Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Drinking, driving and Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks for what we have. It is also the busiest drinking holiday of the year. The night before Thanksgiving is by far the heaviest drinking night of all. Most people have the following day off, so they drink. The problem is that many people drink after work and then drive home. Guess what, the police also know that it is the greatest opportunity to arrest drunk drivers. They will be out in force pulling weaving cars over and having occupants perform sobriety tests.
Good advice for those that are pulled over for suspected drunk driving is not to admit that you have been drinking. Resisting the temptation to answer a police officer's question is harder than you think. The common answer is "I only had a couple of beers Officer." This admission makes the officer's job in determining probable cause to arrest you very easy. Be polite, but do not admit to consuming alcohol. Without your admission the officer may not have enough to arrest you on suspected drunk driving. We will discuss more tips to avoid drunk driving arrest in future articles. Happy Thanksgiving. Check out our web site at www.crimlawattorney.com
By Raymond A. Cassar, Attorney at Law
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Detroit passes city ordinance allowing marijuana possession.
Detroit Michigan kept a low profile on their recent marijuana referrendum that passed last week. It allows adults to possess up to an ounce of Marijuana. While this was not a Statewide mandate like Colorado or Washington had last week, it clearly shows the continuing trend to legalize marijuana. Proponents of the law and marijuana users are gaining momentum but the legal land mines are still present.
The new City Ordinance requires that the amount of marijuana be less than one once and be possessed on private property by an adult 21 or older. However the public must be aware that the ordinace does not prevent state or federal charges from being brought against individuals who possess marijuana.
The newly passed ordinance gives a false sense of security to marijuana users in the City of Detroit, but it does not exempt someone from being charged with delivery of marijuana. This begs the question, " how do people get the marijuana in the first place? Someone has to deliver it to customers. Also does private property mean one's own home? Or does it mean any place that is not open to the public?
From a criminal attorney's perspective, this recent referrendum is filled with problems that should have been addressed before it was placed on the ballot. As it stands now, there are serious issues with the ordinance that will have to be figured out on a case by case basis in the courts.
My advice is to be careful if you decide to be one of the first people to test out the city ordinance.
For more information see my web site at www.crimlawattorney.com
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Sexting Can Land You In Prison
Sexting is a combination of texting with sexually driven conversations. The widespread use of the internet and text enabled cell phones, has made this a popular trend amoung many teens. However law enforcement agencies are prosecuting teens for sexting at an alarming rate. The penalties are incredibly serious and the long term consequences of a conviction can prevent teens from going to college and getting a good job. No one wants their teen on a Sex Offender Registry.
Sexting between teens often leads to the sharing of nude photos. While the sharing of the photos may have been consensual, most states consider nude photos of anyone under the age of 18 to be child pornography. A teen who begs his girlfriend for a nude picture can be charged with Accostiong a Minor for Immoral Purposes. Even worse, a teen who can not resist the temptation to share the photo with his best friends, can be charged with Distribution of Child Pornography. These cases usually come to the attention of authorities as a result of an upset teen who finds out that everyone in her school has seen the nude photo she thought she gave to her boyfriend "privately". More commonly it is a parent who finds disturbing text messages on their child's phone or computer, coupled with a disturbing image of their son or daughter. They want to protect the child's reputation, so they go to the authorities. It all goes downhill from there.
Teenagers simply do not realize the potential dangers of sexting. Parents need to be more vigilant than ever, even if they feel uncomfortable about invading their child's privacy. They need to explain the dangers of sexting. If parents don't check up on their teens and set them straight, the police certainly will.
For more information on sexting and computer crimes visit our website at www.crimlawattorney.com
Life Without Parole For Juveniles Unconstitutional
Juvenile Law gets some serious attention. Last June the U.S. Supreme Court held that a sentence of mandatory life without parole for juveniles was a violation of the Eight Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishmnet. In the case of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), the court talked about a juvenile's lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility which often leads to recklessness and impulsivity. However Michigan courts are now dealing with the issue of whether this ruling should be applied retroactively.
