Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

The Supreme Court gave word last week that it would hear a case that concerned the power of police officers to give involuntary blood tests to those arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. The case could be an important one given that it will impact the reading of the Fourth Amendment protections regarding search and seizures and their relationship to forced blood tests.

The case name is Missouri v. McNeely and began as a traffic stop back in 2010. The officer pulled the man, Tyler McNeely, over early in the morning for a routine speeding violation when the officer began to suspect that McNeely was intoxicated. The officer requested that McNeely perform several field sobriety tests which he failed. McNeely then refused to submit to a blood alcohol test after being asked by the officer. After refusing, McNeely was taken to a clinic where the officer ordered a medical technician to draw his blood without his consent. The test results showed that he was indeed intoxicated.

Before trial, McNeely's lawyer attempted to suppress the involuntarily taken blood sample, saying that the arresting officer never received a search warrant authorizing the seizure. The prosecution vehemently disagreed, and said that the officer was authorized to take the test immediately because had he failed to do so the alcohol in McNeely's system would have diminished quickly as it was metabolized.

The lower court judge sided with the defense attorney and ordered the suppression of the blood test. This decision was reversed by a state appeals court and then reversed again by the Missouri Supreme Court which affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Missouri Supreme Court said that the officer was within his right to order the blood test given the exigent circumstances of the rapidly diminishing alcohol.

Others have argued that the circumstances do not truly rise to the level of emergency, there was no terrible accident, no crime scene was in danger of destruction. State courts from across the country are split on the issue, with some saying special circumstances are needed to raise the situation to the level justifying a warrantless search. The High Court will weigh in and clarify the important issue sometime early next year.

If you've had a run in with the law and 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: "Supreme Court to hear dispute over warrantless blood test for drunken driving suspect," by The Denver Post, published at www.denverpost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?
Missouri Court Says Initial Refusal Not Enough To Justify License Revocation

As we mentioned a few weeks back, a person who intentionally disrupts a house of worship in Missouri could face jail time, according to a recently enacted Missouri law. Senate Bill No. 755, or the House of Worship Protection Act, went into effect on August 28, 2012.

According to the law:

"... a person commits the crime of disturbing a house of worship if such person intentionally and unreasonably disturbs a building used for religious purposes by using profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise. A person commits the crime if they engage in such behavior within the house of worship or so close to the building that the services are disturbed."

The phrase "house of worship" is meant to be a catchall and includes "any church, synagogue, mosque, other building or structure, or public or private place used for religious worship, religious instruction, or other religious purpose."

The law also makes it a crime to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person exercising the right to religious freedom or who is seeking access to a house of worship. This means harassing or obstructing those seeking to enter into a house of worship will also be a criminal act.

Opinions across the state have been divided over the necessity of such a law with some saying it will prevent disrespectful displays from interrupting innocent churchgoers. Others, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree, challenging the legality of the act. At the end of August the ACLU filed a lawsuit specifically challenging the House of Worship Protection Act.

The suit was filed on behalf of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), and Voice of the Faithful of Kansas City. SNAP and Voice of the Faithful believe their protests outside Catholic churches in support of sexual abuse victims could be deemed illegal under the House of Worship Protection Act and used as a way to stomp out their First Amendment rights.

The ACLU says that the House of Worship Protection Act is so vague that many groups do not know if their actions will qualify as "disruptive." This worry has a chilling effect on free speech and should not be allowed, according to the ACLU. Even more problematic is that officers will have the discretion to decide what exactly constitutes rude or profane public behavior. A ruling on the case has yet to be issued and, in the meantime, the law remains in effect.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis 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: "Disrupting worship service in MO could mean jail time," published at KFVS12.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Several New Laws Take Effect Across Missouri
New Missouri Law Will Allow Expungement

This election year voting rights laws have turned into a heated issue as civil rights groups and state legislatures fight over photo ID requirements. While that issue has received a lot of attention, the larger problem of felon disenfranchisement laws has attracted less concern despite the potential millions of votes at stake.

According to the nonprofit organization VOTE, individuals in Missouri convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote while incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. However, voting rights are automatically restored upon completion of all supervised release obligations. Ex-offenders are then allowed to re-register to vote.

While the law in Missouri is relatively straightforward, that is not the case across the country. Instead, a patchwork of restrictions exist which prevent nearly 5.85 million people with felony convictions from voting. A report released by The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., criminal justice reform advocacy group, reveals that the laws also disproportionately affect some races more than others.

Highlighting the varied laws, a felon in Maine is allowed to vote from prison using an absentee ballot, while a felon convicted of the same crime in Florida might never be allowed to vote, even after having been released from prison. Laws vary widely across the country dealing with how felons lose their voting rights and under what circumstances they can be restored. In Mississippi, there are 22 categories of crime that result in disenfranchisement. Timber larceny is included on the list while manslaughter is not. Adding even more hoops to jump through, the state laws say that felons who want their voting rights back must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature, and the governor can then either sign or veto the measure.

Those people who are eager for legal reform argue that voting is a crucial step in integrating criminals back into their communities. They point out that voting is a critical part of citizenship and disenfranchising millions of people is not a good way to make people productive members of society.

Advocates for legal change point out that minorities are far more likely to be affected by these laws than white criminals. Given that black people make up 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, but 37.9 percent of those in federal and state prisons, an overwhelmingly large number of black people are denied the right to vote when compared to other races.

Disenfranchisement also impacts the national political debate by removing millions of possible constituents from the voter rolls. Things like welfare reform and progressive taxation are all issues that affect this group of citizens, but their voices will not be heard given current laws.

Attempts have been made to rectify the situation, with legislation being proposed in Congress to create a national standard. Just this year Democrats introduced the Voter Empowerment Act which proposed sweeping changes in how federal elections are conducted and would let felons who are out of prison vote in federal elections. The measure went nowhere as politicians eager to seem tough on crime defeated it.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis 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: "Should felons vote? In some states, it's easy. In others, impossible," by Maryann Batlle, published at NBCNews.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
New Missouri Law Will Allow Expungement
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines