Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

A recent article discussed a seemingly boring but ultimately important issue that may be raised before the Supreme Court in the coming session: pocket litter. "Pocket litter" is a phrase used in law enforcement circles to refer to items of miscellaneous information carried on a person. This comes into play when a person is arrested or otherwise detained by an officer and they are subject to a search.

When law enforcement officers arrest someone, they conduct a thorough search of the suspect and his or her immediate possessions. This is what is known as a "search incident to arrest." Any and all items found during this search are deemed admissible in Court. During a typical search officers are trained to look for items that might provide useful evidence for the case or that might cause harm to themselves or others. Another use of such searches is to gather information that might provide a clue about other individuals involved in the alleged criminal activity.

Seemingly mundane items found in people's pockets or purses can provide a significant amount of information. Slips of paper with quickly written messages, phone numbers, names, addresses business cards, etc. all make for great leads. Beyond these obvious examples, scraps of paper including receipts, bus passes or airplane tickets also provide valuable information to those seeking to identify a suspected criminal and any possible criminal associates.

One thing that has happened on this front given the technological changes seen recently is that the items that often make up such pocket litter have changed. Originally the term referred only to small scraps of paper generally containing only a relatively small amount of information. Today, the term has grown to include electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, iPods, and even laptops from which huge amounts of information can be collected. These devices carry voicemails, call and text logs, photos, Internet browser history and even GPS information.

The question facing many appellate courts today is just how far such a search can go when high value electronic pocket litter is involved. Cellphones in particular present a puzzling gray area, as there have been conflicting rulings between various U.S. Circuit Courts. This conflict makes it more likely that the issue will end up before the Supreme Court at some point to help clarify the issue. Judges confronted with such facts often find themselves lost, comparing cellphones to diaries while trying to analogize to prior cases from decades ago that have little if any relevance to the challenges they face today. The Supreme Court should step in and shed light on the issue, hopefully catching the legal system up to recent enormous changes in technology.

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: "Pocket Litter: The Evidence That Criminals Carry," by Scott Stewart, published at RightSideNews.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Meth Making Lands Man Behind Bars
Need to record the police? There's an app for that

It must be true what they say; one man's trash is another man's treasure. Though it may not sound particularly tragic, St. Louis is evidently gripped by an odd crime wave. The number of scrap metal thefts has skyrocketed across the city and thieves have their eyes on one very common piece of scrap: trash bin hooks. Police say that criminals are searching alleys across St. Louis looking for the metal hooks, something that is costing taxpayers thousands of dollars to fix.

The incidents of trash bin hook theft have jumped especially over the last few months. The problem not only costs money to replace the hooks, but also leads to delays collecting garbage, as the dump trucks are unable to latch onto the trashcan to properly empty it. Though the problem might not seem like such a big deal, such metal theft rings have grown enormously in recent years. The bad economy and rising commodities prices have forced many people to consider stealing metal for even the little amount of money it can bring it.

The treasured bit of metal is made up of two triangle-shaped steel plates with two teeth on the ends that are bolted to the sides of the 30,000 trash, yard waste and recycling bins across the city. The arms of the dump trucks grab the hooks and are then able to lift the bins into the truck to empty them. If the hooks are missing the trash will pile up until repairs have been done to attach new hooks.

The director of trash operations in St. Louis says the recent rash of metal thefts have risen enormously. In a typical year about 100 trash bin hooks are stolen. So far this year the number is over 1,100. Police have said they believe a handful of people are responsible for the vast majority of the thefts and they suspect they are moving around the city with specialized tools to remove the bolts connecting the hooks to the bins.

Each hook costs around $50, but the city has saved money by repairing damaged bins with hooks left over from old trash bins that had been removed in recent years. Despite this saving, the city estimates that the thefts cost about $50 per hook in labor. An even more expensive alternative would be to pay a welder to weld the hooks to the sides of the trash bins. Though it would prevent the petty theft, the time and labor involved would be significant.

The police say that the payoff for the criminals is small, but that apparently hasn't worked to deter the crime. Each hook weights 22 pounds and would fetch the thief a little more than $2 at a scrap yard.

In response, the police have begun patrolling alleys, checking surveillance cameras and generally keeping a closer eye on scrap yards to see if they can catch those responsible. A new law was passed in January which some hoped would help with the problem as it required those selling scrap metal to show identification. The ordinance will eventually require scrap dealers to create a database of all transactions which will be made available to police. In the mean time, police will be busy keeping a watchful eye on the city's garbage.

