by

The police regularly use confidential informants to gather information about criminal activity. The use of confidential informants is legal and an important tool in law enforcement’s tool box. But the practice of recruiting jail house informants is often illegal. So what’s the difference?

Most people in jail are represented by attorneys. When law enforcement attempts to get a pre-trial confession or find out information about a crime using a jailhouse snitch, the constitutional rights of the inmate may be violated if law enforcement attempts to discover the incriminating evidence without the presence of the inmate’s attorney. While there is no violation if an inmate volunteers incriminating evidence to another inmate and the receiving inmate takes that information to law enforcement, purposefully recruiting an inmate to elicit the incriminating evidence is illegal as it implies a violation of the inmate’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Violation of this right recently got the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County District Attorney’s office in a lot of hot water. It has come to light that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has been running a jailhouse snitch program since 1990 and passing the information to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. The program, known as TRED, was kept secret until one Orange County Defense attorney dug in his heels and ultimately forced exposure of the program.

Continue reading →

by

OFFERING A CARROT INSTEAD OF A STICK TO FIGHT CRIME

Richmond California has been running an experimental anti-crime program for nine years that defies the traditional responses to crime and may offer a creative way to save a young person from a life in the criminal justice system before it’s too late. The program pays high-risk youth to stay away from crime. That’s right, young people get paid to stay out of trouble. And the carrot might just work better than the stick.

The program, Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS), is a public-private partnership administered under the auspices of the City of Richmond. The program employs street outreach staff to identify young people most likely to be involved in gun violence. Those so identified are typically unresponsive to “official” help and guidance. So the program offers credible, customized and responsive opportunities to these individuals as a desirable alternative to a life of crime.

Continue reading →

by

HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR MODERN SLAVERY?

Slavery may have been made illegal in this country 150 years ago, but it is still a wide-spread problem in this country. Yes, there are many people in the United States who are held captive and forced to work for no wages or worse, forced into prostitution. It’s not called slavery anymore; it’s called “human trafficking,” but it’s slavery just the same.

Human traffickers often lure their victims to the United States from third world countries. They prey on poor young men and women promising them a good job in a factory or similar work in the U.S., only to then smuggle the victim to this country and hold them captive while forcing them to provide free labor, such as domestic services, or to work in the sex trade, the proceeds of which go to the victim’s’ captors. Not all human traffickers’ victims are from other countries. Human traffickers also lure young runaways into the sex trade or coerce them into performing illegal activities for the trafficker .

Continue reading →

by

“THE STINGRAY” STING

Daniel Rigmaiden might have seemed a bit crazy to his attorneys. He was arrested in 2008 after he was caught in his elaborate and meticulous scheme filing fraudulent tax claims while living “off-grid” in the woods. He couldn’t understand how the authorities found him; he operated on fake IDs, had virtually no public identity and he ran his scam through anonymized web browsing. Mr. Rigmaiden surmised that the only way the authorities could have found him was through the cellular AirCard that he used to access the internet. He told his attorney, “I think they tracked me down by sending rays into my living room.” That may still sound a little kooky now but back in 2008, before Edward Snowden’s revelations, he sounded like a crazy person. After his fourth attorney withdrew from his case, he ended up representing himself.

Turns out Mr. Rigmaiden wasn’t crazy at all —at least not about the rays in his living room. While in prison, Mr. Rigmaiden spent countless hours poring over his case, reading tens of thousands of documents. He was able to piece together enough information to suspect the authorities caught him by using a secret technology that intercepted cell phones. In fact, what he found eventually led to the discovery of technology, known as the StingRay, that police agencies have been using for years, unbeknownst to anyone outside of the agencies using this technology.

Continue reading →

by

In recent years, technical tools that can record a cop’s every act have shined a bright light on police abuses. This is especially true now with the ubiquitous dashcams attached to almost every police cruiser in the nation. Apparently some cops don’t like this. As the police have become increasingly scrutinized by the public eye, their dash cams have become increasingly “broken.”

In Chicago, over 80% of the dash cams are not working properly and this isn’t a case of a lot of faulty equipment. Chicago police officials acknowledge that Chicago police are sabotaging the equipment! Reports include batteries being pulled out of the units, antennas broken or removed, and dashcam microphones missing. But, after all, it’s Chicago.

Well, it’s not just Chicago. In Prince George’s County, Maryland, an investigative reporter was pulled over by seven police cars as she was following a county official in pursuit of news regarding the misuse of public funds. The reporter alleged that she was roughed up by the officers and sued for injuries she claimed the officers caused. Lo and behold, all of seven the dashboard cameras in the seven police cars “malfunctioned” and the video the reporter subpoenaed for her lawsuit was “unavailable.” That’s right: the police claimed that all seven dashcams malfunctioned at the same time!

Continue reading →

by

In 1963 Henry Montgomery was a 17 year old living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was playing hooky from school when he was approached by a deputy sheriff assigned to round up truants. When the deputy frisked Henry, Henry pulled out a cheap .22 and fatally shot the deputy. Henry’s lawyers argued that their client, who had an I.Q. in the 70s, panicked and did not fully understand the consequences of his actions. Henry was convicted and ultimately ordered to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Now 69 years old, Mr. Montgomery has spent 52 years of his life in prison and until January 25, 2016, had no chance of parole.

