July 28, 2012

July 28, 2012 By dmcantor Blog

Justice Department to reform New Orleans Police with Consent Decree

In what will admittedly be an expensive arrangement for the city of New Orleans the chief lawyer for the Federal Government, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Mayor Mitch Landrieu made the announcement today. After the Mayor requested the Federal Government start an investigation in 2010 it did not take long for them to make this decision based on decades of police abuse and neglect in protecting its citizens. One year after starting its investigation the Feds determined that there were a multitude of institutional problems with the department including: use of deadly force without justification, multiple unconstitutional arrests and racial profiling.

From the Huffington Post article on the same story:

Among its provisions:

_ All officers will be required to receive at least 24 hours of training on stops, searches and arrests; 40 hours of use-of-force training; and four hours of training on bias-free policing within a year of the agreement taking effect.

_ All interrogations involving suspected homicides or sexual assaults will have to be recorded in their entirety on video. The department also will be required to install video cameras and location devices in all patrol cars and other vehicles within two years.

_ The department will be required to completely restructure the system for paying officers for off-duty security details, develop a new report format for collecting data on all stops and searches and create a recruitment program to increase diversity among its officers.

_ The city and Justice Department will pick a court-supervised monitor to regularly assess and report on the police department’s implementation of the requirements.

_ The city and police department can ask a judge to dissolve the agreement after four years, but only if they can show they have fully complied with its requirements for two years.

The parallels between what has been found in the New Orleans Police Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office(MCSO) in Arizona are uncanny. Especially as Sheriff Joe Arapaio took the stand today in a trail accusing his department of widespread racial profiling. Unfortunately in the case of the MCSO the leaders of the department are not encouraging any reform as evidenced in Arapaio’s guarded defense today.

July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012 By dmcantor Blog

The Colorado Shooting and the Gun Control Debate

This blog post is a little bit of a departure in that we aren’t providing any answers to a tough and perplexing debate. We are just trying to have a discourse and make sure people talk about what happened and what we might do to move forward. The gun debate is heated on all sides with gun victims, gun owners, and the bill of rights. It has been and will continue to be part of American culture since the beginning.

Another sad event in American history occurred last week in Aurora Colorado: A lone gunman entered a packed movie theater and opened fire on the audience killing 12 people and injuring another 58. A suspect, James E. Holmes, is in custody and had his first court appearance on July 23rd. No motive has yet been established and James has not been forthcoming except in letting officers know that his apartment was booby trapped. Overall it is an incredibly tragic and sad story. The question is will we learn anything from it before everything goes back to business as normal?

Whenever a shooting incident like this occurs those in favor of gun control speak up with another example of why it is too easy to buy not just a gun but assault rifles and extended clips. They argue that if it had been more difficult for James to purchase the 6000 rounds of ammunition that we had then this incident either would not have happened or would have been much less tragic. They cite that James was able to purchase this ammunition anonymously online. They argue that if he had been required to go into a gun store and be verified for the purchase then he may have backed out or not passed the verification. They also cite that he had a 100 round clip which allowed him to shoot as many people as he did.

On the other side of things the gun owners and gun sellers argue that if this had not been a ‘Gun Free’ zone then there would have been a better chance that someone would have fired back and prevented or reduced the damage that James caused. They also argue that arming more citizens creates a safer environment as criminals would be less likely to do what James did knowing another armed individual was around. They also argue that the Bill of Rights guarantees us the ability to keep and bear arms and that any gun control infringes on these rights.

At the end of the day we have a dozen people innocently killed while trying to enjoy themselves in what is thought to be a safe place. Just 18 months ago we in Arizona experienced a similar incident where a lone gunman with an extended clip opened fire in a supermarket parking lot killing and injuring a number of people. We have written about Gabby Giffords and Jared Laughner before and the gun debate has not changed much since then.

What do you think? Do we need more gun laws or should we arm everyone?

July 16, 2012

July 16, 2012 By dmcantor 1 DUI / Vehicular Crime Jury Trial Complete Acquittals, 1000 Complete Jury Trial Acquittals / All Criminal Charges, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 2100 Superior Court Victories, Case Victories, Jury Trial Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 10767)

Not Guilty / Complete Acquittal Aggravated DUI (.308 BAC) Arizona – State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 10767) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2011-153504): Mr. D was passed out in the driver’s seat of his car, with the engine running and the driver’s door open in the parking lot of a convenience store. A passerby woke him up and said that he needed to take the keys out of the ignition or he would call police. Mr. D got out of the car, then got back in the car, and started the car twice over the next 20 minutes. When police arrived they noticed watery, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. Mr. D was unable to hand his identification card to the officer and stated that his license was suspended. He refused to do the field sobriety tests and was taken to the DUI van to have his blood drawn. Mr. D’s BAC was a 0.304, nearly 4 times the legal limit.

Mr. D was facing no less than 10 years in prison on this charge. He was also on probation for two other cases. If convicted at trial, his probation would have been revoked and he would have been sentenced to an additional 1 to 7.5 years in prison. At trial we argued that Mr. D sitting in the vehicle did not rise to the level of actual physical control because he posed no danger to himself or others. The jury acquitted Mr. D on all charges.

