Posts Tagged ‘Car Search’

2nd State Trooper whose videos do not match his reports

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Yesterday I was in court where the tape and printed word did not match.  But for the fact my client did poorly on 1 of the SFSTS, it would have been a trial.  The tape supported a plea to the lesser offense as there was a medical issue surrounding the breath test.  A second lawyer had a tape from the same trooper.  His client looked like an Olympic gymnast on the tape so his case was dismissed.  How can these guys be stupid and arrogant to do this.  A different trooper expressed his outrage to me about this behavior.  He said troopers like this ruin peoples lives, when they have done nothing wrong.  My guess is they are using previously prepared reports and revising the observations.  My client spoke so clearly, it was a joke, yet he was deemed to have “slurred speech.”  The video and the report will be kept for the next time, as I might as well start a new collection. Innocent people and honest police are the victims of this kind of bogus behavior.

 

Motion to Suppress

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

Had an interesting Motion to Suppress yesterday that was granted.  The issue involved the seizure of pills from the console of my client’s vehicle.  We dealt with those drugs before we dealt with the arrest for possession of marihuana.  That too was suppressed, but the pills were more interesting.  Assuming the client was arrested lawfully and the search was valid, was the seizure permissible?  The police officer could not identify the pills as being a controlled dangerous substance, so he did not have reasonable grounds to seize them.  There is an exact MD case on point from our Court of Appeals that dealt with the exact issue.  Just because you have a right to search does not mean you have a right to seize.  I understand the police were not to happy, but the officers wrote a truthful police report and testified honestly.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE UPDATE ARIZONA V. GANT ( http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZS.html )

Monday, June 1st, 2009

I was asked in 2004 by a judge to participate in his trial advocacy course at a local law school. I suggested that he use the Thornton v. United States ( http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5165.ZS.html ) case as his teaching example because Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion was going to become the new standard when the issue was next presented to the Supreme Court. In April, the Supreme Court did exactly that in the Gant case. Quite simply, if you are arrested to driving while suspended, cuffed, and placed in the rear of a police car, there is no reason to search you car. You no longer present a threat to the police and there is no evidence of that crime to be discovered in the car. The logic of this is quite simple, but the jails are full of people who had drugs or other contraband recovered in their cars as a result of these “Search Incident” searches. Although the logic is simple, the end result is not. Will police now “routinely” do an Inventory Search because they have decided to have the vehicle towed rather than leave it parked on the shoulder of a highway or parked on the street. There will now need to be an exhaustive cross-examination of the officer about his practices prior to Gant. A subpoena for previous police reports in these types of traffic offenses may be the most effective method of revealing what was the officer’s pre Gant practice regarding towing. Baltimore County police officer routinely tow vehicles in DUI cases. The Maryland State Police will leave the vehicle on the shoulder of the interstate if it is not impeding traffic. The Maryland State Police have jurisdiction throughout Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Cecil County, Harford County and Howard County. They do not operate in Baltimore City. The Maryland Transportation Police also operate not only on the toll roads, but parts of the interstate.