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ that mandatory sentencing of juveniles to life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional. This case and others concerning the sentencing of juveniles was discussed in my recent blog titled “The Teenage Brain.” Following the Miller decision, many states held that the decision did not apply retroactively. Louisiana was one of those states. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the unconstitutionality of sentencing as enunciated in the Miller decision applied prospectively only. Thus, those serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed as juveniles in Louisiana had no hope of challenging their sentence based on the Miller decision. Mr. Montgomery decided to challenge Louisiana.

The United States Supreme Court decided to hear Mr. Montgomery’s argument and on January 25, 2016 issued its decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled that the Miller decision applies not only to contemporary cases, but also to all those sent to prison for life, without the possibility of parole, no matter how long ago the defendant was sentenced. Thus Mr. Montgomery and others similarly situated must now be given the opportunity to petition the appropriate state court for relief from a mandatory life sentence without parole for a crime committed as a juvenile.

Continue reading →

by

California’s sex offender laws are among the strictest in the country. Even relatively minor sex offense convictions usually end up requiring a lifetime registration on the sex offender list. So what is a “relatively minor” sex offense you might ask. Well, consider the 18-year-old who is arrested for having consensual sex with a minor— that minor being his 16-year-old girlfriend. Or how about an adult of 19 who is convicted of making obscene and harassing phone calls to a minor, that minor being his younger brother’s friend and the acts, while immature, were done as a joke. While these acts and other similar crimes aren’t acts to be excused, they are hardly acts that suggest the offender poses a significant and lifetime risk of committing sex crimes. But that is how almost all so-called sex crimes are treated.

There are almost 100,000 sex offenders registered in California and this state is one of only four that requires a lifetime registration. The U.S. Justice Department estimates that more than a quarter of the sex crime registrants were minors at the time of the offense. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, almost 900 of the registered sex offenders committed their last sex crime over 55 years ago. The strict requirements placed on sex offender registrants regarding where they can live has created an underclass marginalized by society.

How did the sex offender laws become so stringent in this country, and especially in this state? Even after serving the sentence for the crime, the sex offender is never relieved of the burden. The idea behind the registration laws is that sex offenders are likely to recommit sex crimes and therefore present an ongoing risk to society. But is this true?

Continue reading →

by

Ask any parent of a teenager whether teenagers think like adults and you are likely to get a hearty chuckle from the parent. It is self-evident that teenagers do not have the same reasoning and decision-making skills as an adult. We don’t need to be the parent of a teen to know—after all we were teens once and we no doubt remember the stupid things we did.

Brain science has come a long way in helping us discover why this is so. It is now an accepted scientific fact that the human brain does not fully mature until a person reaches his or her early 20’s. And the areas of the brain responsible for controlling impulses and planning ahead are among the last areas of the brain to mature.

Yet, our justice system typically treats the juvenile offender (roughly 15-18 years old) as an adult. It is always tragic when a young person commits a crime but shouldn’t we be taking into consideration the fact that these teen criminals are not capable of controlling their impulses or making a decision in the same way that adults are? The Supreme Court says “yes.”

Continue reading →

by

A young man from Buena Park now faces charges of vandalizing a Sikh temple, which he claims was not meant to be received as hate speech. The man faces felony vandalism of religious property and two misdemeanors on suspicion of vandalism. His defacement caused nearly $400 in damages.

On Dec. 6th, members of the temple were arriving for night services when they found the parking lot walls and a commercial truck sprayed with graffiti as well as a vulgar phrase about the Islamic State group.

To be clear: Sikhism is not affiliated with Islam or the Islamic State.

Continue reading →

by

The Netflix surprise hit over the recent holiday season was the documentary Making a Murderer. The story this documentary told was so engrossing that many people reported finishing all ten one-hour episodes within a day or two. Now that’s binge watching!

What compelled so many to devour this docu-series is that it followed the true crime saga of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who was exonerated of a rape he was convicted of committing and for which he spent 18 years in prison only to find himself back before the court a couple of years later convicted of a murder that he, to this day, insists he did not commit. Making a Murderer follows the murder trial and ultimately Mr. Avery’s conviction. What has gripped the nation is the questionable tactics used by law enforcement and the dubious evidence they presented in order to get a conviction – and from the documentary’s point of view – a conviction no matter what it took.

One key piece of evidence the prosecution used against Mr. Avery was the confession of his then 16-year-old intellectually challenged nephew. The detectives interviewed the nephew alone, no parent or attorney was present. The documentary shows extensive video clips from the nephew’s “interview” (read: interrogation). There is no question after viewing these clips that the nephew, unaware of his precarious situation, was manipulated and coerced into eventually “confessing” that he took part in the murder. Without divulging more, this is only one piece of evidence in a series of disturbing and suspicious facts presented by the prosecution. Watching the police “interview” of the nephew has opened up a firestorm of outrage and questions. Was this legal? Can the police interview a juvenile without any parent or attorney present? Is a police interview that results in a coerced confession legal?

Continue reading →