What's more, these days law enforcement authorities have help from some of the brightest minds in the private sector. In mid June, tech industry giant Google announced that it has been compiling a database of child pornography on the internet. By finding images allegedly depicting child pornography, Google can not only erase these files, but can and does pass information along to law enforcement officials about those who view and post images that they find objectionable.
]]> Google's ultimate goal in this initiative is to eradicate child pornography from the Web, and the company recently pledged $5 million to this end. While Google may rightly be praised for its intentions to protect kids who may be victims of abuse, the company's blasé attitude toward internet privacy and the fundamental rights of the justice system could be cause for concern.Consider that a private company is tracking down internet users with no warrant and no judicial oversight and handing over reams of data that could potentially be used to implicate these users in crimes to prosecutors and police. This type of unchecked information gathering could be abused, for instance, by making it seem as though an innocent party committed a crime, by violating a person's constitutional rights or by being expanded to target Google's enemies rather than only those suspected of being involved with internet crime.
At the very least, Google's initiative needs to be monitored by a disinterested judicial decision maker.
Source: The Huffington Post, Google vs. Child Porn: The Search Giant Will Try To Eradicate All Of The Internet's Child Porn, Alexis Kleinman, June 17 2013
]]>The change in enforcement policy is an encouraging one. But it should also be pointed out that, over the last decade, marijuana arrests in the St. Louis area have been going up markedly. And there have been far more blacks arrested than whites.
The racial disparities in marijuana charges are so striking that the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri has become very concerned about the issue.
]]> The Eastern Missouri chapter of the ACLU has taken local data from a broader national report that examined the impact of marijuana prosecution on different racial groups. The report found considerable evidence of significant racial disparity in the enforcement of marijuana laws.More specifically, the report found that arrests were arrested much more frequently than whites for marijuana possession. Indeed, the ACLU data showed that nationally blacks face marijuana charges four times as often as whites.
Differences in usage rates among the races cannot account for this disparity. For marijuana, usage rates for blacks and white are about the same, studies have shown.
The ACLU report noted that in the city of St. Louis, racial disparity for marijuana arrests was markedly higher than the national average. In fact, the ACLU data shows an 18-to-1 disparity in the ratio of black arrests compared to white arrests there.
The police department denies racial profiling. But the racial disparity in marijuana arrests is another reason why the new St. Louis ordinance on low-level pot possession is a welcome development.
Source: "Riverfront Times, "Marijuana: Major Increase In St. Louis County Pot Attests Over Last Decade, ACLU Says," Sam Levin, June 7, 2013
]]>But there are Missouri juveniles who received mandatory life sentences without parole before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case. One year after that ruling, Missouri and other states are still trying to determine what the status of those juveniles should be.
]]> As we discussed in part one of this post, there are now two cases before the Missouri Supreme Court raising this question. One of them involves a young man who was only 16 when he broke into a home and fatally shot someone. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.But the year after he was sentenced, the U.S. Supreme Court decided issued its ruling in the Miller case. That ruling made clear that an individualized determination by a judge is necessary when a juvenile faces potential sentences of life without parole.
Of course, for adults convicted of first-degree murder, the death penalty is also an option. But the U.S. Supreme Court has previously made clear that juveniles cannot be given the death penalty.
Eventually, the Missouri legislature will need to specify what the range of penalties will be for crimes committed by juveniles who have been certified as adults. Following the Miller decision, it is clear that judges cannot merely use the same ranges as for adults.
But whatever the legislature decides about these cases going forward, there are still many cases that remain where Miller may have a retroactive effect. Indeed, there are 84 such cases, including 13 cases in which the juvenile was 15 or younger when the crime was committed.
It remains to be seen how courts will respond to request to shorten such sentences, particularly in the absence of legislative action to adjust state laws to the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "To give victims certainty, lawmakers must act," Jennifer M. Joyce, May 14, 2013
]]>Secondly, when juveniles are concerned, the issues inevitably deal with vulnerable young people whose lives are at an especially critical juncture. In the St. Louis area and across the country, the way such issues are resolved can mean the difference between a young life getting on the right track or becoming more and more separated from mainstream society.
]]> This spring, the Missouri Supreme Court is dealing with a couple of St. Louis juvenile cases that pose challenging issues. The issues must be resolved in the light of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have made clear juveniles are different than adults.More specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that juveniles are not to be sentenced to life with prison through mandatory sentences. When juveniles are to be sentenced, there must be an individual determination, not merely the imposition of a mandatory sentence.
But what about juveniles sentenced to life before the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the law on life sentences for juveniles?