Michigan has approximately 350 cases where juveniles were sentenced to life without parole. It makes sense to apply the new ruling retroactively, but the court has to also decide how these individuals should be resentenced. The case before the Michigan Court of Appeals is People v. Raymond Carp, No.307758. This decision will have a profound impact on how we treat juvenile defendants in Michigan. This case will force the courts to take a good look at how Juveniles were sentenced in the past and to come up with some new thoughts about sentencing. Prior to Miller, judges had no chioce but to impose mandatory life without parole for juveniles convicted of first degree murder. Now courts may be able to take into consideration the age of the offender and the fact that children are more vulnerable to negative influences because of their lack of maturity. Wisdom generally comes with age. Let's see what wisdom comes from the Michigan courts when it come to sentencing juveniles. Stay tuned and visit our web site at www.crimlawattorney.com
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Priest Penitent Privilege challenged
The Law Offices of Raymond A. Cassar, PLC won a hard fought victory in the case of State of Michigan v Samuel Bragg (Michigan Court of Appeals). In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the Priest-Penitent Privilege preventing the use of testimony by a pastor against a parishioner. Many articles on this case have focused on the allegations of sex crimes. Sometimes the public is so blinded by the nature of the charge, they lose sight of what this case is all about. The real issue in this case is whether a Pastor or any other member of the Clergy can reveal confidential communications made to him while acting as a Pastor.
The Priest/Penitent Privilege has been in existence for over 1500 years. The goal behind the privilege is to allow people to unburden their souls and seek spiritual guidance. This has always been a socially desirable goal and is supported by all forms of religions. The recent challenge to this privilege should send shock waves to all religions and all people. Our society needs to be able to go to their respective clergy and discuss things that are troublesome without worry that their private disclosure may become public and worse possibly used against them in court.
If you take away that trust, few people will seek spiritual guidance. The issue in this case is whether the privilege should be breached. It only takes a small leak to breach a huge dam. This fight will continue.
The Priest/Penitent Privilege has been in existence for over 1500 years. The goal behind the privilege is to allow people to unburden their souls and seek spiritual guidance. This has always been a socially desirable goal and is supported by all forms of religions. The recent challenge to this privilege should send shock waves to all religions and all people. Our society needs to be able to go to their respective clergy and discuss things that are troublesome without worry that their private disclosure may become public and worse possibly used against them in court.
If you take away that trust, few people will seek spiritual guidance. The issue in this case is whether the privilege should be breached. It only takes a small leak to breach a huge dam. This fight will continue.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
In The News: Priest-penitent case headed for appeal
Reprinted From The Michigan Lawyer
A criminal case that could test 1,500 years of priest-penitent privilege could be headed toward the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Farmington Hills attorney Raymond Cassar said on May 25, 3rd Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway made a good call when she said she wouldn’t mess with the age-old tradition, and law, that protects confidentiality between pastors and members of their flocks.
Cassar’s client, Samuel Bragg, now 18 years old, is accused of molesting a family member when he was 15 and the girl was 10 years old. In October 2009, the girl told the pastor at her church, where Bragg and his mother are also members, about the alleged molestation. Read Michigan Lawyers Weekly‘s story here. (Subscription required for full access.)
The pastor called Bragg and Bragg’s mother into his office to discuss what the girl had said. And according to Cassar, the pastor said that after lengthy questioning in the church office, Bragg confessed (though Bragg contends he never did). Later, the pastor, the Rev. John Vaprezsan, voluntarily gave police a one-page written statement to that effect.
At Bragg’s preliminary examination, 34th Wayne County District Court Judge Brian Oakley permitted Vaprezsan to testify, despite Cassar’s argument that MCL 600.2156 and MCL 767.5(a)2 clearly protects clergy-penitent communication as privileged and confidential.
Motions were due on May 18, and were argued Wednesday in front of Hathaway.
After Hathaway said she wouldn’t allow Vaprezsan to testify, Cassar said he was told by assistant prosecuting attorney Angela M. Povilaitis that it is her intent to to appeal at Michigan Court of Appeals. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office declined comment.
“Judge Hathaway said in court that it was obvious what my client was [in the pastor's office] to do. He was there to seek counsel from his pastor,” Cassar said. “And she wasn’t about to interfere with that privilege.”
