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 an experienced St. Louis criminal defense attorney, I have people approach me all the time and ask the question if they can shoot someone that breaks into their home or car. Until 2007 it was not an easy question to answer as any homeowner had a duty to escape the situation. With a little known change in the law the City of St. Louis has seen an increase in the number of intruders in St. Louis being gunned down by homeowners. This increase may, in part, be due to a self defense law known as the castle doctrine. Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles or on their property are given more leeway in using deadly force. Because of the unexpected increase authorities have decided to change they way they review apparently justifiable homicide cases.

There were seven fatal shootings involving the castle doctrine in the city of St. Louis in 2011, up from two the previous year. In the past, police detectives who thought a killing was justified would contact the circuit attorney's office to make sure prosecutors were in agreement.

Captain Michael Sack, head of the homicide unit, said that, "If the victim was able to articulate that they thought their lives were in jeopardy, along with being supported by physical evidence and/or witness statements, it was deemed justifiable." Things will change going forward as every case will now be scrutinized in a more formal review by the St. Louis circuit attorney's office. "It seems to make sense to ask someone else to review our investigation and our work and see if they come to the same conclusions as we do, especially when you're talking about something as serious as taking someone's life," Sack said.

Until passage of the castle doctrine, Missouri law didn't necessarily permit killings in self-defense. Under the old law, homeowners confronted by intruders had a duty to escape their homes if they were able to do so safely. Deadly force was justified only if needed for protection from serious bodily injury or death. The castle doctrine altered the standard, allowing more leeway in using deadly force for those who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicle or on their property.

The argument, according to one advocate of the change, is that citizens should have the right to use force to repel intruders given that anyone breaking into an occupied home must have evil intentions towards the residents. Missouri isn't alone; some 30 states have some form of a castle doctrine.

Critics of the law fear that it has encouraged vigilantism and might one day be used as cover for someone who wanted to commit premeditated murder. "We call them 'shoot-first laws,'" said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Shoot first, ask questions later."

The particulars of the castle doctrine and justifiable homicide cases are very complicated and require the expertise of a skilled Missouri criminal defense attorney to understand. The language of the law says that if a homeowners is put in fear of "unlawful force," he or she is permitted to use lethal force. However, the legislature failed to define "unlawful force" leaving it up to law enforcement officials and prosecutors to interpret. If you find yourself facing questions related to use of deadly force, contact our firm Sansone/Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri authorities navigate castle doctrine," by Kim Bell, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri DWI Defense Tactic: State Must Prove Temporal Connection Between Time Car was Driven and Intoxication
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds

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

A significant change to Missouri law potentially affecting all criminal defendants and something good criminal lawyers need to keep an eye on, might be coming soon. Missouri State Senator Jack Goodman is proposing that Missouri's laws receive a complete face lift. Goodman proposed a bill to the Missouri legislature that would create a committee whose responsibility it would be to update the laws that define crime and punishment. Those laws are collectively referred to as the Missouri's criminal code (basically a collection of all the Missouri state criminal law) and it is in desperate need of an overhaul. The Missouri criminal code has not been updated since it was first drafted, over 30 years ago. Instead of spending time revising the code to keep up with the times, the Missouri legislature, located in Jefferson City, fell into the habit of adding a series of crimes and punishments over the years, creating several inconsistencies and legal conundrums along the way.

There are several examples of the code's internally inconsistent construction, including the following example noted by retired Judge Miles Sweeney in a separate report to the Missouri State Supreme Court.

• Property crime: If a thief takes $499 from another person, it is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. If the same thief writes a forged check for $2, it is a Class C felony punishable by seven years in prison.


• Drug offenses: If a person possesses a Xanax pill, which is used treat anxiety, without a prescription, it is a Class D felony, punishable by four years in prison. If that person gives the Xanax pill to someone else, it is transferring a controlled substance, which carries a 15-year sentence.

The criminal code's revision is only one of several tasks of a working group spearheaded by Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice William Ray Price. Senator Goodman was a part of that working group, which is what prompted him to propose the new bill to the legislature. On the subject of the criminal code, the working group suggests that the Missouri Bar Association's draft of a model criminal code (created by top criminal defense lawyers) is a good place to start to begin the revisions. The Bar Association's model criminal code streamlines some of the laws and reorganizes the code to make it easier to navigate.

Missouri's prosecutors also seem to be in favor of the proposal. It would likely make their jobs easier if they had a streamlined criminal code to refer to when deciding how to charge a potential defendant. Dan Patterson, prosecutor for Green County, made it clear that he thought the review should have come a long time ago. "It really is time to do that sort of review, to go back and make sure the provisions are harmonized with one another," Patterson said.

Yet, experienced criminal defense attorneys may not agree. At our firm, Sansone/Lauber, we typically look for those inconsistencies in the Missouri Criminal Code and we exploit those inconsistencies and use them to our advantage.

Goodman's bill will provide the basis for a solid system in the Missouri legislature that focuses on keeping the criminal code up to date. Every couple of decades the committee should take a look at the laws and determine whether it is time to abolish some, amend others, and rearrange parts and sections for the sake of clarity and cohesion. The Bar Association's model draft makes a great starting point, but the committee is going to have to tailor that code to make it work for the state.

