In an effort to target every part of the supply chain, drug charges have been issued against doctors who over-prescribe these drugs as well as patients or others who try to illegally obtain or sell them. Of course, for doctors who prescribe conscientiously and patients who legitimately need these powerful painkillers, this extra scrutiny often creates a lot of problems.
]]> Earlier this week, federal and local authorities raided both the office and home of a Pennsylvania doctor who specializes in treating patients with chronic pain. The doctor spoke with news reporters, saying that the raid was an expected response to a lawsuit he filed against local pharmacies who recently stopped filling prescriptions he wrote. Federal agents had allegedly told the pharmacies that they believed the doctor was prescribing painkillers too frequently.
The man was careful to note that he does not treat patients with short-term or mild pain. Rather, he works with patients with intense and chronic pain who need these powerful medications simply to function normally. Because his medical records are thorough and he has nothing to hide, the doctor is sure that the raid will yield no evidence against him.
He told reporters that “The DEA and the FBI have already interviewed a couple of my patients. They’ve already found out I’m not a pill mill." He added: “They may not like the way I practice medicine, but there is no drug crime here.”
In cases like this one, an investigation alone may be enough to ruin a doctor's reputation or destroy his practice; even if no criminal charges are filed. Similarly, patients may be investigated and scrutinized simply for being associated with a given doctor.
In the war against prescription drug abuse, federal and local law enforcement agencies rarely tread lightly. This often means that innocent doctors and patients may be targeted when no actual crime has been committed. For this and other reasons, anyone facing an investigation or charges related to prescription drug crimes should seek the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
Source: WJACtv.com, "Federal agents search Cambria Co. doctor's office, home," May 21, 2013
]]>Safety advocates and regulators are now saying that the current standard is unacceptable. They argue that many drivers become dangerously impaired before reaching 0.08 percent. Therefore, they can still cause a car accident even if their BAC is not high enough to warrant drunk driving charges.
]]> Earlier this month, the National Transportation Safety Board made a recommendation that board members think will address the issue. They urged lawmakers in every state to lower the BAC limit from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent. According to government statistics, a driver with a 0.08-percent BAC is 169 percent more likely to get into a crash than a completely sober driver. At 0.05 percent BAC, a driver is only 38 percent more likely to be involved in an accident.Still, would lowering the legal limit significantly reduce drunk driving and related crashes, or would it only serve to punish those who drive after drinking in moderation?
Among the critics of the NTSB's proposal is the managing director a restaurant trade association called the American Beverage Institute. She criticized the measure, saying that "moving from 0.08 to 0.05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior. Further restriction of moderate consumption of alcohol by responsible adults prior to driving does nothing to stop hard-core drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel."
Most other countries in the industrialized world have already enacted a legal standard of 0.05 percent, so the U.S. would have some company if we changed our own BAC limits. But if the end goal is to reduce car accidents, is this the best way of achieving it, or will it just turn social drinkers into outlaws? What do readers think?
Source: New York Times, "States Urged to Cut Limit on Alcohol for Drivers," Matthew L. Wald, May 14, 2013
]]>In addition to testing for drunk driving, law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and around the country have long been seeking a quick and easy way to test for drugged driving as well. According to the results of a recent study, they may soon get their wish.
]]> Swedish researchers recently announced the creation of a new breathalyzer test in a study published in the "Journal of Breath Research" (yes, there is apparently a journal with that name). According to the study, the new device can accurately detect the presence of 12 different controlled substances in addition to alcohol. Some of these include marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and morphine.Researchers reportedly tested the device on dozens of patients in a drug addiction emergency clinic. Commenting on the results, one researcher said: "Considering the samples were taken 24 hours after the intake of drugs, we were surprised to find that there was still high detectability for most drugs." He added that the new breathalyzer device has the same accuracy rate as blood and urine tests; meaning it can detect drug use approximately 87 percent of the time.
There has been no word yet on when the device will be available, or if it will be adopted for use here in the United States. As with all new technology used by law enforcement, there could be an initially high margin of error caused by improper calibration, improper use or any number of other factors.