That is the question before the Missouri Supreme Court in the two cases of juveniles from St. Louis. In one case, a 16-year-old burglarized a home with an accomplice. The burglars fired shots, killing a woman and injuring two others.
After he was certified to be prosecuted as an adult, the 16-year-old was convicted of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to life without parole in 2011.
But then, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that judges must be given an opportunity to consider mitigating factors when sentences juveniles who may face life in prison.
In our next post, we will discuss further how the Miller case may apply in Missouri.
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Missouri's top court hears 2 cases of St. Louis juveniles given life sentences," Jennifer Mann, April 30, 2013
]]>But DNA evidence cuts both ways, changing the game in more than one way. It does not only help expose wrongful criminal convictions. It can also enable law enforcement authorities to build vast databases of DNA profiles. When someone's profile is included in such databases, its presence can make it more likely for that person to become a suspect again and have to face more criminal charges.
]]> But when are law enforcement authorities allowed to take someone's DNA without consent? Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on that question.By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that police are allowed to take DNA samples even from people who have been arrested on charges of serious crimes - even if they have not been convicted of those charges.
The majority of the Court said that swabbing the cheek of someone arrested on felony or other serious charges is not that different from other parts of the jail booking process. In that sense, it is like fingerprinting or taking a mug shot and therefore considered a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
The four dissenters strongly disagreed with this reasoning. They warned that, in practice, law enforcement could use DNA evidence even from a wrongful arrest and put it in a national database.
There are already 26 states that allow the collection of DNA evidence from arrestees and the uploading of that evidence into a national database.
Source: "Supreme Court OKs DNA swab of people under arrest," USA Today, Richard Wolf, June 3, 2013
]]>For example, last year the U.S. Supreme Court held that the attachment of a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car was a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Court reversed a conviction for drug trafficking in that case, United States v. Jones.
Besides GPS, there are many other potential tracking tools that affect criminal defense in St. Louis and throughout the nation.
]]> One of these tools is high-capacity cameras designed to record the license plates of vehicles in a certain location. The use of this tool in at least one Missouri city has already raised concerns about invasion of privacy.The city using the tool is Cape Girardeau. For more than six months, police there have used these high-speed cameras on patrol cars. The cameras are attached to the roofs of the cars.
It isn't only photos of passing cars that the cameras capture. It's also license plate numbers. Those numbers are transmitted to a national database that is available only to law enforcement agencies. If the plate number raises an issue, the tracking tool sends an automatic alert to the patrol car.
For example, the database may show the plate number is for vehicle belonging to someone who has an active arrest warrant. Or the vehicle may have been reported stolen, or be implicated in an investigation in a missing child case.
But the tool also triggers an alarm when the plate is for a vehicle that belongs to someone with a criminal history. Obviously that applies to a lot of people.
Civil liberties advocates are naturally concerned about the use by law enforcement officers of tracking tools of this type.
Source: "Plate Tracking in Cape Girardeau Causing Concern," WSILTV, Associated Press, May 5, 2013
]]>The Cardinals are not alone, either. Hats, jerseys and other merchandise from major league and college sports teams are big business throughout the nation. Teams tend to closely protect their merchandising deals. And so when unauthorized goods enter the market, there is a chance that federal authorities will investigate and bring charges for counterfeiting or other federal offenses.
]]> This has happened, for example, in Milwaukee. Federal agents have begun an investigation into whether the Port of Milwaukee became a conduit for counterfeit baseball caps from overseas.Authorities in Milwaukee have identified at least one suspect, a man with a previous conviction for counterfeit goods trafficking. The man has not yet been charged in the current case.
Federal agents have seized more than 500 caps or hats at the port. The hats carry the logos from various professional leagues. Other sports are represented besides baseball, including football and basketball.
The hats apparently came from Hong Kong. They were due to be shipped to various buyers across the country who had ordered them over the Internet.
It is understandable that buyers would look for deals on the Internet. After all, the prices for official merchandise from pro sports teams are often quite high. But the old expression "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) applies as well.
Source: "Counterfeit baseball caps at center of federal investigation," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, John Diedrich, May 23, 2013
]]>Authorities believe the deceased judge, a 49-year-old man, and the judge who was recently arrested, a 43-year-old man, were the only people present at a hunting cabin about 65 miles northwest of St. Louis when the deceased judge died. The hunting cabin is owned by the recently arrested judge's family.
]]> The deceased judge had cocaine and alcohol in his system; it is believed he died of an overdose. A substance alleged to be cocaine and drug paraphernalia weretaken from the cabin.Federal authorities are now preparing at least one drug possession charge against the second judge on the theory that he provided the deceased judge with the drugs that ultimately led to his demise.
