You are here

criminal law

Video of Judge Touches Off Debate Over Offenders Who Can't Pay

Richard A. Diment, a Municipal Court judge in Bowdon, Ga., has been excoriated after a video surfaced in which he threatened to jail defendants who didn't cough up money toward their fines, The New York Times' Shaila Dewan reports. Diment told the NYT that he only made an empty threat to pressure people to pay their fines.

Dewan notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the poor can't be jailed solely if they can't pay a fine. But Diment, analyzing the precedent in Bearden v. Georgia, noted that a defendant "must make bona fide efforts to seek employment or borrow the money." The case, however, didn't address whether defendants should be forced to accept onerous terms on lending, Dewan writes.

Murder Rates Not Rising After All?

The Vera Institue for Justice's Bruce Frederick, commenting on the Marshall Project, questions The New York Times' recent piece saying that murder rates are rising sharply in many U.S. cities and that less aggressive policing in the wake of Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson has "'emboldened criminals.'"

He says that the New York Times' piece included 10 cities with populations ranging between 317,000 and 8 million, but there are 60 cities with populations in that range. Not all of the increases in homicides cited by the Times were statistically reliable. And increases in the number of homicides can "fall within the range of normal year-to-year flucutations" and "do not demonstrate a stable trend."

In conclusion, before arguing that there has been a pervasive increase in homicides, analysis needs to be conducted for several years, Frederick argues.
 

Topic(s):

Sex Predator Residency Restrictions Likened to Japanese-American Internment

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that sex offenders can't be banned from living near parks and schools, The Boston Globe's Michael Levenson reports. The court said those restrictions are like the eras in American history in which American Indians were removed from their lands and Japanese Americans were interned during World War II: "'Except for the incarceration of persons under the criminal law and the civil commitment of mentally ill or dangerous persons, the days are long since past when whole communities of persons, such as Native Americans and Japanese-Americans, may be lawfully banished from our midst,' Justice Geraldine S. Hines wrote."

Daniel M. Filler, a Drexel University law professor, told Levenson that statewide rules restricting where sex offenders can live would pass constitutional muster. However, the problem is when muncipalities pass laws that force convicted sex offenders to move to another town.

Cops Convicted of Killing Unarmed Civilians Post-Katrina Get New Trial

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that five New Orleans police officers are entitled to a new trial after being convicted of shooting six unarmed civilians on the Danziger Bridge in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Frontline's Sarah Moughty and Sarah Childress report. The unarmed group of civilians was searching for food and medicine.

A new trial was granted because federal prosecutors violated the fair trial rights of the police officers by writing negative comments online about the police officers. The Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling.

DOJ: Criminalizing the Homeless Sleeping Outside Is Unconstitutional

Civil rights lawyers from the Department of Justice have lambasted a law in Boise, Idaho, that bans people who are homeless from sleeping in public places, The Washington Post's Emily Badger says. The DOJ said in a court filing such laws are unconstitutional when there aren't enough beds for homeless people to sleep indoors: "' When adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity — i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.'"

Death Penalty in Connecticut Ruled Unconstitutional

The Connecticut Supreme Court, 4-3, has ruled that the state's death penalty is unconstitutional for inmates who were already sentenced to death, The Huffington Post's Kim Bellware reports. Legislators already repealed the death penalty for future crimes.

The majority ruled that execution of inmates who committed capital felonies prior to April 2012 would violate the state's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

PA Supreme Court to Examine Civil Forfeiture Issues

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has taken a case that will examine that state's civil forfeiture procedures, The Legal Intelligencer's Lizzy McLellan reports. The case involves the seizure of a Philadelphia woman's home and vehicle that were seized because her son sold marijuana out of her home.

The issue of asset forfeiture is heating up with federal cases also challenging the Philadelphia district attorney's procedures regarding asset forfeitures in drug-dealing cases. Critics say there is a conflict of interest because prosecutors get to keep the money earned from forfeitures in order to fund law enforcement activities.

Lawsuit Accuses Police of Touching Private Parts During Pat Downs

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Tue, 07/21/2015 - 21:07

Here's a piece I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune about a lawsuit alleging a police officer in Connecticut went too far when stopping two black men:

When two black brothers were pulled over by a cop in the city of New London, the officer frisked them both, allegedly touching their genitals and their buttocks. When one of them protested and turned around during the pat down, he was arrested for interfering with the police officer.

Now four years later after that October 2011 traffic stop, U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall has ruled that there is enough evidence to to go to trial on the allegations that what happened to Donald Gilbert, the driver of the vehicle pulled over by Officer Roger Newton, and Andre Gilbert, the passenger in his brother's vehicle, were part of policy by New London police to arbitrarily stop motor vehicles and arbitrarily arrest people.

Hall found that the two brothers' case could survive summary judgment because they have produced evidence of several New London residents complaining of how they were treated by police during traffic stops and that their cars were searched without any justifiable legal reason. Newton also is being sued individually.

Donald Gilbert complained that Newton had touched him inappropriately during a search in May 2010—almost a year-and-a-half before his brother and he were pulled over and allegedly molested by Newton. Another man also alleged that a different officer, when stopping him while he was driving in New London in 2014, "put his hand underneath my crotch and squeezed my testicles." The plaintiffs also argued that the video of the stop by the two Gilbert brothers has been used by state prosecutors to train the police officers in New London how not to do pat downs.

"A reasonable jury could find that New London was deliberately indifferent to its officers' practice of making traffic stops without reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing, following such traffic stops with overzealous (to put it gently) pat-down searches, and searching citizens' cars without a legal basis for doing so," Hall opined.

The issue of law enforcement stopping minorities without reasonable suspicion and arresting them without probable cause has come into the national limelight after the U.S. Department of Justice found that racial bias was endemic in how the Ferguson Police Department in Missouri treated black residents. The issue previously arose in Connecticut, where East Haven police were accused of profiling Latino drivers for traffic stops and subsequent arrents. Those allegations led to federal investigations, criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits.

In Newton's affidavit filed with the police department about the 2010 stop, he stated he had been sitting in his parked car talking on his cell phone. But Newton had him step out of the car to be frisked and "'patted me down twice sticking his fingers in my a-- … I do not believe that the officer had the right to violate me."'

New London Captain Steven Crowley said that Newton had gone over the line in the 2010 incident, even though Newton said he thought Gilbert might be involved in drug-dealing. "If [Gilbert] had consented to the initial actions, he clearly had made his feeling well know during the pat down that he was not comfortable with being touched by Newton," Crowley concluded, according to court papers.

In an interview, Newton's counsel, Elliot B. Spector of Hassett & George, said that his client recognized the Gilberts as "well-known drug dealers" and that it is known that people can conceal weapons near their private parts.

When the case goes to the jury, it will be an issue of whether it was reasonable for Newton to conduct the patdowns on the Gilberts in the way he did, Spector said. And whether it was reasonable will be "left to an issue of credibility," he said

The plaintiffs also showed that the New London deputy police chief, when reviewing another man's complaint against Newton, said "the enforcement of seemingly minor motor vehicle offenses is a proven tool in the efforts to curb crime and [drug] trafficking."

New London officials acknowledged providing training to Newton about the legal basis for using force, stopping motor vehicles and search and seizure. The city said it had no knowledge that there was any practice by its police officers of conducting arbitrary motor vehicle stops or arbitrarily arresting people without probable cause.

Hall also said that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages if they can prove at trial that their state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to not be arrested unless "clearly warranted by law" were violated.

The federal judge rejected a ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court that only "egregious" violations of people's rights under the state Constitution are compensable. She noted that federal judges in Connecticut have been of different minds on whether the Connecticut Supreme Court's 1998 ruling in Binette v. Sabo means that citizens can sue for money damages every time their rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and illegal arrests are violated.

Hall predicted that the Connecticut Supreme Court would rule that all constitutional violations "give rise to a private cause of action, whether the offending conduct is egregious or merely unreasonable."

Discovery has closed in the case, and the judge said that the Gilberts' counsel did not produce enough evidence that they were being racially profiled or that the police department intentionally discriminates against minorities.

Spector said there was no evidence of discriminatory motivation by his client and he is gratified that claim was dismissed. Newton has moved out of state and is longer with the police department, Spector said.

The brother who was arrested by Newton with interfering with an officer had that charge nolled.

John W. Cannavino Jr. and Jonathan C. Zellner, of Ryan Ryan Deluca, in Stamford are representing the city. Cannavino declined comment. The Gilberts are being represented by Conrad O. Seifert, of Seifert & Hogan in Old Lyme. Seifert declined comment.

Oregon, Rhode Island Expand DNA Testing for Convicts Released From Jail

Both Rhode Island and Oregon recently expanded their laws allowing for DNA testing by people trying to prove they were wrongfully convicted.

Both states have enacted laws to expand access to DNA testing for people convicted of a crime who are no longer in prison, The Oregonian's Maxine Bernstein and The Providence Journal's Katie Mulvaney respectively report.

Steve T. Wax, legal director of Oregon's Innocence Project, told Bernstein that Oregon's law was one of the most restrictive in the country. In that state, the standard to get post-conviction DNA testing will now be showing there is a reasonable possibility that testing would lead to a finding of actual innocence.

 

Connecticut Supreme Court Upholds Expansion of Time to Bring Priest Sex Abuse Claims

The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld a 2002 state law that expanded the statute of limitations for bringing sex abuse claims, the Associated Press reports. The court also upheld a $1 million jury verdict against the Archdiocse of Hartford, ruling that the retroactive application of the law did not violate the archdiocese's due process rights.

A jury determined that the archdiocese was reckless and negligent in letting a priest work with children again after getting treatment for abusing other boys. The plaintiff in the case sued the archdiocese, saying he was sexually abused by that priest around 20 times.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - criminal law