Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In a victory for individuals over the often oppressive tactics of law enforcement, a unanimous United Supreme Court determined that police violated the constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker on a suspect's vehicle without a warrant. In United States v. Jones, the justices determined that placing the tracking device on the car violated the Fourth Amendment's protection of "persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The court determined that this protection also includes private property such as automobiles.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted." Although the court had some differences in reasoning, all unanimously agreed that the police actions went too far and violated the suspect's rights.

The constitution impacts nearly every aspect of the criminal process - from investigation, to charges, arrest and trial. Where police or other law enforcement officials overstep their bounds, their conduct that may serve as a defense to criminal charges. If you believe your rights may have been violated, it is important to speak to an experienced criminal lawyer in Michigan to protect your rights and begin preparing your defense.

Here, the government claimed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents use GPS tracking devices in thousands of cases each year and argued that using the tiny devices is too trivial to constitute a violation of a property right. However, the Court strongly disagreed, noting that even a small trespass if committed in "an attempt to find something or to obtain information" constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. As stated by Justice Sotomayor, "In the digital age I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every website they have visited in the last week, or month, or year."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Unanimously Determines Warrant Necessary For GPS Tracking In United States v. Jones " »

The United States Supreme Court has just passed on an opportunity to ensure greater fairness is criminal trials. In Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court justices evaluated the circumstances surrounding eyewitness testimony and when it may be introduced at testimony. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court concluded that unless evidence exists that police have "manipulated" the circumstances, judges cannot throw out eyewitness testimony on their own. However Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the only dissenter, asserts this is "backwards." The primary goal is to "assure a fair trial" and "[w]hether the police have created suggestive circumstances intentionally or inadvertently ...it is no more or less likely to misidentify the perpetrator." Eyewitness testimony is just as powerful in persuading a jury regardless of the circumstances.

As a criminal defense attorney in Michigan, I agree. When an individual faces the possibility of arrest, charges and a possible conviction in a crime such as theft or robbery, a drug offense or violent crime, his or her fate may depend in part on eye witness testimony. When that testimony is flawed, the possibility for great injustice exists. Under any circumstance, if you are facing criminal charges in Michigan, it is crucial to speak with an aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyer immediately to begin preparing your defense and challenge the evidence against you - including any eye witness statements.

Perry is a criminal law case out of New Hampshire involving car robberies. In Perry, police officers were notified about a man breaking into cars behind an apartment building. A woman gave a vague description of a potential suspect. However, after seeing Perry standing next to a police officer she then identified him as the suspect. Based on her identification, Perry was convicted. Perry argued that his standing next to the police officer unduly influenced the woman's identification. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that because the police did not create the suggestive circumstance, the eyewitness identification testimony was allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court has just affirmed this decision.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Misses Opportunity To Make It More Difficult To Introduce Eyewitness Testimony In Perry v. New Hampshire " »

A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated the effect of firearms in connection with drug possession. In United States v. Shields, the Sixth Circuit found in favor of the defendants, determining that the lower court had erroneously imposed a too long sentence and found that the sentence enhancement was unreasonable.

Weapons charges are serious. In Michigan, when a crime is committed while a defendant is in possession of a firearm sentencing guidelines call for a mandatory two-year prison sentence. This sentence will be added to penalties associated with an underlying crime. If you face weapons charges, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Michigan, such as a top weapons charge attorney.

In Shields, the defendant was arrested for allegedly possessing a firearm in connection with drug possession. Here, police officers found Kevin Shields in possession of a nine-millimeter handgun. As a police officer was walking Shields to the patrol car, Shields stated that he needed his wallet, which was on the porch. When the police officer went to the porch to grab the wallet, he also found a small amount of pot near where Shields had been sitting. This amount constituted only a small, consumption-level amount of marijuana plus cocaine residue. While marijuana possession in small amount is generally considered a misdemeanor, here the drug possession was considered a felony because Shields had prior drug convictions.

Although the prosecution sought a sentence enhancement for "weapons possession in connection with a felony" the appellate court determined that an enhancement based on weapons charges was not reasonable in this case. No "sufficient nexus" existed between the firearm and the drug possession. A sentence enhancement is available where "a firearm is possessed" in connection with "another felony ... if the firearm facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating another felony offense." As explained in the case, an example of this would be where a defendant uses a firearm to protect the drug, facilitate a drug transaction, or embolden himself while participating in felonious conduct."

Continue reading "Sentence Enhancement Unreasonable In US v. Shields Where Possessing A Gun Was Not Connected To Drug Use " »

A recent case out of Wayne County examined just what actions may constitute a "reasonable suspicion" and may justify police making an investigatory stop.

In Robinson v. Howes, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit examined the actions of two Wayne County Deputy Sheriff's who were involved in the arrest of a Highland Park, Michigan man. At issue is whether the deputy sheriff's had enough reasonable information to stop the man and make an investigatory stop. Whether police have the right to stop you and perform an investigation is crucial and is a critical determination in many criminal law cases.

Where police or other law enforcement detain you in violation of your 4th amendment rights to be free of "unlawful searches and seizures," any evidence collected pursuant to this violation may be thrown out. In numerous situations, this may lead to charges being reduced or even completely dismissed. As a result, if you've been detained pursuant to a criminal investigation it is important to speak to an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine whether the stop was proper and whether your 4th amendment rights or any other constitutional rights were violated.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution has a tremendous impact on criminal law enforcement at all levels. These rights extend to all citizens and include the right to counsel, the right to due process, the right to a jury trial, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. If you have been charged with a crime, including weapons possession, drunk driving, drug crimes, or theft and property crimes, consulting with a top Michigan criminal defense attorney immediately can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

Here in Robinson, two deputies testified that they were dispatched to the scene after receiving a radio report of "shots fired from a yellow vehicle." When the police arrived, one of the officers approached the vehicle and the suspect stated "he had done nothing wrong," got out of his car and started to walk away. After he left, one officer testified that he noticed a handgun on the front seat. He yelled to the other officer who then tried to grab the suspect. The two officers then struggled with the petitioner, then pepper-sprayed him and placed him under arrest. The petitioner disputed the police officer's version of events and asserted that the investigation and ensuing arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, in part because the stop was based on uncorroborated information from an anonymous caller.

Continue reading "Appeal From Michigan District Court Reviews Investigatory Stops In Robinson v. Howes " »