Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

The Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Conservation just announced that they arrested four people over the weekend on suspicion of drunken boating. Law enforcement officials also revealed that five people were arrested on felony drug charges during a special enforcement effort that recently took place on the Niangua River in Dallas and Laclede counties and Table Rock Lake in Stone County. The arrests were the result of an enforcement saturation and sobriety checkpoint on Saturday.

The sweep yielded substantial results, with the highway patrol reporting 13 misdemeanor drug violations, 15 minors in possession violations, one supplying alcohol to a minor violation, eight non-moving summonses and 80 warnings.

Though boating and beer might sound like a normal summer weekend treat, the fact is that Missouri law prohibits boating while intoxicated (BWI). The operation of any vessel while intoxicated due to alcohol or any combination of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs is illegal in the state and can be punished severely.

Missouri law states that a person is intoxicated if that person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more, based upon a chemical analysis of breath, blood, or saliva. Those convicted of boating while intoxicated are guilty of a Class B misdemeanor upon a first conviction. In addition, those convicted will be required to complete and pass an approved boating safety course. After a second conviction, a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Three or more BWI convictions will mean that a person will be found guilty of a Class D felony. Finally, if someone is boating while under the influence and causes the death or serious injury of another person, a felony conviction will result.

Just like with driving a vehicle, those operating a boat on Missouri waters are deemed to have consented to be tested for alcohol or drugs if so requested by a law enforcement official. If you refuse to be tested, you will be subject to arrest and punishment. If you are arrested for BWI, you will be searched, handcuffed, taken to jail, photographed, fingerprinted, and bonded.

After that, the case will move forward towards full prosecution at which point you'll need the help of an experienced Missouri DWI attorney. 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: "Four drunken boating arrests on Missouri waters," by Robert Cronkleton, published at KansasCity.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri's DWI Driver License Revocation Laws Raise Question of Fairness
College Students, Alcohol, and DWI

Citizens of Missouri who years ago passed bad checks, used a forged credit card or committed other types of crimes could get their criminal records expunged thanks to a recently signed law. Of the many public safety laws signed this week by Governor Jay Nixon, one includes a provision that allows for applications to expunge certain criminal records.

The law says that people would need to wait 20 years for a felony and 10 years for a misdemeanor and have completed their prison terms, probation and parole before any expungement would be approved. They also would need to have paid restitution and not have committed another crime. The law says that about a dozen offenses would be eligible and was constructed to make sure that violent or drug crimes were not included.

The law was proposed by Senator Brad Lager, Republican from Savannah, who said he originally thought up the legislation to help people regain their rights to have firearms. Lager says a man in his district pleaded guilty to passing bad checks when he was in his early 20s and now, decades later, wanted to take his son hunting but was prevented due to federal law which prohibits convicted felons from having a gun. Lager says the new law would allow the man's conviction to be expunged and restore his Second Amendment firearms rights.

To have a criminal record expunged, people would be required to file a petition that names as defendants law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecuting attorneys, repositories of criminal records and others believed to possess the records. Anyone not named would not be required to delete their records.

Those requesting expungement would then provide identifying information, including their name, address, driver's license number and address along with the type of offense, case number and date and county where they were arrested. They also would pay a $100 surcharge for each petition. After a request is filed, a judge would hold a hearing to determine if the petition meets the requirements and if the person deserves to have their record expunged.

When petitions are granted, officials possessing the records would destroy them and any record related to the crime would be removed from electronic files kept by state officials. Files kept by the courts would be sealed and only made available through a court order. Rights sacrificed because of a criminal conviction, such as serving on juries and owning a gun, would be restored. However, it's important to note that even after someone's criminal history has been expunged, the crime would be considered a previous offense if the person later commits another crime.

Given the complexities of having a criminal record expunged in Missouri, only an experienced Missouri criminal defense attorney should be entrusted with the job. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in the St. Louis area contact our St. Louis Criminal Defense Firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Some Missourians Can Time Out Their Criminal Records," by Bob Hamilton, published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines
Missouri Juveniles in Prison for Murder Prepare for Sentencing Changes

A recent opinion piece by a candidate for Lieutenant Governor contained worrying information about drunk driving arrests in Missouri. Republican candidate Mike Carter said that DWI arrests account for nearly 10% of all arrests in Missouri each year. The problem with this number is that so many of these arrests are unnecessary and result in permanent stains on the reputations of citizens who have not been shown to have been under the influence of anything.