A St. Clair County probation worker has been arrested, also in connection with the same incident. Prosecutors think the worker provided the arrested judge with drugs.
As one can imagine, this case has caused a lot of scandal and gossip. Rumors have flourished in the absence of information from officials, who have understandably wanted to maintain some degree of silence until all the facts are known.
As criminal defense attorneys, we understand how important it is to withhold judgment until the picture is as clear as it can be. The court of public opinion is really no court at all, and people should be more hesitant when it comes to making pronouncements about guilt or innocence.
Source: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "St. Clair county judge held pending drug charge," Robert Patrick, May 24, 2013
]]>Many people deal with these seasonal allergy flare-ups by getting decongestants at their local pharmacies. But these cold medicines contain pseudoephedrine, an ingredient that can be used to make methamphetamine.
]]> Because of this concern about meth manufacturing, numerous local communities around have passed local ordinances controlling access to over-the-counter meds. The premise of the restrictions is that it is much more difficult to make methamphetamine without ready access to pseudoephedrine.St. Louis has not followed suit in passing such restrictions. But a proposal in the Missouri legislature would supplant local restrictions with a uniform statewide law.
The proposed law is House Bill 218. It would reduce the legal limit for pseudoephedrine purchases from 9 grams to 7.5 in a 30-day period. It would also limit purchases of pseudoephedrine to 60 grams in a 12-month period.
There would also be stricter requirements for people with felony convictions. People with felony convictions on their record would need to have a prescription to buy pseudoephedrine, regardless of the amount.
In addition, the bill would grant pharmacists the discretion to decline to sell cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine. Pharmacists could do this if in good faith they believed the medicine would be used as a meth precusor drug.
These proposed restrictions are not new at the legislature. But the bill containing the restrictions did pass the House this year. In a subsequent post, we will follow the story into the Missouri Senate.
Source: "Pseudephedrine bill heads to state senate," The Standard, Taylor Burns, 4-30-13
]]>In St. Louis, Mayor Francis Slay chose the first of these options regarding the Board of Aldermen's ordinance on marijuana enforcement. Under that ordinance (local law), St. Louis police will be able to divert cases involving small amounts of marijuana to the municipal court system. As we have discussed in recent posts, this will greatly affect the resolution of marijuana charges in St. Louis.
]]> In the municipal system, cases would begin through a summons to appear in court, not with arrests. Penalties would normally consist of fines, not jail time.Stricter Missouri laws on marijuana possession are still in force. A first offense for possession of an amount between one and 35 grams can be charged as a misdemeanor. Punishment for a conviction of this offense can be up to a year in jail, as well as a $1,000 fine.
But under the new ordinance, St. Louis would be able to handle minor marijuana cases in an alternative way. Jail terms will still be possible in these cases, but for no more than 90 days. And fines would be between $100 and $500 — not $1,000.
With the major’s signature on the new ordinance, it is set to go into effect in St. Louis on June 1. That is less than three weeks away.
Source: “St. Louis marijuana penalty reduction law goes into effect next month,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5-7-13
]]>Obviously there are different types of hacking. But how does the law define hacking as a computer crime and distinguish it from perfectly legal cutting-edge programming? The answer to this question affects many computer users not only in St. Louis, but throughout the nation.
A good place to start in responding to the question is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA is a federal law has been on the books since 1984. Many critics contend it is outdated and overly broad.
]]> And because it is overly broad, CFAA seems to enable prosecutors to sometimes pursue dubious cases. In one recent case, Aaron Swartz, a noted Web developer who was committed to open-source technology, downloaded material from an academic website without authorization. He had presented himself as a guest on a network operated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Swartz was highly regarded in the computer industry and had developed the RSS feed, an information-sharing service that has become increasingly common on the Internet. But authorities accused him of wire fraud and other changes in connection with the MIT incident. The case had not yet been resolved when Swartz committed suicide in January.
Not long after Swartz’s death, a U.S. representative offered amendments in Congress to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Under an amendment called Aaron’s Law, terms-of-service violations would be excluded from the CFAA. Such violations would also be excluded from wire fraud statutes.
Please visit our page on Internet crimes.
Source: “Hacker’s Hell: Many want to narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” ABA Journal, Stephanie Francis Ward, 5-1-13
]]>In this post, let’s look at a specific juvenile justice initiative that is in place in St. Louis and a few other areas in Missouri. It is called the Juvenile Detention Initiative.
