Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

Marijuana Possession Penalties Reduced In St. Louis

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:14:45 -0500

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen recently passed an important bit of legislation which could give smalltime marijuana smokers in the city a break in terms of law enforcement penalties. The new measure means that anyone caught in the city with small amounts of marijuana could end up with a relatively insignificant citation, something akin to a traffic ticket.

The Board of Aldermen voted overwhelmingly in favor of the measure, 22-3, which would give police officers the option to move some marijuana possession cases into the municipal court system, thus taking them out of the normal criminal process. This means that rather than being handcuffed and thrown in the back of a cop car, violators would be issued a summons to appear in municipal court, just like with a traffic violation.

The bill's sponsor says that the goal is to free up police and prosecutors to focus more attention on serious crimes. Too much time and money was being spent arresting and prosecuting people for possessing very small amounts of marijuana. The St. Louis Circuit Attorney's Office has supported the measure, but has also made clear that there will be no change in the stiff punishments handed down for those caught with larger amounts of marijuana.

Currently state law (Missouri Revised Statutes Section 195.202) says that a first-time offender who is found to possess a small amount of marijuana, between a gram and 35 grams, will be charged with a misdemeanor punishable with a fine up to $1,000 and up to a year in jail. Under the new measure, the penalty for the violation of a city ordinance would be between $100 and $500.

One issue with the new ordinance is that no specific measurements are included in the language defining what qualifies as a "small amount" of marijuana. Right now this leaves a substantial amount of discretion in the police officer's hands about who will benefit from the new reduction in penalties and who won't. A spokesperson from the police department has said that they expect the department to come up with a written policy on such matters to provide further clarity.

The mayor must still sign the law before it goes into effect, something he has said he intends to do. Assuming the mayor's signature is forthcoming, the new ordinance will officially go into effect on June 1, 2013.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Pot Possession Could Become a Less-Serious Offense in St. Louis," by Kim Hudson, published at KPLR11.com.

The Impact Of Heartburn On Drunk Driving Cases

Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:07:23 -0500

A recent case in Canada brought a lot of attention to a subject many drivers may not be aware of: heartburn and acid reflux can, in some cases, lead to dramatically inaccurate BAC readings. Though it might sound like some legal sleight of hand, the fact is acid reflux can result in demonstrated inaccuracies in alcohol breath tests.

The case that brought the issue to light happened in Ontario when a man was pulled over and found to have a BAC of 0.15 percent, this despite experts testifying that given his weight and the amount of alcohol he consumed that evening, his BAC should only have been 0.66 percent. A trial was held and expert witnesses were called, culminating in a judge deciding to dismiss the charges against the man, convinced that unabsorbed alcohol could have been pushed back into the man's stomach due to his severe acid reflux which led to artificially high BAC readings.

You may be wondering, is this really true? Can acid reflux really lead to inaccurate BAC readings? Absolutely. Innocent people unfortunately have been arrested and wrongly prosecuted for driving under the influence all because they suffer from problems regarding stomach acid.

The way this works is that conditions such as GERD, acid reflux and heartburn cause undigested or partially digested stomach acids to regurgitate from your stomach into your mouth and throat. While this is uncomfortable for the person suffering from the condition, the legal significance of the health condition is that it can force undigested alcohol or alcohol vapors into a person's mouth, thus leading to drastically higher alcohol readings than are actually the case.

In cases where a patient is suffering from acid reflux, the machines malfunction because, rather than testing the alcohol content of air in a person's deep lungs, which does produce an accurate reading, the machine incorrectly reads a much higher level of alcohol due to the presence of the stomach acid and alcohol vapors in the person's mouth.

These sorts of problems are serious concerns for people with severe conditions, but can also impact even those with relatively minor stomach acid disorders. Even someone with rare heartburn episodes could be in trouble if they've consumed an especially large, greasy or spicy meal along with some alcohol. If a breath test is conducted soon after, before the alcohol has had a chance to become fully digested, then inaccurate readings are possible. Some research has shown that in cases of acid reflux sufferers, a BAC reading can end up being four times higher than the actual number.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Ontario man uses acid-reflux defense to beat drunk driving charge," by www.nationalpost.com

Field Sobriety Tests Get Increased Attention

Wed, 29 May 2013 16:03:33 -0500

A recent case out of Tennessee has created some buzz in the criminal defense world given the spotlight it places on the proper weight of field sobriety tests. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently decided to hear the case, Tennessee v. David Bell, and will issue an opinion regarding how much importance field sobriety tests should have in drunk driving investigations.

The case originated in 2009 when Mr. Bell was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. An officer spotted Bell driving in the wrong lane, something that Bell says happened because of a road detour which caused him to miss his turn and try to turn back the other direction. The officer pulled Mr. Bell over and proceeded to administer a standard battery of six field sobriety tests. To the officer's surprise Bell passed each one with flying colors.

Despite Bell's success at the field sobriety tests, the officer remained suspicious and arrested the man, taking him back to the police station where he underwent a blood test, which showed he had a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent. The question that Bell has raised is whether the officer had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest after his stellar performance on the sobriety tests.

The lower court judge who initially heard the matter decided to throw out the case against Bell saying that the BAC reading was illegally obtained and therefore had to be excluded from evidence. Prosecutors appealed the matter up the rung to the state Court of Criminal Appeals. The Appeals Court backed up the lower court judge, saying that the government was trying to have its cake and it eat too. The Court held that the government could not administer field sobriety tests and then disregard the results when they indicate sobriety.

Bell has argued from the start of the case that the officer was correct to pull him over and launch an initial investigation. The problem occurred when the officer continued investigating despite what appeared to be definitive results from the field sobriety tests. Bell's attorney says the government should not be permitted to insist, on the one hand, that field sobriety tests are reliable indicators of intoxication, and on the other hand, ignore the results when they indicate sobriety.

The questions raised in the case are interesting ones and will hopefully spark a thoughtful discussion of similar issues in states across the country and here in Missouri. If field sobriety tests are so reliable, then why should officers be able to toss the results aside when they want to continue digging until they can definitively show intoxication?

Source: "TN Supreme Court agrees to hear field sobriety case," published at WSMV.com.

Confusing Missouri v. McNeely Opinion Released By U.S. Supreme Court

Mon, 27 May 2013 15:58:05 -0500

The Supreme Court released its opinion in Missouri v. McNeely yesterday, a closely watched case not only here in Missouri but across the country. The reason the case was able to generate so much attention is that its result could lead to important changes in how police officers conduct blood tests following an arrest on suspicion of drunk driving. Sadly, rather than definitively insist that a warrant be obtained before a blood test can happen, the Supreme Court only vaguely hinted at the idea, saying that the answer would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The Court's opinion came in four parts, one majority opinion, two concurring opinions and one dissent. The only big takeaway was in what the justices were not willing to say. No one was willing to go so far as insisting that a warrant had to be obtained in every case before a blood draw would be allowed. Instead, the majority chose the much more flexible, and confusing, route of saying each case would be judged on its particular facts. The problem with this approach is that officers across Missouri and the country are now unsure of whether a warrant really is necessary when a blood test is about to happen.

Justice Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion and concluded that the worry advanced by the State of Missouri about rapidly dissipating alcohol was usually groundless. Sotomayor said that alcohol rarely dissipates so quickly that the time needed to secure a warrant would result in wildly different results. Justice Sotomayor said that police officers should endeavor to get a warrant in each case that a blood test needs to be done and that only in emergency situations should a deviation from this rule be permitted.