Thousands of people all across the state are facing incredibly harsh consequences for what is only a misdemeanor offense. Many people incorrectly assume that in order to receive a punishment as severe as license revocation, high levels of proof that a person was actually under the influence would need to be shown. This is sadly, incorrect.

Missouri's DWI laws call for the Department of Revenue to automatically revoke a person's driver's license for one year if that person refuses to submit to a breath test. If the person submits to the breath test then they could lose their license for 90 days. This license revocation is handled separately from the criminal changes they may face in the jurisdiction where the arrest took place.

If a person takes a breath test and blows over a .08 BAC they are subject to an administrative hearing. The administrative law cases surprisingly do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt showing that the driver was under the influence. Instead, a police officer only needs to testify that they had reasonable suspicion to believe the person was under the influence. Such cases do not take place in front of a judge or jury; instead, they are handled by a hearing officer for the Missouri Department of Revenue who simultaneously acts as both judge and prosecutor.

These hearing officers wield a tremendous amount of power, all without typical burdens of proof or judicial oversight. Such a revocation can impact a person's ability to find work and attend school and will crop up in background checks for years to come. Such an incident will not soon forgotten either, as a person who has had a license revocation or suspension will have that reflected on their driving record permanently.

Carter is intimately familiar with the unjust process, having been accused of driving while intoxicated in 2009. Carter fought the charge and was found innocent by a jury that only needed nine minutes to deliberate. As an attorney, he understands that not everyone has the ability to successfully fight such charges which is why he's so vocal in his opposition to the laws today.

While Carter and other advocates of change are not in favor of making life easier for those who make the irresponsible decision to drive drunk, he does hope that the laws can be changed to ensure Constitutional due process rights for the state's citizens are secured. 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: "Mike Carter Calls on Fellow DWI Recipients Spence and Brunner to Fix Missouri DWI Laws," by, published at SacBee.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?

Thanks to recent legislation signed by Governor Jay Nixon last week, nonviolent criminals in Missouri with good behavior may see their sentences shortened. The legislation is aimed at drug abusers, thieves and other nonviolent felons who are clogging up the state's justice system which the Governor wants to see reserves for the most dangerous and persistent criminals.

The new law won't simply open up the jail cells and release people from prison early. Instead, the idea is that the law will reduce the expense of probation and parole by focusing on offenders already out of jail. For every month such nonviolent offenders go without a violation, the new law will give those offenders 30 days of credit toward their probation and parole sentences.

Along with a carrot comes a stick and the law allows probation and parole officers to order those under their supervision back to jail for a few hours or days without having a full revocation hearing. Judges will also be allowed to impose 120-day sentences as opposed to potentially longer prison terms for those that have violated the terms of their parole. The point of the law is to direct nonviolent offenders away from lengthy sentences and toward treatment and rehabilitation.

The legislation that recently passed includes several recommendations from a task force created last year to review ways of reducing probation and parole revocations. The current bill isn't nearly as sweeping, as the task force recommended changes that would save the state between $7.7 million and $16 million by 2017. An analysis of the current legislation says that the state will likely see savings of less than $1 million during the next five years.

The Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys issued a statement praising the new law for making "common-sense reforms to the corrections system, centering on effective management of probationers as opposed to needless release of vast numbers of violent criminals." The group said that the new law smartly puts more money into treatment and rehabilitation, a change that's far more likely to fix problems early on and avoid the need to go to prison in the first place.

Along with the law comes the creation of a 13-member Sentencing and Corrections Oversight Commission. The Commission will be tasked with evaluating any reductions in criminal recidivism rates, costs savings and other results of the new sentencing provisions and reporting back to the legislature on its findings.

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

Source: "Nixon signs changes to Missouri sentencing laws," by The Associated Press, published at NECN.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Supreme Court Plea Offer Ruling
SUPREME COURT REQUIRES WARRANT TO USE GPS TO TRACK PEOPLE

The Supreme Court recently held that it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a young murderer to life in prison if a judge has not first weighed whether he deserves a shorter prison sentence due to his youth and the specific nature of his crimes. The 5-4 decision struck down laws on the books in some 28 states - including Missouri - that say life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers are acceptable.

Officials in Missouri law enforcement say it will take some time for the state to assess the impact of the ruling. It remains uncertain what exactly the impact the case will have on the 84 cases in the state in where a juvenile is currently serving life without parole. According to the Missouri Department of Corrections, in 46 of those cases the offenders were 17 at the time of the crime, 25 were age 16, 11 were age 15, and two were age 14.

