Constitutional Right to Effective Representation in Trouble

The Constitution is the bedrock of our Republic. Not only did it formulate a form of government meant to distribute powers among the branches, it also established personal liberties and rights. Among those rights, includes the right to an attorney. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments should be respected.

Unfortunately, throughout our country, lack of public funding has led to a crisis in adequate criminal representation. The New York Times recently reported that Louisiana defendants are without counsel. In some situations, the accused remain in jail without a trial date. Some in the criminal defense bar are being compelled, without pay, to represent indigent defendants.

Louisiana judges have threatened to release defendants due to the crisis. Despite being outright appalling, Louisiana does not stand alone. States are struggling to find ways to pay for public defenders. As is, public defenders face enormous challenges: having to litigate hundreds of cases without much assistance. Instead of justice being served, often, it is an assembly-line to get cases completed quickly without second thought as to the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Most citizens do not pay attention to this growing problem. Such issues are not important until it becomes a personal issue -- say when a family or friend has been charged with a crime. Our country should care about these constitutional rights.

Even if states are being irresponsible with their budgets, public defense must be paid for. More funds must be allocated to these offices.

Additionally, novel approaches must be considered. Funding cannot rely solely upon traffic ticket revenues. A Texas county announced that it intended to experiment with a voucher program. The county will allow a defendant to choose an attorney of his or her choice, and provide a certain amount of the funds for representation. Other experiments should be done.

We do not expect constitutional principles to be disregarded when it is difficult to find the money. Our elected officials must make it a priority. You, as a citizen or resident, should make your voice heard. Let's protect the constitutional right to an attorney.

New 2016 Law Will Require a Database for Police Stops

In the wake of tragic police stories around the country, California took a step in transparency and accountability. Governor Brown has mandated that law enforcement agencies develop a program by 2018 that would allow them to collect and report data on the people they stop. Data will include perceived race and ethnicity, and the cause for the stop.

Similar to other actions taken, Governor Brown cited the phenomenon of "jail and prison populations [exploding]." He also discussed the byzantine California Penal Code, which "[covers] every conceivable form of human misbehavior." Since his day first day in office, he has been serious about criminal justice reform. He believes that this database will result in more justice and more fiscal savings.

Police are not allowed to stop individuals at whim. There must be probable cause for an investigatory stop. "Driving while black or brown" will not suffice. A reported stop that lacks probable cause will face scrutiny from law enforcement, attorneys, and judges. This is a step in the right direction. Far too often cases will be based off an illegal stop.

A separate 2016 law will require protocol to be established for the handling of body cameras worn by police officers. The law intends to ensure that recordings are not mishandled or damaged. Again, criminal litigation relies heavily on recorded evidence. A video may contradict a witness statement, or result in exculpatory evidence for the defendant.

Like stated in previous blog posts, California has a problem with over-incarceration but steps are being taken to address them. These laws will address issues that begin at the outset of a criminal case: the initial police stop and evidentiary support for an arrest. A person cannot be convicted, most of the time, if an arrest was unconstitutional.

If you, or someone that you care about, is arrested for a crime, it is important to seek the advice of experienced counsel. Laws are ever changing and complex. It is essential to consult with someone who may be familiar with new laws that could impact your case.

Seeking Post-Conviction Relief

A mother leaves her seat in the courtroom and approaches the podium. The judge sits back and waits for her statement. As she is about to begin, tears drop from her eyes. “My son is innocent,” she says. “Please show him mercy.”

When a defendant is convicted and then sentenced, after a sentencing hearing, where family members may give statements, it is not the end of the case. Our judicial system provides a right to an appeal. The statutory right to an appeal also includes a right to appointed counsel, if the defendant cannot afford to retain one.

An appeal is limited to the “record.” The record is everything that happened before and after the trial – preliminary, trial, and sentencing hearings. Everything that is said by the prosecution, defense attorney, defendant, and witnesses are recorded. Materials submitted for evidence is also preserved for the record. Indeed, an individual unrelated to the case should be able to see “everything” that happened with a particular criminal case after it has concluded.

A defendant is referred to as the “appellant,” when he or she appeals. The first document submitted is the appellant’s opening brief. The opening brief is the opportunity for the appellant to make his or her arguments about why the conviction should be overturned.

