Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

The United States Constitution provides several different fundamental rights that apply to all U.S. citizens and all criminal defendants. One of these protections is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police or other law enforcement violate these rights, then an experienced criminal defense lawyer can challenge the evidence obtained as the result of an "illegal search." In some cases, this may lead to criminal charges being reduced or even thrown out.

In United States v. Beauchamp, police saw a man - Gevoyl Beauchamp - walking at 2:30 in the morning in an area known for drug possession and drug trafficking complaints. One police officer noticed Beauchamp and Beauchamp "hurriedly walked away without making eye contact." The police officer then instructed his partner to stop Beauchamp, who was now a couple of blocks away. The partner drove up to Beauchamp, got out of his car and ordered Beauchamp to stop. Beauchamp complied. However, because Beauchamp seemed "nervous and shaking" the officer frisked Beauchamp and asked permission to search him. He agreed, and police discovered $1300 in cash. During the search, the Beauchamp's pants had fallen down and police officers noticed plastic protruding from his butt cheeks. Beauchamp began to run away, but was detained by police officers who determined that the plastic contained crack cocaine.

Beauchamp was indicted on 2 counts - drug possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine and drug distribution of less five grams of crack cocaine. The second count was dismissed and Beauchamp subsequently entered a plea of guilty of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He then appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a seizure. Where police officers lack sufficient "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a search for drugs, an experienced Michigan drug charges defense attorney may be able to get the evidence obtained illegally thrown out through filing a motion to suppress, which may lead to charges being dropped.

The court noted that the fourth amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable search and seizures. Although in some circumstances, such as in "consensual encounters" the 4th amendment is not applicable, whenever a "seizure" occurs, 4th amendment protections apply. An individual is considered "seized" when an officer "by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained [his] liberty." Here the court determined that a seizure had occurred because a reasonable person in Beauchamp's position would not have felt free to walk away after being targeted by the police, and after trying to walk away, being specifically instructed to stop and change the direction he was walking,

Continue reading "Search Found To Be Illegal In United States v. Beauchamp " »

The American Civil Liberties Union has recently issued a statement accusing the FBI of racial profiling - the targeting of racial, ethnic and religious groups for investigation by associating criminal behaviors with specific communities. One of the areas specifically mentioned in its report was Michigan. According to the report, Michigan's Arab-American and Muslim communities have been targeted for investigation as a possible terrorist recruitment ground. The ACLU labels such practice as "racial profiling on an industrial scale" and is calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to put an end to this practice.

If you feel you have been targeted unfairly by police, or have been improperly detained for investigation into an alleged crime, it is important to obtain the help of an aggressive Michigan criminal defense attorney at once to challenge law enforcement's authority and protect your constitutional rights. Under the constitution, the 4th amendment prohibits police officers or other law enforcement from stopping a person without evidence they were involved in a crime.

The lack of a valid reason for stopping an individual may serve as a defense - including as a DUI defense or drug possession defense.

The ACLU notes, "Today the FBI is engaged in unconstitutional and crude stereotyping, attributing certain types of crimes to entire racial and ethnic communities around the country. It is then collecting racial and ethnic information to "map" those communities on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, and national origin. Sweeping away protections that have been in place since the 1970s, new, permissive regulations also allow the FBI to spy on innocent Americans and peaceful groups with little or no suspicion of wrongdoing."

Continue reading "ACLU Alleges Widespread Racial Profiling In Michigan In Violation Of Constitution" »

According to the Flint Journal, Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell has recently announced a controversial new plan to deter drug usage. Pickell's plan includes setting up signs that warn drivers of a "sheriff's narcotic checkpoint." However, in Indianapolis v. Edmund, the Supreme Court ruled that drug roadblocks are unconstitutional.

If you have been stopped at a drug checkpoint or are facing drug charges based on evidence from a police search, it is important to contact an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney. Rules concerning the conditions under which you may be searched and what constitutes an invasion of privacy are very specific. If police fail to follow proper procedures it is possible to challenge the search, often leading to charges being reduced or even dropped.

In Edmund, the City of Indianapolis used drug roadblocks to examine motorists for signs of drug usage, including the use of drug sniffing dogs. After review, the Court determined that the random drug searches at highway checkpoints were a violation of Americans' right to privacy. In a 6-3 decision, the Court determined that the police use of roadblocks and random stop in an effort to stop the flow of illegal drugs through Indianapolis was unconstitutional because it violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

The Court further determined that the severity of a drug problem in some city neighborhoods did not justify the searches, leading to far more innocent motorists being stopped than criminals.

