Category Archives: Constitutional Rights

State v. Garvin: WA Supremes Held “Squeeze Search” Unlawful

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, felony, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Know Your Rights: Stop-and-Frisk | ACLU of DC

In State v. Garvin, the Court held that police officers cannot “squeeze” a defendant’s pockets to determine the nature of objects in the pocket.

An officer pulled Anthony Garvin over for a traffic infraction. When he noticed a knife on the seat next to Garvin, the officer ordered Garvin out of the car and conducted a search for additional weapons. In the process he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine. At trial the officer testified, “We don’t really pat anymore. It’s more of a squeeze search.”

Garvin moved to suppress the evidence seized, and the trial court denied the motion. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.  The WA Supreme Court granted review.

The court reasoned that the officer was not allowed to manipulate objects within the clothing, and his “squeeze method” exceeded the scope of a valid frisk under the “stop and frisk” rule articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The court added, “Without probable cause and a warrant, an officer is limited in what he can do.  He cannot arrest a suspect, he cannot conduct a broad search.”

My opinion?  Yaaaay!!

Many clients get arrested because police officers obtain evidence unlawfully.  It’s an outrage!  This case is beautiful.  I can’t wait to argue a Garvin motion in my future attempts to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.   🙂

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Imprisoned Undocumented Immigrants May Soon Face Early Deportation

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Jail, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

How the Deportation Machine Criminalizes Immigrants | The Nation

Hundreds of undocumented immigrants in Washington state prisons will be deported at the end of their sentences. But state officials want to deport many of them early — without serving prison sentences — to save money.

One option is the increased enforcement of a statute which allows for the early deportation of undocumented immigrants who’ve committed non–violent crimes.  Although this law has been on the books for years, it rarely is applied.  Generally, prosecutors do not agree to early deportations without jail because, in their view,  it greatly reduces the consequences for committing a crime.

Nevertheless, prosecutors may be warming up to these early deportations. The head of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys testified in support of the earlier legislation. Immigration advocates also favor the plan.  Finally, Governor Gregoire has called for a specific agreement between the Department of Corrections and federal immigration authorities which would facilitate such a plan.  It also requires approval from prosecutors and judges.

However, the statute carries a double-whammy: although deportees avoid jail time, they shall be charged with a federal felony if they return.  Additionally, they shall serve the maximum amount of jail which was suspended upon their deportation.  Government data show that illegal re–entry after deportation is the most prosecuted federal crime.  Arizona prisons use a similar deportation program, however, and the re–offender rate is about 2%.

As a side note, illegal immigrants are automatically deported if they commit crimes exposing them to 1+ jail sentence (gross misdemeanors and felonies).  In the case of nonviolent crimes and defendants with little or no history, some prosecutors will agree to a maximum exposure of 364 days instead of 365.  This solution altogether avoids the deportation of illegal immigrants whom the prosecutors deem worthy to stay in the U.S.

Typically, when it comes to the possible deportation of a defendant, prosecutors review the circumstances surrounding the crime, employment history, family ties, immigration status, etc.  These factors affect a prosecutor’s willingness to negotiate.

My opinion?  I support the legislation.  With some reservation.  My #1 concern is ensuring due process rights are not violated.  Defense attorneys MUST ensure the defendant/deportee knows they will serve a HUGE amount of jail — in a federal institution, no doubt — if they return to the U.S. after being deported early.

For that very reason, I believe we’ll see more undocumented defendants exercising their rights to jury trial.  After all, what do they have to lose when negotiations fail?  These defendant already face early deportation, coupled with the threat of prosecutors stacking federal charges if the deportee returns illegally.  Force the government to prove the charges!

Interesting times . . .

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Hinshaw: Absent Exigent Circumstances, Cops Can’t Enter Your Home Without a Warrant & Arrest for DUI

911 Call, Constitutional Rights, Corpus Delicti, Due Process, DUI, Exigent Circumstances, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES | Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer

Great opinion.

In State v. Hinshaw, the WA Court of Appeals held that absent Exigent Circumstances, police cannot enter a home without a warrant & arrest for DUI.

Here, the Moses Lake Police investigated reports of a car unlawfully driving on a bike path.  Police search the path.  They find Mr. Hinshaw on a bike close to the path.  He said he was a passenger in the suspect car, but denies driving.  They release him.

Later, the police find the suspect car in his driveway.  It had a flat tire.  They knock on the door.  He answers the door, yet refuses to come out.  He admits to drinking earlier.  Officers grab his arm, go inside of his home, and arrest him for DUI.  They are concerned his BAC level was dissipating.

The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that “exigent circumstances” justified Mr. Hinshaw’s warrantless seizure.  The Court saw several errors in the police officer’s conduct.   First, the officers failed to establish how quickly the BAC would/could dissipate.  Second, the officers could not estimate how long it would take to get a warrant.

Third, although the police had probable cause to believe Mr. Hinshaw became intoxicated and drove home, the reckless operation of the car and consequent threat to public safety had ended.  Mr. Hinshaw was neither armed nor dangerous.  He posed no threat to the public or officers.  His car was disabled.  Consequently, exigent circumstances did not exist.

