The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a Michigan case which involves the Fifth Amendment. The case involves a defendant charged with setting fire to a vacant house. Midway through the trial, the judge stopped the jury trial and found the defendant not guilty based on a mistaken reading and interpretation of the law. The question presented is whether the criminal defendant can be retried after he is acquitted by a judge if the mistake is based on a mistaken interpretation of the law? The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense. This is commonly known as the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Michigan courts ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply and that the defendant could be retried because the mistake means that the defendant was not truly acquitted. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court last week, the Justice's appeared to be reluctant to uphold the Michigan Courts interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Both liberal and conservative justices expressed skepticism at the Michigan Courts reasoning and it appears as if the Michigan ruling will be struck down and that the defendant will not be retried again.
A ruling is should be coming by next June. The case is Evans v. Michigan, 11-1327.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case which will determine whether the police can collect the DNA of people who are merely arrested for serious crimes. The case involves the rape conviction of Alonzo Jay King Jr. in Maryland. The Maryland Supreme Court threw out his conviction because he was arrested for an unrelated charge years later and a cheek swab was taken which linked him to the rape. 26 states and the federal government routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that DNA samples contained highly personal information and that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from having to provide DNA samples before they have been convicted of a crime. In July, Chief Justice John Roberts blocked the Maryland Supreme Court ruling which had been blocking the State of Maryland from collecting DNA from people who have been arrested. Earlier this year, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the strip searches of newly arrested citizens. The decision in this case will have national ramifications. Maryland is linked to a national DNA database which stores DNA samples.
Oral arguments will be held in February or March and a decision should be released by June of 2013. The case is Maryland v. King, 12-207.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
The
United States Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on an
immigration case that could have sweeping ramifications for thousands of criminal defendants. In March of 2010 in
Padilla v. Kentucky, the
Supreme Court ruled that
immigrants must be informed of the
immigration consequences of a plea of guilty to a criminal charge. The question before the
Supreme Court in this case is whether the rule in
Padilla should be applied retroactively. If the court does apply the
Padilla rule retroactively, this would open the door to countless criminal defendants who were sentenced for a criminal conviction and had never been informed about the
immigration consequences of a plea of guilty. These defendants could come back to court and seek to have their criminal convictions set aside of the court applies the
Padilla rule retroactively. Since the
Padilla decision in 2010 courts have been split on whether to apply the
Padilla rule retroactively. The current case involves Mexican citizen Roselva Chaidez who applied for citizenship in 2009 and disclosed that she had been convicted for an insurance fraud scheme many years earlier. Chaidez had a green card. Once the conviction was disclosed the government sought to remove her from the country because of the criminal conviction. Chaidez argued that her lawyer never informed her of the
immigration consequences of her guilty plea, thus constituting ineffective assistance of counsel. In August of 2001 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Chaidez by finding that since
Padilla introduced a new constitutional requirement, based on
Supreme Court precedent, the Padilla rule could not be applied retroactively. In arguments before the United States Supreme Court, Chaidez's attorneys argue that
Padilla merely confirmed a longstanding principle that criminal defendants have the right to a reasonably competent attorney. The government argued that the 2010
Padilla decision announced a new rule. Twenty-eight states joined the Federal Government fearing that if Chaidez prevails there will be a flood of old cases opened up seeking to throw out criminal convictions.