Technology may be convenient, but it is only as accurate as the people who use it. That's why anyone charged with drunk or drugged driving should seek the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney who can examine the evidence carefully and inform defendants of their rights and options.
Source: The Inquisitor, "New Breathalyzer Test Detects Drugs Too," Apr. 28, 2013
]]>Minors convicted of sexual offenses (some of which are not actually sex-related) are often forced to register as sex offenders for decades or even life. This essentially means that they can never escape the stigma of an offense committed in youth. Many cannot reintegrate into society as adults; long after their sentence was served and long after they rehabilitated.
]]> As one example, the report includes the story of a man named Jacob, who was convicted of a sex crime when he was just 11 years old. He was charged and convicted of sexual misconduct after an incident in which he touched his younger sister's genitals.To be sure, this was a serious offense that required a serious consequence. But at the age of 26, Jacob's life has been defined by this one mistake. After the incident, he had to be placed in a foster home where he was not allowed to live with other children. When he turned 18, his name was placed on a public sex offender registry. He struggled to graduate high school and eventually dropped out of college because of continual harassment by campus police.
Are communities any safer because Jacob was forced to register as an offender? Probably not, researchers say. According to the report, "including youth sex offenders on registries assumes that they are highly likely to reoffend, which is not the case. Numerous studies estimate the recidivism rate among children who commit sexual offenses to be between 4 and 10 percent, compared with a 13-percent rate for adult sex offenders and a national rate of 45 percent for all crimes.”
Those forced to register as sex offenders may never again have the chance to live a normal or anonymous life. In light of this, we must wonder why it is so easy to force minors to register for offenses that they will likely never repeat. Perhaps it is time for state and federal lawmakers to reexamine sex offender registry laws and propose common-sense reforms.
Source: The Center for Public Integrity, "Report details lives ruined for children put on sex-offender registries," Susan Ferriss, May 1, 2013
]]>Contrary to popular belief, not all individuals who are forced to register as sex offenders are child predators. In fact, many of them were children themselves when convicted of sexual offenses. And because of an increasingly complex set of state and federal laws, some of these kids may carry the stigma of sex offender status for the rest of their lives.
]]> This problem was recently highlighted in an extensive report issued by Human Rights Watch and the Center for Public Integrity. For the report, researchers interviewed hundreds of convicted offenders, victims, prosecutors and defense attorneys as well as others with expert knowledge of sexuality and sex crimes. The report concludes that in most cases, forcing children to register as sex offenders does not make communities any safer. Rather, it only serves to punish these offenders for decades and often does not allow them to reintegrate into society as adults.
It is sometimes the case that minors are convicted of crimes that can hardly be considered sexual offenses. Some Pennsylvania readers may remember that in 2004, a 15-year-old Pennsylvania girl faced criminal charges because she took nude photos of herself and put them on the internet. She was charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography.
Other "offenders" have been forced to register after being convicted of offenses such as public urination, public nudity and indecent exposure. In some cases, this means that a student who streaks across a college campus could potentially face similar post-conviction status as someone convicted of rape.
Please check back later this week as we continue our discussion about this important topic.
Source: The Center for Public Integrity, "Report details lives ruined for children put on sex-offender registries," Susan Ferriss, May 1, 2013
]]>For high school seniors, this time of year puts them at risk of underage drinking charges. And if they are pulled over while driving, underage drinkers could also face drunk driving charges.
]]> Because of these alcohol-related risks, a lot of local police and school representatives are urging parents to talk to their kids about alcohol use and the dangers (both legal and physical) associated with it . According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, about 75 percent of teenagers will drink alcohol by the end of high school. While some teens drink in moderation, about 90 percent of high-school teenagers binge drink when they consume alcohol.According to a school official in nearby Lewiston, parents should first talk to their high schoolers about the physical dangers of alcohol; especially the risks faced by inexperienced drinkers. If they decide to drink despite parental advice, the best strategy to keep them safe is to offer to pick them up if they feel they are in danger. He urges parents to "tell (children) you will be there to get them, no questions asked, if they're in a situation that becomes dangerous or uncomfortable."
