When Can Police Stop and Frisk You?

TERRY V. OHIO The Supreme Court approved police seizures and frisks of suspects on the street when police have: Specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warranting suspicious criminal conduct. When the police...

RAISING FEDERAL ISSUES

  RAISING FEDERAL ISSUES IN A STATE COURT PROSECUTION CAN TURN A LOSER CASE INTO A NOT GUILTY VERDICT   All state courts must follow the U.S. Constitution.  However, if your attorney fails to argue that your federal rights were violated by the local police,...

DRAM SHOP

KRJ 413.241 The intoxicated person is primarily liable. The tavern is only seemingly liable if a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances should know that the person is already intoxicated at the time of serving. The tavern will be entitled to...

POLICE SURVEILLANCE

POLICE SURVEILLANCE LOCATIONS ON DRUG INVESTIGATION ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE Jett v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, addresses the sanctity of an accused fundamental right to cross examination. Any limitation of an accused right to cross exam beyond the typical...

POLICE SEARCH

CAN THE POLICE SEARCH YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT IF YOUR ROOMMATE CONSENTS TO A WARRANTLESS SEARCH, BUT YOU TELL THE POLICE NO? In the case of Fernandez v. California, (2004), in a 6 to 3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said yes. If the objecting tenant leaves, the...

MIRANDA RIGHTS

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial...

VEHICLE STOPS

VEHICLE STOPS   Stopping a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.  Under Terry v. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court permits a brief investigative stop where there is reasonable suspicion to believe the person is engaged in criminal activity. All that is...

PROSECUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

PROSECUTIONAL MISCONDUCT U.S. v. Emueybunan, 208 F.3d. 377 (2001).  Statements by a prosecutor in a closing argument are not proper if they bring to the attention of the jury facts not in evidence.  When reviewing claims of prosecutional misconduct: Determine whether...

DISCOVERY

DISCOVERY   DEFENDANT REQUEST   BRADY – Brady was convicted of murder.  At sentencing he testified his accomplice committed the murder.  After Brady was convicted he discovered his accomplice had told police he committed the (murder before trial).  Brady had...