It's clear that Missouri's laws will have to be rewritten thanks to the recent ruling. It's important to note that the decision does not mean it's unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life I prison, only that statutes that make such sentences mandatory are no longer acceptable. In Missouri, if a juvenile who is certified as an adult is convicted of first-degree murder, the only option is life without parole.

In one recent high profile case, that of 15-year-old Antonio Andrews, the juvenile killed a police officer. The case eventually made its way up to the state Supreme Court where the defense attorney argued that a mandatory life sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because it did not allow judges to take specifics about the defendant's situation into consideration, almost exactly what the U.S. high court held. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two cases of 14-year-old boys, one from Alabama and another from Arkansas, who were given life sentences for their roles in a murder. In the case of young people who participate in homicide, "a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty." Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "We therefore hold that mandatory life without parole for those under age 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.'" The Court's four conservative justices dissented, saying that nothing in the Constitution forbade laws requiring mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles. The recent ruling follows the ruling from 2010 where the justices held that life sentences with no parole are unconstitutional for juveniles who commit any crimes short of murder.

The ruling could lead to either new sentences or expedited parole hearings for more than 2,000 offenders across the country who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. It is important to understand that the recent decision does not mean any prisoners are freed from custody.

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

Source: "Missouri juvenile sentencing to change after Supreme Court decision," by Jennifer Mann, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Judge Demands that Convicted Murderer Get a New Trial
Statutory Rape Case Creates Cultural Confusion

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article about the far-reaching arm of federal criminal law and one unsuspecting person is all too familiar with its reach. Hessam Ghane, a 62-year-old chemist from Missouri, found himself facing a federal criminal conviction after threatening to take his own life using cyanide. He is now serving an 8-year federal prison sentence and several people are wondering why the federal government is involved in the first place. Ghane was admitted to a mental institution after experiencing delusions. He threatened to harm himself and several other unnamed government officials with the cyanide he kept in his home. At the hospital he gave police permission to search his home and that is where they discovered the cyanide. He was tried once and there was a hung jury. He was convicted the second time, in 2010.

Ghane's use of cyanide violated an old federal law that is part of a chemical-weapons treaty. The law makes it a crime to possess toxic chemicals, including cyanide. Included within the law are some common household cleaners if they are used for a destructive purpose. Cleaning the kitchen or bathroom with ammonia would not be illegal, but pouring the ammonia into the goldfish tank would violate the federal law.

Ghane challenged his conviction and a federal appeals court in St. Louis upheld the conviction, even though it thought the rationale behind the use of the law in this case may have been flawed. This is just one of the many instances of federal criminal law reaching deep into the states. Some critics of the ever-increasing power of federal law believe that Congress' constant passage of new criminal laws is making it difficult for the average citizen to know when he or she has run afoul of the law. Ghane's attorney indicated that they would not stop at the court of appeals, but that they would appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Hessam Ghane's challenge to the federal law that served as the basis for conviction is not the only challenge to the law. Carol Bond, a Pennsylvania woman, was also convicted under the law for spreading a toxic chemical on the mailbox, car door, and front door of a woman who had an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a chemical burn on her thumb. Bonds' attorneys argue that her crime is a state offense and that prosecuting her under the federal law violates the 10th Amendment.

The federal government's criminalization of the possession of toxic chemicals such as cyanide is allowed under Congress's broad power to regulate interstate commerce and those things that can have an effect on interstate commerce. The Justice Department's interpretation of the statute reveals that Congress made its intention very clear. Ghane's case, and the others challenging the law, should put Missouri defense attorneys on notice that they may have to face increased federal encroachment into the state criminal law arena. 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: "Terror Law's Long Reach Challenged," by John R. Emshwiller and Gary Fields, published at WSJ.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?
St. Louis Red Light Camera Ordinance Unconstitutional

The Missouri House of Representatives recently passed a bill that could significantly decrease the number of listed registered sex offenders in the state. The bill is House Bill 1700 and it received unprecedented support from both sides of the aisle. It removes mandatory registration for some sex offenses and it creates an avenue for offenders to come off of the list early depending on the severity of their convicted offense.

Proponents of the bill believe that it is an attempt to reign in the state's severe sex offender registry laws. There are currently more than 12,000 people on Missouri's sex offender registry list. The convicted offenses of the registered offenders range in severity. Some have been convicted of extreme and heinous rape crimes while others are on the registry because of a teenage indiscretion, such as consensual sex between minors. Proponents believe that as many as 5000 names could be trimmed from the registry.

