<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION &#187; Drug Defense Attorney</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/category/drug-defense-attorney/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:44:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>TWO CONFESSIONS: DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/01/23/two-confessions-different-constitutional-standards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/01/23/two-confessions-different-constitutional-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confessions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detention confession rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal search]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=707</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Confessions after Illegal Search Should be Suppressed if Influenced by Underlying Illegality, Violation of Forth Amendment

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There are primarily two types of unlawful confessions: custodial confessions obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and confessions obtained as products of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had a recent opportunity in United States v. Shetler to address the latter.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2012/01/23/two-confessions-different-constitutional-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CRACK-POWDER COCAINES 713 AMENDMENT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/26/supreme-court-clarifies-crack-powder-cocaines-713-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/26/supreme-court-clarifies-crack-powder-cocaines-713-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentence reduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal Crack Sentence Reductions: Defendants Sentenced Pursuant to 11(c)(1)(C) Agreements Eligible for 3582(c)(2) Relief

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 2007 the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued a retroactive amendment, Amendment 713, to the Sentencing Guidelines designed to eliminate the sentencing disparities in crack cocaine and powder cocaine cases. The amendment became effective in March 2008, and promptly triggered an outbreak of conflicting appellate court decisions, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on several occasions and to restore judicial order (here and here). This past term the Court was once again was forced to confront another issue spun off by Amendment 713: whether the amendment could be retroactively applied in cases where a defendant entered into a plea agreement with the Government for a specific sentence. The Court, in Freeman v. United States, answered that question in the affirmative, although in a plurality decision.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/26/supreme-court-clarifies-crack-powder-cocaines-713-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MILITARIZED POLICE NO KNOCK SEARCHES KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/17/militarized-police-no-knock-searches-kill-innocent-people/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/17/militarized-police-no-knock-searches-kill-innocent-people/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no knock search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police state]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Expanding “No Knock” Powers of the Police and Insulating Law Enforcement Abuses Allow a Growing Police State

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

We are no fans of “no knock” searches by the police, especially those launched by militarized SWAT units. We made this clear after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding police powers to conduct such searches (here). We don’t like them because they kill innocent people indiscriminately. We have permitted our law enforcement agencies to become so militarized that “no knock” searches increased from 3,000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005, according to Eastern University of Kentucky criminologist Paul Kraska, and have resulted in the deaths of 40 innocent people during that time, according to the Washington-based Cato Institute. Peter Guither, with Drug War Rant, places the number of innocents killed in “no knock” searches at 42.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/06/17/militarized-police-no-knock-searches-kill-innocent-people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Paradox that is The War on Drugs</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/04/09/the-paradox-that-is-the-war-on-drugs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/04/09/the-paradox-that-is-the-war-on-drugs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 59 forfeiture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug trafficking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forfeiture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war on drugs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While Some Politicians Question Cost Of Incarcerating Drug Offenders, Big Money and Bigger Forfeitures Keeps Texas Tough On Drug Crime

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

An increasing number of states have abandoned the traditional notion that the best way to combat drug use and trafficking is through the costly practice of extended incarceration. The Wall Street Journal last month reported that Kentucky joined the ranks of South Carolina, Colorado and New York to enact laws that shift spending into less expensive and more effective rehabilitation and intensive drug testing programs. Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are currently considering bills that would reduce drug penalties and direct some drug defendants into treatment programs.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/04/09/the-paradox-that-is-the-war-on-drugs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DRUG CHECKPOINTS AND THEIR AFTERMATH</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/11/drug-checkpoints-and-their-aftermath/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/11/drug-checkpoints-and-their-aftermath/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Border Patrol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constructive possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug checkpoint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug trafficking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trucker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Drug Mules/Smugglers Beware: Permanent Border Patrol Checkpoints in Texas Seize Tons of Drugs, Marijuana, Illustrate Inhumanity of Drug Laws