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: "Trash bin hook thefts skyrocketing in St. Louis," by Joel Currier, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
New Missouri Law Will Allow Expungement
Missouri Juveniles in Prison for Murder Prepare for Sentencing Changes

Reports from the University of Missouri-St. Louis reveal that two not-so-esteemed students have been charged with library theft, a felony, after campus police say they stole about 70 books from the student library. Before you get excited thinking the two simply had an insatiable thirst for knowledge, it's important to note that they stole the books so they could later sell them on the Internet.

Larry McCoy, 39, and Danielle Campbell, 28, were charged last week and their bail set at $15,000 each. The scheme came to light when a physics professor at an entirely different university, Western Illinois, called the dean of the library in St. Louis to let them know that he had purchased a book on eBay that appeared to belong to the school. Campus police then launched an investigation which revealed that the book was in fact owned by the school. They then tracked the address of the sender to Campbell and began to close in on the students.

The two stole and ultimately attempted to sell 71 books on eBay. Campbell checked out 32 of the books under her student ID while McCoy checked out the remaining 39. The two were finally cornered by the police and confessed to checking out and then selling all but 15 of the books online.

Police have said that the total value of the stolen books was about $7,100. According to Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 570:

"A person commits the crime of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by means of deceit or coercion."

Police are making the case that's exactly what happened here and the value of the stolen books means that the two face potentially serious trouble. Missouri law stipulates that in any case where the value of the stolen property exceeds $500 but is less than $25,000, a Class C felony has occurred.

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: "University of Missouri-St. Louis students arrested after selling library books on eBay," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases

One St. Louis man now finds himself behind bars after a bizarre robbery involving a Spider-Man mask and a Domino's pizza delivery guy. According to St. Louis County Police, the 31-year-old donned the comic book hero's mask while robbing a pizza delivery driver at gunpoint late one night this weekend.

The man, Richard D. Whitehead, was charged with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. Police tracked the man fairly easily given that the robbery occurred at his home. It doesn't seem as if he'll be out on the street soon either given that bail was set at a whopping $100,000.

A spokesperson for the police department said that Whitehead wore the mask and pointed a semiautomatic handgun at the driver late at night on Friday. He then took not only the small amount of money the driver was carrying, but apparently was a little hungry, also ran off with two pizzas. Thankfully the driver was unharmed in the robbery but this doesn't mean Whitehead won't still be facing serious criminal penalties.

Under Missouri law, a conviction for armed criminal action carries a prison term of not less than three years. Robbery in the first degree is a Class A felony in Missouri, and carries with it a term of imprisonment that can range from 10 to 30 years. A person commits robbery in the first degree when he or she forcibly steals property from another and either causes serious physical injury to any person or possesses, uses, displays or threatens the use of a dangerous or deadly weapon. That's exactly what the prosecutors will be arguing when Whitehead's case goes before a judge.

Oddly, given what we discussed in another recent post discussed involving pizza delivery drivers and the police, this robbery has no connection with a recent approach by the St. Louis County Police Department to fight crime. The police department revealed that some undercover officers might begin delivering pizzas after the killings of two pizza delivery drivers. The plan was devised after a driver for Imo's was killed on November 5 while delivering pizzas in Dellwood. Back in May another one of Imo's drivers was killed while delivery a pizza in Hillsdale, just a few miles away from the scene of the other killing. Though the most recent arrest did not result from the use of undercover officers, the department has been clear that they are willing to work with whatever companies request their help, not just those at Imo's.

A robbery charge along with an armed criminal action charge should be taken seriously given the consequences of a conviction are so severe. Long-term loss of freedom and a permanent criminal record are just a few of the many penalties that can result from a robbery charge in Missouri. Because of the violent nature of the charges, prosecutors are extremely aggressive in their attempts to secure convictions in robbery cases.

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: "Man in Spider-Man mask robs Domino's driver in St. Louis County," by Kim Bell, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Woman in St. Louis Sentenced for Armed Robberies
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay

A convenience store in the St. Louis area recently pled guilty to seven criminal charges involving the sale of illegal drugs and was assessed the largest criminal fine ever handed down to a corporation in the area. The incident also marked the first time that such a criminal fee was paid by a corporation in St. Clair County.

The company at the center of the incident is the Midwest Fuel Center Inc. of East St. Louis, which also does business as Crown Food Mart. The convenience store chain was ultimately fined $100,000 due to its violation of criminal laws dealing with illegal drugs.