Despite the clear ruling that such drug checkpoints are unconstitutional, the Genesee County Sheriff's Department has been using checkpoint warnings for the last few weeks. According to reports although the Undersheriff would not provide specific details about the plan, he asserts, "what is being done is within the law."

A spokesperson from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) disagrees, noting that they are deeply troubled with the tactic, stating that they believe the Genesee's County Sheriff's Department was taking "a backdoor approach to violating people's rights." "Police need probable cause to search a vehicle for drugs and 'turning away' from a reported checkpoint 'doesn't give police the probable cause."

Continue reading "Genesee County Sheriff Reveals Plan To Use Drug Checkpoints Warnings To Stop Vehicles Despite Unconstitutionality Of Drug Roadblocks Determined In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond " »

One of the most crucial factors affecting the future of juveniles facing criminal charges is keeping a child from being charged as an adult and keeping a conviction off a minor's permanent record. Having a case heard in a Michigan juvenile court can mean avoiding a conviction and jail time in an adult environment.

Recent case law examined the need to for prosecutors to prove a defendant's age before trying a minor in adult court. In State v. Ali, a teen was indicted for first-degree murder and second-degree murder in the deaths of 3 individuals. The indictment alleged that the teen - Ali - was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged shootings. Under Minnesota law, where the case was filed, 17-year-olds are automatically subject to trial in the district court. Similarly, in Michigan, criminal charges are considered juvenile criminal matters if your child is under the age of 17. Once a teen turns 17, Michigan law considers him or her an "adult" and criminal charges may be brought in adult court. Further, where a minor is accused of serious criminal charges such as homicide, murder or aggravated assault, a prosecutor may seek to "waive up" a juvenile to adult court. To protect a minor's future, it is critical to seek the help of an experienced juvenile crime defense attorney to keep the case out of adult court.

In Ali, the teen moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that he was only 15-years-old on the date of the shootings and that juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over the proceeding. The district court denied Ali's appeal, concluding that Ali had already turned sixteen by the date of the shootings. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, finding that a motion to dismiss an indictment where the case is in the wrong court is immediately appealable. The court noted "if the court were to conclude that Ali was only 15-years-old at the time of the alleged offense, the court would be without jurisdiction to proceed further...no purpose is served by putting the parties through the rigors of trial before that determination is made."

The court also determined that when the age of the defendant determines the jurisdiction of the court, the state has the burden to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" a defendant's age on the date of an alleged offense. The court noted that if tried in the wrong court, a minor risks being deprived of the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings.

Continue reading "State Must Show Proof Of Age By A "Preponderance Of The Evidence" In State v. Ali " »

October is domestic violence awareness month and many communities around the state are taking part in an effort to raise awareness about the effect of domestic violence on our communities. At one candlelight vigil in Howell, Michigan a speaker noted that in the last 10 years "2.6 million women have been seriously injured through domestic violence." The vigil was put on by a Livingston County non-profit organization that promotes the prevention of domestic assault, sexual assault and child abuse. National Public Radio has joined the effort, with a series of radio spots and articles on domestic violence support and intervention.

Domestic violence is a serious crime, carrying with it significant consequences and penalties. Unfortunately, as a Michigan criminal defense attorney I have seen these allegations used far too often as a weapon in custody battles, divorce and other domestic disputes. False allegations do a disservice both to legitimate victims and may significantly harm the lives of the innocent wrongfully accused. As noted by the manager of a Washtenaw County Domestic Aggression program, "Although most batterers are male, most men aren't batterers." Too often wrongful allegations are made, throwing the accused's life into a tailspin, negatively affecting a person's life almost immediately, and many times for life. Once domestic violence allegations are made those accused are often assumed to be guilty by the public, and face not only the disruption of their family life, jail time and court ordered rehabilitation, but also have their reputation damaged and live with the stigma of being accused of domestic assault. If you have been accused of domestic violence, it is important to consult with an experienced domestic violence attorney immediately to protect your future and your freedom.

Although it is important to call attention to legitimate cases of domestic abuse and make efforts to eliminate this behavior, many times these allegations are made against an individual in the heat of an argument. Later, after the emotion of situation has died down the alleged victim may wish to drop the charges. Unfortunately this is not possible - once the allegations have been made and the criminal process put in motion only a prosecutor has the authority to drop the charges. An aggressive domestic violence defense lawyer is necessary to fight to keep the charges off you record and keep you out of jail.

Continue reading "False Accusations Of Domestic Violence Create Lasting Stigma" »

This past weekend Governor Snyder announced his plan to crack down on cyber crime. With an emphasis on protecting against identity theft, espionage and internet sex crimes - including child sex crimes - the governor has set up a new website concerning internet safety and is starting a task force to be under the control of the Michigan State Police.

