The Court of Appeals in Ball v. U.S. decided on May 24, 2018, narrowly affirmed weapons’ conviction under the exigent exception to warrantless search under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The trial court had dismissed motion to suppress the evidence based on illegal search and seize paving the way to a conviction. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution under certain emergency and exigent circumstances allow an officer to enter a dwelling without a warrant if the officer has an objectively reasonable basis for believing that: The entry is necessary to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant, or
Read More
Archives for Criminal Defense
BREATHALYZER DEVICE: CHALLENGING RESULTS IN COURT: DC DUI LAWYER
The most prevalent form of measuring intoxication by the law enforcement is the breathalyzer. The device is designed to measure the levels of alcohol in the lungs and not in the breath. Thus a sip of alcohol and testing right after would not and should not register any measurable levels of alcohol. Alcohol consumed however gets processed in the body. It gets absorbed from the mouth through throat and stomach and distributes into the bloodstream. Alcohol is not digested upon absorption and remains chemically the same in the bloodstream. As the alcohol infused blood travels through the lunge membranes it contaminates
Read More
DC VOYEURISM STATUTE: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Castillo v. U.S., decided on March 8, 2018, once again addressed, defined and further expanded certain statutory provision and language of the Voyeurism Statute. Castillo, a cleaning employee of a restaurant, was accused of entering a women’s bathroom and peeping under a stall. On appeal from the conviction under the Voyeurism Statute he argued mainly that technically he was not ever in “a hidden observation post” as the Statute requires and that he had only entered the bathroom to start the cleaning process. The Statute in the pertinent part provides: (b) Except as provided in subsection
Read More
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
D.C Code §23-110, the main statutory language for ineffective assistance of counsel provides for the judicial officer an authority for reversal of sentence due to “denial or infringement” of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Specifically, if the court finds that: (1) The judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, (2) The sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, (3) There has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, The court may vacate under these circumstances the conviction and set aside the
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in Miles v. U.S., decided on March 29, 2018, reversed gun related charges and conviction due to defendant’s 4th amendment violations. An anonymous 911 call and tip formed the basis for the Terry stop which led the arrest and seizure of weapons. The tip provided by a concerned citizen described a man wearing a blue army jacket with characteristics similar to Mr. Miles’s shooting a gun in the air. Miles argued on appeal that: The 911 tip was not sufficiently corroborated at the scene and thus was not shown to be reliable. That his flight from
Read More
DISCOVERY RULES IN THE DRUG CASES: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DRUG LAWYER
The Court of Appeal in Buchanan v. U.S., decided on August 3, 2017, remanded a Possession with Intent to Distribute (PWID) Marijuana case due to the government’s lack of compliance with the specific scientific discovery requests by defense as deemed to be material on appeal. Specifically, the defendant had requested these documents in preparation for trial from the government pursuant to Rule 16, which provides for discovery of specific information within the government’s control such as: books, papers, documents, photographs, which are material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense. The defense with the assistance of an independent chemist and affidavits
Read More
DC LEAVING AFTER COLLIDING STATUTE: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Cherry v. District of Columbia decided on July 27, 2017, revered and remanded the defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident after colliding and expanded and defined the statutory language. Cherry’s car had collided with the wall adjacent to a convenient store. Cherry had exited his car and initially walked toward the convenient store while police officer were already at the scene. He had initially failed to identify himself but had later (about 12 minutes) after the accident had come forward and identified himself as the driver of the vehicle and to the police
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES: WARRANTLESS EXCEPTIONS: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures: Specifically the 4th Amendment provides: THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURED IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST ANY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. Over the years the Supreme Court has carved out numerous search exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. These exceptions are: 1. CONSENT Knowing and voluntary consent to the search
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: REVERSAL OF ASSAULT CHARGE
The DC Court of Appeals on November 9, 2017 in Elaine Jones v. U.S. reversed the defendant’s conviction for simple assault and possession of prohibited weapon. Elaine Jones was charged with simple assault and possession of prohibited weapon a cigarette lighter as she had attempted to ward off another homeless person from her personal space designated by cardboard boxes. She has set a section of her cardboard box taken over by the intruder on fire momentarily to scare off her adjacent homeless neighbor intruding on her and not respecting her personal space. At issue here was employing reasonable amount of
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: LEGALITY OF STINGRAY: DC CRIMINAL LAW
The Court of Appeals in Prince Jones v. U.S., decided on September 21, 2017, considered and evaluated the legality of the police force use of cell site simulator commonly known as “stingray” without a search warrant. The Court in short concluded that deployment of “stingray” without a valid search warrant violated the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and evidence hence collected would be excluded as “fruits of a poisonous tree.” Prince Jones was convicted for sexual assault and robbery (stolen cell phones). The police force shortly after the incident deployed a cell tower simulator to pinpoint his location via his
Read More