Since arguments are limited to the record, the appellant cannot submit additional evidence nor have new witnesses testify. Put simply, the appellant can only raise legal issues related to the proceedings. Typically, appellants will argue that certain evidence should have been excluded during the trial. Or appellants may argue that there was a constitutional violation committed during the criminal proceedings – the trial judge made an erroneous ruling.

The opening brief will contain case law, statute, and argument. After it has been submitted, the state will have an opportunity to submit an opposition brief. The opposition brief will contain counter arguments about why the trial was fair, and why the conviction should stand. The appellant will get the last word, however. The appellant may file a reply brief.

If the appeal is denied, the appellant may petition for the California Supreme Court to review the court of appeal decision. Most often, the California Supreme Court will deny review unless the legal issues involve split decisions between the appellate courts, or the legal issue is novel and has not been heard before (which is rare).

An appellant, and his family, need not despair should the appellant lose his or her appeal. There exists post-conviction relief outside of an appeal. For centuries, a petition for writ of habeas corpus has existed. Writ of habeas corpus translates roughly to “why are you holding the body?”

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is a petition that allows a defendant to challenge his or her incarceration. Since it is not a direct appeal, new evidence is allowed. More often than not, new evidence will be submitted at the habeas level, like: DNA evidence, new witness statements or recants, and other exculpatory information. Habeas cases have been covered by the media. When an individual is exonerated because of DNA testing, for example, the proceedings are usually habeas related. A petition gives a chance to the defendant to right any wrongs that may have been done.

The same mother who cried now sits down in a more comfortable setting. Although her son is confined in a prison hundreds of miles away, she has some hope, even if small. An attorney approaches her and extends his hand. “How can we help you today?”

Our office welcomes your inquiries about post-conviction relief. Please remember that this blog contains no guarantees, assurances, or legal advice. If you have any questions, it is best to contact an attorney by phone. After a conviction , the burden shifts to the convicted.

Utilizing a Penal Code section 1538, Motion to Suppress, in a DUI Case

Not all criminal cases go to trial. In fact, more often than not, a criminal case will be disposed of prior to a trial. Plea deals are common because they can be beneficial for both the defendant and the People.

But, there are also circumstances when a case can be dismissed prior to a trial. One common motion that can be brought during the pre-trial stages of a case is a Motion to Suppress. Penal Code section 1538 provides the right of an accused to challenge evidence that may have been obtained illegally. Typically if the evidence is suppressed -- like the blood results of a DUI stop -- the case must be dismissed because the evidence is dispositive to the case.

One example of when a Motion to Suppress could be successful is when an officer stops an accused for a traffic stop that was unlawful. An officer cannot stop an individual without sufficient probable cause, a legal standard provided by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, if an officer reports that he stopped an accused for violating the Vehicle Code, but there was no Vehicle Code violation, the accused may be able to prevail at a P.C. 1538 hearing.

A criminal defense attorney has the responsibility to perform an adequate investigation. Evidence obtained by an attorney could lead to a decision to file a Motion to Suppress. An investigation can include, but is not limited to: requesting discovery from the prosecution, subpoenaing documents, and looking at possible video surveillance. It is now common for officers to have dashboard cameras, and also cameras on their persons. A video could show that a traffic stop was unlawful.

Some of my clients have asked what a motion consists of. A motion is a request for the court to do something. The party "moves" the court to make an order. A motion is started (usually) by an opening brief. The attorney files a memorandum with points and authorities (cases in support of the motion). Then, the prosecution (again, usually) files an opposition brief, highlighting their position against the motion. This allows the court to familiarize itself with the law and facts of the particular case. After the briefing with physical documents, there is an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify. The arresting officer most likely will testify as to the facts of the stop or arrest.

A Motion to Suppress is a constitutional protection. It safeguards citizens from police abuses. There are other type of situations, as well, when a P.C. section 1538 may be appropriate. Law enforcement cannot exercise a warrant based on false information. Police cannot execute a warrant outside the constraints of the warrant. Facts should be scrutinized in every criminal case.