Part of the rationale for the new legislation comes from the proliferation of the registry. People are no longer afraid of the registry because overactive lawmakers and prosecutors are placing people on the registry who are not a threat to society. As such, the registry is no longer an effective deterrent. Rep. Rodney Schad, R-Versailles, said, "The public has become numb to the registry."

Another purpose of the bill is to allow those who are required to register to have a chance at being productive members of society. After 10 years of being on the registry an offender can petition the court to have his or her name removed. For more severe offenses, an offender is required to wait 20 years before petitioning for removal. The process requires the offender to petition the prosecuting attorney first and then prove that all of the requirements for removal have been met and that he or she has not committed any new offenses that would require the offender to register. If the offender is able to meet the requirements for removal, proponents of the bill are confident that he or she no longer poses a threat to society and can be removed from the registry.

The likely target of the new legislation are the "Romeo and Juliet" cases. Those are cases in which one teen is engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with another teenager. In those cases, one of the teenagers' parents may have become angry about the relationship and accuses the older teenager of sexual misconduct. In many states, charges like statutory rape are strict liability crimes, meaning that there is no intent requirement. If both parties are in the right age range, the older one is automatically guilty of statutory rape, which could require the convicted offender be listed on the sex offender registry. Allowing these offenders to petition to be removed from the registry would improve their quality of life and remove the stigma of being labeled a sex offender.

Missouri criminal defense attorneys will likely be getting calls from many of these offenders requesting their assistance with petitioning the court for removal. If you've had a run in with the law 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: "Missouri House passes sex offender bill," by Elizabeth Crisp, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases
Supreme Court Plea Offer Ruling

The state of Missouri is now dealing with an unfortunate set of events involving a middle school child, a little baby, an unsuspecting 20-something, and a distant culture. A little girl in the seventh grade went to a St. Louis abortion clinic seeking to terminate her pregnancy. The clinic called social services and social services called the St. Louis police department. After an investigation, the prosecutors charged the father of the unborn child, 20-something Asannay Marbati with first-degree statutory rape.

By the time the investigation was complete and the charges were filed, the girl had decided to keep her baby and Marbati had moved closer to the family to seemingly be a father to his child. During the course of the investigation, the girl and her mother, both from the small, war-torn eastern African country of Eritrea, tried to explain to investigators that the consensual sexual encounter between the girl and Marbati, also from Eritrea, was acceptable in their country. Under Missouri law, however, it was not allowed and Marbati would be punished accordingly.

St. Louis police detectives explained to Marbati that his actions constituted a crime in Missouri, punishable by up to five years in prison. The story, however, is a little more complicated than it sounds. The crux of a statutory rape conviction depends on the prosecution being able to prove the age of the participants in the sexual act. In Missouri, to sustain a first-degree statutory rape charge, prosecutors have to prove that the girl was under the age of 18 at the time of the sexual act. It does not matter how old Marbarti was at the time of the sexual act. For a second-degree statutory rape conviction, prosecutors would have to prove that she was between the ages of 14 and 17 and that Marbarti was over the age of 21 at the time of the sexual act.

The problem is that the ages of both the "victim" and the "perpetrator" cannot be exactly determined. The young girl is considered to be 12 only because when she came to this country in 2007, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials guessed at her age. In the village where she was born, they do not keep birth records so she is not sure when she was born. The villagers also do not follow a calendar, making it impossible to even pinpoint events that may have happened around the time of her birth to get a more accurate estimate of her age. This problem proved to be a goldmine for defense attorney John Rogers who argued that if the prosecution could not determine exactly old she was, they could not determine whether she was under the age of consent at the time of the sexual act. During a bench trial, the judge agreed and dismissed the case against Marbati. The prosecution, however, has appealed the dismissal.

This is a situation where two cultures have collided. What is acceptable in the nation of Eritrea is not acceptable in the United States and the cultural shock may leave many unsuspecting immigrants with criminal charges because they are not aware of the law in this country. 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: "Culture, law clash in statutory rape case against Eritrean immigrant in St. Louis," published at stltoday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri and the "Stand Your Ground" Law
Supreme Court Plea Offer Ruling

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, the Missouri House of Representatives passed a law making it a crime for activists to produce videos of abuse of livestock on farms. The crime is called "agriculture production facility interference" and it is Missouri's response to a wave of undercover investigative teams gaining access to facilities to show poor conditions and ill treatment of animals.