While it is important to protect ourselves from cyber crime, it is equally important that the government to protect innocent individuals from being charged with internet crimes. Potential consequences for internet sex crimes - such as downloading child pornography - are serious. Not only do those charged with sex crimes face jail time, but also potential damage to their reputation and being required to register as a sex offender for lengthy periods of time. Registration on the Michigan sex offenders registry can create a stigma that lasts a lifetime and may lead to difficulties obtaining employment, living in the location of your choice and even attending the college you desire. It's critical to have an experienced Michigan internet sex crimes attorney on your side if you're under investigation or have been charged with child pornography or related offense such as internet solicitation of a minor.

Many times, those charged with internet sex crimes have inadvertently downloaded the child pornography or don't know they are sharing files of a minor. Similarly, often adults are legitimately trying to engage in conversation and meet another adult, only to be ensnared by a police officer posing as someone they're not and charged with solicitation of a minor. Many people don't realize but in Michigan it is illegal for police and FBI agents to use stings to entrap honest people in the acting of sharing files or soliciting a minor.

It is almost like a game police and prosecutors play - especially in the areas of child pornography - seeing how people law enforcement can charge for using their computers in the privacy of their own home for legal purposes.

Continue reading "Lawmakers Cracking Down On Michigan Internet Crime" »

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a significant case - Howes v. Fields - affecting individual rights. At issue - whether police are required to read prisoners their Miranda rights every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration. Requiring police read you your rights, even while in prison, is necessary in order to protect individual rights and prevent against coerced confessions.

Tuesday's case before the Supreme Court involved the confession of Randall Lee Fields. Fields was serving a 45-day prison sentence for disorderly conduct when a Lenawee County jail guard and sheriff's deputies took him into a conference room and began questioning him. Although the deputies told Fields he was free to leave, they never read him his Miranda rights. Police are required to give notice to all criminal suspects in their custody of their Miranda rights before questioning. A Miranda warning provides individuals notice of their constitutional right to remain silent and their right to legal counsel.

After being questioned for seven hours concerning allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor, Fields confessed. He was subsequently convicted of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to 10 to 15 years in jail.

Fields appealed the use of his confession. Under Michigan law, if you have been convicted of any criminal offense in federal or state court, you have the right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the highest level. An experienced Michigan criminal appeals attorney can determine any key issues that would give a client the probability to overturn a conviction or give another chance to secure their freedom.

On appeal, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Fields' confession and conviction were invalid and that police are required to read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from other inmates and may be likely to incriminate themselves.

The dismissal was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments this week. According to the Detroit Free Press, the Court appeared split in their opinion. The Court will decide in the spring.

Continue reading "Miranda Rights Evaluated By Supreme Court In Howes v. Fields " »

If you've been arrested and charged with a crime, ensuring your rights are protected at each step of the criminal defense process is necessary to limit the negative consequences on your future and your freedom. In the event of a conviction of any misdemeanor or felony offense - including accepting a plea bargain - your life will be impacted. Minimizing the effect becomes crucial to your future. An experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer can make all the difference.

A recent case involving a prison sentence for a drug crime revealed the importance of having an experienced Michigan criminal defense law firm fight for your freedom, even after you've been sentenced. In United States v. Smith, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the sentence handed down to a man - Cornell Smith - who was indicted on charges of conspiring to possess with intent to deliver cocaine. The 6th Circuit - which includes Michigan - reviewed the sentence of Smith's plea agreement, which stipulated to 180 months of imprisonment based on an attached sentencing guideline. However, the agreement reflected guidelines that had been amended after the pre-sentencing report was filed, with the new guidelines calling for a shorter sentence.

Despite the amendments to the sentencing guidelines, the judge accepted the original sentence. Smith subsequently appealed, and argued for a sentence reduction. If you have received a sentence that is unfair, a Michigan criminal defense appeals attorney can identify issues that may overturn a conviction or reduce a sentence.

Here, relying on recent Supreme Court law the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals determined where a defendant enters into a plea agreement, he or she may seek a reduction in sentence where the sentencing guideline range has also been reduced. Imposing lengthier sentences on individuals convicted of any Michigan crime based on outdated guidelines would be unfair.

As explained in Smith, where "an agreement expressly uses a guideline sentencing range applicable to the charged offense to establish the term of imprisonment, and that range is subsequently lowered... the defendant is eligible for sentence reduction."

Continue reading "Defendant Entitled To Sentence Reduction For Possession With Intent To Deliver Conviction In United States v. Smith " »