My opinion?  Great opinion!  The Court of Appeals saw through the State’s smoke and mirrors.  This was not a case about exigent circumstances.  An emergency never existed!  No, this was a bona-fide; unlawful exercise of “arrest first, ask questions later” on the part of the police.  Clearly unlawful.  Kudos to the Court of Appeals.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

 

White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, , ,

 

Agent of change: CBP boss Gil Kerlikowske announces he will retire in December

Unbelievable.  Awesome sign of the times.  Gil Kerlikowske, the new White House drug czar, signaled Wednesday his openness to rethinking the government’s approach to fighting drug use.

The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or ‘war on product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said.  We’re not at war with people in this country.

Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate — and likely more controversial — stance on the nation’s drug problems.  Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

My thoughts?  IT’S ABOUT TIME a U.S. drug czar made sense!!!

True story on Kerlikowske: I was living in Seattle when a big snow came.  Attending law school.  Walking around downtown Seattle with a friend.  A black SUV rolls by.  Stops by a car that was stuck in the snow.  Two police officers get out.  One looks highly decorated.  Both officers  push the skidding car off the ice.  It drives away, freed from its frozen trap.

I immediately recognized the decorated officer as then-Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.  I say, “Yo man, that was cool!”  He smiles, salutes, and jumps back into the SUV.  Drives away.

As far as police officers go, Kerlikowske was a good one.  Had his head on straight.  Gained respect from Seattle’s black community.  He was an advocate, a reasonable guy, and bridged ideological differences.  Obama chose right.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Voting Rights Restored!

ACLU, Constitutional Rights, felony, Legislation, Race & Law, Voting Rights, , ,

Voter Information for WA State Residents Who Are or Have Been Incarcerated, Unhoused, Disabled, Need Language Assistance, and more | The Church Council of Greater Seattle

Thank you to all who took action on HB 1517!  This important measure will automatically restore the right to vote to citizens who were entangled with the criminal justice system.

Governor Chris Gregoire signed the bill into law on Monday, May 4, 2009.  The new law will reform Washington’s convoluted and unfair system for restoring voting rights.

Washington now becomes the 20th state in the last decade to ease voting restrictions for people with criminal histories who are living, working and raising families in the community.  Our victory is part of a nationwide movement to assure that our democracy reflects the voices of American citizens.

Let freedom ring.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

‘How can you defend those people?’

Constitutional Rights, Jury Trial, , ,

Why defense lawyers defend killers and rapists | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Great article discusses why defense attorneys continue to zealously defend people accused of crime.

People ask me the above question quite often.  My answer?  Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial.  It’s simply un-American to assume people are guilty, lock them up, and throw away the key.  There are times when the Prosecutor’s facts are weak.  Witnesses lack credibility.  Constitutional rights are tossed aside as police search cars, raid homes, and generally use people’s statements against them at trial.

My role is to make sure the process functions correctly.  No, it’s not easy work.  But it’s incredibly fulfilling.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Sutherby: Great Case Regarding Improper Prosecution and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Assault, Constitutional Rights, Ineffective Assistance, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Rape, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, Unit of Prosecution, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Malicious Prosecution Cases in South Carolina - King Law

In State v. Sutherby, the WA Supreme Court threw out a Rape of a Child conviction for improper prosecution and ineffective counsel. Shortly before Christmas 2004, the Sutherby’s five-year-old granddaughter (“L.K.”) stayed with them for two nights at their Grays Harbor home. Based on the girl’s accusations, Mr. Sutherby was arrested and charged with multiple sex offenses to include first degree rape of a child and first degree child molestation.

A subsequent search of his personal computer found child pornography, and he was charged with 10 counts of possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He was convicted by a jury on all counts and appealed.

The Court here considered two issues: “(1) what is the proper unit of prosecution for possession of child pornography under former RCW 9.68A.070 (1990), and (2) did Sutherby receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney’s failure to seek a severance of the child rape and molestation charges from the possession of child pornography charges?”

Sutherby argued that he should have been sentenced on only one count of possession of child pornography under the criminal statute, formerly RCW 9.68A.070, rather that separate counts for each image. The court noted that the U.S. and Washington constitutions both protect a defendant from being punished more than once for the same offense. The statute provided “[a] person who knowingly possesses visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a class C felony.”

The court said that “any” is vague, and determined defendants who possess multiple images should only be charged with a single count of possession. The court remanded the sentencing of Sutherby for a single count of possession.

Sutherby also sought reversal of his convictions for child rape and child molestation based on his trial attorney’s failure to move for severance of the child pornography counts from these charges. As the court noted, severance of charges is important when there is a risk that the jury will use the evidence of one crime to infer the defendant’s guilt for another crime or to infer a general criminal disposition.

The case against Sutherby for possession of child pornography was strong, and could have influenced the jury on the rape and molestation charges. The court agreed that Sutherby demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial attorney’s failure to seek severance of the charges. The Supreme Court reversed Sutherby’s convictions for child rape and molestation and remanded for retrial.

