Articles Posted in Constitutional Rights


Here’s an interesting case that caught my eye: Narcotics officers in Colorado Springs observed a driver in his parked vehicle conducting what appeared to be a narcotics transaction. The officers made contact with the driver and after a brief struggle, they discovered a brown satchel containing cash and Ziploc bags near the vehicle. They then searched the vehicle and found controlled substances, firearms, and ammunition. The first question any good defense attorney would ask is, “What reasonable suspicion did the officers have for contacting and detaining the driver in the first place?” Why? Because the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires either a search warrant or a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” that the driver has violated the law before a vehicle can be searched. The courts have fashioned many exceptions to this requirement but if an arrest is the result of a search without a warrant and without probable cause or any of the enumerated exceptions, the entire arrest can be challenged by a motion to suppress.

The Colorado case is particularly interesting because of the facts: The police got a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle, the vehicle was sold, and the new vehicle owner was the guy that ended up getting arrested. The police continued to track the vehicle even though there was evidence that they knew the vehicle had been sold. The officers testified that they surveilled the vehicle to see if the previous owner was still driving the car. It was during that surveillance that the new owner of the car was observed parking the car and was contacted by the officers, which ended up in the search of the vehicle and the driver’s arrest.

Police use-of-force has been big news in this country for several years now. A large segment of the public believes that the police have used fatal force without just cause. They cite many high-profile cases: Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and so on. These police killings have triggered a storm of protests across the country, including in California. In some of these cases, the officer or officers involved faced possible charges of manslaughter or even murder. In virtually all of these cases, the decision as to whether to prosecute these officers is left to a secret grand jury proceedings. With few exceptions, the grand juries have found that an indictment of the officer is not supported by the evidence. The public often perceives the grand jury as biased in favor of the cops and there has been a high level of distrust in the grand jury system. It doesn’t help that the proceedings are held in secret.

California became the first state in the country to address the public’s distrust of the grand jury system as employed in officer-involved lethal force cases. In 2015, Governor Brown signed into law a bill, SB 227, prohibiting the use of grand juries in California when an officer has used lethal force under circumstances that are possibly criminal. Rather, if a cop was to be charged, the district attorney would have to directly file the criminal complaint and the case would proceed through an open preliminary hearing. Thereafter, charges by what is called an information would be filed by the district attorney if the evidence at the preliminary hearing showed a reasonable possibility that the officer’s use of lethal force was a criminal act. Prior to enactment of SB 227, California prosecutors had the option of going to the grand jury or directly filing charges by a criminal complaint.

Not surprisingly prosecutors opposed SB 277. They argued that the grand jury system, by the fact that it is held in secret, facilitates the discovery of the truth. The grand jury proceedings, they argued, permits them to compel witnesses to testify and “offer a fuller seeking of the truth for all sides. . ..” (SB 227 Arguments in Opposition.) Prosecutors also objected because they argued that if they could not use the grand jury as an investigation tool in police lethal force cases, it hampered their ability to properly investigate the incident.

Dystopian films and literature are usually thought of as science fiction, but while this entertainment might be classified as fiction, it often portends a future that may already be here. That is especially true when it comes to crime fighting. In my previous post, I discussed a few of the tools now at law enforcement’s disposal that would have been considered science fiction only a generation ago. Are we heading towards a world with oppressive societal controls and a loss of civil rights as the dystopian novels and films depict? Many civil rights advocates fear just that.

One of the emerging crime fighting techniques is facial recognition and many fear that this technique not only violates the rights of innocent people. There is also legitimate concern about facial recognition errors identifying innocent people. No one really knows how widespread the use of this law enforcement technique is because there are very few controls or reporting requirements and almost zero transparency. Police can scan images from virtually any photograph, including DMV photos, social media, and even video webcams set up to scan the public. Facial recognition software can then be used to scan through these digitized images to look for a match in the search for a suspect. What’s wrong with that, you might ask?

Well, to begin, it is essentially a virtual lineup. Maybe you are in that lineup and you don’t even know it – actually you may have already been in one of these lineups or soon will be. Remember, law enforcement is able to scan through thousands of images at the push of a computer button.

In earlier blog posts, I discussed the CalGang Database, a database collected and used by law enforcement throughout California. I discussed how this database is kept in secret and many who are included in the database are unaware of their inclusion and worse yet, many who are listed in the database are listed in error.

In a victory for the civil liberties and social justice organizations that pushed for it, a new law was just signed by the governor, to go into effect on January 1, 2018, that is designed to end the secrecy of this database and give those on the database an opportunity to contest inclusion of their name on the database. This is an important piece of legislation because inclusion on this database can have serious consequences and affects the due process rights of those who have been placed on a gang database.

As I previously discussed in earlier blog posts, a person might be put in a gang database for simply being in detained by the police in a certain neighborhood or even put on the database in error. For those later arrested for a crime, being in the database will, in many cases, result in the prosecution alleging gang enhancements, which necessarily carry greater punishments than the underlying crime itself. For undocumented immigrants, being included on a gang database can be cause for their deportation without hearing, even if they are mis-classified on the database.

In 2015, Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals removed the Orange County District Attorney’s Office from the trial of Scott Dekraai, who was accused and since convicted of the worst mass murder in Orange County. Judge Goethals booted the District Attorney’s Office from the case after an investigation initiated by the defendant’s lawyer revealed that law enforcement investigating the case withheld material evidence from the court. Law enforcement officers are agents for the District Attorney and as such, the judge found that the District Attorney’s Office was responsible for the illegal withholding of evidence in the trial. Although Judge Goethals found that the district attorneys on the case had committed serious misconduct, but concluded that their actions were not intentional.

