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

/>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"

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?

As a St. Louis Criminal Defense attorney that handles all types of traffic matters in the St. Louis area, I always seem to get questions regarding red light camera tickets. A recent story out of Arnold Municipal Court in St. Louis is very troubling. If you ever paid a red light camera traffic ticket in the City of Arnold you may need to check your records for your receipt. A problem with red light cameras in Arnold, Missouri flared up earlier this month when the private photo enforcement operator, American Traffic Solutions (ATS) began sending out thousands of collection notices to drivers who had, at some point, received red light tickets. The issue was that at least 1,200 of those who received such notices had already paid their fines or otherwise dealt with the infraction. Government officials in Arnold have been busy assuring their constituents that this was simply an accident and not an attempt to force more money from their pockets.

One of the notices reads as follows:

The city of Arnold Police Department has referred the account described herein as being delinquent. It is in your best interest to give this matter your immediate attention. If you fail to pay the notice you will be referred to a collection agency for the collection of this debt.

"Recently, a letter was sent from ATS, on behalf of the city of Arnold, in an effort to collect on tickets that were issued from 2005 to present and that remained unpaid," a city press release noted. "Unfortunately, a computer error caused a small percentage of those letters to be sent to persons who had already satisfied their cases." Those citizens who were mistakenly notified will receive a follow-up letter apologizing and instructing them to disregard their earlier bill.

City Council member Doris Brogelt remains unhappy with the city's response to the issue, labeling the press release "nothing short of a lie." Brogelt went on to say that, "It was not a computer error that caused this mess, it was a data entry error on the part of the city of Arnold. I do not consider 1,200 out of 8,000 or 15 percent a small percentage of people affected. Please correct this with the press."

Concerns have been raised about just how accidental the notices were. The current contract between ATS and Arnold says that ATS is to receive $31.33 for every $24.50 collected in court costs on dismissed cases. If the city fails to report the number of cases that have been dismissed then they save money. Insiders are suggesting that the city currently owes ATS some $50,000 for failing to report such tickets.

If you find yourself facing a traffic ticket in the city of Arnold or any other municipal court and 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: "About 1,000 letters wrongly sought unpaid fines from Arnold red-light cameras," by Leah Thorsen, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Jefferson County Circuit Court takes part in NHTSA Study
St. Louis Felony Rape Charges Dismissed Day before Trial

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