The case is Chaidez v. United States, No. - 11-820.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
The Village of Schaumburg has appropriated $334,620 to equip all of their police squad cars and motorcycles with cameras. The Village has hired
CDS Office Technologies to provide 40 in camera systems for the Villages police cars and motorcycles. The Village is paying $34,802 of the cost while the remainder is being paid by the State of Illinois. The plan is to install the Panasonic Toughbook Arbitrator 360 degree system in all the squad cars. The system will feature a forward facing camera in front of the squad car, a rear facing camera and two outward side facing cameras. The camera installation is expected to be completed by January of 2013. The purpose is to provide for officer safety and to provide evidence in criminal cases, such as
DUI cases. Another reason for installing cameras is to assist in cases where citizens file complaints against police officers. A 2006 study the International Association of Chiefs of Police shows that roughly half of such complaints are withdrawn once video evidence is shown. The cameras will only be installed in vehicles driven by patrol officers. They will not be installed in vehicles driven by detectives, community service officers or canine units.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
A federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they secretly placed cameras on private property without a warrant. The police suspected that the defendants were growing
marijuana in an open field in Wisconsin. They placed cameras on the field and recorded incriminating images and discussions by the defendants. They eventually obtained a warrant but want to use the images recorded by the cameras before the warrant was obtained. The defendants were seeking to suppress the images obtained before the warrant was issued. The federal judge presiding over the case denied the Motion to Suppress by ruling that the Fourth Amendment only protects private residences and not open fields far from any residence. The property in question was heavily wooded and clearly marked by "no trespassing" signs. In spite of this the judge did not find that this established a "reasonable expectation of privacy" requiring the application of the Fourth Amendment. The judge reasoned that if the police could conduct surveillance in person they could use electronic means to conduct the same surveillance. But aside from the fact that the property was clearly marked with signs indicating that the public was not invited, the fact that the court allows such surveillance is a dramatic increase in the power of government to infringe on the public's right to privacy. Its much easier for the police to install electronic surveillance devices in more places than they could use officers to conduct that surveillance. That dramatically increases the power of government to conduct surveillance. The Courts should be looking at this type of surveillance in a much more strict manner than this case suggests.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
The
United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a lawsuit brought by lawyers, journalists and civil rights organizations challenging the
2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which allows for the government to eavesdrop on telephone and email communications between people in the United states and foreign countries without a warrant. The plaintiffs claim that the fear that they may be intercepted causes them to adopt costly measures to avoid having their communications intercepted. The
Supreme Court is not considering the legalchicity of this law. Rather, they are considering whether the plaintiff's in this case have the legal standing to even bring such a lawsuit. The warrant-less wiretapping program was put into effect by President Bush after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 without any Congressional authority. The program ended in 2007 but was reinstated by Congress in 2008. The government is claiming that the plaintiffs cannot show that they have personally been harmed by the measure or by any wiretapping. The plaintiffs argue that nobody could ever know if they are being wiretapped and that some of the people being listened in to would be foreign nationals who would not be allowed to contest the law anyway. The decision in this case is not going to resolve this issue anyway. The court is not considering the legality of this law at this time and even if it were to ever have to consider the legality of the law, the government could always claim that any challenge to the law would involve exposing state secrets.
The case is Clapper v. Amnesty International.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.
On December 5, 2006 a "crime stopper" had tipped off the police that
marijuana was being grown inside the home of Joelis Jardines home near Miami Florida. Armed with this tip, a police officer went to the door of the residence with a trained
drug sniffing Labrador Retriever named Franky. Franky sniffed the door and sat down, continuing to sniff the bottom of the door. The dog had been trained to give that sign if it smelled
marijuana. The police then obtained a search warrant of Jardines's home and entered to find Jardines was growing
marijuana plants inside the home and charged him with possession of 25 pounds of
marijuana and stealing the electricity used to power the equipment used to help grow the
marijuana. The Florida Supreme Court invalidated the search by finding that Franky's sniff was an "unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home" and found that there was a greater expectation of privacy in a home than in a motor vehicle. The Florida Supreme Court cited a 2001 United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia in which the court ruled that it was presumptive unreasonable for the authorities to use a heat detecting device to scan the inside of a home to determine whether
marijuana was being grown inside the home. The issue in this case is whether the police can use a
drug sniffing dog for a residence.
The case is Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.
The other dog
drug sniffing case being considered today involves whether a
drug sniffing dog can be used for a motor vehicle. On June 24, 2006, a Florida police officer pulled over Clayton Harris' pickup truck near Bristol Florida. The officer determined that Harris' registration was expired and saw an open can of beer in the cup holder. He noticed that Harris was breathing heavily and would not give permission to the officer to search his car. The officer then brought out Aldo, a
drug sniffing German Shephard for a "free air sniff" and Aldo became excited and sat down when he approached the driver's door of Harris's truck. The officer then searched Harris's truck and found 200
pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches, which are the ingredients used to make
methamphetamine. The Florida Supreme Court threw out the search based on Aldo's
drug sniffing because they found that the state failed to show the dog's reliability as a
drug detector. The Florida Supreme Court found that the state cannot just claim in a broad statement that because the dog has been trained as a
drug sniffing dog that it is sufficiently reliable and qualified to detect
drugs and that the state needs to produce evidence to the court to determine that it is reliable. The question in this case is how qualified does the dog have to be to conduct a valid
drug sniff?
The case is Florida v. Harris, 11-817.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.legaldefenderspc.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
Posts
