FRANK DUNHAM FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE CONFERENCE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FRANK DUNHAM FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE CONFERENCE"

Transcription

1 THE OFFICES OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS FOR THE EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF VIRGINIA JOINTLY PRESENT THE EIGHTH FRANK DUNHAM FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE CONFERENCE Thursday, April 9 - Friday, April 10, 2015 DoubleTree Hotel, Charlottesville, Virginia

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Program Schedule Faculty Information iv vi Supreme Court Review Paul M. Rashkind, United States Supreme Court: Review, Preview, and Overview of Criminal Cases (as of April 1, 2015) Ethics: Representing the Sovereign Citizen Patrick R. Hanes & Andrea Lantz Harris, Ethics: Representing the Sovereign Citizen Excerpts, Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct J.J. MacNab, Sovereign Citizen Kane, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report (Fall 2010) The Sovereigns: A Dictionary of the Peculiar, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report (Fall 2010) Fourth Circuit Update Discussion Overview Frances H. Pratt, Fourth Circuit Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure (April 1, March 31, 2015) Case Budgeting in the Fourth Circuit Presentation Slides Indicators of a Possible Mega-Case Mega-Case Budgeting Forms FDFCDC i

4 Capital Case Budgeting Forms Sample, Ex Parte Memorandum in Support of Proposed Case Budget Engagement Letters for Service Providers Service Provider Time Worksheet Interpreting Opioid Overdose Death: A Medical Toxicologist s Perspective Gregory G. Davis et al, Recommendations for the Investigation, Diagnosis, and Certification of Deaths Related to Opioid Drugs: Technical Report, 3 Acad. Forensic Pathol. 62 (2013) Gregory G. Davis et al, Recommendations for the Investigation, Diagnosis, and Certification of Deaths Related to Opioid Drugs: Position Paper, 3 Acad. Forensic Pathol. 77 (2013) William Osler, Edema of Left Lung Morphia Poisoning, 1880 Mont. Gen. Hosp. Reports The Science of Persuasion: How Cognitive Science Can Improve the Way We Write Christopher Corts & Laura A. Webb, Thinking Like a Lawyer Scientist: Using Cognitive Science to Persuade Determining What Is, or Is Not, a Crime of Violence or Violent Felony Violent Crime Cheat Sheet How to Determine If Your Client Is a Career Offender or an Armed Career Criminal Elements of the Generic Enumerated Offenses for ACCA and Career Offender Selected Statutes and Guidelines FDFCDC ii

5 Selected Recent Fourth Circuit Decisions on ACCA, Career Offender, and Aggravated Felonies Ethics: Game Show Potpourri, Round II Discussion Overview Professionalism Course : Major Disciplinary Problems Christine Harvey et al., 10 Tips for Avoiding Ethical Lapses When Using Social Media, Business Law Today (ABA Business Law Section January 2014) Proposed Legal Ethics Opinion, LEO 1880 (re. duties of attorney in advising indigent client about appeal) Comment of Federal Public Defender in Opposition to Proposed LEO James M. McCauley, Ethics Update 2012 Hot Topics in Legal Ethics FDFCDC iii

6 PROGRAM SCHEDULE Thursday, April 9 1:30 Program check-in begins 2:25 Welcome and Introduction Geremy Kamens, Acting FPD E.D. Va. Larry Shelton, FPD W.D.Va. 2:30 Supreme Court Review Paul Rashkind, AFPD S.D. Fla. 3:45 Break 4:00 Ethics: Representing the Patrick Hanes, Esq., CJA E.D. Va. Sovereign Citizen Andrea Harris, AFPD W.D. Va.. 5:00 Adjourn for evening Friday, April 10 7:30 Breakfast begins 8:00 Program check-in continues 8:25 Welcome and Introduction Geremy Kamens, Acting FPD E.D. Va. Larry Shelton, FPD W.D. Va. 8:30 Fourth Circuit Update Alan DuBois, AFPD E.D.N.C. Patrick Bryant, RWA E.D. Va. 9:30 Case Budgeting in the Fourth Circuit Larry Dash, Fourth Circuit CJA Case Budgeting Attorney 10:15 Break 10:30 Interpreting Opioid Overdose Death: Edward Boyer, MD, PhD A Medical Toxicologist s Perspective FDFCDC iv

7 11:30 Keynote Address Hon. Julian Bond (lunch provided) 1:00 The Science of Persuasion: How Prof. Christopher Corts Cognitive Science Can Improve Prof. Laura Webb the Way We Write 2:00 Determining What Is, or Is Not, Elizabeth Hanes, AFPD, E.D. Va. a Crime of Violence or Violent Mary Maguire, AFPD, E.D. Va. Felony 3:00 Break 3:15 Ethics: Game Show Potpourri, Ken Troccoli, AFPD E.D. Va. Round II Aamra Ahmad, Esq. 4:15 Complete evaluations 4:30 Program concludes FDFCDC v

