Watch (video courtsey of ABC News):

An uproar over a cell phone video that shows a Seattle police officer punching a 17-year-old girl after his attempt to cite her for jaywalking is just one of several recent incidents where low-quality video footage shot by members of the public has incriminated public officials.

The video, which you can watch here (warning: disturbing content), shows a young woman resisting Officer Ian P. Walsh, who was citing the woman and a friend Monday for jaywalking. Her friend attempts to intervene, inserting herself between the officer and her friend and grabbing the officer’s arm. That’s the moment when the officer punches her in the face.

OUCH!

Seattle community leaders are in an uproar, saying the use of force was excessive. Officials with the Seattle Police Department say they have “questions” about the officer’s tactics and are investigating the incident. But Seattle Police Officers Guild President Rich O’Neil says the officer’s use of force was appropriate. The Seattle department announced Wednesday that Walsh has been reassigned pending further inquiries.

The Walsh footage is the latest in a series of incidents catching public figures in questionable — and at times legally suspect — conduct. In one of the more formal such encounters this week, Democratic Rep. Bob Etheridge apologized after video surfaced of the North Carolina lawmaker reacting angrily to questions from two young men holding a camera. He hit the camera down, roughly grabbed one of the men by the arm and neck, and demanded again and again to know his questioner’s name.

WOW! I HAVE NOW SEEN IT ALL!

DON'T LET EM BREAK OUT THE BIG GUNS!

By: David Zwanetz, Esq.

First off, it is imperative to know that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution secures the “right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and mandates that that right “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 person or thing to be seized.” 

That being said, one must understand that there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement that allow police to search and seize people and items without a written warrant.  To that effect, many courts, including the Supreme, have held that the sniff of a trained police dog dog not even constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the more important aspects of search and seizure law as it specifically relates to police dogs.  Logic flows that if a police dog sniff is not a search than police would bring dogs to the scene of any suspicious stop to check for drugs, even if they otherwise have no probable cause for a warrant to search.  This is exactly what the Howard County police have begun to do.  The question is, is this legal/Constitutional?  The short answer is, as it usually is, that it depends.  The point of this article is to give a brief overview of the legality of the k-9 search, enough so that the average person can be at least slightly informed of his or her rights.  After all, our lives in this country are guided by the US Constitutional and its Amendments.  However, very few people, outside of the legal community, have a grasp on any of its provisions. As a Howard County criminal lawyer, it is my goal to change that.

Police dogs are a valuable asset for today’s law enforcement agencies.  Recent efforts to combat narcotics in growing rural areas like Howard County have led to an even greater role for the police dog.  Generally, courts have embraced the use of police dogs. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff is not a search that requires probable cause.  In determining that the canine sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, the Court relied upon the extremely limited nature of the intrusion and the fact that there is no expectation of privacy in the air or in an odor.  Courts have also noted that there is no actual physical intrusion in the area or article sniffed.  Nontneless, minimal physical contact between the dog and the article will not escalate the sniff to a Fourth Amendment “seizure.”

“A CANINE SNIFF IS NOT A SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT”

The principal that a police dog may sniff an area or article without a search warrant is considered analogous to the plain-view doctrine (which is essentially the idea that if the police see contraband in plain view they can seize it without a warrant) and has become known as the “plain-smell doctrine.”  The use of a dog’s keener sense of smell to detect odors is comparable to the use of an officer’s flashlight to enhance the officer’s perception of that which is already in plain view.

However, and most importantly, in order to utilize this plain-smell doctrine, the police must legitimately be at the location where the sniff occurs or legitimately detaining the article sniffed.  This brings me back to the idea of an officer calling a k-9 unit when he or she senses something suspicions during a routine traffic stop.  In order for the police to be considered “legally where they are,” during a traffic stop they must not hold a suspect during that traffic stop any longer than it would take an ordinary prudent officer to issue a citation for the underlying traffic offense.  Think of it this way.  The Fourth Amendment veil is like an iron curtain that opens only when probable cause or a warrant exists.  During a traffic stop the curtain opens so that the officer can issue a citation for whatever offense was committed (i.e., speeding, tail light out, running a stop sign, etc.). However, the curtain closes immediately upon the issuance of the citation or at the time when the citation should have been issued. 

Thus, if an officer is able to have a k-9 unit do a perimeter search of one’s car during the small amount of time that it takes to issue a citation, the Fourth Amendment has been complied with. However, if an officer calls a k-9 unit upon suspicion and holds a suspect even one minute longer than the ordinary time to issue a citation waiting for that k-9 unit to arrive, the Fourth Amendment has been violated.  A violation of the Fourth Amendment will not stop an arrest from taking place, but it can and should lead to the suppression of evidence in court.  Additionally, there is nothing at all wrong with a suspect being issued a traffic citation refusing to wait for a  k-9 officer to arrive and do a random search – believe it or not that happens all the time.  This is essentially a person volunteering to wait to have his or her rights violated. 

