Planet Defendant: Search and Seizure

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own customs and procedures that one should learn. A very important custom and procedure on Planet Defendant is called search and seizure. Search and seizure comes from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 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.”

  The Arizona State Constitution has a similar provision found in Article 2, Sec. 8:

“8. Right to privacy Section 8. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”

Many constitutional challenges under search and seizure involve warrantless searches. Whether or not a warrantless search and seizure violates the Fourth Amendment and/or Article 2, Sec. 8 depends on the particular facts of a case. Some of the particular facts are:

• A person’s status such as arrestee, probationer, homeowner, guest, driver, vehicle owner, or passenger;
• A person’s initial actions that attracted law enforcement attention;
• A person’s actions during the search and seizure such as consenting or seeming to consent to the search;
• Law enforcement’s actions during the search and seizure;
• Nature of what is being searched such as a home, hotel room, business, vehicle, backpack, luggage, or purse; and
• Whether there is valid probable cause for the search.

  If a court determines that the particular facts of a case violate either the Fourth Amendment or Article 2, Sec. 8, it then decides whether the prosecution’s argument(s) that an exception applies so that the warrantless search and seizure is constitutional after all. Some exceptions are search incident to arrest, plain view doctrine, and good faith doctrine. In the 18^th century, the Founding Fathers did not have computers, smartphones, gps, and the internet. The United States Supreme Court is continuously redefining what constitutes search and seizure when it comes to modern technology. Law enforcement must have a search warrant in order to search a person’s smartphone according to Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). Law enforcement must also have a warrant to collect location data about cellphone company customers pursuant to Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018). Finally, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to put a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor the vehicle’s movements according to United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012). Search and seizure is a complex constitutional doctrine. If your case has a warrantless search and seizure, you need an experienced defense attorney to determine whether it was constitutional. Law Offices of Gary Rohlwing Criminal Lawyer has over thirty years experience. Call him today for a free consultation.  

The article Planet Defendant: Search and Seizure is republished from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-search-and-seizure/

Planet Defendant: Due Process

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own customs and procedures that one should learn. A very important custom and procedure on Planet Defendant is called due process of law. Due process of law comes from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fifth Amendment applies to Arizona criminal court proceedings because the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Moreover, the Arizona State Constitution has a due process clause found in Article 2, Sec. 4. Therefore, due process of law is a federal and state right. Due process of law basically means that a person accused of a crime is treated fairly throughout the criminal proceedings against him. It includes procedural due process such as procedures concerning notice, presenting evidence on his own behalf, and challenging evidence against him. It also includes substantive due process such as fundamental fairness and a meaningful hearing. “Fundamental fairness” and “meaningful hearing” are incapable of precise definition; they are intended to be fuzzy and flexible since it is impossible to accurately define and know the myriad ways that a prosecutor or court could appear to give a person accused of a crime procedural due process yet act in such a way that is fundamentally unfair and renders the hearing or trial meaningless. A court not allowing a person accused of a crime enough time to present his defense would violate the fundamental fairness substantive due process of law. Moreover, a court deliberately ignoring exculpatory evidence presented at trial would violate the meaningful hearing substantive due process of law. Due process of law is generally the right to notice and a meaningful hearing or trial before a fair and impartial judge wherein the accused may present evidence and witnesses in his defense, cross-examine witnesses and challenge evidence against him, and present arguments and law in his defense. The specific procedures used to notify the accused and conduct the hearing or trial are based on the type of hearing or trial. Some examples are:

• Felony indictment or complaint in superior court gives rise to right to a jury trial;
• Misdemeanor complaint in city or justice court gives rise to right to a jury or nonjury trial depending on the nature of the charge;
• Motion for Release on Bail gives rise to a bail release hearing;
• Petition to revoke probation gives rise to a right to a probation revocation hearing.
• Designation of an offense as a Class 6 felony instead of a misdemeanor gives rise to the right to receive actual notice and an opportunity to be heard;
• Motion for an Examination of a Defendant’s Competence to Stand Trial gives rise to a hearing.

Interestingly, due process of law does not apply to every type of criminal procedure. A person on probation who files a petition to terminate probation does not have a due process right to a hearing. Nor does a person seeking or wishing to modify pretrial release conditions. Due process of law is a complex constitutional doctrine. If you are charged with a crime, you need an experienced defense attorney to make sure that your right to due process of law is not violated. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years experience. Call him today for a free consultation.

The article Planet Defendant: Due Process Find more on: Our Blog

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-due-process/

Planet Defendant: Right to an Attorney

Being charged with a crime can feel like being transported to another world called Planet Defendant. Like all worlds, Planet Defendant has its own customs and procedures that one should learn. A very important custom and procedure on Planet Defendant is called right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that the accused in all criminal prosecutions shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Article 2, Section 24 of the Arizona State Constitution provides that the accused shall have the right to appear and defend by counsel. Federal courts debated for decades whether the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney applied to state court proceedings via the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1963, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney applied to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/case.html The Court quoted Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama on the importance of a lawyer representing an accused:

“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.'287 U.S., at 68—69, 53 S.Ct., at 64, 77 L.Ed. 158.” Id. at 344-345.

One year later, Arizona beefed up its public defender offices to comply with Gideon v. Wainwright. Indigent defendants charged with felonies are appointed public defenders as are indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors facing jail time. All this is good as long as a person qualifies as “indigent” and the appointed public defender is not overworked or incompetent. The Arizona Court of Appeals found that a nonindigent defendant did not validly waive his right to counsel in State v. Jones, 146 Ariz. 278, 280 (App. 1985):

“All that the present record reflects is that the defendant's appointed attorney was discharged four weeks before trial, that the defendant attempted to raise money to hire an attorney, and that he was told that if he did not hire an attorney he would be required to represent himself. A valid waiver of counsel cannot be established by these facts. Defendant was not warned of the dangers of self-representation. He was not asked if he wished to represent himself. No inquiry was made as to why he had not been able to hire an attorney. No continuance was offered to permit that. Instead he was simply required to represent himself. This is constitutionally impermissible. See City of Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wash.2d 203, 691 P.2d 957 (1984). That these failures undoubtedly resulted from the change of judge so that the trial judge understandably assumed that a valid waiver had occurred at an earlier time cannot change the result.”

If you are not indigent or don’t like your public defender, don’t despair. Attorney Gary Rohlwing has over thirty years experience defending clients charged with felonies and misdemeanors for reasonable rates. Call him today for a free consultation.  

Planet Defendant: Right to an Attorney is available on Gary Rohlwing www.criminal-duiattorney.com/

Law Offices of Gary L Rohlwing

7112 N 55th Ave

Glendale, AZ 85301

(623) 937-1692

https://goo.gl/maps/vntMC15aMUG2

from http://www.criminal-duiattorney.com/blog/criminal/planet-defendant-right-to-an-attorney/