8 FACULTY INFORMATION AAMRA S. AHMAD Assistant Federal Public Defender Emerita, Eastern District of Virginia Education: Professional: B.A. 1999, Wellesley College; J.D. 2003, University of Michigan Law School Law clerk, Hon. James P. Jones, U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia, ; associate, Terris Pravlik & Millian, Washington, DC, ; assistant federal public defender, Alexandria, Virginia, EDWARD W. BOYER Chief, Division of Medical Toxicology, UMass-Memorial Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts Education: Experience: B.A. 1983, Vanderbilt University; M.A. 1984, Columbia University; M. Phil. 1986, Columbia University; Ph.D. 1988, Columbia University; NIH Postdoctoral Fellow , The Rockefeller University; M.D. 1995, Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons Residency in Emergency Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania; Fellowship in Medical Toxicology, Boston Children s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; currently chief, Division of Medical Toxicology, UMass-Memorial Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School PATRICK L. BRYANT Appellate Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia Education: B.A. 1998, Duke University; J.D. 2002, Washington and Lee University School of Law FDFCDC vi

9 Professional: Staff attorney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia, and ; law clerk, Hon. Charles R. Wilson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Tampa, Florida, ; appellate attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, 2007-present CHRISTOPHER CORTS Assistant Professor of Legal Writing, University of Richmond School of Law Education: Professional: B.A. 1994, Otterbein College; M.A. 2008, Fuller Theological Seminary; J.D. 2011, University of Virginia School of Law Associate, Carlton Fields, Miami, Florida, ; assistant professor of legal writing, University of Richmond School of Law, 2013-present LARRY M. DASH CJA Case Budgeting Attorney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Education: Professional: B.A. 1982, Columbia College (Missouri); J.D. 1989, Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Assistant staff judge advocate, U.S. Air Force, ; circuit trial counsel, U.S. Air Force, ; associate, Greg D. McCormack, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, ; private practice, Newport News, Virginia, ; assistant federal public defender, Norfolk, Virginia, ; CJA case budgeting attorney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia, 2014-present G. ALAN DUBOIS First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of North Carolina Education: B.A. 1984, Duke University; J.D. 1987, University of Virginia School of Law FDFCDC vii

10 Professional: Staff attorney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia, ; assistant federal public defender (senior appellate attorney), Raleigh, North Carolina, ; first assistant federal public defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2013-present ELIZABETH W. HANES Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia Education: Professional: B.A. 2000, University of Richmond; J.D. 2007, University of Richmond School of Law Law clerk, Hon. Joseph R. Goodwin, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, ; law clerk, Hon. Robert B. King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Charleston, West Virginia, ; assistant federal public defender, Richmond, Virginia, 2009-present; adjunct professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2014-present PATRICK R. HANES Partner, Williams Mullen, Richmond, Virginia Education: Professional: B.A. 1988, University of Virginia; J.D. 1994, University of Virginia School of Law Law clerk, Hon. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, ; associate, Williams Mullen, Richmond, Virginia, ; partner, Williams Mullen, present; deputy counsel, Williams Mullen, 2014-present; adjunct professor, Washington and Lee School of Law, 2013-present ANDREA LANTZ HARRIS Assistant Federal Public Defender, Western District of Virginia Education: B.A. 1988, University of Notre Dame; J.D. 1994, University of Louisville FDFCDC viii

11 Professional: Solo practitioner, Charlottesville, Virginia, ; assistant public defender, Charlottesville Public Defender Office, ; assistant federal public defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2006-present MARY E. MAGUIRE Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia Education: Professional: B.A. 1986, Middlebury College; J.D. 1991, Georgetown University Law Center Legislative assistant & assembly fellow, California State Assembly, ; assistant federal defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., ; associate, Cohen & Hubachek, San Diego, California, ; Law Office of Mary E. Maguire, San Diego, California, ; project associate, ABA Death Penalty Representation Project, Washington, DC, ; senior assistant public defender, Alexandria, Virginia, ; assistant federal public defender, Richmond, Virginia, present; adjunct professor, University of Richmond School of Law, 2004-present; adjunct professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2013-present PAUL M. RASHKIND Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Florida Education: Professional: B.B.A. 1972, University of Miami; J.D. 1975, University of Miami School of Law Assistant state attorney, Miami, Florida, ; chief assistant state attorney (appeals), Miami, Florida, ; associate, Sams Gerstein & Ward, ; partner, Bailey, Gerstein, Rashkind & Dresnick, ; chief of appeals and supervisory assistant federal public defender, Miami, Florida, 1992-present FDFCDC ix