Applying this to the facts of the case at hand, the Court decided to throw out the results of Tyler McNeely's blood test after the arresting officer failed to procure a warrant before taking McNeely's blood. Justice Sotomayor wrote that there was more than enough time for the officer to have obtained a warrant and that the very small delay would not have made it more difficult for prosecutors to launch a case against the man.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Roberts harshly criticized the majority for drafting a vague and confusing opinion that officers would have a very hard time deciphering. Strangely, Justice Roberts proceeded to concoct his own vague plan for how police officers should handle such situations. Roberts said that if there is sufficient time for an officer to get a warrant, then a warrant should be obtained. If an officer concludes there is not enough time to get a warrant, then a warrantless test can proceed. Far from clarifying the matter, Roberts' approach begged as many questions as it answered.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

St. Louis Police Bust Major Auto Theft Ring

Fri, 24 May 2013 15:50:35 -0500

Police in St. Louis recently announced a huge bust that led to the arrest of 16 different people who were involved in a massive car theft ring. Police say that including others arrested in neighboring states, 21 men and women have been charged with their involvement in operating a chop shop to procure and then dismantle stolen vehicles.

Between the 21 people arrested, most of whom were in St. Louis, prosecutors handed down a total of 84 criminal charges including conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud and receipt of a stolen motor vehicle. The charges include fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to 30 years.

According to Missouri Revised Statutes 570.080, a person commits the crime of receiving stolen property if he or she receives or disposes of the property of another person knowing or believing that it has been stolen. The law says that receiving a stolen motor vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft qualifies as a Class C felony, which means that those convicted of the crime face a possible prison term of seven years.

Prosecutors say the scheme involved creating fake vehicle titles based on a Native American reservation and then stealing upwards of 120 different cars, mostly high-end vehicles, starting in 2008. Rather than simply jimmying open doors, the vehicle theft ring used more sophisticated financial tricks to steal the vehicles. The indictment says that the group used "straw buyers" to purchase dozens of new by getting them cars using that were obtained by inflating or down right lying about income and assets. These fake buyers then received money for handing the cars over to the others, knowing full well they would never repay the loans.

Not content to just steal the vehicles and defraud the creditors, prosecutors say several in the group also engaged in widespread insurance fraud, involving themselves in fictitious accidents and creating fake towing and repair bills for their insurance companies to reimburse. Some even complained of fake medical problems to collect more money.

The bust followed an 18-month investigation led by the FBI, Missouri Highway patrol, Missouri Department of Revenue and police from departments across the St. Louis area. Officials say the case represents the largest car theft ring ever to be prosecuted in the region.

Source: "Feds charge 21 in St. Louis-based car theft ring," by Robert Patrick, published at STLToday.com.

Missouri Legislature Moves To Alter State's Criminal Laws

Wed, 22 May 2013 15:43:19 -0500

Legislators in Missouri this week saw the passage of the state's long awaited overhaul of the criminal code. House Bill 210 passed overwhelmingly in the state house, and paves the way for the creation of new felonies and misdemeanors and attempts to modernize criminal law to make it more understandable to the public at large.

The new legislation would avoid the current problem of having very different types of crimes punishable with the same amount of jail time. For instance, one of the bill's sponsors pointed out that involuntary manslaughter and forgery are currently punished the same way under Missouri's current criminal code, the same punishment for two very different types of crime. If HB 210 passes that will change and involuntary manslaughter will be elevated to a new level of felony that is punishable with up to 10 years in prison while forgery will only be punished by up to seven years behind bars.

While the potential criminal law updates appear to be good news and long overdue, the legislature has also taken up another bill, House Bill 799, which would create yet another law and invent an entirely new crime for Missourians to contend with. The bill proposed by House member Kathie Conway, would create a new crime of instances where clergymen or women had a sexual relationship with someone they were counseling.

While laws already exist to punish adults in positions of authority over children (including clergy), no such clergy-specific laws exist to protect other adults. The sponsor of the bill says that the aim of the bill is to ensure that the clergy never violate their positions of trust or authority and use that influence to engage in a sexual relationship with anyone under their care.

The bill specifically creates the new crime of "sexual exploitation by a clergyperson" and says that if a member of the clergy engages in sexual conduct with another person who is not that clergyperson's spouse within 120 days of that clergyperson meeting with and providing religious, spiritual, marital or relationship advice or counseling, then a crime has occurred. According to HB 799, the clergyperson will then be found to have committed a Class C felony. A person convicted of "sexual exploitation by a clergyperson" faces up to seven years in prison.