Beyond the physical risks of underage drinking, students should also understand the legal risks. Anyone under the age of 21 who has a measurable blood-alcohol level above 0.0 percent can be cited for underage drinking. This can result in fines and license suspension (if caught while driving). Parents should also be aware that they can be fined for serving alcohol to underage drinkers; even if those drinkers are their own children.
Even though underage drinking is illegal and can be dangerous, most reasonable people understand that teenagers sometimes make mistakes. If you are a teenager or the parent of a teenager who has been charged with underage drinking or drunk driving, you should seek the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Teens make mistakes, but you need to ensure that those mistakes don't ruin your plans for the future.
Source: The Sentinel, "Police: Talk to kids about alcohol," Julianne Cahill, Apr. 30, 2013
]]>While scientists can't predict the future with absolute certainty, decades of research about the human brain has led some scientists to say that they can predict which children are more likely to grow up to become criminals based on a number of factors including brain composition, environmental factors and even nutrition. In fact, this topic is the subject of a new book written by a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
]]> Professor Adrian Raine is a psychologist who has long been interested in anti-social behavior and a field of study he calls "neuro-criminology." In a newly published book, he discusses how he and other crime experts have been largely able to determine the genetic, physical and environmental risk factors that make human beings more likely to commit crimes.But if we can predict future criminals based on these characteristics, this leads to an important question: what do we do with this information? Thankfully, Raine believes that "biology's not destiny," and adds that "there's never going to be a perfect prediction. Never."
Rather than punishing at-risk individuals for crimes that they may or may not commit in the future, Raine seems to favor an interventionist approach. This means that if high-risk children are identified as likely future criminals, they and their parents may be willing to participate in cognitive behavioral therapy, changes in nutrition and changes in environment that could steer them toward future success and away from a life of crime.
Like all research about human behavior, the knowledge we gain can either be harmful or helpful depending on how it is used. Hopefully, as we learn more about the risk factors for crime, we will use this information as a way to intervene and change negative outcomes rather than to punish those who have been identified as potential future risks.
Source: Philly.com, "Markers for crime raise thorny questions," Stacey Burling, Apr. 30, 2013
]]>In fact, officers hardly ever have an excuse to proceed without a warrant, because new technologies have made it easier and faster than ever before for police to obtain search warrants in DUI cases. Electronic warrant applications are now being used in 30 states.
]]> A recent article in USA Today highlighted a new program that is being implemented in Phoenix, Arizona. Officers can now submit an "eSearch Warrant Application" directly from their patrol cars which gets sent directly to a judge's laptop. The judge can approve or deny the request between cases while sitting in the courtroom.According to the article, the Search Warrant Center functions 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Officers say that the average time it currently takes to obtain a warrant is now approximately 10 minutes.
Commenting on the new technology, a police spokesman said: "We see an extreme benefit to our department from an efficiency standpoint, putting cops back quicker on the streets and collecting evidence quicker. From our standpoint it has worked incredibly well for us."
This new process may be faster and more efficient for law enforcement officers, but some are concerned about whether it violates the rights of DUI suspects. If a warrant can be requested and issued in just10 minutes, how much attention and scrutiny is the judge putting into his or her decision?
Furthermore, a faster and more-automated process often has the potential to lead to more mistakes. These errors could ultimately work against the defendant in court.
Whether or not a warrant is obtained immediately with new technology or slowly with old technology, mistakes can be made. That's why anyone facing DUI charges should seek the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
Source: USA Today, "Phoenix police speed up DUI search-warrant process," Cecilia Chan, Apr. 12, 2013
]]>The individual involved in the case came to the United States when he was just three years old. He was a legal resident and lived in Georgia with his wife and five children. In 2007, a law enforcement officer pulled him over for a traffic violation. The officer searched his car and found a small quantity of marijuana. The amount of marijuana found in the vehicle could have been used to make just two or three cigarettes.
