Category Archives: Search Warrant

State v. Eriksen: Tribal Officers Can Pursue Suspects Off the Reservation

Constitutional Rights, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Anatomy of a DUI investigation - Sanford Horowitz Criminal Defense, PC.

In State v. Eriksen, the WA Supreme Court decided that tribal police officers can pursue motorists beyond the limits of tribal lands after having observed them commit a traffic infraction on the reservation.

A Lummi Nation Police Department officer witnessed a motorist on the reservation driving at night with high beams and drifting across the center divider.  He began following the vehicle and activated his emergency lights.  After traveling a quarter mile the car pulled into a gas station located off the reservation.  The police officer witnessed the driver, Loretta Eriksen, hop over the car’s center console and into the passenger’s seat.  The officer detained Eriksen until a Whatcom County police deputy arrived, who arrested her for DUI.

Ms. Eriksen was convicted for DUI.  The trial court said Lummi Nation’s inherent sovereign power authorizes tribal police to continue in “fresh pursuit” of offenders who drive off the reservation.

The Supreme Court agreed.  It reasoned  that the Lummi Nation is a sovereign nation with inherent authority to enforce its laws and detain Indians or non-Indians who violate those laws.  Courts have long recognized the right of law enforcement officers to cross jurisdictional lines when in hot pursuit of a violator.

The court said this doctrine should apply to sovereign tribal nations as well.  “The Lummi Nation Police Department has authority under the Lummi Nation’s sovereign authority and under the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act of 1985, chapter 10.93 RCW, to enforce its laws by continuing the ‘fresh pursuit’ of suspects off the reservation and then detaining these suspects until authorities with jurisdiction arrive.”

My opinion?  I’m not surprised.  Recently, the WA Supremes have deciding other “hot pursuit” cases in similar fashion.  Indeed, in State v. Rivera-Santos, a recent case which my blog covered earlier this month, the WA Supremes decided that a defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights IF law enforcement was engaged in hot pursuit across state lines.

Additionally, I’ve found the criminal justice system is extra tough on defendants who “elude” law enforcement with high-speed chases.  Eluding is a fairly serious felony, especially if the defendant already has felony convictions on their criminal record.

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. Rivera-Santos: Why Crossing State Lines – Intoxicated – Is Double Trouble

Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Due Process, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Probable Cause, Reckless Driving, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, Traffic Infractions, Washington State Patrol, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

Two DUI arrests made in southern Arizona following Labor Day weekend

In State v. Rivera-Santos, the WA Supreme Court determined that the defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights.

Rivera-Santos led police on a chase that started on the Washington side of I-5 and ended on the Oregon side. He was found to have a blood-alcohol content level of .17 percent (more than twice the legal limit), and convicted by an Oregon court of driving under the influence. He was also charged with a DUI in Clark County District Court, but Rivera-Santos argued that it should be dismissed under the constitutional protections against double-jeopardy (i.e. being punished twice for the same crime).

Justice Fairhurst wrote that convicting Rivera-Santos in Washington would not be double-jeopardy, as it was a separate crime.  He drove while drunk in Oregon, and was punished for that by an Oregon court. He also drove while drunk in Washington, and a Washington court could punish him for that separate crime.

My opinion?  If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, then it must be a duck.  Said differently, this legal decision looks like double jeopardy, smells like double jeopardy, therefore it must be double jeopardy.

For those who don’t know, “Double Jeopardy” happens when defendants are prosecuted twice for the same offense.  It’s unconstitutional.  The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.’ U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Here, the WA Supremes stated that Mr. Rivera-Santos committed two different crimes in two different states.  Fine, I can agree with that.  HOWEVER, I disagree with their decision that charging these crimes is not double jeopardy.  Why do I disagree?  Because these “two crimes” arose from the same facts and circumstances.

Mr. Rivera-Santos did not steal candy from a 7-11 in Oregon, cross State lines, and then steal candy from a 7-11 in Washington.  The crime of DUI is, essentially, driving while intoxicated.   Although Mr. Rivera-Santos drove across State lines while intoxicated, he was DUI only one time during that crossing.  Therefore, he should only be punished once.   Anything more is double jeopardy.

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. Redding: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional

ACLU, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, United States Supreme Court, , ,

Should schools be strip-searching students? | Illinois Attorney Referrals and Legal Guidance

In State v. Redding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen, a banned medication. This is the biggest victory for students’ rights in the last 20 years.

My opinion?  I’ll let Savannah speak for herself.  Below is a post she wrote for the ACLU’s blog:

“People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property — a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I’m happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through.

Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Every day, parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school.

But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won’t have to. Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.”

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.

 

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!

Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, felony, Jail, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Privacy, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Studies, , ,

The War on Drugs: Race, Class, Colonialism and the Politics of Pleasures – Culture, Power and Politics

New drug arrest data shows the persistence and extent of racial disparities in the “War on Drugs” in the United States.

The report indicates dramatic racial disproportions among incarcerated drug offenders.  It states, “Since blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites on drug charges, they are more likely to acquire the convictions that ultimately lead to higher rates of incarceration.” The report also shows that although data indicates that blacks represent about one-third of drug arrests, they constitute 46 percent of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts.

Among black defendants convicted of drug offenses, 71 percent received sentences to incarceration in contrast to 63 percent of convicted white drug offenders.

My opinion?  The “War on Drugs” should rename itself as the  “War on Race.”  The data speaks for itself.

End the War on Drugs.  Legalize marijuana.  Stop institutional racism.

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