Category: KC Defense Counsel Articles

Applying Miranda

   

Applying the Miranda can be confusing for some law officers, thanks to Hollywood! Depiction and interpretation of Miranda in real life is far from what we are made to believe in the movies. The entertainment industry makes it look like every arrest requires Miranda without any due process. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

What is Miranda Rule?

The rule got its name from the Supreme Court’s landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The rule gives criminal suspects in a custodial interrogation the right to remain silent. In essence, suspects have the right to refuse to talk without a lawyer during an interrogation. The aim is to ensure that the statements rendered by suspects are admissible in court.

Any evidence or information divulged under threat, coercion or violence is deemed inadmissible in the courts. It serves to avoid any form of self-incrimination by the suspect. The suspect must be made aware of his/her rights to remain silent, right to a lawyer, and the right to stop answering questions at any time. This rule is derived from the Fifth Amendment.

Applying Miranda

Miranda rule is applicable in the use of testimonial evidence during criminal proceedings.

An officer who is transporting a suspect is definitely not part of the interrogation and therefore has no right to interrogate the suspect concerning the crime. Such officer, however, has the right to ask basic questions about age, address and such. The detective assigned the case has the right to ask questions related to the crime but requires Miranda to do so.

Miranda rule is time specific. In cases where Miranda rule applies, the officer in charge must read the suspect the Miranda rights. If after maybe one week, the officer required further information from the same suspect, the officer must again read the Miranda rights to that suspect so far as the suspect remains in custody.

Miranda applies only to testimonial evidence. From the Fifth Amendment, this means testimonial statements that stem from facts.

The evidence must be obtained when the suspect is in custody. To determine whether a person is in custody requires the application of the ‘Reasonable Person Rule.’ Assuming you are as a reasonable person watching as a police officer places a person on handcuffs and puts them in a police vehicle and subsequently arrested, you would easily conclude that such a person is in custody of the police. On the other hand, if you observe an officer discussing with your neighbor who is out walking his dog, you would not see your neighbor as being in custody.

If an officer walks up to a suspect in his tennis court and interrogates him about a crime. The suspect, without knowing the officer has a warrant for his arrest and without the officer informing the suspect that he is under arrest, confesses to the crime. Upon such admission, the officer places the suspect under arrest without further interrogation. Miranda right is not necessary in this scenario as there was no custody or arrest prior to the confession of the suspect. No reasonable person will believe the suspect was under custody either.

Any evidence gathered must have been during an interrogation and conducted by state-agents. The questions must be such that would elicit incriminating responses from the suspect.

Miranda must be applied when these factors are present.

Custodial Interrogation in Missouri

   

Custodial interrogation refers to the questioning of a person in custody by law enforcement officers in connection to a criminal investigation. Being in custody doesn’t necessarily mean handcuffs, formal arrest, or physical restraint. A person is considered to be in custody or detained when he or she is deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way. Custodial interrogation is normally utilized by police officers in Missouri to gather information from persons who are reasonably suspected of being directly involved in or responsible for criminal activity. Custodial interrogation in Missouri can go beyond direct questions to involve persuasion, influence, and trickery with the purpose of obtaining a confession or at least any incriminating information statements. It’s important to note that a request for identification does not form part of a custodial interrogation. Besides, by merely asking for identification, the police have not placed you in custody. Custodial interrogation begins when police officers begin to ask questions that may implicate you in a crime.

… Continue reading

Dog Sniff & Missouri Law

   

Police officers in Missouri are allowed to use dog sniffs to locate illegal narcotics. Such canines can be trained to locate a specific illegal substance or multiple types of drugs. Searching using sniff dogs in Missouri follows particular rules that police officers must observe when bringing a sniffing dog at the scene.

General rule

The fourth amendment safeguards people from unreasonable search and seizures. But according to the Supreme court, using sniff dogs during a police stop does not violate the fourth amendment.

The Supreme court, in the case of Illinois v. Caballes, ruled that police officer do not require reasonable suspicion to use dog sniffs during a legal traffic stop. In this case, Roy Caballes was pulled over for overspeeding. The defendant was subsequently arrested for marijuana trafficking after a sniff dog was brought to the scene and alerted his vehicle. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a probable course for arrest beyond speeding and as such the sniff was unreasonable.

The United States Supreme court, however, overruled the decision. The Supreme Court stated that the police did not require reasonable suspicion to use a sniffer dog since the suspect was under a legitimate traffic stop.

Exceptions for using dog sniffs for searches in Missouri

Conducting searches using sniff dogs under Missouri laws has to follow some rules. Below are the rules police officers must follow when they bring a sniff dog to a scene;

(i) Reason for a stop

It all begins with a traffic stop. Police officers must have a reasonable suspicion that you have violated the law before they can stop you.