If your have been the subject of a K-9 search and you feel your rights have been violated, call the Howard County Criminal Attorneys at the law firm Shapiro & Mack for a free and immediate consultation. 

This article was written by David Zwanetz, Esq. David Z., also trains and competes in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at Baltimore MMA school, Crazy 88 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

Feel free to ask specific questions related to this topic in the comments section below and David Zwanetz, Esq. will respond personally.

"BOOK'ER DANNO!!!!"

As Howard County Lawyers, the attorneys at Shapiro & Mack handle countless cases where individuals are arrested for possession of narcotics and other illegal contraband.  Many found substances, which are unidentifiable to the naked eye, are field-tested by police using a KN chemical reagent test.  If the color coding indicateds an illegal substance than they are seized and the possessor is arrested.  However, it has recently been brought to our attention that possession of chocolate, yes CHOCOLATE, could get one arrested and cost them thousands in legal expenses.  So can basil, thyme, and oregano and a slew of other harmless and completely legal food, drug, and cosmetic items.  Some people have and will find this out the hard way! 

Ron Obadia and his partner Nadine Artemis, co-owners of Living Libations Inc., a Canadian organic products business, are not drug traffickers.  However, on August 22, 2008, they were handcuffed, searched, arrested, and interrogated for hours at the Toronto Airport after a brick-sized sample of their raw organic chocolate product field-tested positive for THC with the most widely used color reagent test.

A Royal Mounted Police officer accused the couple of attempting to smuggle hashish, which chocolate hardly resembles, into upstate New York.  They were locked in separate rooms and their one-year-old baby was taken away from them, which is standard procedure in a drug arrest. The Canadian police Obadia and Artemis they were facing life in prison and each was told the other had already confessed (also standard procedure).  Both adamantly denied their chocolate contained marijuana.

Eventually, they were released on bond and their child was released to them.  “We’re not the kind of people who have a criminal lawyer on speed-dial,” Artemis said.

Still eager to market their products in New York, the couple tried again three weeks later to enter the United States, this time by car near Buffalo.  Agents were waiting with a narcotics K-9, which alerted on a bottle of tea tree oil, an organic plant product used as a natural disinfectant.  Incredibly, the oil field tested positive, and knowing that the couple had already been branded as smugglers, ICE decided it was “hash oil.” Of the 40-odd other products in their sample cases, the chocolate again tested positive for THC.

Subsequent lab tests fund that none of the products seized contained illicit/illegal drugs.  Their two attempts to break into the U.S. marked have cost Obadia and Artemins $20,000.00 in legal fees.

WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON HERE?

To answer that all important question, Obadial and Artemis joined forensic science writer John Kelly, chemist Krishna Addanki of Claflin University and a representative of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap Company at a news conference held by the Marijuana Policy Project on March 3, 2009 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  The event was the release of Kelly’s Report, False Positives Equal False Justice, with actual demonstrations of drug field testing on order to raise public awareness of the false-positive problem.  Kelly claims the widely marketed field test kits are worse than useless, and that even when used properly can cause great harm to innocent people.

According to Kelly’s report, thousands of common foods, over-the-counter drugs, cosmetics, and household products will falsely test positive in police drug field tests because the reagent tests themselves are not drug-specific.

The most common test for cannabis and THC, the Duquenoise-Levine Reagent test, reacts strongly to cocoa products, it ths case a Hershey's Dark Chocolate Kiss.

 For example, the 70-year-old Duquenois-Levine reagent test – the one that cause the improper arrest of Obadia and Arthemis – is used by  nearly every federal, state, and local police agency in the U.S. and the RCMP in Canada.  According to tests done by Addanki and his advisor Dr. Omar Bagasra, besides cocoa products, the D-L test also reacts positively to eucalyptus, patchouli, and cypress.  Another test, the ODV Inc. KN reagent test, not only reacts positively to cannabis products but also to  numerous aromatic herbs and essential oils, including thyme, oregano, anise, vanilla, peppermint, ginseng, and event a simple piece of an unbleached napkin (I saw this with my own eyes at the Bronner’s booth at the 2009 green festival in Washington D.C.).

“No one should be using these faulty tests that we’re experimenting with here today, and the companies producing them should probably be put out of business,” Kampia opined.  Until a confirmation test, which could take weeks, proves negative for drugs, “you’re guilty until proven innocent.”

