The Adrian Peterson situation and the problem with prejudging

So, as basically everyone has heard, Vikings football player Adrian Peterson has been indicted by a Texas grand jury on child abuse charges. Initially, he was deactivated from the team & prevented from playing in one game this past Sunday; the team owners then reactivated him to play on Mondaywhile the criminal case worked its way through the court system. The Radisson pulled its sponsorship of the entire Vikings team as a result of the indictment. Nike & Wheaties also severed ties with Peterson. On Tuesday, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton weighed in on the situation, calling Peterson's alleged actions "a public embarrassment" & while providing lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, said that the Vikings should have continued Peterson's suspension until the court case was finished. Senator Al Franken also called for Peterson's suspension to be reinstated. Finally, on Wednesday, the Vikings reversed course under the media & political pressure & placed Peterson on the exempt list, meaning he must stay away from the team.

This is all the result of an accusation. Not a conviction. Not a verdict of guilty or an admission of committing a crime. An accusation.

Minnesota's high court gets it wrong again

I'm a bit late on this, but it's still interesting, so I wanted to touch base on it.  Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the necessity defense does not apply in cases that deal with a person's loss of their driver's license for a DWI. 

It's a case called State v Axelberg and it's a case where the court had a perfectly situated defendant for the necessity defense, but instead of doing justice, the Court did nothing and furthered the injustice of the situation. 

Everyone has the right to bail in Minnesota

Recently, there was an article in the Star Tribune about the ongoing criminal cases involving victims Palagor Jobi and Anarae Schunk.  In the article, it states that "Monty and Mariana Schunk are pushing for changes to the bail and sentencing system for repeated violent offenders.  They have proposed the Anarae Schunk Repeat Violent Offender Bail Law that would deny bail to a person with two prior felony convictions, one of which was a violent crime, when that person is charged with another violent crime involving a gun or other lethal weapon.  They have also proposed an Anarae Schunk Repeat Violent Offender Prosecuting and Sentencing Law that would impose a mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of a third violent crime involving a gun." 

There's much to say about both of these proposed laws, but let's start with the first proposed law for this post.  The one involving bail.  

My boss has always said that if a law is named after a person, it's probably not a good law.  And I've found that to be true.  Usually laws that are named after a person are sledgehammer solutions and are a reaction based on a particular case involving a particular set of circumstances that are terrible, but not common.  Yet, the law catches people in it that it wasn't necessarily intended to initially, because it's not a thought out and rationally debated law.  It's a law based on emotion and terrible circumstances.  

However, this proposed bail law is not only a bad idea, but it's also guaranteed to fail.  Here's why...

Let's talk about sobriety checkpoints

At the request of @RunoftheShipe, today's post will be about sobriety checkpoints.  The request for my piercing insight nonsensical ramblings was due to a recent post by Bob Collins in the 5x8 Newscut blog.  The latest MADD report gives Minnesota an abysmal 2 out of 5 stars on our DWI laws and suggests 2 ways we can--and according to MADD, we should--fix this low rating. 

Thing one: require an ignition interlock device for ALL convicted DWI offenders w/ a BAC of .08 or more. 

Thing two: allow for sobriety checkpoints. 

I could go on and on about thing one and the ridiculousness of mandating ALL defendants convicted of a DWI be required to have an ignition interlock device, but in the interest of addressing the question that was posed to me, I'll stick to just thing two today.  Ignition interlock is a conversation rant for another day. 

So, checkpoints.  What's up with those? 

The Brooks Decision--coercion isn't even a real thing

Oh, how the Minnesota Supreme Court disappoints lately with its terrible, terrible, completely inane rulings. Yesterday was no exception. Yesterday they delivered a nonsense, ridiculous opinion that doesn't make any sense w/ already established case law. Because apparently, the Court isn't interested in making sense. 

Yesterday's decision was about a recent US Supreme Court case, Missouri v. McNeely and a couple of Minnesota cases, referred to as Brooks. Prepare yourself, kids, because this is gonna be a lengthy discussion.  I will do my best to not talk like a douchebag lawyer about it, so that everyone can understand how stupid this decision really is--I'm thoughtful like that. 

So, here's the situation: 

Ugh.

Everyone is all abuzz on the interwebs about the Boston bombing suspect and Quarles, a case which I'm sure no one other than nerds and lawyers and nerdy lawyers knew about before this week, and Miranda warnings.  I could add more to the debate, but I think it's easier to just tell you to go read this blog posting about it, because it's very well-written and explains everything very nicely. 

This is my last day to be a 20-something.  I feel like I have to start being a grown-up or something tomorrow and who wants to do that?  Blech. Pass. 

In make-my-Monday-even-worse-news, YKW texted me this morning to apologize for forgetting to tell me happy birthday yesterday.  Problem is that my birthday isn't till tomorrow. Really?? Really?? Six years together and he's already forgotten my birthday?  Thanks, pal.  Glad to see how memorable our effing marriage was to him.  It shouldn't bother me.  I should just ignore it and not let it be a concern at all.  But it does bother me.  I spent 6 years with that guy.  I was freaking married to him.  And then he forgets when my birthday is.  Ugh.  Whatevs.  I guess it's just one more reason to think that perhaps I dodged a bullet by him divorcing me--otherwise I'd be stuck w/ him for the rest of my life. 