]]> The goal of the initiative is to find alternatives to incarceration for juveniles. Instead of sending them to a detention center, the program emphasizes keeping kids in their homes. Instead of being held in a juvenile detention facility, they report to a program that runs several hours a day at an evening deporting center.In detention facilities, there are often not enough programming or educational opportunities to assist with the goal of rehabilitation. By contrast, evening reporting centers emphasize learning both academic and practical coping skills. The hope is that juveniles will not only avoid more serious offenses, but will also keep their lives on track.
Nationally, programs like this are increasingly popular. Criminologists credit them with helping to reduce the overall rate of juvenile crime across the country.
The success of alternative to detention does not mean that every juvenile is eligible. Young offenders who commit serious felonies may not be eligible. But evening reporting centers and other alternatives to incarceration are nonetheless playing an important role. In Missouri, they are available in three counties and in the city of St. Louis.
Please visit our page on juvenile crime.
Source: Source: “Juvenile Crimes Decrease,” KSPR, Joanna Small, 4-17-13
]]>The St. Louis Board of Alderman recently gave this change a big push when they decided last month to take an alternative approach to marijuana enforcement. The board voted to respond to low-level pot possession using a process that resembles how traffic violations are handled. Rather than an arrest and booking into jail, these offenses would merely involve a summons for a municipal court appearance.
]]> To be sure, Missouri laws on marijuana possession remain in the state’s legal code. But when the St. Louis ordinance goes into effect on June 1, it is expected to mark a big change in the enforcement of penalties for marijuana possession in the Gateway City. Though short-term (no more than 90 days) jail time would still be possible, most low-level (less than 35 grams) cannabis cases would be resolved in a process more like traffic tickets than traditional criminal law.What effect will the new approach St. Louis is taking to pot possession have elsewhere in Missouri? Columbia already has a similar ordinance in force. And now it may be Kansas City’s turn. Show-Me Cannabis, an advocacy group for marijuana legalization, is lobbying the Kansas City Council, seeking support for an ordinance similar to St. Louis’s.
Please visit our page on marijuana charges.
Source: “Marijuana activists eye KC for decriminalization after win in St. Louis,” The Kansas City Star, 4-25-13
]]>In our times, the word "meth" is sometimes used to modify "house." A meth house refers to a residential dwelling where methamphetamine is produced. Potentially harmful chemicals are involved in this process. Local governments that work on cleaning up such houses after meth production has ended are therefore concerned about the contaminants they may encounter.
One St. Louis-area city is now considering a specific ordinance to spell out this is supposed to work.
]]> St. Charles is reviewing a proposed ordinance that would allow the city's community development department authority to condemn houses where meth was produced. There have already been several meth raids in the city at such houses this year.The draft ordinance attempts to define what degree of contamination from meth should impose duties on property owners take steps to address the issue. Such duties would start with testing, if the contamination exceeds a certain amount. This would be followed by decontamination procedures.
Decontamination could be a do-it-yourself operation, either. Under the proposed ordinance, it would have to be done by a company recognized as qualified to do so.
An ordinance like this could allow government actions that greatly affect property rights. That is undeniably an important consideration. But St. Charles County has already passed an ordinance similar to the one being considered by the city.
Please visit our page on drug charges.
Source: "St. Charles mulls rules for reoccupying meth homes," St. Louis Business Journal, 4-16-13
]]>Swift, early engagement of an attorney often is a key to mitigating issues before an indictment is ever issued. And considering the heavy penalties that go along with federal crime convictions, it is only reasonable to be monitoring the investigative processes closely.
]]> This musing is prompted by news this week of the break-up of a massive suspected car-theft ring. Authorities have declared that charges have been filed against 21 people in connection with the case. They say that the ring operated on a multi-state basis, but that the hub of the alleged ring was located in St. Louis.News reports indicate that officials have been investigating the ring for some time. The 74-page indictment alleges that the suspects leveraged a number of bogus financial schemes to steal at least 126 luxury vehicles and pickup trucks from private owners and car dealerships. The indictments allege that besides Missouri, activities were undertaken in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana.
In all, the operators of eight businesses ranging from towing, storage and car repair outfits are said to have been engaged in the alleged thefts. Prosecutors claim they used various schemes to obtain the vehicles and then quickly get rid of them. In some cases, they allegedly took out bogus loans and created false titles. In others, they are claimed to have falsified titles from a Native American jurisdiction in Oklahoma.
So far, 16 of the 21 individuals named in the indictments have been taken into custody. They include men and women. The charges they are being held on include conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud and receiving stolen vehicles. If convictions are obtained, penalties for such crimes can range from five to 30 years and include seven-figure fines.
It's unclear how many of the defendants have attorneys.
Source: ABC News, "Justice Department Charges 21 in Multi-State Car Theft Ring," Susanna Kim, April 25, 2013
]]>