In conclusion, a defendant may not need to persuade a jury. There are pre-trial motions that can be potentially made, which could lead to a complete dismissal. It is important to contact an attorney should you be charged with a crime. We welcome your calls and questions. 

I Was Arrested for a DUI; Now What?

A California DUI carries some harsh penalties. Due to the nature of this offense -- it is a clear public safety concern, our state has elected to take a tough stance. But just like any other criminal charge, there are steps that an accused can take that will help him or her in the future.

THE DUI ARREST

When there is sufficient probable cause, law enforcement may investigate and arrest an individual for a DUI. While defense attorneys can later challenge probable cause, it is wise to be respectful when stopped for suspicion of a DUI.

You should be polite and cooperative with law enforcement. It does not mean that you should waive your rights, but it will not help to be combative during the stop. Cursing, yelling, and being rude will not make the officer go away. In fact, it will be mentioned in the police report.

However, you should not volunteer information. Exercise your right to remain silent. Miranda is the landmark case, which protects statements from being admitted into evidence if there has not been an affirmative warning, but Miranda warnings only have to be given after a formal arrest. Thus, law enforcement will always utilize your statements to assess guilt before a warning. Slurred words, admissions of guilt, and memory lapses can lead to problems down the road.

AFTER THE ARREST

If you have been arrested, you should exercise your right to an attorney. There is a reason that there is law school and a bar examination. Further, there is a reason why attorneys charged with a crime will almost always retain another attorney. It is difficult for someone, under an emotional state, to represent themselves.

More than that, retaining an attorney will mean that a professional can immediately begin to protect your rights. Experience and knowledge can go a long way in fighting a DUI charge.

Schedule your DMV suspension hearing, or have your attorney do it immediately. There are two aspects to a DUI, as discussed on my website. There is the actual criminal charge handled by the superior court, and the DMV aspect of the case. They are distinct and separate, although the court can impact what the DMV will do.

Within 10 days of the arrest, a hearing needs to be scheduled. A DMV suspension hearing is a great opportunity to explore probable cause, the officer's testimony, and other evidence that will be used against you. Do not sleep on your privileges with respect to licensing issues.

AFTER YOUR "OR" RELEASE

 Finally, after you have been arrested and released under your own recognizance, exercise your right to information. The web has become a treasure trove of free legal content, including my blog and website. You should become familiar with the criminal, and DMV, process. Further, you should research potential DUI attorneys. An accused should be aware of the charge against him or her, and the consequences of that charge.

Our office invites your questions. We have experience in DUI, and other criminal cases. Remember that time is of the essence, so do not procrastinate if you or a loved one has been charged with a DUI.


 

A Jury of Your Peers

On April 25, the California Assembly passed AB 1401 which would allow lawfully present immigrants to serve on state juries. As of this writing, the bill is making its way through the state Senate. While the bill’s ultimate fate is unknown, its mere introduction earlier in April caused a ruckus in the news media and its passage in the Assembly has sparked a firestorm of public opinion. Despite clear language to the contrary, some sources are going so far as to announce that the bill will allow “illegal immigrants to serve on juries”. Just to be clear, it won’t; but scroll through the comments on any of the articles covering AB 1401 and it quickly becomes clear that the bill has ignited a raging controversy over civil rights, immigration issues, and the nature of citizenship itself.

Instead of discussing or arguing about immigration policies, I have decided to provide defendants and their families with relevant information about what the bill’s passage might mean in practice. After some research into the history of the Jury Right, here is what I found.

The right to a trial…

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution opens with the line “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution says nothing explicit about a “jury of peers”. This latter construction comes not from the document itself, but from later interpretation and public colloquy. However, despite the lack of an express constitutional mandate that defendants be judged by their peers, the sanctity and power of an impartial jury remains one of only a handful of subjects about which the Supreme Court has ever ruled in unanimity. Which begs the question, how is an impartial jury composed and where does everyone get the idea that criminal guilt will be determined by a group of the defendant’s peers?

by a jury…

The notion of using juries to judge criminal guilt was well established in legal practice long before the Constitution was drafted. In fact, the practice traces its roots all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta in the 13^th Century. Early iterations of the practice were designed more for the benefit of the British royalty than common criminals. However, by the 18^th century Thomas Blackstone was able to pen his famous exposition on the twofold virtue of the jury right as a protection against overreaching by the monarchy. Enshrined in every one of the original 13 State Constitutions, and in all States since added to the Union, this right has always been the core feature of American criminal jurisprudence.

The right to a jury trial reflects a fundamental decision not to entrust the life or liberty of any person wholly to the government. Even an impartial judiciary, it is thought, might at times be swayed by outside considerations making the jury trial a bulwark against many possible miscarriages of justice. In fact, so critical is this right to our criminal system, that without it, we could have no enduring faith in even a single criminal conviction.

Juries work so well because of the high degree of inviolability afforded them under our legal structure. So sacred are the judgments made by juries, that the Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that juries even have the power to find a defendant not guilty against the great weight of the evidence. The entire body of facts in a criminal case is determined by the jury, and no fact decided in a defendant’s favor by a jury is subject to later review.

of peers?

But who makes up the jury pool remains an open question. In years past women, minorities, atheists, and non-landholders were deemed unqualified to sit on juries. Each of these restrictions has since been struck down. However, despite these many gradual improvements, disparities between jury venires and defendants are still rampant. Jury lists, often drawn from voter registration and DMV rolls, represent a largely middle-class group with frequent racial and ideological tilt. Are such juries truly “impartial” as required by the Constitution?

AB 1401

The California Assembly does not think so and AB 1401 represents their attempt to remedy one aspect of the issue. Whether the bill, if passed, will help rather than hurt our justice system remains to be determined.

I remain optimistic that our jury right will ultimately grow stronger as a result of this broadened juror pool. Bear in mind, judges and attorneys do not have to be citizens, perhaps jurors should not either. However, time will be the ultimate judge.

California Prison Reform

Governor Brown challenges California prison reform

For decades, California’s prison system has been out of compliance with basic human rights requirements. Over the last 10 years, the system has been operating near 200% of its design capacity. This severe overcrowding has led to a litany of abuses from grossly inadequate healthcare, to the virulent spread of infectious disease, to a stunningly high suicide rate among inmates. Long under Federal receivership, California’s inmate mental health system is an abject failure. Combined with the rampant use of constitutionally questionable variations on solitary confinement, these failures have played a significant role in California’s inmate suicide rate. With an average of 24 suicides per 100,000 prisoners, the State sits well ahead of the national average of 16 suicides per 100,000 prisoners.

Solitary confinement

Amnesty international released a report in September of 2012 describing California’s practice of caging inmates in solitary housing units (SHUs) as a blatant violation of both the 8^th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and international laws on the treatment of humanity. Mental health experts warn that SHUs should be an option only of last resort because even a few days under such conditions cause severe trauma. In 2011, California was host to over 500 inmates housed in solitary confinement for over 10 years; some of them only children when first incarcerated others with significant and well known mental health problems.

Slow legal response

In response to these, and many other issues, a number of human rights organizations filed suit on behalf of prisoners seeking federal intervention. In 2011, after a tortuous legal battle spanning many years, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision requiring California to reduce its prison population to 137% of capacity by June 2013. This ruling lead to the current realignment crisis under which the state has been shifting prisoners from state facilities to county jails and borrowing from county funds to cover state prison costs. Political backlash last year stalled this effort and put pressure on Governor Brown to challenge the court order. In March, a Federal judge denied the Governor’s petition to have the prison order terminated; leading Brown to publicly state that he would again take the case all the way to the Supreme Court rather than continue to comply with the 2011 order.

What you can do now

In the meantime, California’s prison population continues to suffer under difficult conditions, sometimes in violation of the Constitution, international law, and a direct Supreme Court order. While the legal wrangling continues at the state and national level, I am working hard to secure remedies for individuals. By filing Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus, I can sometimes challenge an inmate’s confinement in state or federal prison.

If you or a loved one is currently incarcerated in California’s broken system, do not wait on a political solution for reform. While I remain optimistic that reform will be implemented, legal rights should not be kept on hold in the meantime. Please, contact my office immediately to determine whether you can seek post-conviction relief. As Justice Kennedy stated in his 2011 opinion, even convicted criminals have basic rights to their humanity. I can help fight for yours.

