Here is a well written explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision on S.B. 1070 – The Arizona Immigration Statute written by Amy Howe of the SCOTUS Blog: Click Here ;
With the recent passage of Proposition 203, voters made Arizona the 15th state (along with the District of Columbia) to legalize medical marijuana. The vote was a close one, with just 841,346 in favor and 837,005 opposed, just passing the 50% mark. The count from vote on election day, Nov. 2, was so close that the result wasn’t declared until nearly 2 weeks later. Of course, Proposition 203 does not give free rein to hopeful or would-be marijuana users in
The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Geeslin was a rare event. In most circumstances, when a court makes a mistake, a formal objection to the court’s ruling must be found in the record. Put another way: if you fail to object to a court’s decision, you waive your right to appeal the ruling. However, as shown in Geeslin, there are some exceptions. In Geeslin, the defendant was arrested for putting shoplifted goods in a stolen vehicle and was
In my experience most prosecutors play by the rules. They know their ethical duties and abide by them. However, I, along with many of my colleagues, have observed a growing number of prosecutors that have no problem stepping over the ethics line. The issue seems more to do with ignorance than intent. For the most part, the public is unaware of this growing problem. It is only when the misconduct is so outrageous and the victim has the means to
On July 28, 2010 the federal district court issued an injunction to part of the highly publicized and talked about immigration bill in Arizona, known through-out the country as SB 1070. Practically speaking, this means that part of the bill is not enforceable until the appellate courts determine its constitutionality. Judge Susan Bolton had to read the bill piece by piece and line by line using the appropriate legal standards, statutes, and case law, to determine which provisions of the
Here is a round up of the best criminal defense blog posts for July, 2010. I always look for posts that provide either strong opinion, insight or novel information. While July had a great selection to choose from, here are the top five: The Hatred of Being In Trial – published by Brian Tannebaum a Miami criminal defense attorney. He provides his view of doing trial work and being a criminal defense attorney. Blagojevich Recap (Part II) – published by
At the core of the United States Constitution is the principle of Due Process. In its most basic form, this principle provides that the government must respect all of the legal rights owed to the people. One of those legal rights is the guarantee of a fair trial to a person accused of a crime.A fair trial includes preventing the State from unfair or suggestive identifications which would direct a witness to make a false identification. The most common situation
Just in case there was any doubt, the Arizona Court of Appeals made it official that your religious beliefs are not a legal defense to the crime of Possession of Marijuana. In the case of State v. Hardesty, Mr. Hardesty was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a routine traffic stop, drugs were found in Mr. Hardesty car. He claimed that the drugs were part of his religion, and tried to assert a defense under
Drug sniffing dogs – you see them at the airport, the bus station, and on television. They serve an important purpose for law enforcement and the public. That is, they smell drugs when humans cannot. Moreover, the dogs do it in a manner that is not invasive to the people being search. However, there are some rules, like the 4th Amendment to constitution, that restrict how these dogs can be used. For example, law enforcement can’t just bust down your
When being stopped by an officer there are many things that go through a driver’s head. “Was I speeding?” “Is there a taillight out?” “Did I swerve?” On the other hand, most people don’t usually think “did I use my blinker appropriately.” However, the issue of the appropriate use of a blinker, was one of the primary questions decided by the recent Arizona Court of Appeals Case: Arizona v. Douglas Dean Starr. In the Starr case, a DPS officer was
© 2023 All rights reserved for Koplow Law Firm.