Any traffic stop without a valid reason or probable cause is illegal. All evidence, including narcotics discovered by a sniff dog, that has been obtained from an unlawful stop, will not be admissible in court.

((ii) Duration of a traffic stop

Under Missouri law, a person may not be delayed in order for a sniff dog to be brought to the scene after the time for a traffic stop has expired. This means that if by the time a police officer stops you, and finishes writing you a ticket a sniff dog has not arrived at the scene, then you shall not be made to wait for the canine to arrive.

Also, the dog cannot continue sniffing after all the stop-related activities have finished. Any searches conducted after the expiry of the legitimate stop period cannot be admissible.

(iii) Probable cause

If a police officer detains you further without any probable cause, you have a right to ask the police officer if you can leave. If the police officer declines and holds you until the sniff dog arrives, you can refuse to consent to any searches. Opening the car for the sniff dog or giving your car keys to the office, means you have agreed to the search.

If a court determines that there was no probable cause for delayed detention, then both the evidence and the detention will be deemed illegal. Your defense counsel should file a motion to suppress the evidence. If the evidence is declared inadmissible by the court, then you will weaken the prosecutor’s case.

The law, however, states that if a police officer develops probable cause for a crime after a traffic stop, then the officer can detain you for a longer time as may be defined by Missouri law. The evidence obtained from such delayed detention will still be admissible in court.

Drug convictions can have severe implications. If you are facing drug charges that have resulted from searches using dog sniffs in Missouri, you need to consult a criminal defense lawyer.

The Sixth Amendment and Eye Witness Identification

   

The Sixth Amendment and Eye Witness Identification

The procedures of witness identification face many constitutional challenges. The challenges to these procedures are focused on the provisions of the Sixth amendment below.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. reads in part; ”In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”.

… Continue reading

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

   

Missouri statutes state that it’s an offense to hinder another person’s legal ownership of his own goods in the event that one receives the goods that he or she knows has been stolen or even thinks that the property has been stolen (Lippman & Mathew, 2010). The basis of any prosecution is that one had knowledge or believe that the goods that he or she received were stolen. If he or she has a trail of being in possession of stolen property in more than one occurrence. If one has been in a similar form of transaction in a year prior, then that means he had knowledge of the illegal transaction.

… Continue reading

Right to Speedy Trial in Missouri

   

Right to Speedy Trial in Missouri

The right to a speedy trial ensures that the state brings an individual to trial among bound points in time. There are completely different points in time supported federal law and state law. If the applicable point in time passes, the litigator could assert that his or her right to a speedy trial has been denied which the criminal charges ought to be fired. in addition to guaranteeing the correct to associate degree lawyer, the Sixth change to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal litigator the correct to a speedy trial by associate degree “impartial jury.” this suggests that a criminal litigator should be dropped at trial for his or her alleged crimes among a fairly short time once arrest, which before being condemned of most crimes, the litigator includes a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, that should notice the litigator guilty “beyond an inexpensive doubt.”

… Continue reading

Prior and Persistent Law Offenders in Missouri

   

Missouri is among the states in the U.S. that have adopted special sentencing guidelines for prior and persistent law offenders. Under Missouri laws, a prior offender is a person who has been found guilty of one offense on a separate occasion from the present offense for which the person is being charged. A persistent offender is a person who has been found guilty of two or more offenses on separate occasions from the present offense for which the person is charged; OR a person who has been found guilty of offenses including assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree, second degree assault, and involuntary manslaughter, and the person has also been proven to be a prior offender. The conviction(s) does not have to be a Missouri state conviction, but rather could be a federal conviction or a conviction from another state.

… Continue reading

Sentencing Guidelines In Missouri

   

The Missouri Department of Justice in collaboration with the Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission has established a well-defined set of sentencing guidelines that govern the imposition of minimum and maximum punishments for different crimes while considering the facts and circumstances of individual cases. These guidelines propose the appropriate sentence disposition and the range within which an authorized sentence can be set.

… Continue reading

Coercion Defense In Criminal Law

   

A successful coercion defense requires that the defendant’s fear be reasonable and related to him/her committing the crime. A Missouri court will look at the evidence provided and give an objective ruling. Such a verdict demands that if any other person were in a similar situation to that of the defendant ought to feel the same amount of fear to necessitate the criminal act.

… Continue reading

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

   

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, Stolen goods

Missouri statutes states that it’s an offense to hinder another person’s legal ownership of his own goods in the event that one receives the goods that he or she knows has been stolen or even thinks that the property has been stolen

… Continue reading