Source: "Missouri House considers clergy sex law," published at KansasCity.com.

States Increasingly Concerned About Repeat Drunk Drivers

Sun, 19 May 2013 15:32:40 -0500

There has been an increasing emphasis placed on getting repeat drunk drivers off of Missouri roadways as more and more stories get attention across the country of drivers who had been previously arrested who then go on to hurt or kill others in second or third drunk driving incidents. Just last week a man in Chicago was sentenced to 13 years in prison after he was convicted with his 10th incident of drunk driving. The judge threw the book at the man, saying he hoped such a harsh punishment deterred other drivers.

Also last week, the Wisconsin and North Dakota legislatures passed new lays designed to strengthen their existing drunk driving regulations, specifically with regards to repeat offenders. The Wisconsin proposal calls for the strict imposition of increased jail time for each successive DUI conviction, finally maxing out with someone's 10th conviction, which would require judges to issue a four-year prison sentence.

Similar concerns have been raised in Missouri about the harm caused by repeat drunk drivers. The Missouri Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has said it is unacceptable that each year, a third of the 35,000 people arrested for DWI in Missouri are repeat offenders. They say laws in the state should be strengthened to ensure known dangers are kept off the state's roadways.

Already, Missouri has fairly stiff repeat drunk driving penalties, in fact, much more stringer then the new ones being proposed in Wisconsin. Drivers in the state who are convicted of a second drunk driving offense within five years of their first conviction can be sent to jail for a year and fined up to $1,000. Penalties increase with each subsequent conviction. Motorists in Missouri with a third drunk driving conviction face a possible four years behind bars and a $5,000 fine. Also, a ten year denial of license await those with three or more DWIs.

A fourth DWI conviction is deemed a felony in Missouri and those found guilty are known as aggravated offenders. Drivers with four DWIs face a possible seven years in prison and/or $5000.00 in fines. Finally, any driver with five or more drunk driving convictions on his or her record could wind up behind bars for 15 years, far longer than the proposed four years being considered by Wisconsin legislators. For a full list of punishments see Missouri Revised Statute 577.023

Source: "Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)," published at DOR.MO.gov.

Morning Drunk Drivers Increasing Target Of Police Enforcement

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:28:10 -0500

Everyone knows that prime time for police to make arrests regarding drunk drivers are nights and weekends. It would come as no surprise to most people to hear that late night on a Friday would understandably be a busy time for suspected drunk driving arrests. What many people may not realize is that police have become increasingly concerned about daytime drunk drivers and the danger they pose to the unsuspecting public.

There are have been several articles in newspapers across the country recently about a push by officers to alert the public to the danger presented by impaired drivers during daylight. One article appeared in Washington State where officers say they have noticed a trend of more and more intoxicated drivers moving around during daylight. According to statistics released by the Washington State Highway Patrol, troopers made 2,800 DUI arrests between 6 in the morning and 6 at night in 2012. So far this year the department says it is on track to hit or exceed the numbers from last year, with 654 arrests between January and March that all occurred during the day.

The increasing tendency for drunk driving arrests to occur during daylight means that in Washington State one out of every eight DUI stops is now made during the day. This has officers worried and eager to crack down because daytime drunk driving can be especially dangerous due to the increased crowds out and about during working hours. At night the roads are much less crowded and there are thus fewer opportunities for impaired drivers to be involved in accidents.

Officers in Washington have said they are beginning aggressive emphasis patrols to try and reduce high daytime drunk driving numbers, much like the patrols that sometimes happen around busy holidays. Experts agree that daytime drunk drivers come from one of two groups: chronic alcoholics who rarely if ever stop drinking, and most often, those who had too much to drink the night before and don't realize that they are still impaired.

Officers that are looking for daytime drunk drivers often have to employ different strategies than are used at night. In the evening, cops just watch for weaving and other erratic driving behavior. During the day these same actions do not create the same kind of alarm given that few people expect others to be drunk so early. Instead, officers that seek out to catch drunk drivers make sure to focus their morning shifts on busy restaurant and bar districts. Officers watch to see if anyone has fallen asleep in their vehicles and also check to see if people are arriving back at the bars to pick up cars they left the night before. While this may seem like the responsible thing to do, cops say its often the case that drivers underestimate how long it takes to sober up and that the motorists are still intoxicated in the morning when they arrive to take their car home.

Police departments across the country have said they need the public's help to combat daytime drunk drivers. Because most people don't associate erratic daytime driving with drunkenness, few people would ever think to call 911 when they see someone drifting out of their lane during daytime hours. Police say they hope to change that perception given that nearly 30% of all DUI arrests result from calls from the public.

Source: "Wash. State Patrol: One of every eight DUI stops is made during daytime," by Lee Stoll, published at KIROTV.com.

Missouri Penalty for Driving on a Suspended or Revoked License

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:04:36 -0500

Driving on a suspended or revoked license in Missouri is no small matter and can lead to big fines, huge increases in insurance premium payments, increased suspension or revocation times, and in certain cases, even jail time.

First things first, a person's driver's license could be suspended or revoked for a wide array of reasons. Things like failure to pay child support, DWI conviction or failure to appear for a court hearing are all reasons why a driver in Missouri could have their license suspended or revoked. The Missouri Department of Revenue is also able to suspend a person's driver's license, sometimes for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, though often the suspension is due to the accumulation of too many points on his or her driving record.

The rules in Missouri say that if a driver accumulates eight points on his or her license within 18 months then that driver's license will be suspended for a period of 30 days. If a driver accumulates 12 points over 12 months, 18 points in 24 months or 24 points in 36 months, your license will be revoked for a period of one year. This is why it is important to contact an attorney anytime that you receive a moving violation. Typically if you hire an attorney they will be able to fix the ticket and get it amended to a no point violation.

In Missouri, if you are convicted of driving on a suspended or revoked license, the offense can qualify as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances of your case. Those drivers who have their first offense for driving on a suspended or revoked license face Class A misdemeanor charges. According to Section 302.321 of Missouri Revised Statutes, a conviction for a Class A misdemeanor for a first conviction will result in a fine of up to $300.00 dollars. Those with a second or third similar violation can expect a possible year in jail as well as a fine of up to $1,000.

Missouri statutes go on to say that those drivers with four or more prior convictions for driving on suspended or revoked licenses or with previous drunk driving convictions will face Class D felony charges. A Class D felony conviction can result in a jail term of up to four years, serious time for what many do not consider to be a serious crime.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Drunk Driver Given Millions After Hellish 22-Month Incarceration

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:37:00 -0500

A man from New Mexico who was forced to spend nearly two years behind bars, much of which was in solitary confinement, was recently awarded $15.5 million in arbitration from the county responsible for his horrific mistreatment.

The case, which took place in Dona Ana County, NM, revealed just how horrible things can go awry when someone slips between the cracks of the criminal justice system. The man, Stephen Slevin, was arrested back in 2005 after being pulled over by an officer who suspected he was driving drunk. Slevin was then taken to Dona Ana County jail and booked. Soon after, Slevin was placed in solitary confinement because prison administrators believed he was mentally unstable and may pose a danger to himself and others. The solitary confinement went on for 22 months, including several stretches where Slevin was not allowed to leave his cell for months at a time.

The man's time in prison was a nightmare, something that is unimaginable given he was only arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, hardly a crime worthy of such ghastly treatment. During his time in solitary confinement his health was so neglected that he developed bedsores, had fungus growing on his skin, had toenails that curled under his feet and suffered from a bad tooth infection which caused him to have to pull his own tooth without anesthesia. While all this was going on Slevin wrote several letters to prison administrators begging them to release him or to at least give him help for his severe depression. Sadly, no help came and Slevin wasted away, losing 50 pounds over the time he spent behind bars.

Even more amazing than his horrific treatment is that Slevin was never brought before a judge or convicted of having done anything wrong. His prison stay took place only after an arrest, nothing more. It was only after his release in 2007 that he sought an attorney who pursued Dona Ana County for the money it owed Slevin for such disturbing care.