Reprinted from an article about our firm that appeared on The Michigan Lawyer Blog as reported in The Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
A criminal case that could test 1,500 years of priest-penitent privilege could be headed toward the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Farmington Hills attorney Raymond Cassar said on May 25, 3rd Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway made a good call when she said she wouldn’t mess with the age-old tradition, and law, that protects confidentiality between pastors and members of their flocks.
Cassar’s client, Samuel Bragg, now 18 years old, is accused of molesting a family member when he was 15 and the girl was 10 years old. In October 2009, the girl told the pastor at her church, where Bragg and his mother are also members, about the alleged molestation. Read Michigan Lawyers Weekly‘s story here. (Subscription required for full access.)
The pastor called Bragg and Bragg’s mother into his office to discuss what the girl had said. And according to Cassar, the pastor said that after lengthy questioning in the church office, Bragg confessed (though Bragg contends he never did). Later, the pastor, the Rev. John Vaprezsan, voluntarily gave police a one-page written statement to that effect.
At Bragg’s preliminary examination, 34th Wayne County District Court Judge Brian Oakley permitted Vaprezsan to testify, despite Cassar’s argument that MCL 600.2156 and MCL 767.5(a)2 clearly protects clergy-penitent communication as privileged and confidential.
Motions were due on May 18, and were argued Wednesday in front of Hathaway.
After Hathaway said she wouldn’t allow Vaprezsan to testify, Cassar said he was told by assistant prosecuting attorney Angela M. Povilaitis that it is her intent to to appeal at Michigan Court of Appeals. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office declined comment.
“Judge Hathaway said in court that it was obvious what my client was [in the pastor's office] to do. He was there to seek counsel from his pastor,” Cassar said. “And she wasn’t about to interfere with that privilege.”
Reprinted from an article about our firm that appeared on The Michigan Lawyer Blog as reported in The Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Are Speed Limit Signs Merely a Suggestion?
If you receive a ticket for speeding, you might want to make sure that the speeding ticket is enforcable under Michigan law!
Every driver knows that speed limits can go up and down like a roller coaster, on any given stretch of Michigan road. But few people understand who sets these speed limits, and under what law(s) speeding violations can be legally prosecuted.
Public Act 85 of 2006 (PA 85) is the State statute that actually regulates where and how speed limits are set, and what penalties may be imposed for violating these speed limits. But local jurisdictions do not always follow this State law when setting speed limits.
Recently, there have been a couple of articles in local news papers discussing this problem. These articles are not new. Last year there was a similar article discussing how many of the speed limits are kept artificially low to generate revenue.
This recent string of articles appears to have garnered the attention of State Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, who intends to introduce legislation forcing local jurisdictions to follow Public Act 85 of 2006 (PA 85), so that unfair speed limit laws are not put in place to “trap” otherwise careful drivers.
What does PA 85 actually state? PA 85 addresses several different State statutes, but the Speed Limit debate has focused on the following language in Michigan Compiled Law 257.627 (PA 85), that mandates speed limits shall be:
(d) 25 miles per hour on a highway segment with 60 or more vehicular access points within 1/2 mile.
(e) 35 miles per hour on a highway segment with not less than 45 vehicular access points but no more than 59 vehicular access points within 1/2 mile.
(f) 45 miles per hour on a highway segment with not less than 30 vehicular access points but no more than 44 vehicular access points within 1/2 mile; and,
(3) It is prima facie unlawful for a person to exceed the speed limits prescribed in subsection (2), except as provided in section 629.
As a criminal defense attorney, I can see how these sections of PA 85 may be helpful for many drivers to avoid difficulties associated with speeding tickets.
In other words, while this statute appears almost too complicated to be immediately useful, a skilled defense attorney may be able to use PA 85 to argue that the speed limit in question was not “legal” under Michigan law.
It may not be realistic for the average driver to be on the side of the road mapping out the best 1/2 mile for them to defend their speeding tickets. But a skilled defense attorney can address the following issues: Should you calculate a half mile from the point of the ticket? From the point the officer alleged you were speeding? Or calculate a 1/4 mile before and after the point the officer alleged you were speeding?