My opinion?  Yes, society HATES sex crimes; especially when children are possibly involved.  Here, however, the Supremes correctly looked beyond the nature of the crime and addressed how the case was botched by the Prosecutor and defense attorney alike.  Clearly, the Supremes sent a message: stacking charge after charge is, simply, unconstitutional.  Multiple images does not = multiple charges!  We creep into the realm of  unlawful Double Jeopardy.

Additionally, State v. Sutherby teaches defense attorneys about ineffective assistance of counsel.  Oftentimes, prosecutors will try adding additional charges on totally unrelated events before trial.  This tactic, if successfully done, makes juries suspicious that the defendant “must be a bad person, otherwise they wouldn’t have acquired all these criminal charges.”

In other words, the juries become prejudiced toward the defendant, and might decide the cases accordingly.  This type of outcome kills justice.  Defense attorneys must avoid sloppiness and BE CAREFUL.  We cannot allow the State to unfairly prejudice our clients at the 11th hour before trial.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

 

State v. Ramos: Excellent Separation of Powers Case

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Legislation, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Theory Of Separation Of Powers - Political Science

In State v. Ramos, the defendant was convicted in 1993 of sexual exploitation of a minor.  At the time, Washington did not require sex offenders to register with the State.   The law was changed after Ramos’ release and he registered in 2001.  The law changed again to require Level II sex offenders to report in person every 90 days.  Ramos failed to do so.  he was prosecuted for failing to report.

The WA Court of Appeals held that the authority to define crimes and set punishments rests squarely with the legislature.  Not the prosecutor, not the sheriffs, but the legislature.  It reasoned it is unconstitutional for the legislature to transfer its power to others.  Because the sex offender reclassification statute does not provide any guidance to local law enforcement agencies, Ramos’ delegation was improper, and his conviction cannot stand.

My opinion?  Great decision.  It reaffirms the debate regarding the wrongful  application of newly formed criminal laws.  In Washington, defendants can only be charged with violating laws in existence  at the time of arrest.  Unless a newly formed statute specifically provides for retroactive application, defendants cannot be found to have violated the new statute.  It isn’t fair.  Unconstitutional.  Again, great decision.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Dingman: Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Due Process, felony, Forensics, Jury Trial, Pretrial Investigations, Search and Seizure, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

What Is A Discovery Request? Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

In State v. Dingman, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant at the time of arrest.

Here, the authorities seized Mr. Dingman’s computers while investigating him for Theft and Money Laundering.  The State created mirror image copies of the computers’ hard drives using a program called EnCase.  Dingman asked for direct access to his computer.  The Court refused, and instead ordered copies be provided using Encase, a program the defense neither had not knew how to use.

Applying court rules/procedures, the WA Court of Appeals Court held the State is obligated to disclose all tangible objects in its possession which were obtained from or belonged to the defendant.  The computer hard drives were tangible objects obtained from the defendant.  Defense counsel should be allowed to examine the hard drives.  Therefore, it was error not to give the defense access to the hard drives.

My Opinion?  Great decision. Division II gave an excellent decision regarding the violation of a defendant’s right to review evidence. The defendant should ALWAYS have access to materials the prosecutor wants to use at trial.  Indeed, it’s a blatant violation of a defendant’s Constitutional rights to deny access.  Providing evidence to the other side is also, quite simply, a professional courtesy.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

 

Kitsap Jury Acquits Medical Marijuana Defendant

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jury Trial, Legislation, marijuana, Privacy, Search Warrant, , ,

Pennsylvania MMJ Patients Face Choice: Cannabis or Guns? | Leafly

A medical marijuana patient being prosecuted in Kitsap County Superior Court for drug trafficking was found not guilty on Tuesday morning, after a jury ruled that his use of the drug was within the law.

The jury deliberated for approximately two hours prior to its ruling.

The prosecution alleged that the crop was being sold commercially, and that the Olsons were hiding behind medical marijuana laws as cover for a drug operation.

Defendant Bruce Olson decided to go to trial as the law had changed and he was advised that he had a better chance of acquittal.

The trial was attended by a floating group of medical marijuana activists, from patients to political activists. Several of them noted that it was rare for such cases to go to trial, as defendants usually enter a plea.

These activists filled the courtroom throughout the trial, with no visible support for the prosecution’s position.

Olson, who turns 55 on Wednesday, maintained a subdued manner throughout the trial, and barely talked when he was in the courtroom. This changed on Tuesday, when he was laughing and joking with his attorney prior to the verdict’s reading.

When it was announced Olson blurted “thank you, thank you you guys” to the jury, prompting Superior Court Judge Leila Mills to repeat her admonition to stay quiet until the jury was released.

“As a businessman I am really discouraged at all the money that was spent on this trial . . . It was a waste, and a lot of people who have seen the trial and are in business are wondering why I was prosecuted.” ~Defendant Bruce Olson

My opinion?  Great job, jury.  The government should not tamper in the affairs of defendants who are licensed to possess marijuana.  Period.   I welcome the day when marijuana will be legalized.  Let’s face it: the “War on Drugs” has failed.  Marijuana should not be demonized as a Gateway Drug.  Legalize it!