]]> Consequently, he was charged with marijuana possession and possession with the intent to distribute. As his lawyer never informed him that pleading guilty could lead to his deportation, the man consented to a plea agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, he did not have to face time in jail and the conviction was expunged from his record following five years of probation.Nevertheless, federal officials determined that the conviction constituted an aggravated felony under federal law, requiring his mandatory deportation. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. The high court held that since there was no evidence that he sold the marijuana and because the quantity in his possession was so small, the conviction did not amount to an aggravated felony. As a result, mandatory deportation was not required by his conviction, and the man may now be allowed to return to the United States and his family.
Source: NPR, "Justices Say U.S. Improperly Deported Man Over Marijuana," Nina Totenberg, April 23, 2013.
]]>Of all the personal property protected under the Fourth Amendment, our own bodies are perhaps the most important. That's why a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for anyone suspected of drunk driving. The Court ruled that even though blood-alcohol levels decrease over time, that fact alone does not give police the right to force suspects to submit a blood sample without a warrant.
]]> The case concerned a man who was pulled over for speeding in Missouri. The officer suspected him of drunk driving and arrested him after the man performed poorly on a field sobriety test.After being arrested, the man refused to submit to either a breath test or blood test. Nonetheless, a blood test was forcibly administered at the hospital without a warrant. Despite the fact that he allegedly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 percent, the state court suppressed the evidence due to the officer's failure to obtain a warrant.
Eventually, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which generally agreed with the state court's decision. The Court ruled that the dissipation of blood alcohol over time does not in itself constitute "exigent circumstances" under which a blood sample can be forcibly taken without a warrant.
However, the Justices provided mixed opinions that could leave similar cases up for debate in the future. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances." She added that one major consideration should be "the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a time frame that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence."
While the Court's decision is a victory for DUI defendants and suspects, the ruling has hardly made this a black-and-white issue. It wouldn't be surprising to see similar cases come before the court in the near future.
Source: New York Times, "Court Says Police Need Warrant for Blood Test," Adam Liptak, Apr. 17, 2013
]]>There are a few things to take away from this story. The first is that DUI charges can damage an individual's personal and professional reputation. Look no further than this mayoral candidate, whose campaign has certainly been harmed by this ordeal. For everyday people, a DUI charge can cost them their job, or make the prospects of finding a job very difficult. That is why it is critical to defend such a charge as vigorously as possible.
]]> Another element to this story is that Richardson may be placed in a diversionary program as part of his guilty plea. Diversionary programs can be very beneficial for DUI suspects. They can get the individuals the help they need, while also sparing them serious time in a jail cell. A combination of therapy and alternate sentencing measures can do wonders for a DUI suspect.The third and final thing to remember about DUI incidents is that, in the immediate wake of a drunk driving episode, the accused individual needs to consult an attorney so that they may assemble the best possible defense. An accused individual may not know what kind of rights he or she has, and the individual may accidentally incriminate himself or herself by speaking to the police without an attorney present.
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pittsburgh mayoral candidate A.J. Richardson waives hearing on DUI charge," Molly Born, April 10, 2013
An example of this situation can be found in a recent drug bust at California University of Pennsylvania. The club hockey teams there were disbanded after several payers were found to be involved in a drug ring.
]]> Authorities became aware of the drug ring after a package containing seven pounds of marijuana was delivered to an off-campus home where seven hockey players live. Police then raided the home, where they found drug paraphernalia, two additional pounds of marijuana and $13,000 in cash.Two brothers were arrested after the raid. In addition to criminal charges, they will face consequences pursuant to California University's internal disciplinary process.
The school has also suspended both the men's and women's club hockey teams. The programs have been put on indefinite hold pending further investigation into the extent of the drug trafficking.
When students are charged with drug offenses, it is important to take the allegations seriously. Even if the student avoids jail time, a conviction can have a whole host of other negative consequences. For example, a drug conviction can stay on a student's record, making it hard to qualify for some jobs or professional licenses. A drug conviction can also take away eligibility for some financial aid programs.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, "Cal U. suspends club hockey team after drug bust," April 18, 2013
For more information about defending against Pennsylvania drug charges, please visit our website.
