CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

February 7, 2011

CELL PHONES-TEXTS NOT SAFE FROM POLICE SEARCHES

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:01 pm

Fifth Circuit: U.S. Court of Appeals Allows Search of Cell Phone Text Messages without Warrant, After Arrest

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

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.

SMSs also caught the attention of law enforcement and the courts. We recently posted a piece concerning a decision in which the California Supreme Court ruled that the police may read and seize test messages stored on an accused suspect’s cell phone “incident to a lawful arrest.” Actually the 2011 California ruling has been precedent law here in the Fifth Circuit since 2007 when that federal appeals court handed down United States v. Finley. While we cited Finley in our previous post, we did not give it adequate attention.

Jacob Pierce Finley was convicted of one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamines (meth). At the time of his August 2005 arrest in Midland, Texas by the local police and DEA agents Finley was working for a plumbing company owned by his uncle. As a tool of his employment, Finley was assigned a cell phone with which he was authorized to make personal cells along his business-related calls.

Law enforcement attention focused on Finley after the Midland police and DEA agents set up an undercover meth buy from a local dealer named Mark Brown. The DEA used one of its confidential informants (“CI”) to arrange the drug purchase. The CI contacted Brown telling him that she wanted to purchase $600 in meth but could not come to Brown’s residence because she was at a truck stop with no transportation. Brown agreed to meet the CI at the truck stop where the DEA gave her $600 in marked bills.

(more…)

August 1, 2010

MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATIONS SENT TWO INNOCENT MEN TO PRISON

Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 5:01 pm

Suggestive Police Procedures and Mistaken Identification Resulted in Two More Wrongful Convictions and Incarcerations, One for 27 Years

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Our criminal justice system is flawed. Its imperfections can be found in the 255 DNA exonerations of innocent offenders and the 138 people released from death row since 1973 in this country. But, paradoxically, its perfection lies in its willingness and ability to correct the imperfections brought about by human mistake. According to the New York-based Innocence Project, mistaken identification is the “greatest cause for wrongful convictions,” playing a role in 75 percent of the nation’s DNA exonerations. Twice this year we have posted pieces dealing with the dangers, and, yes, tragedies caused by, the mistaken pointed finger (here and here).

Two recent Harris County cases involving wrongful convictions of innocent men brought about because of mistaken identification illustrate not only the tragedy but just how easy it for an innocent man to be sent to prison, especially with emotionally charged crimes such as sexual assault. The first case brought to the public’s attention by the Houston Chronicle (here, here, here, and here) was Allen Wayne Porter who was convicted of rape and robbery in 1991. The case from the outset had some strange twists and turns.

In June 1990, three armed masked men invaded a Houston apartment where they terrorized and robbed its four occupants, and also raped its two female occupants. The apartment reportedly was the residence of a known drug dealer and the armed intruders were looking for $30,000 in cash. The leader of the trio was Porter’s nephew, a man named Jimmy Hatton. Another man, though never charged with the crime, named Perry Harrison would later admit to being one of the other two men who accompanied Hatton. The robbers were driven to the drug dealer’s apartment by Hatton’s former wife, Stephanie Wallace-Venters.

Hatton was arrested shortly after the home invasion. He was put on trial in December 1990. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Porter attended the trial and was seen by one of the rape victims who immediately identified him as one of her attackers. Porter was arrested, put to trial in 1991, and, like his nephew, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

(more…)

June 9, 2010

HOUSTON LAW ENFORCEMENT FACES TOUGH TIMES

Filed under: Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:50 pm

Decreased Police Budget: Increased Unsolved Crime, Botched Investigations, Wrongful Arrests and Convictions

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Thomas Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service, reported last month that 6,000 homicides go unsolved in this country each year. Hargrove said the number of “unsolved homicides” has risen at an alarming rate even though the nation’s homicide rate has decreased to levels last seen in the 1960s. Most of these unsolved homicides occur in dozens of the nation’s largest cities.

“This is very frightening,” Bill Hagmaier, Executive Director of the International Homicide Investigators Association, said of the Scripps Howard study which involved a detailed examination of crime records provided by the FBI.  “We’d expect that – with more police officers, more scientific tools like DNA analysis and more computerized records – we’d be clearing more homicides now.”

Network television shows like CSI and NCIS, which hail the so-called marvels of “forensic evidence,” have lulled Americans into thinking that crime fighting will surely catch the bad guys and put them away. Not so, and it is indeed “frightening” to realize that between 1980 and 2008 nearly 185,000 homicides in this country went unsolved. The Scripps Howard study reported “experts” as saying the traditional “crimes of passion” involving assailants who are quickly identified have been replaced with “drug-and-gang related” killings in areas where lack of witness cooperation is a major problem. The “don’t snitch” mentality.