12 KENNETH P. TROCCOLI Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia Education: Professional: B.A. 1981, Boston College; J.D. 1984, George Washington University Law School; LL.M. 2001, Georgetown University Law Center Law clerk, Hon. H. Carl Moultrie, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, ; associate, Krooth & Altman, Washington, DC, ; associate, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, ; associate, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, Washington, DC, ; assistant/senior assistant public defender, Alexandria, Virginia, ; assistant federal public defender, Alexandria, Virginia, 2002-present; adjunct professor, American University Washington College of Law, 2012-present LAURA A. WEBB Assistant Professor of Legal Writing, University of Richmond School of Law Education: Professional: B.A. 1996, George Washington University; J.D. 1999, University of Virginia School of Law Associate, McCandlish Holton, PC, Richmond, Virginia, ; associate, Reed Smith, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, ; adjunct associate professor, University of Richmond School of Law, ; assistant professor of legal writing, University of Richmond School of Law, 2013-present FDFCDC x

13 SUPREME COURT REVIEW Paul M. Rashkind NOTES FDFCDC 1

14 I. SEARCH & SEIZURE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REVIEW - PREVIEW - OVERVIEW CRIMINAL CASES DECIDED AND GRANTED REVIEW FOR THE OCTOBER TERMS THRU APRIL 1, 2015 PAUL M. RASHKIND CHIEF, APPELLATE DIVISION OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, S.D. FLA. A. Electronic Privacy 1. Satellite Based Monitoring of Felon. Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. (March 30, 2015) (per curiam). Torrey Dale Grady was convicted in North Carolina trial courts of a second degree sexual offense in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in After serving his sentence for the latter crime, Grady was ordered to appear in New Hanover County Superior Court for a hearing to determine whether he should be subjected to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as a recidivist sex offender under state law. The law provides, The satellite-based monitoring program shall use a system that provides all of the following: (1) Time-correlated and continuous tracking of the geographic location of the subject.... (2) Reporting of subject s violations of prescriptive and proscriptive schedule or location requirements. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann (c). Grady did not dispute that his prior convictions rendered him a recidivist under the relevant North Carolina statutes, but argued that the monitoring program under which he would be forced to wear tracking devices at all times would violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Unpersuaded, the trial court ordered Grady to enroll in the program and be monitored for the rest of his life. Grady renewed his Fourth Amendment challenge on appeal, relying on the Supreme Court s decision in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. (2012) (police officers engaged in a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when they installed and monitored a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a suspect s car). The North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected Grady s argument, concluding that it was foreclosed by one of its earlier decisions. The North Carolina Supreme Court summarily dismissed Grady s appeal and denied his petition for discretionary review. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that SBM is a search under the Fourth Amendment: The State s program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search. That said, the Court noted that the second component of Fourth Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 1 FDFCDC 2

15 Amendment analysis is the reasonableness of the search. It remanded to the state court to make the reasonableness determination. That conclusion [that SBM is a search], however, does not decide the ultimate question of the program s constitutionality. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. The reasonableness of a search depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations. See, e.g., Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless search of parolee was reasonable); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (random drug testing of student athletes was reasonable). The North Carolina courts did not examine whether the State s monitoring program is reasonable when properly viewed as a search and we will not do so in the first instance. 2. Cell Phone Privacy. Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, 134 S. Ct (June 25, 2014). In a consolidated opinion denominated Riley v. California, the unanimous Supreme Court held that officers must generally secure a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion, beginning with the reminder that, In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S., (2011). Search incident to lawful arrest, the Court held, is not such an exception. Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life, Boyd [v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)]. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple get a warrant. Although the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment does not apply, the Court s opinion indicates that the exigentcircumstances exception may apply to cell phone searches, but only when there are case-specific exigent circumstances, requir[ing] a court to examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case. Although the decision was unanimous, Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. To put the decision in context, the facts of the Riley and Wurie cases follow: Riley Police stopped David Riley, a local college student, who was driving his Lexus near his home in San Diego. The officer who initiated the stop told Riley that he had pulled him over for having expired tags. The officer soon learned that Riley was driving with a suspended license and decided to impound Riley s car. During the inventory search, officers discovered two firearms under the car s hood. Based on this discovery, Riley was arrested for carrying concealed and loaded weapons. The arresting officer seized Riley s cell phone from his Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 2 FDFCDC 3