If you have any questions about Missouri Criminal Law or need to speak to an experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyer. Contact Gary J. Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri's criminal code could get much-needed overhaul," by Josh Nelson, published at www.News-Leader.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

• Using Police Video of Arrest to Obtain Dismissal of Missouri One Year Revocation for Refusal to Take Breath Test


• Jefferson County Woman Charged with Illegal Possession of Prescription Medication, Case Dismissed Based on Legal and Factual Defenses

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.

Our Clayton DWI lawyers applaud the fact that now most St Louis area county courts incorporate the use of alternative forms of punishment for DWI Offenders. Recently, Jefferson County Circuit Court, which is located in Hillsboro Missouri and just south of St. Louis County, was selected to take part in a NHTSA study to determine the best way to use SCRAM devices on repeat DWI offenders. Article: Jefferson County DWI Study

SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring) is an ankle bracelet that is worn by a DWI offender for several months. The braclet monitors the offender's alcohol level 24 hours a day seven days a week; if the repeat DWI offender takes a drink the body sweats the alcohol out through the skin and the braclet will be alerted. The devices are considered to be tamper proof and extremely accurate.

The courts see this device as a safeguard against repeat DWI offenders and as a guarantee that the repeat DUI offender is not drinking. Our Jefferson County DWI attorneys use SCRAM as an alternative to Jail for felony DWI clients in Jefferson County DWI cases.

A few years back, I represented a St Charles man charged with his 2nd Felony DWI, which is a Class C Felony. We got him released with a very low bond but with the condition suggested by our st Louis DUI attorney, Ben Sansone, that SCRAM be used as part of the bond. This worked out great, our client was able to get out on a cheap bond, but more importantly, he wore the SCRAM for a year before trial and it never went off, not once. This showed the court he was serious about kicking his habits and the court allowed probation and NO jail time for a second time Felony offender. This was a great outcome for our client.

Continue reading "Jefferson County Circuit Court takes part in NHTSA Study" »

Several defendants, charged and convicted of Felony DWI under Missouri law, took their cases up to the Missouri Supreme Court in an attempt to reduce their charges from felony DWI to misdemeanor DWI under Missouri's repeat offender statutes. See Michelle Schaefer, et al., vs. Christopher Koster, issued on June 14, 2011. Denying three Missouri repeat DWI offenders' argument that Section 577.023 of the Missouri Revised Statutes was unconstitutional.

Specifically, the appellants were convicted of Missouri DWI related offenses on multiple occasions prior to 2008. The prior offenses were for a St Charles County DWI, Cole County DWI, and several municipal DWIs. In 2008 the law was changed to specifically include drunk driving guilty pleas entered pursuant to a Municipal SIS to count as a prior offense for Missouri felony DWI charges.

Many of the DWI defendants that come to our St Louis criminal defense firm are prior drunk driving offenders, and since their prior offenses in municipal courts, the law has changed affecting their cases. Specifically, on July, 3, 2008, House Bill 1715 became effective, repealing and reenacting section 577.023 (this sections deals with repeat DWI offenders and enhanced punishment). The important change to section 577.023 that the appellants were challenging is that any plea of guilty to a DWI in a municipal court that resulted in a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) could be used to enhance the penalty if a person is charged with a DWI again.

The three people in this case picked up new DWI cases and were being charged with enhanced punishment due to the change in the law. The law was challenged on a constitutional argument that it violated Missouri Constitution Article III, sections 21 and 23. Article III, section 21 prohibits amending any bill through its passage in either house as to change its original purpose. Article III, section 23, states that no bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title. Basically, the change to the DWI penalties was added onto a bill about watercraft. The argument presented to the Supreme Court is that it is unconstitutional to add the DWI penalties onto a bill about watercraft. The purpose behind Article III, sections 21 and 23 is to prevent several matters that would not pass by themselves from being rolled into one bill so that the legislature would pass the bill.

The Supreme Court decided that the declaratory action is not the proper form to bring the argument. The Court decided that the constitutional issues should be litigated in each individual criminal case.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Strikes Down Attempt by DWI Lawyers to Declare Prior Offender Statute Unconstitutional" »

St Louis trial attorneys, Ben Sansone and Gary Lauber, of Sansone / Lauber, have been fighting a St Louis Missouri felony rape charge for the last 2 years. The case involved a wrongfully accused man who invited a girl he had been sexually active with for some time over to his house and they had intercourse. She did not resist and never said no. However, that did not stop her from reporting it as a rape to her doctor the next day and then reporting it as a rape to the police about 30 days later. An overzealous police officer ignored the objective evidence and arrested our client based solely on the female's story; which does not make sense.

Persistent legal work, by St Louis criminal lawyers getting this case ready for trial, lead to a last minute dismissal by the prosecuting attorney's office. We grilled all of the state's witnesses and each and every one of them had to admit that she was not raped and that there was no sign of violence, forced entry, or resistance. The alleged victim even admitted she never said no or stop.

In the end, this was a case of a woman who wanted more than a casual sexual relationship and when the Defendant did not want to commit she claimed rape.

Our client, a family man with no criminal history, took a major breath of relief when we recently informed him of the news. St Louis defense lawyer Gary Lauber and I were both relieved that the charges were dropped. Despite being 100% confident we would win this case in front of a jury, there is always that small chance an innocent man could end up going to jail, an outcome I would not have been able to accept.