PowerPoint presentations addressing the legality of a certain speed limit might become a more integral part of informal or formal hearings regarding traffic offenses. Perhaps video presentation where each curb cut, driveway, side street, or other “access point” is numbered would be useful. The same video could have some indication of the mileage or measurements in question.
In time, the situation will be corrected through introduction of new legislation, but in the meantime we’ll be watching to see how the courts react toward arguments about unenforceable speed limits.
If you have further questions about fighting a speeding ticket, contact the experienced lawyers at our firm and we will discuss what you may be able to do to fight that ticket.
To read the state statute click here:
(http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0085.htm).
Attorney Daryl Wood is an experienced Michigan defense attorney, and a recognized legal expert on Driver’s License suspension and restoration issues. If you have received a ticket, have had a license suspended, or have been subject to Driver’s Responsibility fees in Michigan, Mr. Wood can help and advise you.
Contact Mr. Wood at: 313.278.8811 or 248.855.0911.
Or visit his web site at http://www.crimlawattorney.net or http://www.drunkdrivingmichiganlawyer.com or www.michiganmiplawyer.com
Every driver knows that speed limits can go up and down like a roller coaster, on any given stretch of Michigan road. But few people understand who sets these speed limits, and under what law(s) speeding violations can be legally prosecuted.
Public Act 85 of 2006 (PA 85) is the State statute that actually regulates where and how speed limits are set, and what penalties may be imposed for violating these speed limits. But local jurisdictions do not always follow this State law when setting speed limits.
Recently, there have been a couple of articles in local news papers discussing this problem. These articles are not new. Last year there was a similar article discussing how many of the speed limits are kept artificially low to generate revenue.
This recent string of articles appears to have garnered the attention of State Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, who intends to introduce legislation forcing local jurisdictions to follow Public Act 85 of 2006 (PA 85), so that unfair speed limit laws are not put in place to “trap” otherwise careful drivers.
What does PA 85 actually state? PA 85 addresses several different State statutes, but the Speed Limit debate has focused on the following language in Michigan Compiled Law 257.627 (PA 85), that mandates speed limits shall be:
(d) 25 miles per hour on a highway segment with 60 or more vehicular access points within 1/2 mile.
(e) 35 miles per hour on a highway segment with not less than 45 vehicular access points but no more than 59 vehicular access points within 1/2 mile.
(f) 45 miles per hour on a highway segment with not less than 30 vehicular access points but no more than 44 vehicular access points within 1/2 mile; and,
(3) It is prima facie unlawful for a person to exceed the speed limits prescribed in subsection (2), except as provided in section 629.
As a criminal defense attorney, I can see how these sections of PA 85 may be helpful for many drivers to avoid difficulties associated with speeding tickets.
In other words, while this statute appears almost too complicated to be immediately useful, a skilled defense attorney may be able to use PA 85 to argue that the speed limit in question was not “legal” under Michigan law.
It may not be realistic for the average driver to be on the side of the road mapping out the best 1/2 mile for them to defend their speeding tickets. But a skilled defense attorney can address the following issues: Should you calculate a half mile from the point of the ticket? From the point the officer alleged you were speeding? Or calculate a 1/4 mile before and after the point the officer alleged you were speeding?
PowerPoint presentations addressing the legality of a certain speed limit might become a more integral part of informal or formal hearings regarding traffic offenses. Perhaps video presentation where each curb cut, driveway, side street, or other “access point” is numbered would be useful. The same video could have some indication of the mileage or measurements in question.
In time, the situation will be corrected through introduction of new legislation, but in the meantime we’ll be watching to see how the courts react toward arguments about unenforceable speed limits.
If you have further questions about fighting a speeding ticket, contact the experienced lawyers at our firm and we will discuss what you may be able to do to fight that ticket.
To read the state statute click here:
(http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0085.htm).
Attorney Daryl Wood is an experienced Michigan defense attorney, and a recognized legal expert on Driver’s License suspension and restoration issues. If you have received a ticket, have had a license suspended, or have been subject to Driver’s Responsibility fees in Michigan, Mr. Wood can help and advise you.
Contact Mr. Wood at: 313.278.8811 or 248.855.0911.
Or visit his web site at http://www.crimlawattorney.net or http://www.drunkdrivingmichiganlawyer.com or www.michiganmiplawyer.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
