Click to call 602-307-0808 24/7 Click Here for Free Consultation

Fourth Amendment

Bad Service America: Diner for Schmucks

Today’s topic starts with an article in the current issue of GQ and food critic Alan Richman’s latest review. The title and opening illustration give you a hint that this review is not going to be a good one. Alan describes going to M. Wells on a few occasions. the first two were unannounced and simply to eat. By the third visit he had spoken with the owners to get an offsite interview and let them know he had already made plans to dine there in a few days. The food part of the review is pretty fair and would probably tempt a number of people to go for dinner. Then Alan’s story takes a turn for the worse. The service takes an already ho-hum reputation and nose dives into what one of his compatriots describes as “the worst restaurant experience I’ve ever had.”
In the review Alan comments about how the waitstaff was innatentive and careless. This has unfortunately become a bit of the norm in the US dining establishments and the workplace in general. At the third dinner they wait 45 minutes and finally wave down another waitress who seemed less than happy to be taking their order. He leaves and gets an email the next day from the co-owner blaming him for having a bad dining experience and then the fireworks go off: he is accused of sexual assaulting the waitress. Needless to say Alan is pretty shocked and replies back asking to meet his accuser.
The article is really well written and we recommend picking up the latest issue and reading it for yourself.
In David’s video his recaps these events but then goes a little further regarding the poor service and some of Alan’s thoughts on the “Too Cool to Care” attitude. The hipster mentality may be going too far or too ironically for many of Americans to appreciate any longer.
What do you think?

California Prop 29 DNA Collection Law – Struck Down

Today David Michael Cantor, a Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer, talks about a California court striking down a voter approved measure requiring that any adult arrested on a felony charge also submit a DNA sample. Perhaps you will find it surprising that David disagrees with the courts ruling here and thinks that collecting DNA should be done just as fingerprints are collected already.
The judges in this case felt that DNA collection differs from fingerprint collection the latter is historically used for identification and not solving other crimes. David disagrees with this analysis and discusses why and how.
David also mentions a case regarding DNA collection as part of Pre Trial release that is going to be heard this September. He also agrees with this process and things it is helpful and necessary regardless of his profession as a criminal defense attorney.

What do you think?

Warrantless Search and Your Right to Privacy

Today David Michael Cantor, a Phoenix, Arizona DUI Lawyer, talks about a recently heard case at the US Supreme Court regarding warrantless searches. At issue is the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution dealing with unreasonable searches and one exception called exigent circumstances.

This hearing revolves around a case from Kentucky in which police officers were chasing a suspect who had just sold drugs to an undercover agent and fled. The officers followed the suspect into an apartment building and became suspicious of one apartment where the smell of marijuana was present. After knocking on the door and announcing their presence as police officers they heard rustling and movement from inside the apartment. Fearing that evidence was being destroyed the officers kicked the door down and instead of finding their suspect they found Hollis King and friends smoking marijuana. King was arrested and given 11 years in prison.

The United States Constitution’s 4th Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches. Typically for a police officer to enter private property they must be issued a warrant. One exception is for ‘exigent circumstances’ where an officer suspects that a crime is being perpetrated and either someones life is at stake, the criminal may escape, or as in this case the evidence may be destroyed.

The problem here, as David Michael Cantor, points out, is that the officers created the exigent circumstance by knocking on the door. David feels that this warrantless search was not justified under the exigent circumstance clause and that the lower courts ruling needs to be upheld.
Naturally that is David’s opinion, let us know what you think.

Click Here for Free ConsultationComparison Questions to Ask when Hiring a Lawyer