The law applies to any person who makes or distributes these videos without the effective consent of the owner of the agricultural facility. The new law also makes it a crime to be employed by the agricultural facility under false pretenses. Missouri's new law comes on the heels of similar legislation out of Iowa, which criminalized lying to gain access to farms to report abuse. Iowa was embarrassed when a non-profit animal rights group released a video of abuse of chickens and pigs on Iowa farms.

This is just the first step. Another vote by the House is required to send the legislation to the Senate, which may pose some difficulty for the supporters of the bill. The sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, believes that the undercover activists are only destroying the agricultural industry and pose a larger problem than the actual ill treatment of animals on Missouri farms. Opponents of the bill, however, believe that it is an attempt to quell protest, which is an attack on the First Amendment. Rep. Tracy McCreery said that the bill is an "attempt to silence advocates or others who might shine a light on unhealthy practices."

The legislation is expansive, covering not only farms, but also processing facilities, and even the means of transporting the livestock. It also applies to any land or building used for commercial agricultural purposes.

If the new law passes, those convicted of making or distributing video without the consent of the owner would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could face up to one year behind bars and a $1000 fine. Repeat offenders may receive felony convictions. Misrepresenting oneself to gain access to an agricultural facility, now called "agricultural facility fraud" could result in a misdemeanor conviction as well, with up to 6 months behind bars and a $500 fine. For subsequent offenses, the punished is increased to one year in jail and a $1000 fine. Missouri legislators also made sure to increase the punishment for first degree trespassing and false impersonation, making those punishments comparable to the punishments for these newly defined crimes.

The addition of new crimes always means the addition of new charges. 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: "Mo. bill criminalizes undercover videos at farms," by David A. Lieb, published at www.insurancejournal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?

According to a recent report by CBS News, Boone County Circuit Court Judge Gary Oxenhandler has ruled that convicted murderer Mark Woodworth receive a new trial. Oxenhandler was appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court to investigate the Woodworth case and render an opinion regarding whether he should be tried again. At the conclusion of Oxenhandler's inquiry, he found that Woodworth had been the victim of "manifest injustice" and that his first trial was fundamentally unfair.

Woodworth was convicted of the 1990 murder of his neighbor Cathy Robertson. She was shot in her sleep while in her home in Chillicothe, Missouri, which is a small farming community located about 90 miles north of Kansas City. At the time of the murder, Woodworth was only 16. Three years later, he was charged with the murder. The prosecution's evidence was slight. A single fingerprint belonging to Woodworth was found on a box of ammunition located in the Robertson shed. Apparently it was enough for a jury because Woodworth was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

Oxenhandler believed that the police and the prosecution failed to do a proper investigation. In his opinion he said, "Had there been a balanced investigation ... no jury would have convicted Woodworth of the crimes charged." The prosecution at Woodworth's trial failed to provide Woodworth's attorneys with potentially exculpatory evidence. The prosecution had in its possession letters between a Livingston County judge, state and county prosecutors, and Lyndel Robertson, the victim's husband.

One of the undisclosed letters was written by the prosecutor at the time, Doug Roberts. He wrote that Robertson demanded that he charge Woodworth with Cathy Robertson's murder even though Roberts did not believe that his office had enough evidence to convict Woodworth of the murder. The letters were disclosed to the public in 2009 after the Associated Press began an investigation into the Woodworth case.

The undisclosed letters, however, were not the only basis for Oxenhandler's belief that Woodworth's case was handled improperly. The police allowed Lyndel Robertson's private investigator to lead the investigation into the murder. There were also problems with the judge who presided over the grand jury proceedings. Oxenhandler said that he acted more like a prosecutor than the neutral overseer that he is required to be. There were also blatant conflicts of interest in the case. Woodworth's attorney during the early stages of the case had previously represented the judge and Robertson's daughter in legal proceedings.

The Robertson family is disappointed in the judge's ruling and, speaking through a spokesperson said that they were shocked and believed that the judge let them as well as crime victims all across the state of Missouri. Several people in the Chillicothe community however, believe in Woodworth's innocence and believe that this is the first step to correcting the injustice done years ago.

Woodworth's successful claim of innocence could not have been accomplished without the work of a competent Missouri criminal defense attorney. If you require the services of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer, please contact the attorneys at Sansone/Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Judge urges new trial in 1990 Missouri farm death," by Alan Scher Zagier, published at CBSNews.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases
Missouri and the "Stand Your Ground" Law

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"

The recent death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin has garnered national attention for a number of reasons. However, most of the controversy centers on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Passed in 2005, the law has long been controversial; critics claim that its broad provisions encourage vigilante justice.