16 person. It was a Samsung Instinct M800, a smartphone similar to an iphone, capable of accessing the internet, capturing photos and videos, and storing both voice and text messages, among other functions. Police officers performed two separate, warrantless searches of its digital contents: (1) The arresting officer scrolled through the phone s contents at the scene. He noticed that some words (apparently in text messages and the phone s contacts list) normally beginning with the letter K were preceded by the letter C. The officer believed that the CK prefix referred to Crip Killers, a slang term for members of a criminal gang known as the Bloods. (2) The second search took place hours later at the police station. After conducting an interrogation in which Riley was nonresponsive, a detective specializing in gang investigations, went through Riley s cell phone. The detective searched through a lot of stuff on the phone looking for evidence. He found several photographs and videos that suggested Riley was a member of a gang. He also found a photo of Riley with another person posing in front of a red Oldsmobile that the police suspected had been involved in an earlier gang-related shooting. Riley was eventually charged and convicted of shooting at an occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, all for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Prosecutors tied him to the crime, in part, due to the photograph on his smartphone that showed him posing in front of a car similar to one seen at the crime scene. After losing his search and seizure challenges in state court, Riley petitioned the Supreme Court to consider, Whether or under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of an individual s cell phone seized from the person at the time of arrest. In granting cert, the Supreme Court reworded the question presented as: Whether evidence admitted at petitioner s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner s cell phone that violated petitioner s Fourth Amendment rights. Wurie A police officer noticed Brima Wurie make an apparent drug sale out of his car that the officer believed to have been arranged by cell phone. After the transaction, the officer confronted the buyer and found two bags of crack cocaine in his pocket. The buyer told the officer that he had purchased the drugs from B, the driver of the car, who was a crack dealer living in South Boston. Officers following Wurie then arrested him for drug distribution, read him the Miranda warnings, and drove him to a nearby police station, where they seized two cell phones, a set of keys, and more than one thousand dollars in cash from his person. Five to ten minutes after Wurie arrived at the station, officers noticed that one of Wurie s cell phones, a flip phone that a user must open to make calls, was repeatedly receiving calls from a number identified as my house on the phone s external screen. Minutes later, the officers opened the phone to check its call log. They saw a photo of a woman holding a baby set as the internal screen s wallpaper. The officers pressed one button to navigate to the phone s call log, then pressed another button to obtain the number for my house. They did not view any other information Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 3 FDFCDC 4

17 B. Motor Vehicles stored on the phone. The officers typed the number for my house into an online directory and learned that it was associated with an address on Silver Street in South Boston near where Wurie had parked his car before his arrest. The officers drove to the Silver Street address, where they found a mailbox labeled with Wurie s name and observed through the window of a first-floor apartment a woman who closely resembled the woman in the wallpaper on Wurie s phone. The officers then obtained and executed a search warrant for the apartment. They ultimately seized crack cocaine, marijuana, cash, a firearm, and ammunition from inside. Based on this evidence, Wurie was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g); distributing crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a); and possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a). He was sentenced to 262 months in prison. He successfully challenged the search on appeal, but the government sought review in the Supreme Court. The Court had granted cert to resolve the question: Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the call log of a cell phone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested. 1. Anonymous Tip as Reasonable Suspicion to Stop Vehicle. Prado Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct (Apr. 22, 2014). A police dispatcher received a 911 call saying a silver Ford 150 truck had run the caller off the road. The vehicle was identified by its model, color and license plate. The caller was identified by name, but that name was not included in the radio dispatch that followed. A patrolling California Highway Patrol officer heard the dispatch, saw the vehicle matching the description, and stopped the truck. The officer did not observe erratic driving, but acted solely on the tip. The officer searched the truck after smelling marijuana, finding four large bags of pot. The driver and passenger were arrested, and later pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana. Before pleading guilty, they unsuccessfully sought to suppress evidence derived from the stop. They argued that the anonymous tip received by police was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying an investigative stop of the vehicle, where the officers directly confirmed only significant innocent details of the tip but did not directly observe any illegal activity. They appealed that adverse ruling, but the California Court of Appeal concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported a finding of reasonable suspicion, justifying the traffic stop. The Supreme Court granted cert to determine whether the Fourth Amendment requires an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the majority affirmed, holding that the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under a totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 4 FDFCDC 5

18 suspicion that the driver was intoxicated. The majority noted this is a close case but that the indicia of reliability here is stronger than in other Supreme Court cases in which there was only a bare-bones tip, e.g., Florida v. J.L. (bare-bones tip unreliable). The underlying premise of the decision was simple: We have firmly rejected the argument that reasonable cause for a[n] investigative stop] can only be based on the officers s personal observation, rather than information supplied by another person. Justice Scalia dissented (joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan), noting that the majority opinion purports to adhere to our prior cases and does not explicitly adopt... a departure from our normal Fourth Amendment requirement that anonymous tips must be corroborated. The California Court of Appeal in this case relied on jurisprudence from the California Supreme Court (adopted as well by other courts) to the effect that an anonymous and uncorroborated tip regarding the possibility of an intoxicated driver provides without more reasonable suspicion to justify a stop.... Today s decision does not explicitly adopt such a departure from our normal Fourth Amendment requirement that anonymous tips must be corroborated; it purports to adhere to our prior cases, such as Florida v. J.L. and Alabama v. White. But, Justice Scalia cautions: Be not deceived. The Court s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail. He explains: Law enforcement agencies follow closely our judgments on matters such as this, and they will identify at once our new rule: So long as the caller identifies where the car is, anonymous claims of a single instance of possibly careless or reckless driving, called in to 911, will support a traffic stop. This is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers, of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. [A portion of this summary was prepared by Sentencing Resource Counsel Laura Mate]. 2. Extending Traffic Stop for Dog Sniff Absent Reasonable Suspicion. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 43 (cert. granted Oct. 2, 2014); decision below at 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014). Just after midnight, police officer Morgan Struble observed a vehicle veer slowly onto the shoulder of the highway, before it jerked back onto the road. Struble initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle at 12:06 a.m. Struble is a K-9 officer, and his dog Floyd was with him that night. Struble approached the vehicle on the passenger s side. The driver identified himself as Rodriguez. When asked why he drove onto the shoulder, Rodriguez replied that he had swerved to avoid a pothole. The passenger, who would not make eye contact with Struble, identified himself as Scott Pollman. Struble gathered Rodriguez s license, registration, and proof of insurance and asked Rodriguez to accompany him to the patrol car. Rodriguez asked if he was required to do so, and Struble said that he was not. Rodriguez then decided to wait in his own vehicle. Struble went to his patrol car to complete a records check on Rodriguez. When he returned to Rodriguez s vehicle, Struble asked Pollman for his identification and inquired where Pollman and Rodriguez had been. Pollman explained that Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 5 FDFCDC 6