Trial Process and Rights

Right to a Speedy Trial

Many people are aware of at least some of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. They know less, however, about the trial process. This is partly because a large portion of suspects are either released or take a plea-deal long before a trial ever gets under way. It is also because the trial process can be very different depending on the defendant, the crime, or the legal strategy employed. I will attempt to cover the basics in this article, but you should always talk to a competent attorney about specific strategies for your case.

6^th Amendment Guarantees

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that every person accused of a crime has a right to a jury trial, along with a right to confront witnesses, obtain his/her own witnesses, and have competent representation. This may be one of the most important parts of the Constitution from a criminal perspective because it is the foundation of our system of justice. Without the protections afforded in the Sixth Amendment it would be hard to place much faith in a conviction.

Judge or Jury?

A trial is an opportunity for a defendant’s guilt to be judged by a neutral party. Prosecutors and law enforcement have a duty to seek guilt. This does not mean that they are doing unfair things, but their role in the process necessarily gives them a stake in the outcome and thus disqualifies them as finders of fact. While the Sixth Amendment creates a right to a trial before a jury, defendants have a related right to waive the jury process and have their case decided by a judge.

There are times when the specific facts of a case point towards a judge, whom may have many years of legal experience, as the most neutral party. For example, the two teens recently convicted for the now infamous Steubenville rape incident chose to have their case tried to a judge. I suspect that their decision was based on a fear that the wild media fervor surrounding the case would make selection of a fair and impartial jury nearly impossible. Those defendants were ultimately convicted, and in hindsight it is not clear whether their choice of waiving their right to a jury was a wise decision, but defendants usually have a choice.

Presenting Evidence

Regardless of whether a case is tried to a jury or a judge, the trial will proceed in a similar fashion. Both sides, the defense and the prosecution, will have an opportunity to present evidence. The prosecution will go first and the defense last.  Prior to the trial, the prosecution and defense will always attempt to limit the admissible evidence by way of pre-trial motions. During a trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt – the highest burden in the law. Theoretically, a defendant faced with a weak case, could sit silently throughout the entire process and merely trust in the finder of fact to see through the holes in the prosecution’s evidence. This, however, is very unwise in most situations.

Confronting Witnesses

In practice, defendants will usually want to present the best evidence in their favor, and to attack the evidence presented by the other side. Here again, the Sixth Amendment comes into play. The amendment gives defendants a right to do several important things. First, defendants have a general right to demand that witnesses against them testify in court. There are some limitations, such as children in sexual abuse cases, but generally the prosecution has to bring witnesses into court. This is critical because if helps to ensure that witnesses give a true account of events. It also gives a defendant the right to cross-examine those witnesses to probe for errors, biases, or coercion.

Presenting Witnesses

The Constitution also guarantees defendants the right to present witnesses in their defense.  This means that defendants can bring in people who might tell a story more favorable to their explanation of the facts. Such witnesses, if available, are critical because they will help a defendant tell his/her story to the fact finder. Without this piece of the puzzle, the judge or jury would hear only about a persons supposed guilt, nothing more. This right also gives defendants the power to compel witnesses to appear on their behalf, such as with a subpoena.

Closing Arguments

Once all witnesses have had a chance to testify in court, both sides will give closing arguments which are essentially short summations of the evidence as seen by that side. Once this is done, the finder of fact will make a determination and the trial is over. While all of this seems fairly straight forward, and often it is there are many important considerations along the way which are best made with the help of a qualified attorney.

Defendant Testimony

One very important decision every defendant must make is whether or not to personally testify. Defendants have a right to speak on their own behalf, but this is not always wise. The Fifth Amendment gives suspects and defendants a right to refuse to answer questions - the answer to which may further incriminate the defendant. In other words, you cannot be compelled to admit a crime. There are times when a defendant will absolutely want to get on the stand and tell their story, but often doing so exposes a defendant to unpleasant questions on cross-examination. For example, it may open the door for evidence of the defendant’s past convictions.

You need an attorney!

Because of the complexities of the many other nuances and choices present in every trial, you should absolutely discuss these options with your own attorney. Choosing unwisely can potentially destroy your case. If you have been charged with a crime please contact me right away so that we can work together to make sure you make best use of your critical Constitutional rights.

Legal Rights After An Arrest

Post Arrest Rights

Two weeks ago I wrote about some of the rights suspects have leading up to, and during, an arrest. Today I am going to continue that train of thought by discussing some important suspect rights after an arrest. No one likes getting arrested, that much is clear, but it does happen. In order to preserve your legal rights, rights often guaranteed by the Constitution itself, it is important that you to understand a little more about the arrest process.

Not a conviction

First and foremost, you need to clearly understand that an arrest does not equal a conviction. In fact, an arrest really does not say much of anything about your ultimate guilt, your chances in court, or even about what the police know or don’t know. Plenty of totally innocent people get arrested and even charged. That is why we have courts; to sort out the legitimate police action from the mistakes.

This point bears repeating because there is a lot of confusion surrounding this issue, especially as relates to what the police may or may not know about you or what you allegedly did. An arrest does not equal a conviction. You have still not been convicted of a crime until a judge or jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden in the law, that you are guilty.

Everything you say can be used against you…

I hear too many stories about suspects who, once arrested, start discussing every possible law that they may, or may not, have violated. Do not be one of them. You will get a chance to tell your side of the story. Wait for a lawyer to assist you. This is usually good advice before an arrest but it is absolutely critical after an arrest. Even if you feel sure that you committed a crime, you may be legally innocent or have a legitimate defense. Even if a law was violated, police are absolutely required to follow certain procedures during their investigation and their failure to do so may be fatal to their case against you.

Confessions

After the arresting process is complete and you have been brought in officers are likely to start asking questions. Confessions are usually a very bad idea. Unless you have spoken to a lawyer first, do not give one. When they read you your rights, the part about how “anything you say can be used against you in a court of law…” that’s true. A confession may be misconstrued or based in part by coercion. Do not feel obligated to cooperate merely because you are vulnerable. Request that an attorney be present, in the event you want to confess.

It does not matter how much they ask, you should not tell authorities anything without speaking to an attorney first. Do not take a deal to “make their day easier”, or to “be a good guy.” Without an attorney there to represent your interests, you have no way of knowing when the authorities are offering you a legitimate legal deal.

And it is not just the cops. There are lots of cases on the books when investigators have put other people up to the task, ranging from your cell mate, to a friend. If you are arrested or are a suspect in police custody, it is best that you keep quiet. Allow an attorney to represent your best interests.

Just say NO

Sometimes it is not enough to keep quiet. If investigators are persistent, and they have been in the past, clearly, firmly and politely tell them that you do not want to answer questions without an attorney present to represent you. By law, they will stop asking at that point. If they continue to ask questions, remember to politely and unequivocally state that you do not want to speak without the representation of an attorney.

During most investigations, you have a general right to end the questioning. This might not apply in the field when officers are actively trying to get a dangerous situation under control, but once you are back at the station in complete custody, they really should stop asking if you say you are done. You may have to be really clear about your desire to be done talking, but that just means that you cannot be ambiguous in your communications. Even if investigators ignore your requests, a good attorney may be able to get a subsequent confession excluded during your trial, as long as you did your best to clearly end the questioning.

Ask for an attorney

You have a right to speak with an attorney. In fact, you have this right regardless of your ability to pay for an attorney. The authorities must provide you with access to a qualified attorney if you ask for one. It might not happen right away, but keep patient and keep asking. They do have to get you an attorney and give you the opportunity to talk with an attorney in private.

However, your right to an attorney is not self-executing. You must actually and unambiguously express your desire to speak to an attorney. It is usually a good idea to do so in conjunction with your refusal to answer questions. Just say “I want to speak to an attorney and I won’t answer any more questions at this time.”

What comes next?

After an arrest, authorities have a limited amount of time in which to either press formal charges or release you. The specific time limits can depend on the circumstances but it is usually not more than a couple of days. This means that within a day or two, you will probably be brought before a judge for the first of several hearings. At this first hearing they do not have to prove much, but they do have to give an explanation of why they arrested you and what they think you may have done.

