And bear in mind, as usual, that though I am a Seattle DUI attorney, I would not recommend you receive my outline of these cases and my analysis of these cases as gospel as you walk into court to talk to the judge. If you truly need the help of one of these cases to assist you, do the brainy thing and study the situation. That way you can be rest secure that what you are uttering is exact - or better yet, call up a Seattle DUI defense attorney to assist - you’ll be pleased you did.
The first criminal situation on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a situation focused on the rules of proof, namely 404(b). Here we go.
State v. Hartzell is a state of affairs about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the sort of case a DUI attorney cherishes because the verification was slim. It is not the sort of case a criminal defense lawyer cherishes because the prosecutor employed some fresh theories of using the rules of proof that seemed to be odd upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to declare.
Facts - The victim was awakened in his dwelling by gunshots. He peered outside and viewed a person shooting out of a red sedan. The sedan was moving as the shooting was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one individual. A independent victim heard the identical thing, and later on located bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were drawn from the bed. afterward the cops searched the abode of Hartzell’s friend, who admitted to shooting a gun at a different time. According to ballistics, the pistol was that used in the firing described above.
The police were then later called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The police showed up, witnessed a bullet hole in a van, and brought a search canine to try to unearth the gun that was used. The canine smelled inside the vehicle, then went out and discovered the handgun a few hundred yards away from the sports car. This handgun also matched the bullets shot at the first described site.
Issues - Hartzell challenged the search of his truck as inappropriate and that prior incidents were incorrectly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a proclivity to carry out firearm crimes.
Breakdown - First, on the topic of the search topic. The Washington State constitution protects individuals from unnecessary searches of their individual and their private things. This stipulation is not violated if no search occurs. A search happens when the state interferes with a person’s private dealings. Generally, a search does not occur if an cop is able to detect something using one of his senses from a non-invasive point of view.
With regard to dog sniffs, a search happens depending on the circumstances. Prior decisions have held that a search does not occur if the sniff happens in a place the individual would not have a reasonable belief of privacy and the sniff was not intrusive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the car when the sniff happened and the canine didn’t get into the car. The search was practical.
Second, concerning the 404(b) facts issue. ER 404(b) provides:
evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a individual in order to illustrate action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The analysis for admitting proof under this rule is well established. The trial court must: (1) find by a preponderance of the proof that a crime happened; (2) distinguish the point for which the verification is sought to be introduced; (3) determine whether the proof is related to decide the element of a crime charged; and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this occurrence, there was a reasonable supposition that the gun found 100 yards from Hartzell’s sports car was possessed by him, particularly given that the dog located the handgun after sniffing Hartzell’s van. Bullets from the pistol was also located on Hartzell and in the sports car driven by Hartzell.
Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that proof not to show that the crimes formed an identity that may possibly illustrate the first offense and the offense alleged were the identical, but that it was likely the defendants committed the crimes because they were found in possession of the guns used in the crime shortly thereafter. Because of these particulars, the court located that verification to be relevant. And in conclusion, the trial court’s analysis of the admission of the proof was sensible since it reasoned the lack of information about the incident would prevent the admission of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle DUI lawyer’s analysis - This isn’t the greatest state of affairs I’ve ever seen, but the prosecutor was well within their limitations to try to get this in. Do I believe the fact that these guys are located with the guns later have any bearing on what happened under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one saw anything it is not possible to know who was utilizing those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing conclusion upon inference to achieve their preferred conclusion - that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t notice in any of this analysis (and granted, all of the proof wasn’t here) was any corroboration that they committed the crimes alleged. As a driving under the influence lawyer in Seattle, I can absolutely see why this situation was taken to trial - the verification just isn’t there.
Next we have State v. Bliss, a case on the topic of possession of meth, search and seizure, and automobile stops.
State v. Bliss is a state of affairs about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the van and the detection of methamphetamine. It brings up a hot theme these days, the search occurrence to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s study on and see what happens.
Facts - Bliss was driving around one night when a police officer got behind her and checked the registration on her truck. The cop discovered that Bliss had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, confirmed Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the van, finding a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of methamphetamine. The officer completed a property inventory before having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle driving under the influence defense attorney moved to suppress the facts on two grounds: (1) the cop didn’t have good reason to stop the vehicle; and (2) the cop couldn’t have seen who was driving the van when Bliss drove by him. The trial court found the police officer was justified in the stop and the search was legal.
Just before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the hypothesis that the search was not occasion to the arrest. The court located the search was simultaneous with the arrest.
Issues - Was the search legal?
scrutiny - Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at issue here, is when an cop stops a person briefly to investigate a practical suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Under this exception, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. The logical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific individual stopped such that the stop and investigation is logical under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.
In this case when the cop stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the individual driving the sedan at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.
As for the Gant examination, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the motor vehicle. This issue is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the topic under Gant.
drunk driving attorney in Seattle examination - This was probably the right thing to do here. If the issue wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court could have the information it needs to conclude if the search was legal. One thing I did find interesting in this opinion was the fact that later the van was impounded, which suggests the van would have been searched to inventory the vehicle. Whether that includes a search of the within of the bag remains to be seen.
Gant has actually given a tool for drunk driving defense attorney’s to use on a regular basis, particularly since police don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search occasion to arrest. I guess we’ll see…
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Lawyer | Take the Breath Test or Not?
Seattle DUI Lawyer | Finding a Good One
0 comments:
Post a Comment