All right, that's enough complaining from me for now.  Off to go look at adorable kittens to help cheer me up.

Pictures in the Media: The Good, The Bad, and The Graphic

The bombings at the Boston Marathon are absolutely horrible.  I am once again completely unable to grasp why someone would choose to do something so awful.  It seems like these type of events continue to happen over and over again--be it the bombings today, the Sandy Hook school shooting, the theater shooting, etc. Whatever it is, it's always horrible. 

There are some extremely graphic photos from the bombing available on the internet now.  Most of them are coming by way of Twitter or other social media sites and are being shared over and over again.  And inevitably, some people object to such graphic, disturbing, horrific, and tragic images being plastered all over for everyone in the world to gawk at. 

It's an understandable sentiment.  Often there are victims in these photos, people who didn't ask to be hurt or killed, who didn't agree to be photographed, who are now dealing with something completely unimaginable, who are vulnerable and unable to ask that they not be photographed.  And the images are haunting and deeply disturbing.  One photo shows a man being wheeled in a wheelchair who has clearly just had both of his legs blown off below the knee--the bones are gaping out in the photo and it's incredibly upsetting to see that. 

So the question arises of whether or not such images should be made available for the public to view.  Graphic, disturbing, and victim-filled photographs.  Should they be censored? Should they not be aired? Should we be allowed to see these things?

I think we should. 

Why you should never help police (even when you're innocent)

All too often people willingly give up their rights bc they erroneously believe that those rights only apply to criminals. Let me clarify: they apply to innocent people too and you should guard them jealously. Here is why this is so important...
A. Do not agree to give a DNA sample. Ever. Do not fall for the "rule yourself out" line. If they need to ask for your consent it is likely that they do not have enough to apply for a search warrant. If they do have enough then make them go get one. Think DNA is always correct? Wrong. Those labs are operated by humans who make mistakes. I'm not talking theoretical. Labs have an "unexpected results" log where they keep track of problem results. This includes cross-contamination in the results and sometimes that contamination is the testing scientist's own DNA. This happens more often than people realize. If you give a DNA sample you introduce your DNA into the lab where it may end up mixed with some evidence. And once it's mixed it can't be unmixed. Do not risk it. Make them get a warrant.
B. Crime labs are not perfect. Google "Saint Paul crime lab" for one example of awfulness.
C. Talking to police w/o a lawyer is a bad idea even when you're innocent. Say you were driving your red sedan on Main on Monday by the local Target. You are a white guy with a blue sweatshirt and blond hair. You are stopped by police a day later and they ask where you were on Monday. You did nothing wrong so you tell the police where you were. But you don't know that on Monday a white guy w/ blond hair and a black sweatshirt was reported as robbing the Target of on Main. He drove away in a red car. Oops. Looks like you just made yourself a suspect despite not doing anything. Next thing you know you are in a line-up. Oh and eyewitness identification is really unreliable so you are ID'd by the witness. So don't talk yourself into a bad spot. If police want to talk to you the magic word is "lawyer." Use it.
D. Do not let them search your car, purse, bags, etc. A MN woman was charged w/ drug possession when police found an aspirin in her car. Don't do that to yourself. Again make them get a warrant.
E. If you are in an interrogation room or in a room at the police station you are almost certainly a suspect so don't talk. "Lawyer."
Rights are for everyone. Innocent people should use them and realize they are there to protect them. Do not give them up!

Proposed change in the laws

I have a pet peeve about current laws re: restraining orders.  If someone has a  restraining order against you, say your former lover who you still have feelings for, you are barred from any interaction w/ them.  Even if they decide they miss you and so they drop in at your home or give you a call. 

The common scenario I run into is a cranky person who abuses the order by only calling police to report a violation when they aren't getting their way in the relationship. They lie and say they had the order dropped or they lull the other person into a false sense of security that they won't report violations since they want contact.

I have even seen cases where the person with the order was calling the guy, inviting him over, and sleeping with him! But when he biked by and waved to her, THEN she called the police. Dumb!

So here is my proposed change to the law. A restraining order implies that someone doesn't want to interact with the other person. So how about the law include an affirmative defense that they initiated contact and thus nullified the order? That way, people who really need the protection, who don't want any contact, are protected still but the law can't be used as a tool for a disgruntled mate.

Just saying.

Ben Franklin knows what I'm talking about

My recent win of my suppression motion that resulted in a dismissal of 14 felony counts has been met with uncertainty from some of my friends and family. Most frequently, people ask me something along the lines of whether the dismissal is really a good thing and/or if I'm actually happy that the defendant "gets off" on 14 counts.
My answer to that is a pretty solid "YES." Here's why I say yes, and why anyone who thinks otherwise should reconsider.

Yep. There it is. That's why.

I had a sentencing hrg at the beginning of May for a client who I had lost at trial with. We were asking for a departure and my staff and I had put in a lot of work into it. We ultimately didn't win (although the judge did tell me after the hrg that it was a really nice presentation, which was really awesome) and my client was sent to prison.