Even at this stage, it is important to watch what you say. If you have not yet spoken with an attorney, let the judge know. Please, whatever you do, be polite to the judge. You will absolutely make things worse for yourself if you start disrespecting the court. Do what the judge asks at all times. Sit quietly, do not interrupt, and answer questions if you can. Judges are not your enemy and their impartiality serves the interest of justice.

By this point, you really should have been given a chance to speak with an attorney. From there, you'll have to work with your attorney to figure out what to do next.

Get Legal Help

I have kept this discussion colloquial in order to avoid complicating an already difficult subject, which means that what I have written here only covers a few basics. Talk to a qualified attorney for specific legal advice. I am here to help if you have further questions. Contact me immediately to avoid jeopardizing your legal rights.

Legal Rights Prior To An Arrest

By now most people have heard at least a little about the ongoing investigation and trial of Oscar Pistorius, famous track star, who is accused of shooting his model girlfriend in cold blood. At times, the story trumps even the best Soap-Opera Hollywood has to offer; but despite its many twists and turns, the case highlights some of the important considerations underpinning police investigations. It’s hard to draw direct parallels because of differences between United States and South African law, but let’s assume that this case had happened right here in California.

As a suspect, you have rights. While those rights might change based on specific circumstances, some general principles can be broadly applied. Prior to arrest, you have a right to walk away from an officer. If you don't feel like you would be allowed to do that, you may already be effectively under arrest which means that an officer should probably be reading your rights to you. If in doubt, ask. You may get a conflicting answer but you'll pressure the officers to clarify the situation. A simple “I need to get going, am I free to leave?” should head things in the right direction. Whatever you do, be respectful and remain calm.

Prior to Arrest:

Even without an arrest, officers do have some authority to question you, and to expect truthful answers. This does not, however, mean that you must volunteer information. Also prior to arrest, authorities have numerous, sometimes overlapping, powers of search and seizure, most often in connection with securing evidence that can be easily destroyed or ensuring officer safety. However, there are limits. Typically the things that you say only serve to expand police powers, so watch your words. The safest approach is to turn down any request to search you or your property. If the officers have the right, and sometime when they do not, they'll go ahead and conduct their search despite your “no”. Do not worry, if their search is against the law, you'll have your rights vindicated later with the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney.

This situation frequently comes up in homes or cars where an officer might ask to “have a look around” or to “see what’s in your trunk”. What they are really asking is for permission to conduct a search. This suggests that they don't feel secure in their power to conduct the search without your permission. What many people don't realize is that it’s perfectly acceptable to say “NO” and that the officers should respect your refusal unless they are willing to take things to the next level and place you under arrest.

Be sure that your “no” is clear and unequivocal. Saying things like “I don't know”, or “maybe”, or even just keeping quiet might be taken as a yes. Even if you clearly say no, the officers might still conduct the search, but your attorney can often help you get the unlawfully seized evidence excluded from any judicial proceeding. Alternatively, the officers might start pressuring you to change your mind. Don't do it, caving to the pressure and saying yes against better judgment frequently destroys a suspect’s best legal defenses. Be respectful and reiterate your unequivocal denial of consent.

After an Arrest:

Once an arrest is in progress, your freedom to leave has been terminated, but some other rights come into play such as your right to an attorney. If you are arrested, you are not suddenly required to volunteer potentially unlawful information. It’s important to remember that at no point in the process are you ever required to divulge information that might incriminate you. Once you are under arrest, the authorities have the power to restrain you and probably to search you for evidence or weapons.  From this point on, it’s generally a good idea to keep quiet until you talk to a lawyer. You might think that a clever story will quickly resolve the situation but it will probably just make your defense all the more difficult down the road.

Whatever you do, don't try to struggle or fight with the officers. Getting arrested can be terrifying and humiliating but you do not want to make the situation worse. You'll get a chance to talk to a lawyer, even if you don't have money for one, and a chance to have your story heard. Remember to be patient and that an arrest does not equal a conviction.

Conclusion:

This area of the law is complex. Highly qualified lawyers and judges often disagree about the correct outcome of even the smallest of cases. You absolutely must contact an attorney for specific advice in your situation. What I've written here is only the barest overview of a wide range of rights and police powers. No web article, no matter how thorough, can ever replace personalized legal advice.