Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

As an experienced St. Louis criminal defense attorney, I am often giving advice to clients regarding new law enforcement techniques to gather evidence in ongoing investigations. GPS technology is a relatively new technology that has changed the way police and law enforcement track criminals by making easier to follow a person without having to use actual law enforcement officers to do it. Criminal Defense Attorneys have been arguing that use of GPS devices on cars to track movements is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

As a case before the U.S. Supreme Court just this week highlighted, GPS can also be used by police to help track a persons movements. (See U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259) The Supreme Court ruled that police have to get a proper search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The Court ruled just this week on a case involving a nightclub owner in Washington, D.C., Antoine Jones, who had a GPS tracking device attached to his Jeep. As a result of the tracking, law enforcement officials were able to gather evidence which linked him to a house used to stash drugs and money. Jones' movements were monitored for 28 days and he was convicted of conspiring to sell cocaine. A federal appeals court eventually overturned his federal drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed the GPS device on his vehicle. What is interesting about the decision is that the Court pointed out that the length of time the GPS device was used crossed the line and became an unreasonable search. Yet, the court was not specific on the length of time that would be an issue.

The same issue has appeared in a St. Louis, Missouri Federal case. Just last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge David Noce ruled that evidence obtained through the use of a GPS tracking device attached to the car of an employee of the St. Louis treasurer's office could be used in court.

At the time, case law suggested that the installation of a tracking device on Fred Robinson's car by FBI agents did not constitute either a "search" or "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Judge Noce did point out that the Jones case was before the Supreme Court and that the decision could have an impact.

Robinson, who was indicted in September on one count of wire fraud and seven counts of federal program theft, has been accused of stealing more than $250,000 of public money from a charter school and of taking as much as $175,000 from a no-show job in Treasurer Larry C. Williams' office. Robinson's lawyers said Monday that they would move to file a new motion in light of the Jones decision. U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan claimed that the Jones ruling did not necessarily mean that the GPS evidence gathered in Robinson's case would be tossed out and that it would ultimately depend on how the High Court's decision is interpreted.

This issue is not going to go away anytime soon as technology is becoming a basic part of everyday life. We have GPS tracking on our cell phones and even some cars have it built in. The Supreme Court is just beginning to deal with the many fourth amendment issues with technology that will arise in the coming years.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in the St. Louis area contact our St. Louis Criminal Defense Attorneys today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking," , published at Stltoday.com

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Jefferson County Woman Charged with Illegal Possession of Prescription Medication, Case Dismissed Based on Legal and Factual Defenses
Asleep at the Wheel: What Constitutes "Operating a Motor Vehicle" under Missouri DWI Law?

As a St. Louis Criminal Defense attorney that handles all types of traffic matters in the St. Louis area, I always seem to get questions regarding red light camera tickets. A recent story out of Arnold Municipal Court in St. Louis is very troubling. If you ever paid a red light camera traffic ticket in the City of Arnold you may need to check your records for your receipt. A problem with red light cameras in Arnold, Missouri flared up earlier this month when the private photo enforcement operator, American Traffic Solutions (ATS) began sending out thousands of collection notices to drivers who had, at some point, received red light tickets. The issue was that at least 1,200 of those who received such notices had already paid their fines or otherwise dealt with the infraction. Government officials in Arnold have been busy assuring their constituents that this was simply an accident and not an attempt to force more money from their pockets.

One of the notices reads as follows:

The city of Arnold Police Department has referred the account described herein as being delinquent. It is in your best interest to give this matter your immediate attention. If you fail to pay the notice you will be referred to a collection agency for the collection of this debt.

"Recently, a letter was sent from ATS, on behalf of the city of Arnold, in an effort to collect on tickets that were issued from 2005 to present and that remained unpaid," a city press release noted. "Unfortunately, a computer error caused a small percentage of those letters to be sent to persons who had already satisfied their cases." Those citizens who were mistakenly notified will receive a follow-up letter apologizing and instructing them to disregard their earlier bill.

City Council member Doris Brogelt remains unhappy with the city's response to the issue, labeling the press release "nothing short of a lie." Brogelt went on to say that, "It was not a computer error that caused this mess, it was a data entry error on the part of the city of Arnold. I do not consider 1,200 out of 8,000 or 15 percent a small percentage of people affected. Please correct this with the press."

Concerns have been raised about just how accidental the notices were. The current contract between ATS and Arnold says that ATS is to receive $31.33 for every $24.50 collected in court costs on dismissed cases. If the city fails to report the number of cases that have been dismissed then they save money. Insiders are suggesting that the city currently owes ATS some $50,000 for failing to report such tickets.

If you find yourself facing a traffic ticket in the city of Arnold or any other municipal court and are in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your rights, contact Sansone/Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "About 1,000 letters wrongly sought unpaid fines from Arnold red-light cameras," by Leah Thorsen, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Jefferson County Circuit Court takes part in NHTSA Study
St. Louis Felony Rape Charges Dismissed Day before Trial

As an experienced St. Louis criminal defense attorney, I have people approach me all the time and ask the question if they can shoot someone that breaks into their home or car. Until 2007 it was not an easy question to answer as any homeowner had a duty to escape the situation. With a little known change in the law the City of St. Louis has seen an increase in the number of intruders in St. Louis being gunned down by homeowners. This increase may, in part, be due to a self defense law known as the castle doctrine. Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles or on their property are given more leeway in using deadly force. Because of the unexpected increase authorities have decided to change they way they review apparently justifiable homicide cases.