Valencia Mohammed lives in Washington, D.C., an area with a significant number of unsolved homicides relating to drug/gang violence. “When my first son was killed,” she told Hargrove, “I was embarrassed and ashamed. Why did this happen to me? But when my second son died, I decided I’d had enough and wanted to be an advocate for murder victims.”

(more…)

March 17, 2010

CAN THE SMELL OF POT LEAD TO WARRANTLESS ARREST?

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:23 am

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/

Lubbock attorneys Chuck Lanehart and Ralph H. Brock argued the Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) had established a blanket rule, or at least the impression of a blanket rule, in Steelman so they filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from their client, Christopher Chad Parker, on the night of April 2, 2001. A local resident named Ms. Vangie Leal had informed two Lubbock police officers named Ralph Sanchez and Rodney Stevens that night at a local convenience store about alcohol allegedly being served to minors at a nearby residence. Acting on this information, which they believed to be reliable, officers Sanchez and Stevens drove to the nearby two-story house where they saw several vehicles parked outside but no unusual activity. Then Sanchez spotted someone parting the blinds inside the residence and heard someone say, “it’s the police.” 2/

Sanchez and Stevens believed these actions warranted further investigation. They approached the residence and knocked. Christopher Parker opened the door. Officer Stevens saw what appeared to be a juvenile run up the stairs and recognized him from previous minor encounters the officer had with the juvenile. Stevens also immediately smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. He informed Parker that he and officer Sanchez were there to investigate a report of “kids drinking alcohol.” Stevens also told Parker the two officers would have to enter the residence because of the smell of marijuana. Parker allowed the officers inside the residence. 3/

Stevens and Sanchez gathered all the occupants of the residence into the living room. Stevens went to find the person he had seen running up the stairs and in the process found Parker’s mother sleeping. The officer asked her to join everyone in the living room. A short time thereafter two police supervisors arrived. Just as one of the supervisors was asking Parker’s mother for consent to search the residence, officer Stevens saw a marijuana cigarette butt and some loose marijuana in plain sight on top of a pizza box in the living room. While the mother consented to a search of the residence, the marijuana had been already spotted and seized before she actually consented. 4/

(more…)

March 5, 2010

BIG BROTHER’S WATCHING!

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:02 am

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 data from telecommunications companies that showed the locations of their customers’ cell phones—sometimes in real time, sometimes after the fact.” The prosecutors justified their pursuit of this individualized personal information “to trace the movements of suspected drug traffickers, human smugglers, even corrupt public officials” through their cell phones.

These Federal prosecutors have been using the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), to get Federal magistrates to issue what’s called “2703(d)” orders which allows prosecutors intrusive access into the private lives of this nation’s citizens. Federal prosecutors prefer using the Stored Communications Act over the more stringent Pen Registers Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3121, which requires them to support their court order requests with an affidavit articulating the probable cause necessary for law enforcement officials to install any sort of tracking device on cell phones.

But Newsweek reported that “the FBI and other law enforcement outfits have been obtaining more and more records of cell-phone locations—without notifying the targets or getting judicial warrants establishing ‘probable cause,’ according to law enforcement officials, court records and telecommunication executives.”

While these Orwellian law enforcement types have historically gone after private information such as e-mails, bank records, and credit card transactions, they have more recently made “cell-phone tracking” their sport of choice in the individual privacy snooping game. Cell-phone tracking allows these “covert operations” specialists to track the movements of not only those they suspect of criminal wrongdoing but also of those who may simply pose a non-criminal point of interest to them. Jack Killorin, who heads a Federal task force in Atlanta, told Newsweek that “cell-phone records have helped his agents crack many cases, such as the brutal slaying of a DeKalb County sheriff; agents got the cell-phone records of key suspects—and then showed that they were all within a one-mile area of the murder at the time it occurred, he said. In the fall of 2008, Killorin says, his agents were able to follow a Mexican drug cartel truck carrying 2,200 kilograms of cocaine by watching the real time as the driver’s cell phone ‘shook hands’ with each cell-phone tower it passed on the highway. ‘It’s a tremendous investigative tool,’ says Killorin. And not that unusual: ‘This is pretty workday stuff for us.”

(more…)

February 11, 2010

MICHAEL JACKSONS DOCTOR CHARGED WITH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 7:06 pm

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, a renowned insomniac, get some sleep. The sleep aids put the pop singer to sleep permanently.

Michael Jackson was an exceedingly complex individual. His life was a tragic chronicle of drug use and abuse. He did things to his own life (and to the lives of others) that would have destroyed most other mere mortals. Despite a host of admirable personal qualities and an immeasurable amount of professional talent, he was a living portrait of self-destruction. He had been warned on several occasions about the dangers of using propofol. It is one of the most powerful and dangerous drugs that can be administered to the human body outside a very tightly-controlled medical environment. Jackson was still willing to risk his life on a regular basis by taking the drug because it helped him sleep when, in actuality, it didn’t help him sleep; it simply rendered him unconscious.