Slevin was initially awarded $22 million from a jury, but later agreed to the reduced amount to end the already lengthy litigation with his former captors. Dona Ana County had tried to highlight Slevin's previous criminal record, including other DUI convictions, to deflect attention away from its actions. The fact is that no prior criminal behavior justifies the way Slevin was treated. Thankfully, the case serves as a message to other law enforcement agencies across the country and here in Missouri to avoid trampling on a suspect's rights. Though Slevin will never get those two years of his life back, we can hope that the millions he was awarded will send a strong enough message so that no one else arrested on suspicion of drunk driving has to endure such horrible treatment again.

Source: "Man left in solitary confinement in New Mexico jail for 22 MONTHS after horrific treatment awarded $15.5M," by Erik Ortiz, published at NYDailyNews.com.

Supreme Court To Decide On Issue Of DNA Sampling At Time Of Arrest

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:37:26 -0500

A recent article in the New York Times discussed a crucially important case before the Supreme Court and how the ruling could impact how police officers and judges carry out their jobs across the country and here in Missouri. The issue is essential to the criminal justice process and was even described by one of the Justices as "the most important criminal procedure case" heard in decades.

The case is about a Maryland man, Alonzo Jay King, who was arrested for assault in 2009. A sample of the man's DNA was taken by police officers when he was arrested but before King was ever convicted of anything. The sample was run in a state database and eventually matched to a rape that happened several years earlier. King was charged with that rape and eventually convicted. The case was appealed and the Maryland Court of Appeals found that the decision to take DNA from a suspect who had been arrested, but not yet convicted of doing anything, violated the Constitution.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case late last month and several pointed out that while the practice of taking DNA samples from recently arrested suspects might help law enforcement, that does not mean that it will past Constitutional muster. Justice Ginsburg agreed during oral argument that taking DNA from a person prior to a conviction might run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, which says that police must secure a warrant before they can conduct a search.

The issue before the court was not about DNA collection in general, instead it was only about whether law enforcement agencies had the right to collect DNA from suspects who had not yet been convicted of a crime. Though the Maryland law at issue in the King case limits collection to only those arrested for "serious" crimes, Justice Roberts aptly pointed out that nothing stopped the legislature from abolishing that caveat and extending the DNA collection practice to all crimes, potentially even traffic violations. Questions were also raised on the other side of the argument about how much privacy suspects could claim they were entitled too when DNA is so easily accessed, even taking a sip of water can provide a wealth of information.

The justices spent most of their time discussing whether DNA is simply a high tech version of fingerprinting suspects, something that is done prior to a criminal conviction all the time. However, opponents of the law argued that fingerprinting is different because fingerprints are only used to identify suspects while DNA is being used to help solve closed cases.

The case is important not only for what happens in Maryland, but because here in Missouri we have a similar law on the books. Specifically, Section 650.055 of the Missouri Revised Statutes says DNA samples are to be collected at the time of arrest for those arrested for committing burglary or other serious felonies. The DNA sampling takes place at the time of an arrest rather than after a plea deal has been reached or a trial has been concluded. The DNA collection is to be taken during "booking" by local law enforcement officials. Under Missouri's previous law, the DNA sample was only collected after a conviction was secured. This ensured that a case had made its way through the criminal justice system before a suspect had their DNA taken and analyzed.

Criminal defense attorneys who worry about similar DNA practice spreading to other states are watching the case closely. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in June.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Justices Wrestle Over Allowing DNA Sampling at Time of Arrest," by Adam Liptak, published at NYTimes.com.

Missouri Legislature Considers Good Samarian Drug Law

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:25:44 -0500

A new push is underway in Missouri to pass a Good Samaritan law that would allow drug users to seek medical treatment for themselves and others without the fear of criminal prosecution. The push was started by a group of people who all suffered the pain of lost loved ones after others were too afraid to call police or drive them to the hospital. In one especially sad case, a 23-year-old died at a hotel in north St. Louis County because the other two people he was doing heroin with said they were too afraid of being arrested to take him to the hospital.

These deaths have led some groups to push the legislature for a change to the way such drug crimes are handled, including a law that would grant immunity from minor drug possession charges to those who suffer overdoes and people who seek medical help for them.

If Missouri were to take such a step by passing a Good Samaritan law, it would not be alone. Right now 10 states, including neighboring Illinois, have similar Good Samaritan laws. Though the idea seems effective, protecting lives as opposed to pushing criminal penalties, not everyone is in favor of such a measure. For one thing, prosecutors from St. Louis County have come out against the measure, saying that the people who are abusing drugs and alcohol are generally not the most responsible in the first place and that such a law would do little to save lives.

The Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy has compiled data on the value of Good Samaritan laws. The group found that prior to Illinois passing its Good Samaritan laws, research showed that the biggest fear by many about calling 911 was that police would become involved. That fear led to a phenomenon known as "body dumping," where victims of drug abuse would be simply dropped on the doorstep of a hospital, or worse yet, left in alleys out of fear of seeking medical treatment.

Research indicates that when told about the immunity clause contained in Good Samaritan laws, 88 percent of drug users said they would choose to call 911 in the event of a drug overdose.

The group said that Good Samaritan laws are not "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards, and only work to provide immunity for drug possession charges. Most laws are clear that immunity only applies to those who call 911 and those who are experiencing the overdose. The laws have not been used to shield drug dealers from criminal prosecution.

The proposal currently making its way through the Missouri Legislature, House Bill 296, is based on the one passed in 2009 in Illinois. The sponsor of the bill is Republican Representative Bryan Spencer. Surprising to many is that the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police has said it is neutral on the issue. The Chief of Police in St. Louis County has come out strongly in favor of it, saying that he values saving lives more than chasing after minor drug convictions.

Source: "Proposed Missouri law aimed at saving lives after drug overdoses," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.

St. Louis Judge Throws Out Speeding Camera Ticket

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:14:51 -0500

In an important ruling that could possibly spell the end for Missouri speeding cameras, a judge in St. Louis County ruled that the speed camera tickets issued by Moline Acres conflict with state law. The judge's ruling could be important because it could sway other judges who are presented with the question of ruling on the validity of a speed camera ticket.

Experts believe the case, involving a speeding ticket for local radio host Charlie Brennan, may be the first of its kind. Brennan was ticketed for going 56 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone while driving along Highway 367. Brennan's attorney appealed the ticket, arguing that Moline Acres lacked the necessary authority to dispense such tickets for an offense that has already been prohibited by state law.

While other challenges have been brought regarding red light camera tickets, this may be the first to challenge the speeding cameras. Some think the ruling indicates that speed cameras could be on shaky legal ground and might become significantly easier to challenge in the future.

St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Mary Bruntrager Schroeder sided with Brennan and his attorney in the dispute, writing that speed cameras are different than red light cameras which have been allowed under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include only those cases where red light cameras issue tickets that are treated as civil offenses, not criminal acts. For instance, a city that cites a vehicle for driving through a red light, not the driver, avoids making the offense a moving violation, which is already governed by state law.

Judge Schroeder pointed out the flaw in trying to have speed cameras follow the same path: by virtue of the act itself, speeding citations involve moving violations. Judge Schroeder wrote that, "It would seem impossible and a violation of the laws of physics to have speed without motion."

The decision is an important one because at least 13 cities in St. Louis County currently use speed cameras. Though the ruling does not have enough force to automatically invalidate that usage, it does leave many wondering what kind of justification those municipalities will come up with to avoid having their speed camera tickets thrown out of court in the future.

Source: "St. Louis County Judge Throws Out Speeding Camera Ticket," by Allison Blood, published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

Missouri Number One In The Country (For Meth)

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:03:03 -0500

In a recent bit of news unlikely to be trumpeted by the state's tourism office, Missouri earned the sad distinction of being home to the most meth labs of any state in the country in 2012. The statistics are compiled each year by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency which monitors the number of meth incidents that occur across the country. Sadly, this isn't the first time Missouri has come in at number one.

The figures from 2012 reveal another big year for meth manufacturing in Missouri. The data shows that when broken down by county, Jefferson County, MO actually has the second greatest number of meth labs out of all the counties in the United States. Missouri as a whole was found to have 1,825 meth labs in 2012. That's actually down from the record breaking 2,075 meth labs discovered in 2011, but hardly a sign of tremendous law enforcement success.

According to data on a county-by-county basis, Jefferson County came in second with 472 meth lab busts in 2012. Not far behind was St. Charles County, MO, which saw 311 meth incidents in 2012, enough to place fifth in the country. St. Francois, Jasper, Greene, Jackson, Franklin and St. Louis counties each had more than 100 incidents apiece. Though these numbers are enormous, Tulsa, Oklahoma was the clear leader, with a total of 979 separate meth incidents last year.

In Missouri it is illegal to possess, sell, make or attempt to make meth, though the law says that it is more serious to sell meth near a school or within a motel or vehicle. Chapter 195 of Missouri Revised Statutes deals with drug regulations and it says that possession of methamphetamine is classified as a Class C Felony, carrying up to 7 years in prison and fines reaching $5,000.

Beyond making and possessing actual methamphetamine, Missouri law also limits the amount of meth precursor chemicals (such as pseudoephedrine) a person is allowed to possess. Missouri law says that individuals are permitted to buy up to 9 grams of pseudoephedrine every 30 days. That equals roughly two 15-dose boxes of Claritin D. It is illegal in Missouri to possess any methamphetamine precursor substance with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Having only 24 grams of pseudoephedrine in your house can be enough to violate state law.

A Missouri methamphetamine possession charge has the potential to seriously damage your life. It doesn't matter if this is your first time using the drug or if you have a history of problems, either way, you could face severe legal penalties. Our Firm has extensive experience handling methamphetamine cases in Missouri state courts and in the Federal District Court of Eastern District of Missouri.

Source: "Missouri Leads the Nation in Meth Labs (Again), Jefferson County Second Highest In Country," by Jessica Lussenhop, published at RiverFrontTimes.com.

St. Louis Police Department Target of ACLU Investigation Surrounding Civilian Police Use Of Military Technology

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:54:25 -0500

The ACLU has announced that it is launching an investigation across the country regarding the use of sensitive military technologies by civilian police forces. The civil rights group says that it has reason to believe that sophisticated technology has been purchased by police departments across the country, even right here in Missouri. The group wants to know exactly what this technology is and how the police agencies intend to use it.

The ACLU branch of Eastern Missouri recently released a statements saying that it had grave concerns about the degree of weaponization seen in civilian police departments. The group mentioned a recent tragic incident where a SWAT team in Michigan were attempting to gain entry to a house and used flash-bang grenades as they were storming the front door. In the chaos of the invasion, a little girl who was asleep on a couch in the living room was killed.

The ACLU says that it wants local police departments, including those from St. Louis City and St. Louis County, to reveal public records about recent weapons purchases along with an explanation of operating procedures for how those sophisticated weapons will be used. The ACLU has also said it wants to see public records that will reveal the equipment that has been given to the Missouri National Guard.

Civil rights groups have pointed out that in only the last two years more than a half-billion in surplus military equipment was given to local police departments by the federal government. The groups want to ensure that the lines between the police and the military do not start to blur. A lack of a meaningful difference between the military and civilian police forces worries groups like the ACLU which say that the trend will lead to a general erosion in civil liberties.

The Missouri ACLU has said that its goal in filing these public records requests is to make sure that scary military technology and tactics are not being deployed without substantial oversight. The ACLU has previously voiced its concerns about a lack of public input into the purchase and use of such military technologies. There are also bigger worries about how the incredibly powerful equipment will be used and who will oversee its use to ensure civil liberties are not trampled on.

Source: "ACLU Has Concerns Over Military Weapons Used By Local Police," published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.