Arizona Criminal Law: A Review Of What Happened To SB 1070

On July 28, 2010 the federal district court issued an injunction to part of the highly publicized and talked about immigration bill in Arizona, known through-out the country as SB 1070.

Practically speaking, this means that part of the bill is not enforceable until the appellate courts determine its constitutionality. Judge Susan Bolton had to read the bill piece by piece and line by line using the appropriate legal standards, statutes, and case law, to determine which provisions of the bill were constitutional, and which were not.

When the United States brought the lawsuit against the state of Arizona, their main legal argument was that Arizona could not make immigration law, because that is a power given only to the Federal Government. Arizona argued that this bill added to already existing Arizona statutes and that Arizona was not stepping on or over, the current federal laws.  The legal principal at issue is known as Federal Preemption.

For the most part, the decision of the court at this point was to allow Arizona to continue to enforce some parts of the bill. The sections of the law left in place include:

• Making it a crime to knowingly or intentionally employ an illegal alien

• Requiring employers to check for the immigration eligibility of an employee

• Making it a crime to smuggle human being across the border

• Making it a crime to stop a car to pick up day laborers if it interrupts the normal flow of traffic

• Impounding vehicles that were used for transportation or harboring people who are unlawfully in the United States

• Allowing Arizona to create the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund

This order also prevents Arizona law enforcement from enforcing some of the bill.  The sections of the law struck down by the court include:

• Making it a crime for persons not to carry their registration papers

• Having the status of a person’s immigration checked before releasing them from custody

• Allowing a warrantless arrest based on probable cause of a person who is believed to have committed a crime that would subject them to removal from the United States

To read the entire decision, click on here.

The Arizona Supreme Court also addressed the federal court’s decision on SB 1070.  Soon after the federal court’s ruling the Arizona Supreme Court released an Administrative Order regarding the bill.  The Order made changes to procedures and forms used when an illegal alien is arrested, or sentenced. For example, if a criminal defendant is sentenced, including even to pay a fine, and it has been found that the defendant is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, the judge must include this fact in the sentencing report. Then the clerk of the court must submit that report to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office.

The form used at the time of arrest will be modified to include a place for the law enforcement agent to ask the person in custody for his place of birth, country of citizenship, and amount of time present in the United States. The form also includes a place for the law enforcement agent to spell out what the reasonable suspicion was that prompted the law enforcement agent to make the arrest, and a reminder to the agent to check with Federal Immigration Agencies to verify the immigration status of the defendant.

If you have a question about a specific legal issue, please contact The Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Best In Criminal Defense: July 2010

Here is a round up of the best criminal defense blog posts for July, 2010.  I always look for posts that provide either strong opinion, insight or novel information.  While July had a great selection to choose from, here are the top five:

• The Hatred of Being In Trial – published by Brian Tannebaum a Miami criminal defense attorney.  He provides his view of doing trial work and being a criminal defense attorney.

• Blagojevich Recap (Part II) – published by Tom Whithers a Georgia criminal defense attorney.  Mr. Withers presents a thourough and detailed recap of the Blagojevich trial.

• Only Teletubbies Live In The Comfort Zone – published by Scott Greenfield a New York criminal defense attorney.  Mr. Greenfield discusses how lawyers should be using social media.

• A New Approach To Felony Murder And A New Template To Attack Precedent In Georgia – published by Scott Key’s Geogia Crimial criminal appeals attorney in Georgia.

• On Jumping Without A Parachute – published by the great Gerry Spence.  Gerry discusses what is next for him and shares his philosophy and wisdom.

If you have written a post, or have read one that you think may qualify for the Best In Criminal Defense, then please let me know.

Lawrence Koplow

DUI checkpoints 7/30 to 8/1

It’s the weekend!  You know what that means — DUI checkpoints all over the country.  Stay safe this weekend. California: Fontana; undisclosed location; Saturday, 6 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. California: Riverside County; eastbound lane of San Timoteo Canyon Road, between Fern Avenue and Refuse Road; Saturday, 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. Indiana:  Goshen; undisclosed location; Saturday [...]

Vince Neil DUI!

Say it ain’t so, Vince!  He was busted this weekend for DUI in Las Vegas.  TMZ sources say Vince had been sober for three years before the incident.

You may remember the 1984 incident in which Vince pleaded guilty to DUI and vehicular manslaughter after a crash that killed one man and seriously injured two others. Neil served 15 days, worked 200 hours of community service and paid $2.5 million restitution to the victims and their families.

According to Nevada law, he won’t be charged with a second DUI since the first DUI was more than 7 years ago. However, he could be ordered to serve 48 hours to six months imprisonment, or, at least 96 hours of community service.

If It’s Broken, Does It Matter Who Broke It?

At the core of the United States Constitution is the principle of Due Process.  In its most basic form, this principle provides that the government must respect all of the legal rights owed to the people. One of those legal rights is the guarantee of a fair trial to a person accused of a crime.A fair trial includes preventing the State from unfair or suggestive identifications which would direct a witness to make a false identification. The most common situation where these protections are needed is a “line-up.”  This is a procedure where a witness tries to identify someone that may have committed a crime.

In State v. Garcia, a man appealed his armed robbery and murder convictions based on a flier containing a photograph. Here, when police arrived on scene, a witness provided a detailed description of the first man to walk into the bar. A few days later, the police showed the same witness a photographic line-up.  Garcia’s picture was included in a group of photos.  The witness failed to identify Garcia in the picture line-up.

Television stations were later given pictures from a security camera to help find the suspects.  It appears the pictures may have been provided by the police.  Subsequently, the police contacted the witness that failed to identify Garcia in the photographic line-up (and other witnesses); and told them not to watch any news broadcasts or any other coverage regarding the shooting.

However, despite the warning, the witness that previously failed to identify Garcia saw a “reward flier” containing the picture released by law enforcement. A key fact (for the court) was the reward fliers were not made, or passed out by the police.  Later, Garcia’s attorneys argued this identification was unfairly suggestive.  A motion to exclude the identification by witness was made.  The trial court denied the motion.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that because the flier was not made or authorized by the police, it did not fall within the protections of the Due Process Clause.  They reasoned there was no state interference of the witness and Due Process protection only forbids the State from causing this type of tainted identification.

It appears the court believed that releasing the photo was not enough state action to violate Garcia’s Due Process rights. Perhaps, if the defense was able to identify the creator of the flier, the result may be different.  What if the person was part of a silent witness program or some other quasi-government program?  Moreover, the opinion plainly states the defense did not admit a copy of the flier into evidence.  Could the contents of the flier have supplied some evidence of state action?

In sum, the behavior that taints the identification needs a closer connection (at least in Arizona) to state action, in order to be rise to the level of a Due Process violation.  Moreover, while the Court permitted the witness to testify about his identification, the defense still has the right to cross-examine the witness as to suggestive circumstances of the identification.

If you have questions regarding a specific legal issue please contact The Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Arizona Marijuana Law: Something You Probably Already Knew About Marijuana and Religion

Just in case there was any doubt, the Arizona Court of Appeals made it official that your religious beliefs are not a legal defense to the crime of Possession of Marijuana.

In the case of State v. Hardesty, Mr. Hardesty was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a routine traffic stop, drugs were found in Mr. Hardesty car.  He claimed that the drugs were part of his religion, and tried to assert a defense under the Freedom of Religion Act.

He argued that under both the federal and state constitutions, the Act protected his use of the drug. While many people believe that government may not restrict religious activity, this is simply untrue. The court here points out that the Government may restrict religious activity if: (1) the restriction furthers a substantial government interest, and (2) there is no less restrictive means of furthering the interest. The least restrictive means refers to an alternative way to protect the asserted interest, without a complete ban on the activity.  Here, Hardesty claimed that his religion allowed him to smoke and eat marijuana wherever, whenever, and in whatever amounts he felt necessary.

On the other hand, the government argued that there is a substantial interest is public safety, and a complete ban on its use is necessary. The court agreed with the government’s public interest argument.  The Court went on to there is no other way to insure public safety aside from the ban on marijuana use, because Hardesty insisted he could use marijuana at anytime and anyplace.

This one was not that hard to predict.  If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Arizona Drug Law: Cheat First And Search Later

Drug sniffing dogs – you see them at the airport, the bus station, and on television. They serve an important purpose for law enforcement and the public. That is, they smell drugs when humans cannot. Moreover, the dogs do it in a manner that is not invasive to the people being search. However, there are some rules, like the 4th Amendment to constitution, that restrict how these dogs can be used.

For example, law enforcement can’t just bust down your door without a warrant and take a dog through your house to smell everything. When it comes to your home, the Fourth Amendment to the Unites Constitution was created protect against such unreasonable entries. However, the courts are giving law enforcement more and more “leeway” on how they use man’s best friend to overcome the constitutional hurdles of the Fourth Amendment.

Look for example at a 2010 Arizona Court of Appeals case, State v. Guillen. In Guillen, one of questions asked was: if consent to search a home is valid, when the resident giving consent was unaware of a dog-sniff conducted on her property, without a warrant, before she arrived home. That is, law enforcement went on her property without a warrant, had the dog sniff the garage and the dog smelled something. Then they asked the homeowner to search the house. At the heart of the case is the fact she consented to search.