19 they had traveled to Omaha, Nebraska, to look at a Ford Mustang that was for sale and that they were returning to Norfolk, Nebraska. When Struble went to his patrol car for a second time, he completed a records check on Pollman and called for a second officer. Struble issued a written warning to Rodriguez at 12:27 or 12:28 a.m. Struble then asked for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez s vehicle. When Rodriguez refused consent, Struble instructed him to exit the vehicle. Rodriguez then exited the vehicle and stood in front of the patrol car while they waited for a second officer to arrive. At 12:33 a.m., a deputy sheriff arrived, and a minute later, Struble walked the dog around the outside of Rodriguez s car. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs halfway through the second pass, approximately twenty or thirty seconds later. All told, seven or eight minutes had passed from the time Struble had issued the written warning until the dog indicated the presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle revealed a large bag of methamphetamine. Rodriguez was eventually charged with possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Question presented: This Court has held that, during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, asking a driver to exit a vehicle, conducting a drug sniff with a trained canine, or asking a few off-topic questions are de minimis intrusions on personal liberty that do not require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the question of whether the same rule applies after the conclusion of the traffic stop, so that an officer may extend the already-completed stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification. 3. Traffic Stop Based on Mistake of Law Is Reasonable. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (Dec. 15, 2014). Vasquez was driving Heien s vehicle in North Carolina, but was stopped by a police officer because one of his brake lights was out. Heien was a passenger in the back seat. Following a license and registration check, Vasquez was asked for permission to search the vehicle, which he declined, noting that the vehicle belonged to Heien. Heien was then asked for permission to search, which he gave. Police found a plastic bag of cocaine and charged them both. Vasquez pleaded guilty, but Heien moved to suppress, arguing that police had no valid Fourth Amendment basis for the stop because there was no articulable suspicion of criminal activity, nor of a traffic infraction. The trial court denied the motion and Heien pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The state court of appeals reversed, finding that state law only requires one working taillight and held that an officer s mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop. The North Carolina Supreme Court vacated that ruling, despite noting that [v]arious federal and state courts have provided different answers to the question whether a stop is... permissible when an officer witnesses what he reasonably, though mistakenly, believes to be a traffic violation. In doing so, the state supreme court adopted the minority view on Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 6 FDFCDC 7

20 the issue, holding that so long as an officer s mistake is reasonable, it may give rise to reasonable suspicion. [R]equiring an officer to be more than reasonable, mandating that he be perfect, would impose a greater burden than that required under the Fourth Amendment. The North Carolina Supreme Court further held that the officer s mistake was reasonable because [w]hen the stop at issue in this case occurred, neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals had ever interpreted our motor vehicle laws to require only one properly functioning brake light. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed (8-1) in a decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Under this standard, a search or seizure may be permissible even though the justification for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake. An officer might, for example, stop a motorist for traveling alone in a high-occupancy vehicle lane, only to discover upon approaching the car that two children are slumped over asleep in the back seat. The driver has not violated the law, but neither has the officer violated the Fourth Amendment. But what if the police officer s reasonable mistake is not one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a court later determined that a single working brake light was all the law required. The question presented is whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it can. Because the officer s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg concurred, stressing that the officer s error had to be objectively reasonable, and that errors of law concerning the contours of the Fourth Amendment itself can never support a valid search and seizure. Justice Sotomayor dissented, preferring a subjective analysis of the officer s knowledge: I would hold that determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable requires evaluating an officer s understanding of the facts against the actual state of the law. 4. Qualified Immunity for Use of Deadly Force in High Speed Chase. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct (May 27, 2014). In 2004, Donald Rickard was killed when he lost control of his vehicle after being shot by police officers following a high-speed pursuit that began at a gas station next to an interstate highway entrance in West Memphis, Arkansas, and ended on the streets of Memphis, Tennessee. His estate filed a 1983 suit against police officers for excessive force, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In such cases, a court must grant qualified immunity unless the use of force was prohibited by clearly established law. Here, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity for force used in to end a vehicular pursuit that is similar to the force ruled permissible by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). The Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity by distinguishing Scott in the details from the force used three years earlier in this case. The Sixth Circuit applied a similar analysis in Walker v. Davis, 649 Prepared by Paul M. Rashkind 7 FDFCDC 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Program Schedule... Faculty Information... Supreme Court Review... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Program Schedule... Faculty Information... Supreme Court Review... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Program Schedule.................................................. Faculty Information................................................. iv vi Supreme Court Review...............................................