There were seven fatal shootings involving the castle doctrine in the city of St. Louis in 2011, up from two the previous year. In the past, police detectives who thought a killing was justified would contact the circuit attorney's office to make sure prosecutors were in agreement.

Captain Michael Sack, head of the homicide unit, said that, "If the victim was able to articulate that they thought their lives were in jeopardy, along with being supported by physical evidence and/or witness statements, it was deemed justifiable." Things will change going forward as every case will now be scrutinized in a more formal review by the St. Louis circuit attorney's office. "It seems to make sense to ask someone else to review our investigation and our work and see if they come to the same conclusions as we do, especially when you're talking about something as serious as taking someone's life," Sack said.

Until passage of the castle doctrine, Missouri law didn't necessarily permit killings in self-defense. Under the old law, homeowners confronted by intruders had a duty to escape their homes if they were able to do so safely. Deadly force was justified only if needed for protection from serious bodily injury or death. The castle doctrine altered the standard, allowing more leeway in using deadly force for those who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicle or on their property.

The argument, according to one advocate of the change, is that citizens should have the right to use force to repel intruders given that anyone breaking into an occupied home must have evil intentions towards the residents. Missouri isn't alone; some 30 states have some form of a castle doctrine.

Critics of the law fear that it has encouraged vigilantism and might one day be used as cover for someone who wanted to commit premeditated murder. "We call them 'shoot-first laws,'" said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Shoot first, ask questions later."

The particulars of the castle doctrine and justifiable homicide cases are very complicated and require the expertise of a skilled Missouri criminal defense attorney to understand. The language of the law says that if a homeowners is put in fear of "unlawful force," he or she is permitted to use lethal force. However, the legislature failed to define "unlawful force" leaving it up to law enforcement officials and prosecutors to interpret. If you find yourself facing questions related to use of deadly force, contact our firm Sansone/Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri authorities navigate castle doctrine," by Kim Bell, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri DWI Defense Tactic: State Must Prove Temporal Connection Between Time Car was Driven and Intoxication
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds

Judges in the City of St. Louis are taking what could be a revolutionary and yet controversial step in the search for methods of preventing gun violence and early research indicates the approach might have merit. Judge John Garvey has begun setting $30,000 cash-only bonds for those individuals charged with illegal possession of a firearm, unlawful use of a weapon flourishing and other gun related charges. He started this back in May 2011 and, since then the city of St. Louis has seen a drop in the homicide cases in the city. The correlation is too weak to be deemed causal, but law enforcement officials and those on the bench seem hopeful.

The St. Louis City Chief of Police has credited the increase in bail with the 20% drop in homicides. Judge Garvey is not so sure, but the University of Chicago has been called in to study the phenomenon and to determine if the correlation between the increase in bail and the decrease in homicide are in fact causally connected.

Experienced criminal defense attorneys such as Sansone/Lauber are not happy with the judge's new policy. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant is present in court and that the defendant does not pose a threat to society. It appears that Judge Garvey is using bail to deter future conduct, which goes against its purpose. Each case should be looked at on a case by case basis as people could be held in jail for an extremely long time waiting on trial due to the high bond. This could lead to innocent people prematurely entering a plea of guilty to a gun charge to get out of jail.

As criminal defense attorneys we are concerned that the results are still not well understood, highlighting that only first-time offenders are likely to be influenced by the high bail and the possibility of jail time, and these first time offenders often pose little threat. Repeat offenders and violent career criminals are not afraid of spending a little time in jail, so the range of individuals possibly affected by the new policy is narrow.

Researchers at the University of Chicago are fascinated by the possibility that increasing bail may decrease homicides. Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, studies crime prevention strategies across the country. He and his team have been to St. Louis to study the effect on the increase in bail in these gun cases and he plans to return for a more thorough analysis.

Ludwig says that the effect of the increase is to provide immediate consequences for the actions of young criminal offenders. "For people who are very present-oriented, they will think, 'If the cops catch me, I'm not sleeping in my bed tonight. I'm spending the next however many days, weeks, months behind bars immediately,'... That's a fundamentally different thing from worrying about what's going to happen a year from now." Yet, this does not take into account the many gun crimes that involve people trying to protect themselves or highly emotional situations where young people don't think about the consequences of their actions. As a criminal defense attorney I would like to see more long term data to see if their is truly a connection between high bonds and drop in homicides. To present a uniform approach in all gun cases can be extreme and unfair to certain individuals.

If the results of the University of Chicago study demonstrate that there is some connection between increased bail for gun crimes and decreased homicides, the University of Chicago Crime Lab will recommend that other judges across the country implement the policy. Our criminal law firm, Sansone/Lauber, located in Clayton Missouri will be on the cutting edge of fighting back against what we think is an unfair bail strategy. Contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500 if you feel that you've been a victim of such a prejudicial bail tactic.

Source: "Gun case bails rise in St. Louis, homicides drop," by Christine Byers and Jennifer Mann, published at StLouisToday.com

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri's Criminal Code In Need of a Face Lift
College Students, Alcohol, and DWI