June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012 By dmcantor 100N Urinating in Public Victories, 800 Miscellaneous Crime Victories, Case Victories, City Court Victories, Tempe City Court / Tempe Municipal Court Victories

State vs. Mr. B. (DMC No. 10033)

DISMISSED | URINATING IN PUBLIC – State vs. Mr. B. (DMC No. 10033) (Tempe City Court No. 11-010740): Mr. B. was out partying with friends on Mill Ave., when he became extremely intoxicated. He ended up urinating around the side of the building when he was spotted by a Tempe officer on a bicycle. He was ultimately cited for Urinating in Public. Because he had no prior convictions, and agreed to perform 5 hours of community service, all charges were dismissed. If he were convicted, it would have had a significant impact on his ability to go to graduate school and get a job.

May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012 By dmcantor 1800 Sentence Modification Victories, 2100 Superior Court Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 4499)

GRANTED | EARLY RELEASE FROM CUSTODY AND PROBATION MODIFICATION GRANTED/AGGRAVATED DUI – State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 4499) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2003-037795): Mr. D. had been convicted of an Aggravated DUI, and was sentenced to jail time. While in custody, he completed the “Alpha Program”, successfully. We petitioned the court to release him early from custody into a halfway house, and the court agreed, thereby modifying his sentence.

May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012 By dmcantor 1300 Bench Trial Victories, 1300A Complete Bench Trial Acquittal / All Criminal Charges, 700 Property Crime Victories, 95 Trespass Victories, 97 Property Crime Jury / Bench Trial Victories, Case Victories, City Court Victories, Mesa City Court / Mesa Municipal Court Victories

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 4759)

NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL | TRESSPASS – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 4759) (Mesa City Court 2004022660): Two gentlemen were playing videos games when one gentleman went to the bathroom and noticed a bathroom window was now ajar. Both men ran outside, and saw a white male running away from the location. They then saw a vehicle leaving rapidly, and they followed it and called 911. Mr. W. was pulled over and denied being anywhere near their house, nor going through the window. At trial we were able to show that the fingerprints on the window did not match Mr. W., and the fact that he had a prior burglary conviction should not be taken into evidence. The Judge found him not guilty of all charges.

May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012 By dmcantor 1 DUI / Vehicular Crime Jury Trial Complete Acquittals, 1000 Complete Jury Trial Acquittals / All Criminal Charges, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, Case Victories, Jury Trial Victories, San Tan Justice Court Victories

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 10544)

Not Guilty / Complete Acquittal / DUI & DWI (.107 BAC) – State v. Mr. B. (San Tan Justice Court No. TR-2011-146484): Mr. B. had been drinking at the Salt River and was stopped by the highway patrol. The officer noted signs and symptoms of impairment and a DUI investigation ensued. Mr. B. submitted to a breath test that resulted in alcohol content readings of .107 and .104. Mr. B. was charged with two counts of DUI. The State did not offer Mr. B. a significant plea offer. At trial, after attacking the credibility the breath sample, the jury found Mr. B. not guilty of all the DUI charges.

April 16, 2012

April 16, 2012 By dmcantor 1800 Sentence Modification Victories, 2100 Superior Court Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. V (DMC No. 4558)

GRANTED | MOTION TO TERMINATE PROBATION GRANTED/FRAUDULENT SCHEMES– State v. Mr. V. (DMC No. 4558) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR1994-004589): Mr. V. and his co-defendant had various fraud schemes which defrauded investors out of approximately $542,000. Mr. V. had been sentenced to 5 years of prison, followed with 7 years of supervised probation. When it became apparent that he would not be able to pay back restitution, we were able to have his probation terminated and have the restitution amount turned into a civil judgment.

January 28, 2012

January 28, 2012 By dmcantor 1500 Expungement Victories, 16l DUI Expungement Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 908 Phoenix DUI Wins, Case Victories, City Court Victories, Phoenix City Court / Phoenix Municipal Court Victories

State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 10874)

CONVICTION SET ASIDE | DUI – State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 10874) (Phoenix City Court 3703449): Mr. H. had been convicted of a DUI and had completed all of his sentencing requirements. Roughly 4 years later, he was being considered for promotion at the bank he worked at. In order to receive the promotion, he needed the conviction set aside. We were able to petition the court and have the judgment of guilt set aside and all complaints against him dismissed. He was able to get his promotion.

January 28, 2012

January 28, 2012 By dmcantor 1500 Expungement Victories, 16l DUI Expungement Victories, 200 DUI / Vehicular Crime Victories, 909 Scottsdale DUI Wins, Case Victories, City Court Victories, Scottsdale City Court Victories

State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 10446)

CONVICTION SET ASIDE | DUI – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 10446) (Scottsdale City Court TR2010-001721): Mr. W. was a well respected Doctor and businessman who had attended both MIT and the Wharton School of Business. He had a prior DUI on his record, and wished to clean this blemish from an otherwise stellar career. We were able to have his judgment appealed to set aside the conviction, and the complaint against him was dismissed.

Previous page 1 … 115 116 117 118 119 … 177 Next page

Our Location

Free Consultation