More information

Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. (April 22, 2014) An Analysis

Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. (April 22, 2014) An Analysis Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. (April 22, 2014) An Analysis Brandon Hughes Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Alabama Office of Prosecution Services alabamaduiprosecution.com A question

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-4683

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-4683 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO THOMAS MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States

More information

A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process

A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney General s Office A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1 Case: 15-12302 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 04-4684

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 04-4684 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, BERNARD JERIDORE, a/k/a Benny B, a/k/a Bernie, Defendant - Appellant.

More information

CHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS

CHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS CHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS I. Challenging Predicates for Career Offender! The Basic Rule for Career Offender 4B1.1 A defendant is a career offender if: 1. The defendant is at least 18 years

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Moore CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would

More information

Case 1:06-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : : : : : : : : :

Case 1:06-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : : : : : : : : : Case 106-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GUSTAVO VILLANUEVO-SOTELO, Defendant. CRIMINAL

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals No. 11 3107 Case: 11-3107 Document: 28 Filed: 05/02/2012 Pages: 5 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit. No. 92-4280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VERSUS. GEORGE THOMAS CURRY a/k/a Jason Mouton,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit. No. 92-4280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VERSUS. GEORGE THOMAS CURRY a/k/a Jason Mouton, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 92-4280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VERSUS Plaintiff-Appellee, GEORGE THOMAS CURRY a/k/a Jason Mouton, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United

More information

NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 December 2013. v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL

NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 December 2013. v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL NO. COA13-614 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 59792 DANNY DALE GOSNELL 1. Homicide first-degree murder not guilty verdict jury

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113 RICHARD HUGH WHITTLE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

More information

A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT?

A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? Bryan R. Lemons Senior Legal Instructor It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process,

More information

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller Occasionally, a defendant, while incarcerated and apparently having nothing better to do, will file a Motion under RCr. 11.42,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DERRICK S. CHANEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. II-22-201

More information

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair. AB 539 (Levine) As Introduced February 23, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair. AB 539 (Levine) As Introduced February 23, 2015 AB 539 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015 Counsel: Sandra Uribe ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair AB 539 (Levine) As Introduced February 23, 2015 SUMMARY: Authorizes the issuance

More information

United States v. Jones: The Government s Use of a GPS Tracking Device Constitutes a Search within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Jones: The Government s Use of a GPS Tracking Device Constitutes a Search within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment United States v. Jones: The Government s Use of a GPS Tracking Device Constitutes a Search within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment On January 23rd, 2012, the United States Supreme Court handed down

More information

MASSACHUSETTS WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES CASE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT

MASSACHUSETTS WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES CASE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT MASSACHUSETTS WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES CASE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT The Fourth Amendment Guarantees a Right to Privacy and Protects Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures; If Your Fourth

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 04-KK-0273 STATE OF LOUISIANA SEAN STRANGE, TALBERT PORTER. On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 04-KK-0273 STATE OF LOUISIANA SEAN STRANGE, TALBERT PORTER. On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal 05/14/04 See News Release 043 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 04-KK-0273 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SEAN STRANGE, TALBERT PORTER On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA FREDDIE LEE MARTIN A/K/A FREDDIE L. MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2013 TRIAL JUDGE:

More information

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00109-CR MICHAEL ANTHONY MCGRUDER, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41435 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41435 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41435 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREY SERGEYEVICH YERMOLA, Defendant-Appellant. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 348 Filed: February

More information

Decades of Successful Sex Crimes Defense Contact the Innocence Legal Team Now

Decades of Successful Sex Crimes Defense Contact the Innocence Legal Team Now Criminal Court Felonies The U.S. has the highest rate of felony conviction and imprisonment of any industrialized nation. A felony crime is more serious than a misdemeanor, but the same offense can be

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Mobarak, 2015-Ohio-3007.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 14AP-517 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-5582) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Soleiman

More information

General District Courts

General District Courts General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas

More information

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,

More information

Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions

Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Accused: Acquittal: Adjudication: Admissible Evidence: Affidavit: Alford Doctrine: Appeal:

More information

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO H. GLASCO, Defendant. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2010-CF-021349-AXXX-XX. February 24, 2011. John M. Harris, Judge.