One could could argue this way: law enforcement violated her fourth amendment rights, used the information they got illegally to help make an arrest that merely appeared legal. After all, would the resident have consented if she had known that a potentially illegal search / entry on her property had just occurred?

The above theory was essentially adopted by the defendant’s attorney in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals. They posited that the initial dog sniff on the property without the owner’s knowledge was illegal police misconduct in the first place. Thus, the later consent was not valid, and the entire search of the home would be illegal.

In general, courts consider the term “Consent” to mean the voluntary, and un-coerced permission of a person which allows a government official to take a specified action without a warrant.

However, the court disagreed with this argument after looking at the chain of events. The Court stated that the relationship between the sniff and the consent was the determining factor. For the consent to be invalid as the defendant’s attorney suggested, the consent must have been caused as a result of police misconduct. The fact that the resident did not know about the dog sniff, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, means that the consent was not a result of the dog sniff, and was not invalid on that argument alone.

It appears the court did not address the actual constitutionality of the dog sniff in the driveway. Consequently, the door may be left open to argue the constitutionally of this type search in the future if the facts distinguishable.

If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Arizona Drug Law: I Bet You Never Knew How Important Your Blinker Was

When being stopped by an officer there are many things that go through a driver’s head. “Was I speeding?” “Is there a taillight out?” “Did I swerve?” On the other hand, most people don’t usually think “did I use my blinker appropriately.” However, the issue of the appropriate use of a blinker, was one of the primary questions decided by the recent Arizona Court of Appeals Case: Arizona v. Douglas Dean Starr.

In the Starr case, a DPS officer was driving along the highway behind Starr. The officer reported that he observed Starr following the car behind him too closely, and also changing lanes multiple times. Also the officer says he observed Starr, without using a turn signal, change lanes and pass a large commercial truck that was merging in the same lane, onto the highway. The officer pulled Starr over. During the stop, the officer found marijuana and other drug paraphernalia, resulting in confiscating the property, and multiple drug possession charges.

Starr challenged the traffic stop as being unconstitutional. That is, his attorneys argued there was not a constitutionally valid reason to pull his car over. If this were the case, then the drug charges would be dismissed. Their specific argument was that the wording of the statute that regulated the use of a turn signal, only mandates a driver use a blinker, when a driver makes a full 90 degree turn. They asserted the law does  not apply to situations when a driver  merely change lanes. This argument required the court to look at the statute and interpret the law’s true meaning.

The interpretation of this particular statute had not yet been analyzed by the Arizona courts until this case.  In its decision, the court looked to similar rulings in other states. Many other jurisdictions held that a turn signal is required when any type of movement of one car would affect the course of another car. For example, if there was no car in sight for miles, a person would not need to use a blinker.  The reason being, there is no chance of another car, having to change their pattern of driving due to the lack of blinker use.  Put another way, there are no safety reason requiring notice of a lane change. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that because the wording of the Arizona statute specifies the necessity for safety, and that there were other cars on the road when Starr changed lanes, the use of a blinker was required. Thus, the conviction was upheld.

Consequently, to be successful on this type of motion you need both: (1) a factual scenario with light or no traffic; and (2) you must argue the safety of the lane change (i.e no other cars needed to brake; no other cars took evasive action; traffic was not disrupted) .

If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

M.A.D.D. Oversight in Nevada

Last year, the Nevada traffic safety office gave M.A.D.D. a $20,000 grant to educate judges and prosecutors about ignition interlock devices. However, the information M.A.D.D. shared was only in regards to first and second DUI offenses and not DUI felonies.

M.A.D.D. representative Keely Hedderman never spoke with judges or prosecutors about the law that requires DUI offenders to have an ignition interlock device for three years if they have killed or injured someone. She was only looking at first and second offenses and not felonies.

Because of this oversight, Nevada did not renew the grant. M.A.D.D. was unaware of this oversight, as well.

Do you think Hedderman was still being effective with just informing judges about first and second DUI offenses? What do you think this oversight means for M.A.D.D. and the reputation of Nevada’s DUI enforcement?

[Source: The Reno-Gazette Journal]

Prospective Harsher Penalties for Repeat DUI Offenders in Colorado

This past Friday, Colorado’s House passed a bill that would create harsher penalties for repeat DUI offenders.

Sponsored by Representative Claire Levy, House Bill 1347 includes a minimum prison sentence of ten days after a second DUI or DWI. For a third DUI, the offender faces 60 days minimum in prison.

The bill also includes a provision that will now require judges to issue ignition interlock devices, along with the offender being required to make periodic court visits and allow government monitoring of their drug and alcohol usage.

[Source: State Bill Colorado]

Next Page »