Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey Anthony who was found not guilty of the murder of her child, Caylee Anthony, now must pay the State of Florida $217,000.00 for lying to investigators. This case captivated the nation as Casey Anthony was caught lying repeatedly about the disappearance of her 2 year old daughter. Her decomposed body was found in a swamp 6 months after her disappearance. Due to the condition of the body the medical examiner could not determine an exact cause of death. After further investigation Casey Anthony was charged with murder and 4 counts of lying to investigators. The prosecutor in the case presented a theory that Casey Anthony drugged her child with chloroform and used duct tape to suffocate her. This was presented to the jury with forensic evidence of hair found in the trunk of her car and evidence on her computer of searching for chloroform over 80 times on the internet. Throughout the trial the prosecuting attorney presented evidence of Casey Anthony lying about her daughter's disappearance. The biggest lie by Casey Anthony was that she told investigators her babysitter kidnapped her child. Yet, law enforcement was able to prove there was never a babysitter. The Defense presented the theory that Caylee Anthony drowned in the family pool and that upon her death Casey Anthony pretended nothing was wrong. The Jury in the case found Casey Anthony not guilty of murder but guilty of 4 counts of lying to law enforcement.

The prosecuting attorney and law enforcement was seeking more than $500,000.00 in for law enforcement related costs. The Judge in the case ordered Casey Anthony to pay $217,000.00 to cover the cost of investigating the case. The Judge said the costs should cover only the missing persons investigation not the murder investigation. The bill is in the form of a civil judgment.

This is a perfect example of where a person can be held responsible for lying to the police. In this case the police spent an enormous amount of time investigating leads based on the lies of Casey Anthony.

As a St Louis criminal defense lawyer, one of the first issues our clients need us to deal with is getting a low or at least a reasonable bond set so they can get out of jail while the case is going through the court system, as we are all innocent until proven guilty. Recently, Judge John Garvey and Judge Barbara Peebles in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis have made a point in setting high bonds for defendants charged with gun crimes in the city of St. Louis. Typically in the past a person arrested on a gun charge such as Unlawful Use of a Weapon or Unlawfully Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW), Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Flourishing or other gun related charges were able to get a bond set that was reasonable. Most of the time they were able to get a 10% bond which means that if the Judge sets the bond at $30,000.00 10% then they would only have to post $3,000.00 in cash to be released.

Judge Garvey and other Judges in the City have a made a point to set the bonds higher without allowing a 10% to be posted. This means that many defendants charged with a gun crime are seeing bonds set at $50,000.00 or even as high as $75,000.00 cash only. When asked for a reason the Judges have pointed out, that based on their own perception, gun violence is increasing and they cite examples of innocent bystanders being shot in the last couple of months.

Bonds are typically set to insure that the defendant will appear in court and to ensure that the public can be protected. Each case should be looked individually to determine if a high bond is necessary. This new policy has raised some concern from the City's lead Public Defender, Mary Fox. She pointed out that State law says Judges must weigh the nature and circumstances of the charge and a criminal's background before a bond is set.

Recently a case was taken up to the Supreme Court of Missouri challenging the new bonds being set by Judge Garvey. Specifically, a Defendant was released on a bond of $15,000.00 for a gun charge while he was waiting for a grand jury indictment. Upon the grand jury indictment Judge Garvey raised the bail to $75,000.00 cash only. The case was sent up to the Supreme Court for review as the defense attorney argued that the bond increase was unfair. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. As it stands now the City of St. Louis will continue to issue high bonds in gun cases making it very difficult for defendants to make the bond resulting in many people sitting in jail awaiting the outcome of their case.

Although the purpose of the higher bonds is to discourage people from committing gun crimes it most likely will create other problems. The city jail will become over crowded with people waiting on trials. People with no criminal history may end up getting treated the same way as a person with multiple felonies on their criminal history. Even people who are innocent may enter a plea of guilty so that they can be released. It remains to be seen if this policy will have a long lasting effect on gun crimes in the St. Louis Area.

If you have been arrested for a gun crime call St Louis law firm Sansone / Lauber today for a free consultation.

Post Dispatch Article: St. Louis judges say higher bonds may help curb gun violence

Many years spent as both a St Louis prosecutor and now as a Missouri criminal defense lawyer, I have seen over aggressive law enforcement tactics which sometimes amount to entrapment or prosecutions without sufficient evidence but the cases are pursued anyway due to the nature of the crime. This is especially true in sexual assault cases. See St Louis Criminal Law Article: "St Louis Felony Rape Charges Dismissed Day before Trial" A case our St Louis defense law firm handled and had dismissed a few days before trial.

Recently, this type of overly aggressive prosecution resulted in an acquittal of a widely watched sexual case. In 2006 twenty nine men were prosecuted as a result of the Dateline show "To Catch a Predator". Only one, Joseph Roisman, took his case to trial, and he won. The show was based on volunteers from the online watchdog Perverted Justice who would contact individuals in chat rooms and steer the conversations towards sex. Eventually they would claim to be underage and set up a meeting. Roisman talked to a "tori_Rox_2006" who identified herself as a thirteen year old girl and he agreed to meet her. Roisman traveled 110 miles to meet the girl and when he arrived he took off his shirt as he entered the backyard of the residence. He was then confronted by the Petalum Police and arrested for attempting lewd acts with a child under the age of 13.

The Judge in the case entered an acquittal of the Defendant in the case after the prosecuting attorney presented their case. The Judge found that the prosecutors had not proven that Roisman had specific intent to commit the crime in question. He went on further to suggest that dateline's partner, Perverted Justice, lacked credibility and and engaged in entrapment. After the jurors were dismissed, they even commented that they believed Perverted Justice had an agenda and one juror said she would have found him not guilty even if the Judge did not stop the case.

This is a perfect example of entrapment. The media and law enforcement failed to show that Joseph Roisman ever intended to commit a crime. They had nothing more that some inappropriate internet conversations that did not show his intent to commit crime. The criminal defense attorney in this case aggressively defended his client and was able to show that no crime occurred. The media assumed that a Judge and jury would see the video and just assume that the person intended to commit a crime.

In Missouri, entrapment is defined in Missouri Code - § 562.066. -- Entrapment.

"1. The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the prescribed conduct because he was entrapped by a law enforcement officer or a person acting in cooperation with such an officer.

2. An "entrapment" is perpetuated if a law enforcement officer or a person acting in cooperation with such an officer, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, solicits, encourages or otherwise induces another person to engage in conduct when he was not ready and willing to engage in such conduct."

Have you been targeted by the police or feel you have been charged for a crime you did not commit. Contact Clayton criminal defense lawyer Gary Lauber for a free legal consultation.