]]>This may be generally true, but there are some important caveats. While drunk driving is dangerous, it is sometimes necessary in order to actually save a life. A recent case highlights that medical necessity is sometimes a justification for drunk driving.
]]> Last June, a California man was pulled over in the middle of the night after a police officer saw him blow through two stop signs while driving double the speed limit. However, he had a good reason for what would otherwise be reckless driving: his friend was having a life-threatening emergency and needed medical treatment immediately.The two had been staying together at a remote cabin in the mountains. Late in the evening, one of the men suffered a life-threatening kidney ailment that could only be corrected by the insertion of a catheter.
The two had been drinking wine prior to the medical emergency, but the driver had no choice but to get behind the wheel. There was no cellphone reception in that area, which meant he couldn't call 911.
Based on the evidence of medical necessity, the district attorney chose not to prosecute the man. Unfortunately, his license was suspended because necessity is not a recognized defense by the state Department of Motor Vehicles.
While his license suspension is unfortunate, this example shows that under rare and extreme circumstances, the decision to drive drunk is justified. In cases like this, the immediate life-threatening situation outweighs the risks of driving under the influence.
Source: News 10, "Modesto man says sick friend led him to drive drunk," George Warren, Apr. 5, 2013
]]>But like it or hate, April Fools' Day always ends up getting some people into more trouble than they bargained for. Last week, the news was full of stories about people who were arrested for their pranks and now need a good criminal defense attorney on their side.
]]> In one incident, a 20-year-old Connecticut man was arrested for a prank text meant to scare his girlfriend. On the evening of April Fools' Day, both he and his girlfriend were working shifts at two restaurants near each other. As a joke, he texted his girlfriend that his restaurant was currently being robbed.His girlfriend called 911 in a panic, and police quickly arrived at the man's restaurant. All employees were escorted out at gunpoint, and the young man now faces charges of filing a false report and breach of peace.
In a far less clever prank earlier that day, a Virginia woman called police to report that the waffle house where she worked was being robbed. It's unclear just who she was trying to prank, but police were not happy to discover that the report had been a fake.
Since they had no robber to arrest, the police officers arrested 20-year-old woman who made the prank call instead. She has been charged with falsely summoning police, which is a Class 1 misdemeanor. If convicted, she could be sentenced to a $2,500 fine and up to one year in prison.
April Fools' Day is a day when most people are willing to tolerate a little more mischief than normal. But pranks do have their limits, and when laws get broken, pranksters often find that police officers don't have a sense of humor.
Sources:
Daily Press, "Hampton police charge woman in April Fools' prank," Tyra M. Vaughn, Apr. 1, 2013
Hartford Courant, "April Fools Prank About Robbery Prompts Police Response, Arrest," Apr. 2, 2013
In light of this, the evidence in the man's drug trafficking case will be dismissed. In previous rulings, the Supreme Court has said that Americans have a right to be free from warrantless government intrusion in their home and the surrounding area. The Court's latest decision reaffirms that the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure apply most consistently to one's home.
]]> Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that "The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home." In the particular case in question, police were only able to obtain a warrant after the drug-sniffing dog detected the scent of drugs while standing on the defendant's front porch.If the officer had been alone on the man's property, his presence wouldn't necessarily have been considered trespassing. The Court ruled, however, that because he was accompanied by a drug-sniffing dog, he was indeed trespassing and invading the privacy of the defendant.
In a concurring majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan explained that "A drug detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell). That device here was aimed at a home - the most private and inviolate (or so we expect) of all the places and things the Fourth Amendment protects."
While another recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanded police powers to use drug-sniffing dogs without a warrant, this current ruling draws a very clear line in the sand. Americans may not be able to expect privacy protections everywhere, but they can at least expect them in their own homes.
Source: Daytona Beach News-Journal, "Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search," Jesse J. Holland, Mar. 26, 2013
]]>