Some legal observers would beg to differ with the judge’s ruling. Many defense attorneys have long suspected, or even known, that the District Attorney’s Office regularly withholds exculpatory evidence at trial. Sometimes a trial seems more like a competition, with the District Attorney out to win at all costs, than the right guaranteed by our Constitution for a fair and impartial presentation of facts to be heard and decided by a trial of peers. This is not only a violation of the defendant’s due process rights but it perverts the criminal justice system. The withholding or distortion of evidence denies a defendant a fair trial and, worse—it can (and has) result in the conviction of an innocent person.

Jumpstarted by the events in Judge Goethals courtroom, Assembly Bill 1909, was signed into law by Governor Brown last month. This law, which will be added by a subdivision to Penal Code section 141, punishes prosecutors who are found to abuse their power by “intentionally and in bad faith” tampering or withholding evidence in a criminal trial. The new law requires that the prosecutor knew the evidence was “relevant and material to the outcome of the case” and acted with “specific intent.” In the Orange County case, Judge Goethals found that the district attorneys did not act intentionally. So even though this new law was prompted by the actions in that trial, the district attorneys involved would not be prosecuted under this new law.

Zulmai Nazarzai was never convicted of a crime; he was never even charged with a crime. Yet he has been sitting in solitary confinement in the Orange County jail for six years now. That is a long time to spend in solitary confinement.

In 2010, the California attorney general filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Nazarzai accusing him of running a boiler-room telemarketing scam that bilked elderly people to the tune of $2 million. This was a civil lawsuit; the attorney general did not charge Mr. Nazarzai with any criminal acts. The attorney general won the civil suit and Mr. Nazarzai was ordered to pay a hefty sum of $4 million in penalties and restitution. It was known to the attorney general that Mr. Nazarzai had withdrawn $360,540 from his business bank account. The judge who made the restitution order, ordered Mr. Nazarzai to turn over those funds.

Mr. Nazarzai told the judge he did not have the money. He actually told the judge some absurd story about how the money was lost. The judge called his story incredulous and held Mr. Nazarzai in contempt of court for willful disobedience of the court’s order. (Code of Civil Procedure §1209 (a)(5))


There is a scene in the Showtime series “Billions” where one of the characters is arrested by the F.B.I. for financial fraud. As he is read his Miranda rights and led away in handcuffs, he repeats only one word: “Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer,” Now I don’t say this just because I am a criminal defense attorney, but this scene got it right. When you are arrested, the cops must immediately “read you your rights,” which is to say, you must be informed that you have the right to remain silent, that anything you say may be used against you in a court of law, and that you have the right to an attorney. Let me emphasize something: anything you say will in all probability be used against you in a court of law even if the police later suggest during an interrogation that it won’t. All too often after an arrest the cops will use well-honed tactics to get an arrestee to talk. Your best advice is to follow the character’s action in Billions, request an attorney and say nothing else.

Under the law, once an arrestee invokes the right to remain silent and requests an attorney, the police are supposed to cease their questioning. Any response or statement made by the arrestee to further police questioning is evidence that is violation of the law and can be suppressed (i.e., not admitted in evidence). But in reality, what often happens is the police will manage to strike up a conversation with the arrestee and the arrestee will take the bait and engage in conversation with the police. Even if an arrestee says something like “I ain’t talkin’” and indeed remains silent, but then later responds—even in a limited way— to police questioning, it may be considered a waiver of the right to remain silent. In short, an arrestee must affirmatively and clearly state that he or she wishes to remain silent and moreover, do just that: Remain silent (with the exception of requesting an attorney).


You’ve seen it in the movies and on TV shows: The police approach a person on the street or tell them to get out of a vehicle after a traffic stop and command the person to submit to a frisk. In my previous post, I discussed the lawfulness of police detentions so you might wonder what factors must be present for an officer to lawfully conduct what is commonly called a “Stop and Frisk.”

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is not an unlawful search and seizure when an officer stops an individual in the public arena and frisks that individual if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is committing a crime, has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime and furthermore, has a reasonable belief that the individual might be armed and therefore dangerous. Officers and legal authorities often refer to this as a “Terry Stop,” referencing the Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, in which this decision was pronounced. The decision is premised on officer safety, that is, if the officer has reasonable suspicion of the criminal activity, the officer can lightly frisk the detained individual for a weapon. Because the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the individual is considered “detained” (but not arrested) and is not free to walk away without the officers consent.


If a police officer stops you in a public place and begins asking you questions, what rights do you have?

(Note that this post does not apply to a DUI stop. For information on your rights if you are stopped for a suspected DUI, see my DUI blog. )


In 1989, a female jogger was brutally assaulted and raped when she was jogging through Central Park. Five males, ages 14 to 16 at the time, were arrested and confessed to the crime. They were tried and convicted in two separate trials. They became known as the “Central Park Five.”

In response to the arrest of the Central Park Five in 1989, Donald Trump placed an ad in the NYT, The Daily News, and New York Newsday calling for New York to “Bring Back the Death Penalty. Bring Back Our police!” The emotionally charged ad described the streets of New York as ruled by “roving bands of wild criminals.” He asked: “How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS.”