The seven charges the corporation pled guilty to involve synthetic drugs sold at three of its East St. Louis stores. All three locations were raided by police in April of this year after reports surfaced about illegal drugs being sold from the stores. Though the initial focus of the investigation was on synthetic drugs, the investigation also revealed that the company was in possession of other drugs such as Viagra and Cialis without a license to prescribe or dispense such drugs. The three stores were located on Collinsville Avenue, State Street at 83rd Street and River Park Drive.

The corporation pled guilty to unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, unlawful possession with intent to deliver a look-alike substance, unlawful possession with intent to deliver a legend drug, or prescription drug, offering for sale a misbranded article, drug paraphernalia sale, permitting the unlawful use of a building and maintaining a public nuisance.

The investigation was conducted by the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department's Drug Tactical Unit and resulted from a desire to target criminal activity linked to violent crimes in East St. Louis. Prosecutors said that the conviction represents the first in that county under the state's Controlled Substance Analog law which was passed in 2011 and meant to target those producing and distributing synthetic drugs.

The prosecution was meant to serve as a kind of warning to other companies who might be inclined to turn a blind eye to criminal activity taking place on their premises. The funds will go towards the county's police department and will be used to improve enforcement against other violators. The St. Clair County Sheriff's Drug Tactical Unit's Drug Asset Forfeiture Fund and the St. Clair County State's Attorney's Drug Asset Forfeiture Fund will each get about $18,000. The newly formed Metro East Police District will get $54,000.

Though a $100,000 fine sounds bad enough, that's likely not the end of this story. Prosecutors said chargers are still pending against individuals involved the sale of illegal drugs, this deal only involved the corporation's responsibility.

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: "Judge fines East St. Louis convenience store company $100,000 in drug case," by Carolyn P. Smith, published at BND.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Meth Making Lands Man Behind Bars
Officers Crack Down on Boating While Intoxicated in Missouri

A recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court will result in a clarification regarding rules of double jeopardy in the criminal justice system. The case involves a man, Lamar Evans, who was acquitted of burning down a vacant house after the judge presiding over his trial incorrectly required prosecutors to prove more than they had to.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether Evans can be tried again for the crime following the botched first attempt. A decision will likely have to wait until the end of June, but it could be an important one, creating an exception to what has been a steadfast rule against suspected criminals being tried twice for the same crime.

When the hearing was conducted earlier this week, the justices appeared torn over how to balance the protection afforded by the double jeopardy rule against the danger of setting guilty people free by refusing to allow prosecutors to try the case a second time.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that he always understood the rule to require that prosecutors get one fair shot to convict someone. However, he said, "It does seem to me that if they had been thrown out of court because of a legal error, it's not a fair shot." Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the defense attorney's client might have gotten a "windfall" through a wrongful acquittal. "Your client walks away the winner when he shouldn't have," she said.

In Evans' case, two officers in Detroit caught him in 2008 running with a can of gasoline away from a burning house. Investigators later found that gas had been poured across various rooms to accelerate the fire. Evans' lawyer at the time pushed for the judge to instruct prosecutors to prove that the house was a dwelling at the time of the fire, even though state law did not require such evidence. The government was unable to meet the burden of proof and the judge then said that Evans was acquitted.

The Michigan Supreme Court later ruled 4-3 that Evans should be retried because the original acquittal was based on an error of law that did not address the facts of the specific crime. Because the problem was a legal one and not a factual one, the Michigan Court said there was no double jeopardy problem.

Evans' lawyers appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that legal errors do not prevent an acquittal from being a final ruling on a case, thus closing the door to a future second trial. Defense attorneys from around the country have voiced support for Evans' appeal saying that double jeopardy has acted as an ironclad rule for more than a century and should be upheld.

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: "Supreme Court weighs limit on double jeopardy rule," by Jonathan Stempel, published at Reuters.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Missouri Case About Warrantless Blood Testing
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines

Something unexpected might show up at your doorstep the next time you feel like ordering some pizza: a police officer. According to a recent announcement by the St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch, the department has concocted a new and unusual plan to send undercover cops to deliver pizza in certain parts of St. Louis in an attempt to deter crime against the delivery people.

Fitch said that in most cases those getting the pizza will never know that a police officer is the one at their door. The officers will be undercover and will not broadcast their status unless things go wrong. The point of the program is that if someone tries to rob a driver, the officer will be able to respond with a show of force, hopefully reducing the incidents targeting pizza delivery drivers.