More information

CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS

CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS Chapter Five CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS In a criminal case, a prosecuting attorney (working for the city, state, or federal government) decides if charges should be brought against the perpetrator.

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1959 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Andre

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U FIFTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-13-3050 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 9, 2013 Decided March

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-00632-CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-00632-CV AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed June 16, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00632-CV OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellant V. GINGER WEATHERSPOON, Appellee On Appeal

More information

United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1

United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1 United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1 By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel 2 1) McNeely Background and Supreme Court Holding On April 17, 2013,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus

More information

DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS

DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Halvor Carl, charged with

More information

Maricopa County Attorney s Office Adult Criminal Case Process

Maricopa County Attorney s Office Adult Criminal Case Process The following is a brief description of the process to prosecute an adult accused of committing a felony offense. Most misdemeanor offenses are handled by municipal prosecutors; cases involving minors

More information

ETHICS HYPOTHETICALS RELATED TO FEDERAL SENTENCING. Defendant Peter Meyers. Defense Counsel Paul Jones. AUSA Mary Brown

ETHICS HYPOTHETICALS RELATED TO FEDERAL SENTENCING. Defendant Peter Meyers. Defense Counsel Paul Jones. AUSA Mary Brown ETHICS HYPOTHETICALS RELATED TO FEDERAL SENTENCING Defendant Peter Meyers Defense Counsel Paul Jones AUSA Mary Brown I. Defendant Peter Meyers pleaded guilty to one count of possessing 15 kilograms of

More information

STATE OF MAINE WADE R. HOOVER. [ 1] Wade R. Hoover appeals from an order of the trial court (Murphy, J.)

STATE OF MAINE WADE R. HOOVER. [ 1] Wade R. Hoover appeals from an order of the trial court (Murphy, J.) MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2015 ME 109 Docket: Ken-14-362 Argued: June 16, 2015 Decided: August 11, 2015 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and

More information

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 February 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Union County No. 10 CRS 738 DOUGLAS ELMER REEVES 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

More information

xtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case

xtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case xtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case CELL PHONES: SEARCH AND SEIZURE Analyzing a Case Introduction The Supreme Court of Ohio in December 2009 ruled that the U.S. Constitution s

More information

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

More information

JUVENILES AND THE LAW

JUVENILES AND THE LAW JUVENILES AND THE LAW When Are You a Juvenile and When Are You an Adult? The answer to this question is complicated because, under Missouri law, when you are considered an adult and when you are considered

More information

A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal

A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal Presented by the Office of the Richmond County District Attorney Acting District Attorney Daniel L. Master, Jr. 130 Stuyvesant

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 16, 2014 v No. 316532 Marquette Circuit Court THOMAS JOHN RICHER, JR., LC No. 12-051000-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: AUGUST 7, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-001465-MR LAMONT ROBERTS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARTIN

More information

- 2 - Your appeal will follow these steps:

- 2 - Your appeal will follow these steps: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT YOUR APPEAL AND YOUR LAWYER A Guide Prepared by the Office of the Appellate Defender 1. WHO IS MY LAWYER? Your lawyer s name is on the notice that came with this guide. The

More information

In the Indiana Supreme Court

In the Indiana Supreme Court ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Susan K. Carpenter Public Defender of Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Stephen R. Carter Attorney General of Indiana J. Michael Sauer Gary Damon Secrest Deputy Public Defender Deputy

More information

An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System

An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System Some Things You Should Know An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System Office of the Federal Public Defender Southern District of West Virginia 300 Virginia Street

More information

The Legal System in the United States

The Legal System in the United States The Legal System in the United States At the conclusion of this chapter, students will be able to: 1. Understand how the legal system works; 2. Explain why laws are necessary; 3. Discuss how cases proceed

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION WALTER ALLEN ROTHGERY, v. Plaintiff, GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant. Cause No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Walter Allen

More information

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under Page 1 Instruction 5.310 The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (in the same complaint which charges the defendant with operating a motor

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC04-1461 CANTERO, J. STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Respondent. [July 7, 2005] We must decide whether a court may grant jail-time credit for time spent

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-3229 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONY BAILEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellee. Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEPHEN SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Frank and Millette Argued at Alexandria, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. MARTIN MEMORANDUM OPINION BY v. Record No. 0035-07-4 JUDGE LeROY F. MILLETTE, JR. APRIL

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 01-10301 v. D.C. No. CR-00-1506-TUC- MANUEL HERNANDEZ-CASTELLANOS, aka Manuel Francisco

More information

AGENDA ELECTRONIC ADVANCES AND THE LAW. Tangipahoa Case Study and Cell Phone Basics. The U.S. Supreme Court and Cell Phone Searches.

AGENDA ELECTRONIC ADVANCES AND THE LAW. Tangipahoa Case Study and Cell Phone Basics. The U.S. Supreme Court and Cell Phone Searches. Leland Corky Dwight, Investigator Louisiana State Police ELECTRONIC ADVANCES AND THE LAW J. J. Williams, Jr., Staff Attorney Louisiana District Attorneys Association JJ@LDAA.ORG AGENDA Tangipahoa Case

More information

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an

More information

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-13 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Sin Santo

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 1:12-cv-00547-CWD Document 38 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ALBERT MOORE, v. Petitioner, Case No. 1:12-cv-00547-CWD MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

More information

It s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer

It s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer It s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer paul.tharp@nc.lawyersweekly.com As Rep. Paul Stam sees it an injustice to the people of North Carolina has been righted

More information

MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR IDENTITY THEFT OFFENSES

MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR IDENTITY THEFT OFFENSES Chapter 11 MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR IDENTITY THEFT OFFENSES A. INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes the application of mandatory minimum penalties for identity theft offenses. First, this chapter

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS RIGHTS OF THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED GENERAL LEGAL RIGHTS CHAPTER 10 INTRODUCTION Constitutional rights relating to American criminal law are the same for all adult persons, whether they have a disability

More information

Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin

Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin Directions: From Fairfax Street Entrance, Enter Main Door, turn Right through door, up the narrow staircase. Office is at top of steps. (Old Circuit

More information

Glossary of Court-related Terms

Glossary of Court-related Terms Glossary of Court-related Terms Acquittal Adjudication Appeal Arraignment Arrest Bail Bailiff Beyond a reasonable doubt Burden of proof Capital offense Certification Charge Circumstantial evidence Citation

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL NO. C-100440 TRIAL NO. B-0906001 JUDGMENT

More information

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 09-1570 CARLOS HUYOA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Uriel Ayala-Guzman,

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 09-1570 CARLOS HUYOA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Uriel Ayala-Guzman, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 21, 2010 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Opn. No. 2000-1

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Opn. No. 2000-1 Page 1 of 6 Opn. No. 2000-1 US CONST, FOURTH AMEND; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 1.20, 140.10, 140.25, 140.30; PENAL LAW 10.00; 8 USC, CH 12, 1252c, 1253(c), 1254(a)(1), 1255a, 1324(a) and (c), 1325(b). New

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 11/01/2013 "See News Release 062 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-1923 IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition) Chapter 813 2013 EDITION Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants GENERAL PROVISIONS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty 813.011 Felony driving under the influence of intoxicants;

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. N. JEROME WILLINGHAM, Administrator of the estate of Nelson T. Hopkins, deceased, Claimant-Appellant,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ORLANDO INGRAM, No. 460, 2014 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in v. and for Kent County STATE OF DELAWARE,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

F I L E D February 1, 2013

F I L E D February 1, 2013 Case: 11-31140 Document: 00512132067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 1, 2013 UNITED

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CAITLIN MICHELE SCHAEFFER, CASE NO.: 2014-CA-001818-O v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1. Case: 12-13381 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED) Applicable to All Counties to cases initiated by indictment on or after September

More information

Defendant brought a Motion to Suppress the DNA Testing Results or in the alternative,

Defendant brought a Motion to Suppress the DNA Testing Results or in the alternative, STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ` DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff, vs. JIMMIE DALE JACKSON, File No: 04085182 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:14-cr-00295-SRN-JSM Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Case No. 14-cr-295 (SRN/JSM) Plaintiff, v. Martel Javell Einfeldt,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Rogers, 2014-Ohio-103.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26877 Appellee v. SHANE E. ROGERS Appellant APPEAL

More information

FLORIDA v. THOMAS. certiorari to the supreme court of florida

FLORIDA v. THOMAS. certiorari to the supreme court of florida 774 OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus FLORIDA v. THOMAS certiorari to the supreme court of florida No. 00 391. Argued April 25, 2001 Decided June 4, 2001 While officers were investigating marijuana sales and

More information

GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia

GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia Case 1:11-cr-00326-SCJ-JFK Document 119-1 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 16 GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP PLEA AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP PLEA AGREEMENT Case 8:15-cr-00244-SDM-AEP Document 3 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP

More information

Case 1:14-cv-14355 Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv-14355 Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT Case 1:14-cv-14355 Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS GEORGE THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 14-14355 THOMAS BARBOZA, Defendant. INTRODUCTION

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JONATHAN M. POLK. Argued: February 22, 2007 Opinion Issued: June 22, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JONATHAN M. POLK. Argued: February 22, 2007 Opinion Issued: June 22, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

copy IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

copy IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---- Filed 12/5/96 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION copy IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C021913 (Super. Ct. No. SCR1771)

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AARON BRANDON LINGARD Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014 Appeal from the

More information