Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Supreme Court’

Drug investigators have been caught on tape playing Wii games while executing a search warrant at the home of Michael Difalco. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd lamely defends his investigators by claiming that the Wii gamesmanship would not invalidate the search. Perhaps the Sheriff should read up on the law.     

The Fourth Amendment mandates that a proceeding to search with a warrant is a drastic one and must be carefully circumscribed so as to prevent unauthorized invasions of the “sanctity of a man’s home and privacies of life,” to quote a U.S Supreme Court case that has been good law for over 125 years. When law enforcement execute a search warrant in bad faith by conducting a general exploratory search, such a flagrant disregard for the scope of the warrant may therefore justify total suppression of all evidence seized as a deterrent to such police misconduct. An exploratory search is evidenced by law enforcement rummaging through game boxes and consoles, inserting computer and entertainment resources in game players and computers, and then using the equipment.  Playing video games belonging to a homeowner whose house is invaded while executing a warrant clearly involves conduct completely unrelated to the scope of the warrant. Such an investigation reveals police disregard of the Court’s order, the Constitution, and the rights of the people whose home is being raided.  Any astute criminal defense lawyer can tell you that Federal and state constitutional law provides ample precedent for invalidating such a search.

The video can be viewed at: http://www2.tbo.com/video/2009/sep/21/polk-county-drug-bust-54649/

No CommentsTags: constitutional law, court order, criminal defense lawyer, drug detectives, exploratory serach, Fourth Amendment, game player, games, Grady Judd, investigators, law enforcement, Michael Difalco, police misconduct, Polk County Sheriff, scope of warrant, search warrant, suppression of evidence, U.S. Supreme Court, United States Constitution, video games, WiiRead More

The United States Supreme Court in on the verge of abolishing the exclusionary rule prohibiting the use of unlawfully obtained evidence against a criminal defendant. The recent case of Herring v. United States portends a court trend in favor of illegal search and seizure at the expense of the integrity of the entire criminal justice system. This is a dangerous and unnecessary trend. Law enforcement has long taken as their own the maxim “give them an inch, they take a mile.” For example, police already have such a long list of permissible justifications for traffic stops, car searches, home invasions and general rummaging through your belongings that they can always come up with an after-the-fact justification hiding the real basis for their conduct, and thereby making illegal conduct extremely difficult to uncover even for a very experienced criminal defense attorney. We see this type of conduct, for example, in “wall stop” cases, where the police hide illegal conduct by masking their activity behind a second, outer layer of law enforcement. Nonetheless, law enforcement is deterred to the extent that they may have to justify their activity in a court against the exacting scrutiny of an aggressive criminal defense lawyer; there is really no other effective deterrent to the police from invading your privacy as they see fit.  The Herring decision threatens to erode accountability for police misconduct.

Perhaps the new composition of the Supreme Court, with Justice Sotomeyer, will resist repeal of the exclusionary rule. Time will tell.

No CommentsTags: agressive criminal defense lawyer, car searches, criminal justice system, defense attorney, exclusionary rule, Herring v. United States, home invasions, illegal search and seizure, Justice Sotomeyer, law enforcement, police misconduct, privacy, traffice stops, U.S. Supreme Court, wall stopsRead More

Juvenile adjudications (convictions) can be used against adult criminal defendants under the “three strikes” law even though juvenile defendants have no right to a jury trial. The California Supreme Court, in People v Nguyen, held that prior juvenile adjudications that qualify as serious or violent felonies (”strikes”) can used to substantially increase an adult criminal defendant’s felony sentence, despite the fact that juveniles are not entitled to a trial by jury. 

In Nguyen, the Court emphasized that a defendant is still free to contest the fact of a prior conviction in the adult case, and, of course, a defendant can always challenge whether the juvenile adjudication actually qualifies as a serious or violent felony offense. Juvenile cases from outside of California are example of those types of cases often subject to successful challenge on the issue of whether they qualify as a strike offense.  But for now, criminal defense attorneys can no longer successfully raise 5th 6th and 14th Amendment objections against the use of the juvenile case as a strike solely due to the lack of a jury trial right in juvenile court. 

The California Supreme Court may get overruled on this issue by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Criminal defense lawyers therefore must continue to object to the use of juvenile offense as strikes in order to preserve this issue for appeal, especially for criminal defendants looking at a life sentence.

No CommentsTags: adult criminal convictions, attorney, California Supreme Court, criminal defendant, criminal defense, criminal defense lawyer, felony, jury trial, juvenile, juvenile adjudication, juvenile strike, People v. Nguyen, prior conviction, san diego criminal defense attorney, san diego criminal lawyer, sentence, three strikes, U.S. Supreme CourtRead More