J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I talk to the police?”
When most people think of detective work, they think of a scene out of Law & Order, with police officers kicking in doors or interviewing witnesses. While that’s certainly true in some cases, detectives are forced to adapt to and keep up with rapid technological change as much as those in any other industry. Detective work today happens online and, more specifically, on social media sites with more regularity than many people imagine. This access to the internet and to social media websites can prove incredibly useful to officers in some cases and frustrating in others.
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “If I simply intend to plead guilty, why do I need a lawyer?”
As technology continues to change and grow increasingly complex, so do the opportunities for unsavory characters to misuse it. The proliferation of GPS and other advanced tracking technology has meant that it is often alarmingly easy to monitor the movement of others. Smartphones and social media often serve as vital assistants to those who may want to keep track of others, unknown digital informers of a person’s whereabouts.
Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?
People far older and wiser than me have told me a person can stay young at heart if one never allows oneself to lose the kind of childlike fascination with even the everyday, mundane matters of life. Of course, the older we get, the more jaded we become, the more ordinary things seem, and the greater the tendency becomes to accept the world as it is, to question nothing, to stare straight ahead and move along.
J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”
In general, a person’s privacy rights extend as is “reasonable.” Persons do not, for instance, have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walk on a public street. They may be photographed and recorded in a variety of settings and formats, and their words and behavior can be freely observed, noted and memorialized.
J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”
In a meeting last month, the Santa Clara County, California supervisors voted 4 to 1 to authorize the expenditure of $500,000 on a product they had never seen. They did not know how the product worked, nor were they even sure of its brand name. The supervisors were required to enter into a nondisclosure agreement to even purchase and use the device.
But they would not be using the rectangular device—“small enough to fit into a suitcase, that intercepts a cellphone signal by acting like a cellphone tower,” according to the New York Times. The Santa Clara County Sheriff—Laurie Smith—would be using the device to track down terrorists and missing persons, she said. She could offer no details on technical specifications to the Times and said she had not seen a product demonstration.
Cell-site stimulators—called various names including StingRay or KingFish—capture texts, emails and other data “from all wireless devices in the immediate area” of a device. According to a 2011 Federal Bureau of Investigators affidavit, the device captures data from all devices in an area—even those of bystanders not targeted for investigation. That information is purged, the F.B.I. said, in order to ensure privacy rights, according to the Times.
For now, law-enforcement agencies and their technology suppliers have insisted on a veil of secrecy about the devices, saying disclosure “would let criminals, including terrorists, ‘thwart the use of this technology,’” according to the Times.
J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC responds to “The person that called the police doesn’t want to press charges, can I still be prosecuted?”
The political world has been aflutter with outrage at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a personal email account while employed as the Secretary of the United States Government’s Department of State.
In a press conference last week, Clinton said she decided which emails were a part of the public record and which emails were private. The latter, she suggested, had been deleted.
Now an American state—Massachusetts—is giving police officers the same power, only not over email. According to the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Secretary of State has refused the newspaper’s request for “the names of five police officers caught drunken driving,” for a “report on an officer who was arrested,” for “booking photos of a state trooper,” and for an “entire log of people incarcerated in the state prison system.”
It seems—both at the state and federal levels—secrecy is all the rage.
In Massachusetts, that state’s supervisor of public records told the Globe that public departments have “the discretion to withhold records determined to be covered by CORI.” CORI stands for “Criminal Offender Record Information. The Massachusetts Secretary of State contends that law-enforcement officials have sweeping powers to decide what criminal records are made public, according to the Globe.
J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I talk to the police?”
Incidents involving drones are on the rise, and state legislatures are not waiting for the Federal Aviation Administration or the United States Congress to act on promulgating comprehensive civil and criminal rules on the unmanned aircraft.
One state—Washington—is seeking to add to its criminal code a provision allowing prosecutors to allege a “nefarious drone enterprise” if drones are used in other crimes “from running drugs to scoping a house for robbery,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle. If it is proven that a criminal used a drone in connection with a criminal enterprise, an extra year in prison can be added to the criminal’s sentence.
Sen. Pam Roach, who is sponsoring the legislation, said the state needs to get ahead of the curve on a quickly emerging technology that is making “advanced, affordable personal-use unmanned aircraft” a reality. Unlike twenty other states—including North Carolina—the State of Washington has not issued any restrictions on drone use in the state.
University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo observed that the bill was tightly focused, adding “a year to the sentencing range that dictates how judges can punish an offense.” Calo wondered, however, whether the underlying offense was actually any worse simply because a drone was employed. “It would be like saying the crime of assault is different if it’s done with a hammer,” Calo said.
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Are breath test results always accurate?”
New, portable breath-testing machines sold by Breathometer, Inc. and other companies are making waves in the public marketplace, particularly among college-aged and twenty-something adults. Users of the device in North Carolina should beware: it will probably not help you if you are pulled over for drunk driving.
What is it?
In plain terms, the Breathometer and the newer “Breeze” products are portable, handheld devices that people can use to test their own breath-alcohol content. Entrepreneur Charles Michael Yim founded Breathometer, Inc. in 2012 in order “to build the world’s first portable breath analysis platform to help people make smarter decisions, improve healthcare and save lives.”
The original Breathometer machine plugged directly into the audio jack of a smartphone. The latest “Breeze” product works in a similar fashion, using “a next-generation electrochemical fuel cell sensor[.]” It is an “FDA registered, law-enforcement grade product,” according to Breathometer, Inc.
J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”
The move is on—in the wake of riots and protests over police shooting and choking deaths of two unarmed men in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City—to equip police officers nationwide with body cameras. Privacy advocates, police chiefs and at least one police union, however, are expressing concerns about the plan.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Obama Administration has proposed spending $75 million on 50,000 body cameras to be fitted upon law-enforcement officers across the United States.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department is well ahead of the curve on body cameras. Earlier this year, CMPD Chief Rodney Monroe announced that all officers in Charlotte would be equipped with body cameras. (See related blog: “CMPD police body cameras may mean Ferguson never comes to Charlotte”).
This, Monroe said, would increase the trust the community has in police and, at the same time, would provide the State with crucial evidence regarding the circumstances of crimes and the conduct of responding officers.
The Post, citing NBC News, which in turn cited St. Louis hip-hop artist and activist Antoine White, said police body cameras might not be all they are cracked up to be. White, who met with President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday to discuss the recent events in Ferguson, told NBC News that “Giving a policeman a camera does not prevent him from shooting me in the head.”
Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog
