Blog

A woman who was subjected to an invasive body cavity search back in 2012 at the request of U.S. customs officials has reportedly reached a hefty settlement with the hospital that conducted the search. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleged that the woman was selected for random screening at Cordova Bridge in El Paso, during which a drug sniffing dog alerted agents. After conducting a strip search, agents conducted a body cavity search. Finding no evidence, she was taken to the University Medical Center in El Paso where she was subjected to additional searches without a warrant. In the end, no drugs were found and no charges followed. While the woman has won the case against the hospital, her allegations against U.S. Customs and Border Protection are still pending in federal court. Before officers conduct a search, they are required by law to obtain a warrant unless some exigent circumstances apply. Exigent circumstances include imminent harm to police officers, imminent threat of evidence loss, and consent. Short of such circumstances, officers may not subject a criminal suspect to a search. To do so is illegal and any evidence stemming from an illegal search can be excluded from trial at the defendant’s request. In some cases, this can considerably weaken the prosecution’s case. Anybody who is facing drug charges and who feels they may have been subjected to an illegal search should seek out an experienced criminal defense attorney to help build a solid defense case, exploring not only the legality of the police investigation but all other aspects of the case as well. Source: Krqe.com, “Hospital settles with woman over search,” July 7, 2014.

Last Thursday, a grand jury in San Francisco indicted Federal Express on charges that it has been participating in a conspiracy to distribute prescription drugs and illegal substances ordered on the internet. The indictment lists a total of 11 counts. Among the drugs alleged to have been distributed by the mail carrier are Ambien, Valium, and Xanax, all of which were delivered to customers who received prescriptions from doctors who issued invalid prescriptions. Fed-Ex, for its part, has said that it has asked the federal government for a list of illegal online pharmacies so that it could cease processing orders for them. The government has not done so, though. Fed-Ex reportedly plans on defending itself against the charges, which it calls an “attack on integrity and good name.” The stakes in the case are nothing to sniff at: corporate defendants face up to five years of probation if convicted and $2.5 million in fines, or the possibility of penalties for profiting from the illegal activity. The problem of illegal distribution of prescription drugs online is not that of Fed-Ex alone. Amazon is known to host sales for illegal prescription drugs, though no charges have been issued to the online retailer as yet. From the sounds of it, authorities are still determining how to address the issue. The possibility of individual buyers being prosecuted for the purchase of illegal prescription drugs is unknown, though it is said to be unlikely because many consumers don’t even know when they’ve made an illegal purchase. Still, consumers need to be aware of the problem and attempt to avoid any illegal purchases. Those who face drug charges should always work with an experienced criminal defense attorney in building a strong defense. Doing so will ensure one’s rights and interests receive the time and attention they deserve. Source: NBC News, “FedEx Accused of Conspiracy to Distribute Prescription Drugs for Online Pharmacies,” Andrew Blankstein and Pete Williams, July 17, 2014.

In our previous post, we began speaking about the subject of DUI checkpoints, and the fact that these are illegal under Texas’ interpretation of the federal Constitution. Not every state holds this view, however. In 38 states, sobriety or DUI checkpoints are legal and are utilized as a way to keep roads safer. Other states that utilize DUI checkpoints typically make use of strict guidelines. Failure to abide by the requirements for a DUI checkpoint can affect the integrity of DUI cases stemming from the checkpoint. Typical requirements include adequate justification for a checkpoint based on statistical data, proper notice to the public regarding the date, time, and location of the checkpoint, and adequate training of officers involved in the checkpoint. While checkpoints are not utilized in Texas, it is important for motorists to be aware of possible situations that may amount to DUI checkpoints without formally being so. Law enforcement efforts which indiscriminately stop motorists for other stated purposes, but with the ultimate goal of detecting criminal behavior, including DUI, are illegal. Those who find themselves facing criminal charges as a result of such a stop should contact an experienced attorney. While such situations are bound to be rare, it is good to be prepared for the possibility. DUI charges are not always straightforward from a legal perspective. Sometimes there are issues regarding the investigation, the accuracy of testing, the sufficiency of the evidence, or other matters, which need to be looked into in order to ensure the defendants’ rights are protected. Source: AOL Autos, “‘No-Refusal’ DUI Checkpoints Deployed To Combat Holiday Drunk Driving,” July 2, 2014. Governors Highway Safety Association, “Sobriety Checkpoint Laws,” Accessed July 2014.

A recent article published online by AOL Autos took up the topic of “no refusal” DUI checkpoints, pointing out that law enforcement agencies in various states made use of them on Independence Day weekend to catch drunk drivers in the act. There is good reason for law enforcement to worry about intoxicated drivers on July 4th, of course. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a total of 637 people were killed in the United States between 2008 and 2012 in Fourth of July fatalities. Most recent data on these crashes indicates that about 44 percent of those fatalities were caused by drunk driving. DUI checkpoints are used in some states as a way to address the issue. DUI checkpoints, as helpful as they may be in targeting intoxicated drivers, are illegal in the state of Texas. AOL Autos is mistaken, therefore, in asserting that law enforcement in Texas are among those using DUI checkpoints to combat drunk driving over the holiday. What officers in Texas did do over the holiday was run a so-called no refusal weekend. For these efforts, officers use search warrants to take blood samples from drivers suspected of drunk driving and who refuse to submit to a breath test. During these efforts, officers work with a judge who is on-call to issue warrants so that officers don’t have to wait for a court hearing to gather a sample. Texans who have been charged with drunk driving as a result of an operation resembling a DUI checkpoint need to contact an experienced attorney to have their rights protected. In our next post, we’ll continue looking at this subject. Source: AOL Autos, “‘No-Refusal’ DUI Checkpoints Deployed To Combat Holiday Drunk Driving,” July 2, 2014. Governors Highway Safety Association, “Sobriety Checkpoint Laws,” accessed July 2014.

Readers may have heard of the famous U.S. soccer star Hope Solo and her recent involvements with the law. The 32-year-old Solo was brought to court late last month in connection with allegations that she assaulted two relatives, her 17-year-old nephew and her half-sister, at a home in Seattle. Police said that when they arrived at the home on a domestic violence call, both of Solo’s relatives had injuries, which witnesses said were caused by Solo during a quarrel. Alcohol was allegedly involved. Solo faces charges of fourth-degree domestic assault over the incident. Solo’s attorney has reportedly said that she was improperly charged, as she didn’t commit a crime. She pleaded not guilty to the charges, and awaits a pretrial hearing next. Sources didn’t indicate whether her attorney offered any further perspective on her not guilty plea. It isn’t clear whether there are any issues with the investigation in this case, but such issues are not unknown in domestic violence cases. Because of the nature of domestic violence allegations, police take them very seriously. In some cases, police have a department policy to make an arrest regardless of what they find at the scene. Police don’t always have sufficient time to sort out the details of the incident to truly understand what took place or who should properly be considered the primary aggressor. These issues don’t always get sorted out when they get to prosecutors, and it is important for those accused of domestic violence to work with an experienced attorney in building a strong defense case. Source: CNN, “Soccer star Hope Solo pleads not guilty to assault charges,” Deborah E. Bloom & Ray Sanchez, June 23, 2014.

Drunk driving, under the Texas Penal Code, encompasses the intoxicated operation of any “motor vehicle” in a public place. Typically, this is taken to mean a car, pickup, SUV, or another such vehicle. DWI charges are also potentially issued, though, for those who operate other types of motor vehicles. For instance, a Texas man was recently arrested and charged with DWI after crashing his golf cart and critically injuring his passenger. The victim reportedly fell out of the cart and struck his head on concrete and wounded his head. Police discovered upon investigation that the driver had been drinking. As a result, the driver faces DWI charges. The incident is fairly standard DWI fare other than the fact that he was driving a golf cart. According to DrivingLaws.org, most states permit drunk-driving convictions involving golf carts. Texas is one of those states, and folks need to be aware of that before hopping behind the wheel. A related issue is that of Segways—you know, those odd-looking self-propelled stand-up contraptions that have gained popularity in recent years. The issue of DWI charges involving a Segway is not as established as golf carts, though a Minnesota court of appeals has ruled that DUI charges cannot be issued in connection with the use of a Segway. Even if one isn’t charged with DWI for operating a Segway while intoxicated, though, other intoxication-related charges may be issued. Accordingly, it is best to be safe. Those facing DWI charges in whatever circumstances, of course, should work with an experienced attorney to ensure they build a strong defense case and are able to take advantage of all available protections. Source: KHOU.com, “Galveston Police: Golf cart driver charged with DWI after passenger critically injured,” June 30, 2014.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision came out positively on the issue of privacy in police searches. As readers know, police are generally required to obtain a warrant before conducting a search on a criminal suspect, unless some exception applies. In search and seizure law, police continually come up against new types of searches, particularly as it relates to technology. In this case, the issue was police searches of cell phones. The first issue to be decided in such cases is always whether a search is even at stake. Not every case where officers examine a person, their belongings, or a property is considered a search. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, police examination of a criminal suspect’s cell phone is indeed a search. Because of this, police need a warrant to do so. Exceptions to the rule on cell phone searches could apply, though, as with any other type of search. The purpose of establishing limits in police searches is, of course, to ensure public privacy. Officers who fail to respect the privacy of criminal suspects can end up weakening any case prosecutors may choose to bring to trial down the line. For criminal defendants involved in a case with search issues, it is important to build a strong case and to take advantage of any protections available. One such protection, which can be available in cases involving drug charges, is the ability to exclude from trial evidence obtained by means of an illegal search. The ability to exclude incriminating evidence can give a criminal defendant an advantage and should be taken advantage of when available. Source: CNN Justice, “Supreme Court: Police need warrant to search cell phones,” Bill Mears, June 25, 2014.

As motor vehicle technology evolves, safety experts, auto manufacturers and the public come to have a greater understanding of which technologies are essential for safety. In theory, any number of technological advances could potentially help to reduce the annual rate of car accidents in the U.S. However, it is only through observing these technologies in practice that safety professionals and motorists can truly gauge which advancements actually produce the safety results that many of us hope for. Recently, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety launched a new safety ratings program aimed specifically at preventing frontal motor vehicle crashes. Even though the new ratings program has been operational for less than a year, it is inspiring some intriguing safety discoveries. In addition, the new program seems to have inspired numerous auto manufacturers to strengthen their approaches to frontal crash prevention. The vice president and chief research officer of the IIHS recently explained that, “We are already seeing improvements from automakers since the initial launch of our ratings last September. BMW and Lexus, for example, have added more braking capability to their systems, which has paid off in higher ratings.” These manufacturers are receiving higher frontal crash safety ratings because they are proactively installing specific technologies proven to prevent crashes. For years, frontal crash prevention went largely untested by federal regulators and major safety advocate groups. Now that the IIHS is focusing efforts on preventing frontal crashes, technology is advancing and proliferating in ways that are preventing collisions. It seems that not only is particular technology key to preventing accidents, focusing on advancing this kind of technology is key to preventing accidents as well. Source: Claims Journal, “Front Crash Prevention Systems in Autos Key to Preventing Crashes,” May 29, 2014

Search and seizure law is an important topic when it comes to criminal defense. Police are bound by various rules in conducting criminal investigations in order to protect criminal suspects from abuse of considerable state power. When police fail to abide by their duties in conducting a criminal investigation, they not only compromise the rights of the criminal suspect, but potentially weaken any case that prosecutors may eventually bring against the suspect. One specific issue in this area is civil forfeiture, which refers to the ability of law enforcement to confiscate assets or items believed to be connected with criminal activity. Under Texas law, law enforcement are able to keep up to 90 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property, giving officers an incentive to go after cases involving substantial assets. To justify civil forfeiture in court, the government only has to show it is more likely than not that the property is connected to criminal activity. This standard is known as “preponderance of the evidence,” and is typical in civil cases. Some have said the standard needs to be higher in criminal cases. Another aspect of civil forfeiture is that there does not have to be a criminal conviction before police can confiscate the property. It is important for people to beware of potential abuses in the area of civil forfeitures. Like searches and seizures in criminal investigations, civil forfeiture does not give police unchecked power. Those who are adversely affected should contact an attorney experienced in handling such cases. Doing so will help ensure the best possible outcome in the case. Source: Forbes, “Cops In Texas Seize Millions By ‘Policing for Profit’,” Nick Sibilla, June 5, 2014.

Drunk-driving is a concern for all of us, not only those who are harmed in a crash or face criminal charges. It is in all of our interests to ensure our roadways are safe. One way the law seeks to put some of this responsibility on others is by establishing social host liability. That responsibility has been a bit muted in Texas, where the law for many years was that social hosts are only liable for crashes caused by guests under the age of 18 who were served alcohol. In 2005, the age limit was upped to 21, with the requirement that the host knowingly provides alcohol or allows the minor to have alcohol. These rules, however, have been blurred a bit by court cases which have permitted lawsuits against hosts in certain situations involving adult guests who become intoxicated and harm themselves or another motorist. Responsibility for drunk-driving charges, of course, always rests squarely on the shoulders of the drunk-driver himself or herself. Those who are charged with drunk-driving offenses need to understand their rights and the protections available to them. It goes without saying that it is irresponsible to drive while intoxicated, but not every DUI case involves a driver who was clearly unable to operate his or her vehicle safely at the time of arrest. Officers on the lookout for drunk-drivers tend to notice the details that confirm their suspicions of intoxication while ignoring the things that suggest that the situation may not be as they assume it to be. In all of this, too, drunk-driving suspects have certain privacy protections against police searches and seizures. Those facing drunk-driving offenses should do themselves a favor and consult with an experienced attorney. Doing so will ensure they receive the best possible advocacy in their case. Source: News92FM, “Summer Cocktails? Texas Hosts Rarely Liable for Guests’ DWI Accidents, But That May Be Changing,” Scott Callahan, June 4, 2014.

Have you ever ordered anything on Amazon.com? Chances are that many of our readers have. What would you do if you ordered an item on Amazon that you later came to discover was illegally obtained? Pretty surprised, and perhaps scared, likely! And yet this does happen, more than consumers might think. At present, consumers are able to hop on the online retailer’s website and access numerous products through third-party sellers. Some of these sellers are located in other countries, and some of them are selling drugs illegally. Not only have muscle relaxants and prescription antibiotics been sold illegally on Amazon, but also anabolic steroids and stimulants. The Food and Drug Administration, which would be responsible for looking into Amazon’s business practices, apparently has yet to really tackle the issue. The flow of illegal drugs, though, is not something authorities are going to turn a blind eye to, and consumers could get caught in the middle of it. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, it is said, is unlikely to prosecute consumers for purchasing such products overseas, in part because many consumers don’t even know what they are purchasing is illegal. Still, one can imagine a scenario where authorities accuse a consumer of participating in illegal drug trafficking. It isn’t that far-fetched of a scenario. Obviously, those who are faced with criminal charges involving illegal drugs or illegally obtained prescription drugs have need of strong criminal defense. Whenever one faces federal investigation, the stakes are high and the expertise of a criminal defense attorney is indispensable. Source: Slate, “Amazon’s Illegal Drug Dealing,” Ford Vox, May 29, 2014.

As we grow from children into young adults, each person experiences important milestones, including many “firsts.” You may always remember your first love, your first kiss, your first day of high school and your first car. And no matter how far you rise in your eventual career, you’ll likely remember your very first job. Sadly, many teenagers have experiences at their first job that stunt their career growth and damage their emotional and psychological health. Too many teens doing part-time and seasonal work become victims of sexual harassment. Moreover, they are often the least likely employees to report harassment and the most likely to be negatively impacted as a result of it. Sexual harassment in the workplace is widely underreported even among adults. For a number of reasons, teen workers are even less likely to report that they were sexually harassed by a co-worker or supervisor. Common reasons for not reporting sexual harassment include: Although understandable, silence on the issue of sexual harassment makes the problem much worse. Individuals who commit sexual harassment are generally not one-time offenders. As such, they will almost certainly go on to harass others if their behavior is not reported and punished. Sexual harassment victims – especially teenagers – often suffer serious psychological and emotional harm that can disrupt all aspects of their life. Their school performance may slip; they may start wearing baggy clothes and avoiding regular grooming in order to discourage sexual attention and they may be fearful of pursuing other jobs in the future. If you are the parent of a teenager or an employer with teens on the payroll, it is imperative that you educate them about their workplace rights. Sexual harassment should not be tolerated anywhere, particularly among the youngest and most vulnerable workers. Source: Oregon Live, “Young workers least likely to find help, yet suffer deepest scars: Teen sexual harassment,” Laura Gunderson, April 1, 2014