The new law enforcement plan was devised after the recent death of an Imo's driver who was killed last week while delivering three pizzas to a home in Dellwood. The driver was found dead in his car after being robbed of his pizzas and a cellphone.

Prosecutors have charged a teenager for the murder. Police said they found him in a house with the empty pizza boxes and the murder weapon. They also arrested three other teens and are pursuing charges against all of them in connection with the robbery and murder. The recent killing of a delivery driver was the second this year as another driver was shot and killed in May after delivering a pizza to a house in Hillsdale.

The delivery scheme has likely already begun as Fitch says undercover officers started making deliveries in parts of town where similar pizza robberies have happened in the past. The department has never tried such an approach before and is currently working with Imo's and other local pizzerias that make deliveries in central and north St. Louis. Beyond infiltrating their ranks with undercover officers, the police will also be working with pizza shops to help them train their employees about how to identify possible suspicious customers.

Currently the program has no end date in sight, it will instead continue indefinitely as the city tries to assure those working as delivery drivers that they aren't in danger. The department has said that all tips earned by officers will be turned over to the drivers whose place police took as the officers will be on the county's payroll while making the deliveries.

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: "Warning to would-be thieves in Missouri: pizza guy could be cop," by Kevin Murphy, published at ChicagoTribune.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Woman in St. Louis Sentenced for Armed Robberies
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay

A man in St. Louis is now facing felony animal abuse charges after police connected him to a crime involving a dog that was shot 12 times, strangled with an electrical cord and thrown into a dumpster.

The man, Ron Jackson, was arrested earlier this week by the mayor's new Animal Cruelty Task Force (which we previously wrote about here). The crime was uncovered back in September when an employee of the city found the dog and called a rescue center given the obvious abuse it had suffered.

The dog's back legs are now paralyzed thanks to a bullet lodged near his spine, yet despite the injuries he has made a remarkable recovery The dog was given a donated cart to use so he can still walk and is currently living with the shelter's founder.

The Animal Cruelty Task Force has trumpeted the news of the arrest saying that bringing to justice the abuser of the poor dog proves that the task force is making the city safer. The recent arrest is far from the only one initiated by the task force. Numbers released indicate that the task force has averaged one arrest per week since it was created in late September.

The task force was created in large part due to an animal abuse case earlier this year that received significant media attention. The case involved Darick Dashon Stallworth mutilating, starving, and ultimately killing five dogs. After pleading guilty to three felony counts of animal abuse and two misdemeanor counts of animal neglect, Judge Margaret Neill sentenced Stallworth to four years for three felony animal abuse counts to be served concurrently and 15 days for two misdemeanor animal neglect counts to be served concurrently, really throwing the book at Stallworth for his animal abuse.

While officials say that animal abuse can be a strong indicator of other criminal behavior, it is of some concern the way that law enforcement officials broadly paint those accused of animal cruelty with a broad, criminal brush. If you or someone you care about is being investigated or has been charged with animal cruelty you will need an experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyer to protect your legal rights. Animal cruelty charges can carry serious penalties including jail time, heavy fines and a permanent criminal record.

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: "Man Arrested for Shooting Dog Twelve Times," published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis Appoints First Animal Abuse Investigator
Snooping on Farms to Report Abuse May become a Crime in Missouri

With all the coverage surrounding the recent fiasco involving General Petraeus, the extent of people's personal electronic security has been given increased attention. After all, if the CIA Director isn't able to keep his emails private, what hope is there for the rest of us? Many privacy experts agree the recent scandal has shown just how vulnerable most people are in terms of the transparency of their digital communications.

The first thing that many experts say you need to realize is that no matter what you're trying to hide, if it's in your e-mail inbox it is possible that someone will find out. If the thing you're hiding involves criminal activity, the chance of the government finding it goes up exponentially given their power to search and subpoena information. This doesn't change whether the information is contained on your hard drive or floating up in the cloud.

One thing that Petraeus discovered was that the government can easily connect you to an account by using the IP address of the computer you used to access the account. This is what proved that he and his mistress were using the otherwise anonymous account. E-mail providers like Google and Yahoo save this kind of information for 18 months, during which time it can easily be subpoenaed.

Something many people may not realize is that the Fourth Amendment requires the authorities to get a warrant from a judge to search only physical property. Rules governing e-mail searches, however, are far more lax. Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that Congress enacted to protect your privacy in electronic communications, a warrant is not required for e-mails six months old or older. Even if e-mails are more recent, the federal government needs a search warrant only for "unopened" e-mail. Everything else, including identifying information such as the IP address used to access the account requires only a subpoena.

