Archive for the ‘Drug Cases’ Category

The Ninth Circuit court of Appeals just upheld the admissibility of drug and firearm evidence in a case where law enforcement conducted an illegal search of a vehicle under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. In United States v. Ruckes, the Court followed the recent Supreme Court decision of Arizona v. Gant. Gant limits searches of automobiles, pursuant to the driver’s arrest, to situations where the driver is “unsecured and within reaching distance” of the interior of the car at the time of the search or where it is reasonable to expect evidence related to the crime underlying the arrest might be found in the vehicle. In Ruckes, the driver was arrested for driving without a license and secured in the back of a patrol vehicle. The Court found that since no evidence related to unlawful driving might be found in the car, and since Mr. Ruckes posed no danger of getting a weapon from the car at the time of the search, the search would otherwise be illegal under the Gant decision. However, the Court allowed evidence of cocaine base and possession of a gun to be used against Ruckes under the doctrine of inevitable discovery, a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Inevitable discovery exists in Ruckes because an inventory search of the car would have revealed the evidence independent of the illegal conduct of the officer.

The lesson Ruckes teaches is that criminal defense lawyers will have to be alert for the application of inevitable discovery in vehicle search cases, especially as there are multiple provisions under California law allowing for the towing and impounding of cars upon the arrest of the driver. Still, criminal attorneys can try to establish that the impound search itself was a pretext to look for other evidence, as pretext law is still favorably applied in some limited situations, such as inventory searches. If it can be proved that the inventory search was conducted for a pretextual purpose, the search would be illegal so therefore could not be upheld under the inevitable discovery doctrine and the court would be obligated to rule for suppression of the evidence.

No CommentsTags: cars, cocaine base, criminal defense lawyer, driver, drugs, evidence, firearm, Fourth Amendment, gun, illegal search, impound search, inevitable discovery, inventory search, law enforcement, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, officer, pretext, pretextual purpose, Ruckes, suppression of the evidence, United States v. Gant, vehicle search, warrant requirement, weaponRead More

The movement to decriminalize drug use gained a major ally. The Republic of Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs. Drug rehabilitation, rather than punishment, is now “encouraged,” and a third drug possession offense will subject the offender to drug treatment, although no way to enforce that provision was written into the new law.

Personal use is defined as possession of less than 5 grams of marijuana, ½ gram of cocaine, 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams of methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams of LSD.

The Mexican government enacted the law in an effort to combat organized drug crime, but as the demand for the drugs is almost entirely coming from north of their border, the law won’t dent cartel profits anytime soon.

No CommentsTags: cartel, cocaine, crime, decriminalize drug use, drug treatment, heroin, LSD, marijuana, offender, possession, Republic of MexicoRead More

In serious drug prosecutions, criminal defense lawyers cannot blindly trust police crime lab reports supposedly confirming that a substance is really cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, or heroin.  For that matter, anything coming out of the crime lab, such as blood toxicology results, DNA results and chain-of custody receipts should not be blindly trusted, either. The United States Supreme Court , in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, recently confirmed that crime  lab reports are so important that the analyst that prepared the report and did the testing must be called as a witness and subjected to cross examination by the defense attorney for the results to be used as evidence. The Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of Constitution guarantees this right to defendants seeking to challenge crime lab results. The Court was concerned with the possibility that the report could have been faked or the test may not have been completed properly, and cross examination is the best vehicle for proving problems with the report.

Indeed, here in San Diego, I have recently come into possession of material indicating that a lab analyst who formerly produced reports that were regularly relied upon by San Diego prosecutors, committed perjury while working at another job by faking lab reports and results of confirmatory lab tests. (In crime labs, the presumptive test alone is not valid to conclude the actual presence of the controlled substance; a more reliable, confirmatory test is needed). The information showed that 1000’s of tests were faked.  These false lab reports of drug results are clearly relevant to proving that his work product – in fact anything he touched – cannot be trusted. In many drug cases, the alleged controlled substance may be available for retesting or the defense may conduct their own tests. The defense lawyer should also consider a complete review of the chain-of-custody for each and every lab item sought to be used by the prosecutor.  

The lesson a bad lab analyst imparts only reinforces what every good defense lawyers knows: don’t assume that any piece of evidence is infallible.

Contact us for help with your case, (619) 232-5122, or  info@attorneylombardo.com.

No CommentsTags: analyst, chain-of custody, cocaine, confirmatory lab tests, confirmatory test, Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, controlled substance, crime lab, criminal defense lawyer, criminal lawyer, cross examination, Domenic J. Lombardo, Drug Cases, drug prosecutions, false lab report, heroin, lab report, lab reports, law enforcement, marijuana, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, methamphetamine, perjury, presumptive test, san diego criminal defense attorney, san diego criminal lawyer, San Diego Police Crime lab, San Diego prosecutorsRead More