For those of you not aware of the facts of the case, they are as follows. On February 26, African-American teen Trayvon Martin was walking to his father's girlfriend's house. Upon seeing the teen walking, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman called 911 to report a "suspicious person." The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to not follow the boy, but Zimmerman disregarded the request and went after him with 9mm gun. Martin, while on the phone with his girlfriend, noted that Zimmerman was following him and tried to walk away a little faster. He was unarmed, possessing only a bag of Skittles and bottle of iced tea. A struggle ensued, ending when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, and the police cut short their initial investigation. It is a genuine possibility that under Florida law, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense could give him absolute immunity from prosecution.

Most states, including Missouri, have what's called the "Castle Doctrine." As we discussed in an earlier post, the Castle Doctrine is a very old legal principle that states a person does not have to retreat in the face of a home invader, and may use "deadly force" when reasonably fearing death or serious bodily harm from the intruder. The term comes from the old saying that "a man's home is his castle." Back in 2007, the Missouri legislature passed a law that made it even easier to invoke the Castle Doctrine. If a person breaks into your home, it is now presumed that a person breaking into your home or vehicle intends to do you harm.

The Florida "Stand Your Ground" law goes a step further. The portion of the law that's being cited as the source of the Martin controversy reads:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Under Florida law, the right to "meet force with force is not only not limited to the home, but also allowed if the perpetrator "reasonably believes" that it's "necessary" to prevent death, great bodily harm to himself or someone else, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Zimmerman stated that Martin attacked him and absent evidence to the contrary, he could be immune from prosecution. Since the law has passed, the number of "justified killings" has nearly tripled. The reason that this case has garnered so much attention is that there appears to be significant evidence that Zimmerman incited the encounter, that the "self-defense" claim is incredibly weak, and that despite all that, the Stand Your Ground law may make it extremely difficult to prosecute what to many looks like a vigilante murder.

The Castle Doctrine does have its place in American law and is a viable defense for protecting one's home and loved ones. If you find yourself in such a situation, contact our St. Louis criminal defense attorneys today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "'Stand Your Ground Law' at center of Fla. shooting," by The Associated Press, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Self-defense in St. Louis and the impact of the "castle doctrine"
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds

As an experienced St. Louis criminal defense lawyer, I can tell you that the vast majority of cases are resolved with a plea bargain long before they ever reach a courtroom. Plea bargains serve prosecutors by efficiently clearing dockets and allowing them to prosecute more cases. They can also be beneficial defendants by allowing them to serve a lesser sentence than what the state would ask for during trial. However, a plea bargain can only be effective if the defendant is aware of it in the first place. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that defense lawyers must inform their clients of any plea offers and give competent advice about whether to accept them. To do otherwise would violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

The two cases before the court involved a man in Missouri who pleaded guilty to driving without a license, and a Michigan man who was convicted of assault and attempted murder after following his attorney's advice and rejecting a plea bargain.

In the Missouri case, Galin Edward Frye was arrested for driving without a license for the fourth time, a felony. The prosecutor offered two deals, including one that involved pleading to a misdemeanor and a three month recommended sentence. Frye's attorney never told him of the offer, which ultimately led to him entering a guilty plea and getting a three year sentence.

In the Michigan case, Anthony Cooper repeatedly shot a woman, and was charged with four counts, including assault with attempt to murder. The prosecutors offered a plea deal where two of the charges would be dropped and Cooper would serve a maximum of 85 month in prison. Due to incorrect advice from his attorney, Cooper rejected the deal and was sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison.

In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"This court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused... when the defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires."

Justice Scalia dissented, claiming that the decision was "absurd" and that courts would be inundated with criminals making claims about how their plea bargain rights were violated. He also noted that it was unfair that prosecutors were being punished with extra work due to the errors of defense counsel. In his own dissent, Justice Alito also worried about "[expenditures] of scarce prosecutorial or judicial resources."

Both cases will be sent back down to the lower courts for further disposition. It remains to be seen if this "flood of claims regarding the violation of plea bargain rights" will actually manifest.

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

Source: "Court: Lawyers must do good job on plea bargains," by The Associated Press, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
SUPREME COURT REQUIRES WARRANT TO USE GPS TO TRACK PEOPLE
Self-defense in St. Louis and the impact of the "castle doctrine"