the location and time of the tracking attachment.  This essentially means that police can use tracking devices on your vehicle very easily as the device does not constitute a search. Your vehicle could have a device attached without your knowing.

Your right to privacy concerning your motor-vehicle is continuing to dwindle as the United States Supreme Court has already held that when traveling on public roads a citizen has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Without defense lawyers working hard to protect a person’s privacy rights more and more intrusive evidence may be used in the court of law.  Please hire the absolute best Utah criminal defense lawyer you can afford and protect your rights when being charged with a crime.

Clues Utah Police look for to determine if someone is intoxicated

Jessica, on the topic of  Alcohol, DUI
0comment

If wondering what type of behavior will get you noticed by members of the public and the Utah police, the following is an example. The people in the video are visibly intoxicated and it would be safe to assume that they have a Blood Alcohol Content too high to drive in Utah.


Drunk Compilation – Watch more Funny Videos

State of Utah v. Deon Lomax Clopten : Eyewitness Testimony is often Inaccurate

Jessica, on the topic of  Evidence
0comment
photo: ~BostonBill~

photo: ~BostonBill~

Since DNA testing was first introduced in the 1990s it has been used to free wrongly convicted prisoners, including some that were sentenced to death. Many of these innocents were incarcerated due to the testimony of an eyewitness. This demonstrates that many of these eyewitnesses provided faulty testimony without knowing it. There are many reasons why an eyewitness may strongly believe in the false information they are presenting. First, certain attributes such as psychological disorders and substance dependency make a person more likely to be involved in criminal activity and therefore more likely to be falsely connected to a crime.  Next, jurors often believe more in a witness who claims to be very sure about their testimony even though their accuracy is nearly the same as the less confident. Third, the way in which the human memory works makes it very susceptible to false recall. The human mind does not work like a camera storing information and playing it back when needed.  Instead, memories are reconstructed each time they are needed. Other pieces of information could unknowingly be combined into the memory, leading to false recall. Certain factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identification such as:

  • The way in which a lawyer questions the eyewitness
  • Extreme stress
  • Presence of a weapon at the crime scene
  • Use of a disguise during the crime
  • A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect
  • Limited viewing time during identification
  • Lack of distinctive characteristics to aid in identification

It would be very difficult to minimize such errors of testimony as the witness often feels very strongly about the accuracy of their recollection. One suggestion to remedy the situation is to allow an expert on eyewitness identification to testify in court to educate the jurors on the process in which an eyewitness recalls facts. In most U.S. jurisdictions such experts have not been allowed in the courtroom. However, in Utah, in December of 2009 in the case of the State of Utah v. Deon Lomax Clopten the Supreme Court of Utah overturned a murder conviction in which the trial judge refused to allow an expert on eyewitness identification to testify for the defense.

Dismissing Charges in Utah

Jesse, on the topic of  Hiring a Lawyer, Legal Process
0comment

Sometimes prosecutors will dismiss charges against a criminal defendant.  This means that nothing will be filed against the defendant in criminal court and the defendant is no longer a defendant.  Prosecutors drop charges for multiple reasons.  The original arrest by the police officer that led to the charge might have been problematic.  There might not be enough evidence for prosecutors to prove that it was the defendant who committed the crime, or prosecutors might find evidence that confirm your innocence.  Sometimes, a key witness in the case will refuse to testify and prosecutors don’t think they have a strong case.

Hiring a good criminal defense attorney immediately after being charged is important because your attorney might be able to convince the prosecutor to drop charges.  This would not only save you time of going through a trial, but it would also save you money because the attorney’s job would be done quickly.