The Florida Supreme Court held this month, that once a cell phone is seized from a suspect who is in custody, the police need a search warrant to view the contents on the phone. Tyrone Smallwood was a arrested for a robbery of a convenience store. While he wore a mask the cashier recognized his voice as that of a regular customer. At the time of his arrest police seized his cell phone. After Smallwood was arrested and placed in [...] Read more »
MIRANDA WARNINGS AND THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING
There are many interesting legal issues surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. Today I would like to discuss the Miranda Warning issue. Peace officers investigating the Boston Marathon bombing did not read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights prior to interrogating him. As any watcher of crime programs on TV knows the cops are supposed to tell a defendant that she/he has the right to remain silent; the right to have his/her attorney present during there questioning and that anything they say [...] Read more »
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT POSSESSION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA NOT NECESSARILY AN AGGRAVATED FELONY REQUIRING MANDATORY DEPORTATION
Adrian Moncrieffe plead guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after law enforcement officers found 1.3 grams of marijuana in his car. Moncrieffe is a Jamaican citizen, having moved to this country with his parents when he was three years old, and following his conviction the government attempted to deport him. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person convicted of an aggravated felony must be deported. While the act does not clearly define the term “aggravated [...] Read more »
SUPREME COURT REQUIRES SEARCH WARRANT BEFORE THE NONCONSENSUAL TAKING OF A BLOOD SAMPLE
The Supreme Court, today, in Missouri v. McNeely refused to grant the State of Missouri a per se rule allowing the warrantless taking of a blood sample to determine the blood alcohol level, in cases of suspected driving under the influence. In a driving under the influence of alcohol case the question that the jury must answer is whether at the time the defendant was driving was she/he under the influence. There are a number of methods of determining whether [...] Read more »
SECOND CIRCUIT UPHOLDS FIREARMS STATUTE AGAINST SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Ron Bryant for possessing a firearm to further a drug trafficking offense against a Second Amendment challenge. It held that District of Columbia v. Heller only applies to those who possess weapons for legal reasons and possessing a gun to further a drug offense is illegal and therefore not covered by the Second Amendment. Bryant was arrested after officers executing a search warrant at his residence found just under a [...] Read more »
THE SUPREME COURT TIGHTENS THE KNOT ON THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS
The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) prohibits Federal Courts from granting writs of habeas corpus unless the state court decision was: 1)contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 2)based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Otis Lee Rogers was charged with making criminal threats, assault with a firearm, and being [...] Read more »
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE RIGHT OF A RESIDENT TO PREVENT AN OFFICER AND A POLICE DOG FROM ENTERING THE FRONT PORCH
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Jardines that a police officer may not enter the area surrounding a house with with a drug sniffing dog in order to obtain probable cause to get a search warrant for the house. Miami-Dade Police Officers Douglas Bartelt and William Pedraja entered the porch in front of Jardine’s residence with a police dog trained to smell marijuana. The dog indicated that there was marijuana in the residence. Based on this information Bartelt [...] Read more »
COURT REMANDS CASE FOR HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL PROVIDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Jose Gilberto Portillo, who does not speak English, was convicted along with two of his friends of the murder of an elderly couple during a residential burglary in Washington D. C. Prior to the trial the court appointed a lawyer to represent him and then appointed a second lawyer who spoke Spanish. Portillo wrote a letter to the judge complaining about his inability to communicate with his lawyers. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that indigent defendants receive competent legal representation. The [...] Read more »
MARYLAND APPEALS THE DEATH PENALTY
Maryland became the eighteenth state to not have a death penalty. Under the leadership of Governor Martin O’Malley the legislature repealed the death penalty. Legislators gave four primary reasons for repealing the death penalty: It’s too expensive. You may assume that executing prisoners is more cost-effective than housing them for life. However, someone typically remains on death row for many years and will accrue massive legal bills in an effort to save his life. These costs can sometimes exceed the [...] Read more »
WOULD TODAY’S SUPREME COURT APPROVE GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
Fifty years ago today the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that the Constitution mandated that the courts appoint counsel in felony cases for indigent defendants. In doing so, it reversed a earlier case, Betts v. Brady in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no universal right for appointed counsel unless their was proof that the particular conviction was obtained in violation of due process. Clarence Earl Gideon, like Betts, requested an attorney in the trial court [...] Read more »