One complicating factor is a recent rejection of the government's approach by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district happens to encompass many of the technology companies that handle e-mail messages and the servers that contain the data. Given the decision by the Ninth Circuit, the Department of Justice's Manual now includes a note reminding agents in the area to get a warrant before accessing such information.

Though many people might believe this kind of e-mail surveillance only happens in high profile cases, the reality is that law enforcement throws a large net when looking for incriminating information. Google reported that United States law enforcement agencies requested data for 16,281 accounts from January to June of this year, and it complied in 90 percent of cases. Online users need to realize that everything is logged and recorded somewhere. If you don't want someone else to find it, don't say 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: "Trying to Keep Your E-Mails Secret When the C.I.A. Chief Couldn't," by, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Need to record the police? There's an app for that
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases

A recent issue before the U.S. Supreme Court involves the late appearance of evidence that could prove a criminal defendant's innocence. Though many people would assume that if evidence were to arise showing that someone was clearly innocent of the crime they were accused of committing, no matter how late in the game, that it would be allowed to be shown. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2009 opinion, the Supreme Court has never held that "the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

The High Court has agreed to hear a case that demonstrates exactly why the issue can be such a tricky one. The case involves a Michigan man, Floyd Perkins, who is serving a life sentence for murder. New evidence was uncovered and a long time passed before it was presented. The issue now is whether it can be raised or whether he should spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he says he did not commit.

The details of the incident begin with a house party in 1993. Perkins was in attendance and left with two other men, one of whom was later found dead in the woods, having been stabbed in the head. The third man, a Mr. Jones, testified that Perkins murdered him. Perkins said he parted ways with the other two and later ran across his accuser under a streetlight covered in blood. The jury ultimately believed the accuser, voting to convict Perkins.

While behind bars Perkins worked to collect evidence demonstrating his innocence. There was an affidavit from his sister that said she heard secondhand that Jones had bragged about the killing and had taken bloody clothes to a drycleaner. This was hearsay once removed and from a relative, both of which undermined its value. A few years later Perkins got a second sworn statement from an acquaintance of Jones' who said Jones confessed to the killing and confirmed the story about the dry cleaning. Then, a few years after that an employee of the dry cleaning store said that a man who looked like Jones had indeed come in to drop off bloody pants to be cleaned.

Finally, with all the information gathered, Perkins asked a federal court to throw out his conviction in 2008. Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley of the Federal District Court in Marquette, Michigan recommended that his request be denied because it was filed too late. Perkins appealed but to no avail. Finally, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. It ordered Judge Bell of the Federal District Court in Grand Rapids to consider whether the new evidence was credible enough to justify consideration despite Perkins missing a deadline that would have passed back in 2003.

After the Sixth Circuit decision, Michigan appealed to the Supreme Court, and with the support of 10 other states, argued that deadlines are deadlines and ought to be enforced as written. They say the legal requirement is that such claims be pursued diligently. However, Perkins argues that's exactly what he did. He filed a note with the lower court before the deadline passed explaining that many of his documents and property had been destroyed by prison personnel following a skirmish. He was subsequently denied access to the law library and placed in solitary confinement for nearly five years, making further work on his case all but impossible.

Though the evidence is suggestive, it's not a slam-dunk for Perkins. Had it been presented at trial it may have made a difference, or maybe not. The question is whether there is enough reason to justify Perkins bringing it forward now. Though Justice Scalia will likely say no, it remains to be seen how the rest of the Court will come down.

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: "Case Asks When New Evidence Means a New Trial," by Adam Liptak, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Missouri Case About Warrantless Blood Testing
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines

According to a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a private program operated in St. Louis that involves allowing private companies to supervise and guide those recently arrested has some wondering about the benefits of the scheme.

Back in 2001, the Missouri Department of Corrections stopped providing supervision programs for the accused awaiting trial. In response, local jurisdictions were left on their own. Some created local programs while St. Louis took a different approach and privatized the process. Private corporations provide supervision and partner with judges who reduce the bail of those arrested thanks to the guidance.

The defendants pay for the program themselves and it is generally seen as a positive thing by judges, lawyers and even defendants who prefer ankle bracelets and drug tests to jail. However, experts question the move and say that it is very rare for private companies to take on such a typically governmental role.

Some critics point out that none of the companies providing the pre-trial services bid on the contracts, they were instead chosen without competition. Also, each order from a judge adds money directly to the pockets of the companies, something that many see as unseemly.

