Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the city of St. Louis has been wracked with an unusual amount of violence in only the first month of the year as police officers have fired shots in five incidents over 19 days, killing one and wounding four. Of most concern is that several such instances appear to violate the department's own written protocols, although Chief Dan Isom said exceptions are frequently made.

Last year saw less police violence than normal as St. Louis police officers hit suspects with gunfire in 15 incidents during 2011. Officers typically fire between 30 and 40 times a year. Before hearing about the fifth incident of the year, Isom said that he though "Four is a concern." He was quick to point out that it "doesn't mean it's necessarily inappropriate... We look at these shootings on a case-by-case basis."

Isom clarified that the use-of-force policy begins with the following disclaimer: "In exceptional circumstances, violations of the restrictions may be justified by necessity." The procedures generally prohibit firing at or from moving vehicles, or being too quick to pull out a pistol.

Three of this year's five incidents involved shots at moving cars. One was the unintentional wounding of a teenager by an officer's un-holstered pistol during a struggle. The final incident, where a suspect was killed, involved a volley of shots in which three officers together fired almost 100 rounds.

Isom has said investigations regarding each incident are ongoing but that he has personally reviewed footage from several such episodes. "Are there things that could have been done differently? Right now, there's nothing glaring."

Isom says the protocols exist for a reason and officers should usually attempt to follow them to avoid creating unnecessary danger to others. For instance, the rule against shooting at a moving vehicle exists because a driver who is unable to control his vehicle has a much greater chance of injuring others.

Another procedure says that officers may "only draw or exhibit a weapon when he/she has reasonable cause to believe that it may be necessary to use that weapon." This comes from a 2009 study of 112 St. Louis police shootings that occurred between 2003 and 2007. The study, conducted by David Klinger, a University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist, found that nearly half of all shootings included foot chases and many involved "officers getting too close to suspects while holding their service pistols."

When Klinger conducted the study, the St. Louis PD only conducted monthly, computerized refresher courses regarding deadly force training. Klinger felt this wasn't enough and that reforms needed to be made to ensure police behaved appropriately in dangerous situations. Isom said the department took action, implementing various changes with regard to deadly force training. These changes include more defensive tactics training and an extra firearms qualification day, with scenario-based training.

Hopefully these changes have an effect and reduce the levels of police violence seen thus far in 2012. If you've had a run in with police and find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "St. Louis police shootings pit real world against policies," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri's Criminal Code In Need of a Face Lift
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds

/>A recent article on MSNBC.com, asks whether all states should move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices in the case of drunk drivers. Drivers in Connecticut who have been convicted of drunken driving are the latest to face mandatory use of ignition interlock devices. Similar moves by other states have been seen as a sign by some that the nation is moving closer to requiring alcohol detection systems in all vehicles, eventually becoming as ubiquitous as airbags and seatbelts.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving pushed hard for the Connecticut law which took effect on January 1st of this year. The state joins 14 other with ignition-interlock mandates for drivers caught with blood-alcohol content above the legal limit, even for first-time offenders. A similar pilot program recently began in several California counties.

At least 24 other states mandate the Breathalyzer-like locks the most serious drunken drivers including repeat offenders or those caught with alcohol levels of .15 or more. The question is whether Missouri, currently in the latter category, will decide to join other states and push for the ignition interlock devices for even first time offenders

Two years ago a state law went into effect and required repeat DUI offenders to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles. Since that time, Missouri law enforcement officials now say that the decision is responsible for a significant decrease in drunk driving injuries and fatalities across the state. This indicates that not only will the requirement continue, but its success may be reason enough to move for a stricter rule.

The Missouri Highway Patrol released traffic statistics indicating that drunk driving injuries and fatalities have decreased over the past two years. According to the Patrol, there were 218 drunk driving deaths and 3,823 injuries in 2010. In comparison, there were 262 drunk driving deaths and 4,511 injuries in 2008.

The law was implemented in August of 2009 and requires that second-time DUI offenders install ignition interlocks in their vehicles for six months. The device contains a Breathalyzer which must be blown before a client can start their automobile. If the Breathalyzer detects the presence of alcohol on the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.

Since the law was enacted, the number of Missouri drivers with an ignition interlock has increased from 1,800 in 2008 to 8,700 in 2010. The convicted offender usually has to pay for the device to be installed and maintained, often at a significant cost. Due to the exceptionally high cost many DUI offenders simply decide to not have the devices installed and give up their driver's license instead. If they refuse to install the ignition interlock device, their license will automatically be suspended for a variable length of time. Approximately 50,000 drivers choose (or are forced into) a suspended license over an ignition interlock.

If you find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Drunk Driving Deaths and Injuries Down - Two Years After Ignition Lock Law," Kevin Killeen, published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
College Students, Alcohol, and DWI
Convicted on a DUI? How to Appeal the Ruling

As a St. Louis Criminal Defense attorney who handles all types of traffic matters in the St. Louis area, I've seen a variety of issues arise with the use of red light cameras. Several of these ordinances have been a source of contention across the state. Last month Mark Neill, a St. Louis Circuit Court judge went one step further. Building on his preliminary ruling from last May, he ruled that St. Louis's red light camera law was unconstitutional.

Judge Neill noted two reasons for voiding the ordinance. The first, stated in the preliminary ruling, was that there was no enabling legislation passed by the state legislature that would enable municipalities to pass such an ordinance. A municipality only has the "police power" granted to it by the state.

Further, the police power would only be legitimate if "the expressed requirements or regulations...have substantial and rational relation to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality." Neill found in the preliminary ruling that the red light camera does nothing to change or regulate the streets or traffic, therefore has no substantial or rational relation to any of the legitimate grounds for exercising police power. Without enabling legislation or other proper grounds for police power, the ordinance was found to be void.

The second reason for voiding the ordinance pertains to due process. The fundamental requirement for sufficient due process is "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner." The city would mail citations to those photographs running red lights, but these citations would be missing key information. The citations would not provide a summons, a court date or a means to contest the citation except with the defense of "someone else was driving the vehicle." These deficiencies were found to be unconstitutional violations of due process.

This may seem to conflict with the recent battle of red light cameras in Creve Coeur. However, Judge Neil distinguished the two ordinances in a number of ways. First, Creve Coeur law was more like a "parking violation," imposing a fine on a vehicle's presence in the intersection regardless of who was actually driving, whereas the St. Louis ordinance was specifically a fine on the driver of the vehicle. Second, the Creve Coeur ordinance emphasized its civil nature by stating "under no circumstances may a person be imprisoned for such an infraction." The St. Louis ordinance did not have such explicit language limiting penalties.

However, Judge Neill has created some uncertainty by not enjoining the city from enforcing the red light ordinance. Neill's logic was that since the law is void, "the court [will assume] that the city will not attempt to enforce the ordinance if and when a judgment declaring the ordinance void becomes final." However, the city plans on both appealing Neill's order and continuing to operate the red light cameras citywide. It then becomes a gamble for those who are caught by the red light cameras--do you pay the fine or ignore it, betting on Neill's ruling holding up on appeal.

If you find yourself receiving a citation due to a red light camera 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: "St. Louis red-light camera law remains in limbo," by Jennifer Mann, published at STLToday.com.

Related Posts:
DOUBLE BILLING FOR RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKETS IN ARNOLD MISSOURI
Self-defense in St. Louis and the impact of the "castle doctrine"