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

There are many problems with mandatory minimum sentencing as we have discussed in previous blogs, but the following is just one real life example. He is a Mexican national, a legal resident in this country. He is a long haul truck driver. He has a family to support. He is approached by people who want him to haul a legal shipment of produce. He is told contraband will be concealed in the produce. But he is not told what the contraband is. He is paid one thousand dollars to make the delivery. It will help pay the bills, particularly the medical bills for one chronically ill child.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/11/drug-checkpoints-and-their-aftermath/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE PURPOSE OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/11/the-purpose-of-reasonable-doubt-in-criminal-trials/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/11/the-purpose-of-reasonable-doubt-in-criminal-trials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA exonerations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutorial misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasonable Doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Conviction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post we discussed both the history and role of reasonable doubt in criminal trials. We noted and criticized the fact that Texas judges in criminal trials do not, per Texas Court of Criminal Appeals mandate, have to give jurors any instruction as to what constitutes “reasonable doubt.” This, we believe, is one of several reasons why Texas leads the nation in the wrongful conviction of innocent people.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/11/the-purpose-of-reasonable-doubt-in-criminal-trials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CELL PHONES-TEXTS NOT SAFE FROM POLICE SEARCHES</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/07/cell-phones-texts-not-safe-from-police-searches/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/07/cell-phones-texts-not-safe-from-police-searches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cell phone search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DEA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SMS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text messages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The popularity of Short Message Service (SMS), text messaging, originated in Europe and Asia before captivating American cell phone users, according to a 2008 CBS News report. SMS’ sudden popularity was linked directly to cost: it was cheaper to send short text messages than to make an actual phone call. CBS News pointed out that it cost less than a penny to send a text message in 2008. Perhaps it was also the cost factor that caused Americans, especially the young, to fall “head on heels” in love with texting in 2008.  According to CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, Americans sent an average of 2.5 billion text messages per day that year, an increase of 160 percent over 2007. This SMS surge was fueled by teens between 13 and 17 who sent and received an average of 1,742 messages per month. And the SMS explosion in America did not escape the economic attention of the cell phone providers: the cost of sending and receiving text message increased by a whopping 100 percent during this same time period.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/07/cell-phones-texts-not-safe-from-police-searches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAN THE SMELL OF POT LEAD TO WARRANTLESS ARREST?</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/03/17/can-the-smell-of-pot-lead-to-warrantless-arrest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/03/17/can-the-smell-of-pot-lead-to-warrantless-arrest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probable cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warrantless entry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Odor of Burnt Marijuana, alone, may be sufficient for a warrantless entry but insufficient to establish probable cause for a specific arrest.

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Some defense attorneys—and not without a legitimate basis—mistakenly believe that if a police officer detects the odor of marijuana inside a residence, the officer does not have probable cause to enter the residence and arrest the suspected owner of the drug without a warrant. This belief can be traced to a 2002 decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Steelman which held that “the detection of the odor of marijuana in a certain place will not inevitably provide probable cause to arrest a person who is at that place.” 1/]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/03/17/can-the-smell-of-pot-lead-to-warrantless-arrest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BIG BROTHER’S WATCHING!</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/03/05/big-brother%e2%80%99s-watching/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/03/05/big-brother%e2%80%99s-watching/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big brother]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cell Phone tracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orwellian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snooping]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Law Enforcement Seeks Cell Phone Surveillance in  Continued  War on Crime; But Who’s Watching Them?  …Federal Judges
In  an article titled “The Snitch In Your Pocket,” Newsweek Magazine (March 1, 2010) reported that in recent years Federal   prosecutors have been “seeking what seemed to be unusually sensitive  records,  internal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/03/05/big-brother%e2%80%99s-watching/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MICHAEL JACKSONS DOCTOR CHARGED WITH  INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/02/11/michael-jackson%e2%80%99s-doctor-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/02/11/michael-jackson%e2%80%99s-doctor-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodily injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[involuntary manslaughter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Jackson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair.

How do you save someone determined to destroy himself?

That question will surely be in the mind of most jurors who will ultimately decide the personal and professional fate of Dr. Conrad Murray, a Houston cardiologist, who was formally charged on February 8, 2010 with involuntary manslaughter in Los Angeles in connection with Michael Jackson’s death. Murray was the superstar’s personal physician last June when he administered the powerful anesthetic propofol and two sedatives to help Jackson,]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/02/11/michael-jackson%e2%80%99s-doctor-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