 This problem with non-specific field tests has led to their being excluded as evidence at trial; however there have been very few successful challenges to their use in establishing probably cause to arrest and hold suspects pending trial.  More problematic is the backlog in forensic labs in general, which is the only way to get the real test result.  The common result of these bogus field tests is that citizens will be forced to pay large sums of cash bonds and attorney fees, or, even more unfortunately, suspects can be held in jail for months until lab results are returned.
 
Unfortunately, there is little that can be done about this mounting problem other than to arm yourself with the knowledge necessary to understand how an innocent situation can go awry.  If you find yourself victim of an improper search or seizure contact Shapiro & Mack immediately for our swift intervention.

By: David Zwanetz, Esq., Assicoate Attonrney @ Shapiro & Mack.  Dave Z., also trains and competes in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at Baltimore MMA school, Crazy 88 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

big trouble in criminal defense land!

By: David Zwanetz, Esq.

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. It is prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect individuals’ constitutional rights. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment’s command that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” and that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence, in violation of the Constitution, by conducting unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination.  Clearly, as an attorney focusing exclusively in the area of criminal defense, specifically Howard County criminal defense, the exclusionary rule is paramount importance.  Unfortunately, however, the exclusionary rule is in grave jeopardy.   

While the assault on the exclusionary rule is currently gaining full steam, it began in 1983 with a young lawyer in the Reagan White House who worked vigorously on a “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule.”  The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule never gained much steam. The problem is, however, that the young passionate lawyer from the Regan Administration was John G. Roberts Jr., and he is now the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

January 14, 2009, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he proposed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the Chief Justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggests that the exclusionary rule may become a legal remnant in the very near future.

The Herring decision “jumped a firewall,” said Kent Scheidegger, the general counsel of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. “I think Herring may be setting the stage for the Holy Grail,” he wrote on the group’s blog, referring to the overruling of Mapp v. Ohio, the 1961 Warren Court decision.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined the Herring decision and has been a reliable vote for narrowing the protections afforded criminal defendants since he joined the court in 2006.   Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was considered a moderate in criminal procedure cases.  With Alito’s replacement of O’Connor, there could be enough votes to eradicate the exclusionary rule altogether.  The four certain votes are Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, who is also an alumni of the Reagan administration.

The fate of the rule will to turn on the views of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.  It has been said that the liberal and conservative wings are eagerly courting Justice Kennedy’s vote Kennedy’s vote, could settle the issue once and for all.  Now with Souter’s retirement on the horizon, we are entering a whirlwind of unknown possibilities. 
Currently, the United States takes a distinctive approach to the exclusionary rule, requiring automatic suppression of physical evidence in some kinds of cases. That means, in theory at least, that relatively minor police misconduct can result in the suppression of conclusive evidence of terrible crimes.  Other nations balance the two interests case by case or rely on other ways to deter police wrongdoing directly, including professional discipline, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.  This kind of multi-tiered approach seems to be where the Court is headed.
The Herring decision can be read broadly or narrowly, and its fate in the lower courts is unclear. The conduct at issue in the Herring case was an Alabama man, Bennie D. Herring, who was arrested on officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant.  However, he had no warrant – the mistake was due to poor recordkeeping in a police database rather than a mistake by an officer on the scene.  Herring was searched incident to the improper arrest and gun and drugs were found on his person.  The theory remains that Herring should have never been arrested, thus never searched, and thus, the evidence must be excluded. However, the Supreme Court held that because the misconduct leading to Herring’s arrest was “attenuated from the arrest” the search was valid. 

What this means is that while the exclusionary rule is still alive its veil is smaller and its Berlin wall of protection for victims of unconstitutional police misconduct had begun to fall.  The Herring decision is studded with sweeping suggestions that all sorts of police carelessness should not require, in Chief Justice Roberts’s words, that juries be barred from “considering all the evidence.”  A broad reading of these comments by the lower courts could invariably be the death of the exclusionary rule as a practical matter.

The nomination of Barack Obama is a proverbial sigh of relief for the defenders of the exclusionary rule and most, if not all, criminal defense practitioners.  At least for the time being, it appears that the five votes required to disavow the exclusionary rule will not be obtained. While I don’t like the result, I am in awe of Justice Roberts for beginning a quest in 1983 with the Regan administration and fighting his way, with that issue in his briefcase, to the most powerful position in the United States legal community where he can now, very seriously, finish what he began. 

This article was written by David Z. David Z. also trains and competes in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at Baltimore MMA school, Crazy 88 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.