The companies argue that they are simply providing a service that the local and state governments can no longer offer. As for responding to charges about lack of competitive bidding, they point out that the services are free to the taxpayers and that state law only requires bidding when the cost of services exceeds certain amounts.

Other advocates of the approach point out that pre-trial supervision is a cheaper alternative to incarceration and helps diminish some of the inequities that exist in a traditional bail system, where money alone decides who goes free and who remains in jail.

However, as many defendants have come to realize, money still matters. A defendant seeking to be released must be able to afford either the original bail or the reduced bail figure in addition to the supervision costs. This has prompted some to complain about the financial strain it can cause to those already living on the brink.

Each of the three companies that provide pre-trail supervision in St. Louis charge about $30 per month for basic supervision, plus running fees for electronic house arrest or GPS monitoring. One company, Missouri Probation, charges a $60 activation fee for GPS monitoring and an additional $8.50 for each day of tracking. Payments are made directly to the companies responsible for providing the supervision. If a defendant does not abide by the terms of supervision, or does not pay, the companies can ask judges to impose further conditions or revoke bail.

The worry with the existing set-up in St. Louis is that there is a financial incentive to keep a defendant under the most restrictive conditions. This is because this private companies charge more for their GPS monitoring than they would for a more typical ankle bracelet situation. Same thing with additional fees tacked on for anger management classes and other behavioral sessions.

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: "St. Louis courts add supervision to bail for better results," by Jennifer Mann, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Woman in St. Louis Sentenced for Armed Robberies
Results of St. Louis Crime Reduction Plan Revealed

News reports indicate that a St. Louis, Missouri woman, Chrice Shunta Combs, 32, was recently sentenced to a whopping 16 years in federal prison for robbing three cash advance stores in 2010.

The robberies occurred in Illinois at several locations of "The Cash Store." Combs was armed with a handgun and a knife when she robbed branches of the payday loan company over a four month time period. Beyond simply serving time, Combs was ordered to repay the $10,125 she stole from the stores.

Combs was charged and ultimately pled guilty over the summer to three counts of interference with commerce by violence in the commission of a robbery as well as one gun charge.

18 USC § 1951 is the section of federal law that deals with such crimes and it says that:

"Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

In this instance, prosecutors successfully sought both jail time and a fine. Prosecutors made their case by bringing forward employees of the stores who described the terrifying experience of being robbed at gunpoint. Some said they would never be able to forget the fear they felt and others mentioned how they worry every time a new customer walks through the door.

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: "St. Louis woman gets 16 years for three robberies," by Robert Patrick, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay
St. Louis Appoints First Animal Abuse Investigator

For the past month or so officers across St. Louis have been engaged in a dramatic new plan to reduce crime in the city. Earlier this week the police department released data about how well it worked and the numbers indicate that there was a noticeable reduction in certain parts of the city.

Law enforcement officials released the results from a month long crime fighting plan that has been dubbed the "Homicide Deterrence Initiative." The plan was created following a period of sustained gun violence in the city. Over the summer, the police saw a huge rise in the number of aggravated assaults and felt the need to take action and bring the number of such incidents down.

The plan meant that police officers would be diverted from their usual posts, concentrating officers in certain parts of the city. It also meant that more officers were moved to the night shift, the time when many of the crimes were occurring. The plan focused resources on twelve high-crime locations over a 30-day trial period. During the initiative, 100 officers were transferred from working days to nights, 6 p.m. until 2 a.m. in the high crime areas. Police say around 50 officers will continue to work that same night shift instead of their usual dayshift to keep the momentum of the program going.

A University of Missouri-St. Louis criminology professor, Dr. Richard Rosenfeld, said that prior to the initiative crime in St. Louis was down compared to last year, but the number of aggravated assaults was up by about 15-20%. After the plan was put in place, it appears as if serious violent crimes have dropped by 68% in the designated high-crime areas when compared to the same period last year. The professor says that the data indicates aggravated assaults are still up, but now by only about eight percent.

The city has decided to give the police department an extra $250,000 to keep up a similar initiative though the exact plan has not yet been settled on. Police officials say that they will try out a few more options over the coming days before settling on an approach.

While a reduction in crime is great for everyone, we have to be aware of the costs of the recent plan. The worry is that all this extra police presence will cause officers to trample on the rights of innocent citizens in a rush to stamp out crime. 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: "Results of 'hot spot' policing released," by Talia Kaplan, published at KSDK.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Need to record the police? There's an app for that
St. Louis Crime Lab Falls Further Behind

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