For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
Last week the
United States Supreme Court ruled on a case that we have been following closely. The case involves Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. nightclub owner. Washington police placed a GPS tracking device on his vehicle, without a warrant. They followed him around for about a month and linked him to a known
drug stash house. He was eventually arrested and charged with numerous
drug offenses. He was eventually convicted of distributing
cocaine and was sentenced to life in prison. The question in this case became whether police need to obtain a warrant before placing a GPS device on someone's vehicle? On
August 27, 2010, we reported about a decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that law enforcement authorities can place a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle without the need to obtain a warrant. On
August 6, 2010, we reported that the Washington, D.C. Court of appeals had ruled in Jones's case that the police were required to obtain a warrant before placing a GPS device on a suspect's vehicle. This split of authority set up a confrontation that was ripe for resolution by the
United States Supreme Court. On
November 11, 2011 we reported that the
United States Supreme Court had heard oral arguments on the Jones case. We reported that several of the justices indicated that they were skeptical of the government's position that a warrant was not needed. The majority of the court agreed that in this specific case, which involves the placing of a GPS device on a suspects vehicle, a warrant was needed. The majority reasoned that when the police placed the GPS device on Antoine Jones' vehicle, they had committed an illegal
trespass and that the evidence obtained could not be used because the government had violated the law in order to obtain the information. But what the
Supreme Court did not answer was whether the public had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to electronic surveillance. Nor did they discuss what the limits of that expectation of privacy are. Justice Alito criticized the majority for "kicking the can down the road" by not discussing what the public's reasonable expectation of privacy was in their electronics. At this point, it looks like the decision is limited to the placing of GPS devices on suspect's vehicles but still leaves open the question of whether our cell phones can be tracked, internet usage or even video surveillance of our movements in public can be monitored by the government without the need to obtain a warrant. What can we do in private and how far can the government go in following us around and looking into what we do, who we talk to and where we go?
There is currently a case in the Federal District Court of Arizona that is being watched closely that could eventually make its way up to the
United States Supreme Court. This case involves the use of a cell phone tracking device called "stingray" to track suspects without their knowledge. This device is used by the Defense Department. A cell phone tower is set up to mimic an actual cell phone tower. When a suspect's cell phone is turned on, the cell phone tower connects to the cell phone and it monitors the movements of the suspect. The attorney for the suspect in the Arizona case asked for discovery to determine how this "stingray" system works and the FBI is refusing to disclose this information. The FBI considers this device to be so critical and so important, that they fear that disclosing details about it would be dangerous to the public. This issue is being litigated in the Arizona case and it could very well make its way all the way up to the
United States Supreme Court.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
In a big blow to supporters of state medical
marijuana laws, a federal judge in Montana ruled that Montana's laws legalizing medical
marijuana does not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting people. Last year federal agents raided more than two dozen medical
marijuana providers. Fourteen of those raided filed a lawsuit in Federal Court claiming that the raids violated their rights because in 2004 voters passed an initiative that allowed them to grow and produce
marijuana for medical purposes. The federal judge presiding over the case. Judge Donald Molloy, dismissed the lawsuit and held that the providers can be prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act even if they followed state law by holding that the supremacy clause applies to medical
marijuana laws. The supremacy clause provides that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins. The plaintiffs also argued that a memo from the Justice Department had led them to believe that the federal government would not do anything so long as people were following state law. Molloy found that this memo was not binding and did not excuse the plaintiffs from violating federal law. The federal government's raids of the medical
marijuana providers has had a big impact on the providers. Many providers have shut down their businesses and several dozen of those raided have plead guilty to federal
drug charges. The 2004 voter initiative has been repealed and the legislature has a new medical
marijuana law which dramatically curtails the medical marijuana industry in Montana. There were 395 registered medical
marijuana providers at the end of December of 2011 compared to 4,650 at the end of May of 2011. This decision opens the door to the federal government imposing its will over states that have legalized medical
marijuana.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
We want to call your attention to a very disturbing ruling coming out a Federal District Court in Colorado. Ramona Fricosu, is charged in connection with a mortgage scam. Authorities want her to disclose the password to her computer hard drive which was encrypted using
PGP Desktop, which is software from
Symantec which is used to encrypt data on the hard drive so people can protect sensitive information on their computer. Fricosu argued that the Fifth Amendment protected her from disclosing the password and incriminating herself. The federal judge presiding over her case disagreed with Fricosu and ruled that she can be compelled to disclose her password so authorities can inspect her hard drive to determine whether it contains incriminating information. In addition, authorities had secretly recorded Fricosu acknowledging that she owned the computer and that it contained incriminating information. Frocosu's attorney has indicated that he will appeal this ruling.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
Security at the Kane County Courthouse, in St. Charles Illinois, is being increased on attorneys and those with security passes. The Kane County Sheriff, and the new Chief Judge, Robert Spence, have increased security for an indefinite period of time. The increase in security is not due to any specific threat. For some unknown reason, Kane County officials have decided to increase security. Normally, ever person with a security passes is allowed to walk into the courthouse in a separate line without having to walk through a metal detector or have their belongings searched. The Kane County Sheriff indicated that he was noticing that more and more individuals from other counties were going to the courthouse and indicated that he did not know who they were. He also stated that the Kane County States' Attorney was recently required to go through the metal detector, as was one of his lieutenants. Neither of them complained, according to the Sheriff.
People going to the Kane County Courthouse should be prepared the possibility of longer lines and delays at the courthouse entrance.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
Last week the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on a case that we have been reporting on for some time. The case involves Cory Maples, who had been convicted of two
murders in Alabama and sentenced to
death. We first reported about this case on
October 5, 2011. Maples wanted to appeal his
murder conviction and
death sentence because his attorneys failed to argue that he was impaired at the time of the
murders. His initial appeal was denied and the court mailed out notice to his attorneys that they had 42 days to file an appeal. Both of the young attorneys that had handled his case and his appeal had left the firm and had not informed the clerk of the court, the prosecutor, or Mr. Maples. The notices that had been mailed to his attorneys were "Returned to Sender." The Clerk of the Court did nothing when they received these notices back in the mail. The 42 days came and went and Maples did not pursue his appeal. The Alabama courts ruled that he had lost his right to appeal. Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled Maples had withstood a "veritable perfect storm of misfortune" and should be allowed to pursue his appeal. But while this was the part of the story which gathered all the attention, there's another part of the decision which we would like to discuss. In its decision, the United States Supreme took a swipe at Alabama for it s unjust system of capital punishment. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She pointed out that Alabama only requires that an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant in a capital case have 5 years of criminal law experience. No capital case experience is required. The state does not provide, nor does it require any professional education or training in capital cases, appointed lawyers are underpaid. In addition, Alabama is one of the only states that does not provide legal representation throughout post conviction proceedings. This means that a defendant with the financial resources can often escape the
Death Penalty, whereas a poor defendant is left to fend for themselves. In Maples case, his lawyers admitted that they were "stumbling around in the dark" because they lacked experience handling capital cases. The Supreme Court's decision means that Alabama lawmakers should do more to insure that indigent criminal defendants have adequate legal representation in Alabama.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
The Legal Defenders, PC
70 West Madison, Ste 1400 * Chicago * IL 60602 * Phone: (800) 228-7295 * Fax: (800) 604-0507
Transportation bills pending before the House and the Senate would give more highway funds to states that require ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders. Illinois is one of 14 other states which provides for such devices. In Illinois its called the Breath Alcohol Interlock Ignition Device (BAIID) and is required in order to obtain a Monitoring Device Driving Permit (MDDP) which allows a driver to operate a motor vehicle after they are arrested for a DUI.
Posts