Dr. Conrad Murray was born to a poor single mother nearly 57 years ago in Grenada, a small Caribbean island made famous by former President Ronald Reagan’s military invasion of it in 1983 called Operation Urgent Fury. He lived with his grandparents on the island until he was seven when his mother returned and took him with her to Trinidad where she had gone shortly after the boy’s birth in search of work. Despite being reared in a drug-infested and crime-plagued area of Port of Spain, Trinidad’s capital, young Murray resisted all the temptations of crime and drugs to become well-known as an honest and responsible person in the neighborhood.

Citing the British tabloid, The Daily Mall, the Houston Chronicle reported recently that as a young boy Murray went into a store where he found a woman had left her bag. He took the bag and after he got home, the young boy found it contained $3100. He searched for and found the owner of the bag and returned the money to her, according former neighbor Krishndath Saroop. Murray went on to graduate from high school on the small island after which he worked hard at a number of jobs, including an elementary school teacher, before saving enough money to pay for his education in the United States.

(more…)

December 23, 2009

EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURT

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:30 am

Probative or Prejudicial:  Evidence of Previous Drug Convictions Admitted to Show Proof of Intent in Drug Case

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

We have written recently about the dangers of the use of extraneous offense evidence at the state trial level; specifically, that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has virtually eliminated the availability of any defense in sexual assault cases, particularly those involving a child, when the State has in its possession extraneous offense evidence and the defendant wished to avoid its admission in court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently confronted and outlined the parameters of extraneous offense evidence at the federal trial level.

The case involved John Matthew Cockrell who was convicted of conspiracy to possess and intent to distribute heroin resulting in bodily injury in violation of Title 21, Section 846, of the Federal Criminal Code. The Cockrell case began in 2006 when the Plano Police Department informed the FBI’s High Drug Trafficking Area about several heroin drug overdoses in Collin County, some of which were fatal. The FBI soon determined that Cockrell was the local heroin dealer behind the drug overdoses.

The federal investigation produced two co-conspirators who agreed to cooperate with the government. They testified at Cockrell’s conspiracy trial, telling the jury they bought drugs from Cockrell during a two-year span between 2005 and 2007. One of the co-conspirators told the jury that she initially bought methamphetamines from Cockrell but later switched to heroin with two or three buys a week. Prosecutors also presented the following evidence:

  • Witnesses testified they saw balloon-packaged heroin inside Cockrell’s apartment, car, and that he distributed the heroin to other dealers as well as customers.
  • Other witnesses testified they joined with Cockrell in purchasing large quantities of heroin both for their own personal use and distribution as well.
  • Two witnesses testified they overdosed on heroin supplied by Cockrell and required emergency room treatment. Their testimony was corroborated by treating paramedics and ambulance records. 1

(more…)

August 15, 2009

TRIAL OBJECTIONS MUST BE CLEAR AND PRECISE

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:49 pm

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas Finds Lawyer’s Careful and Repeated Objections did not Preserve Error

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Criminal trials are governed by strict rules of evidence and procedures. It is the duty of a defense attorney to not only know but understand these rules and procedures precisely. We have written several times in the past about the harm caused by a defense attorney’s inadvertent failure to make specific, timely and properly lodged objections during the course of a criminal trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently delivered that same unreasonable message once again and in no uncertain terms.

The case involved Luis Pena who, in 1998, was charged with possession of marijuana seized during a traffic stop. He was put on trial in 2003. His attorney had learned that the evidence in the case had been destroyed in 2000. The attorney also learned through a thorough investigation that all of the records and documents associated with the lab report of the Texas Department of Public Safety concerning the marijuana had been lost. So prior to trial the attorney diligently filed a motion for an independent lab analysis of the seized marijuana and moved to suppress the DPS lab results. These motions were denied by the trial court.

Not to be deterred, Pena’s attorney lodged general evidence-custody objections based on the laws of Texas, the Texas Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The trial judge denied these objections, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents that require a state criminal defendant to not only show that the lost or destroyed evidence was both material and favorable to his defense but that the state act in bad faith when it lost or destroyed the evidence.

During Pena’s trial, the prosecution called a DPS chemist to testify about the lab test results. Pena’s attorney not only properly objected but requested that he be allowed to question the chemist outside of the jury’s presence to assess his qualifications and to determine the admissibility of the test results. The trial judge granted the attorney’s request, and after both sides had an opportunity to question the chemist about the destruction of the evidence, the judge personally questioned the chemist to determine if DPS had acted in bad faith when it destroyed the evidence. The judge concluded the law enforcement agency had not only acted in bad faith but that the destroyed evidence was not favorable to Pena. (more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress © 2010 John T. Floyd III Crimnal Defense Attorney : Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee