September 26, 2009

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Have a "Trial Tax"

The defense of Federal Criminal cases in the Western and Northern Districts of Texas requires a careful study of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines at the very beginning of the defense of a Federal case. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Booker which held that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were "advisory" in nature, the judges in the Western and Northern Districts still rely on the Guidelines for sentencing in the great majority of cases.

Because the guidelines are so crucial to the outcome of a Federal Criminal case in this area, I immediately look into the guidelines as soon as I am hired and go over the facts of the case with the client and compare them with the Indictment and then with the Federal Criminal Statutes. If at all possible, I want to have an idea of the best and worst case scenario before I attend the first preliminary hearing and prior to uttering a single word in defense of my new client.

For someone charged with a federal crime, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines contain what I like to call "taxes"; that is, penalties for exercising constitutional rights most people take for granted. For example, if my client refuses to talk to the FBI or the DEA, such failure may later be penalized in the guidelines as "obstruction". On the other hand, if an accused does give a statement to the government agents which later proves to be false, he can be subject to the same penalty by the addition of "levels"; the higher the level total, the higher the sentence.

In addition to the "taxes" found in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, further ambushes await within the Federal Criminal Statutes in the form of statutory mandatory minimum sentences. The most common types of mandatory minimums exist in three types of federal prosecutions: drugs, firearms, and child-sex offenses.

In drug cases, these mandatory minimum sentences can be based on the amount of drugs involved, as well as on the criminal history of the defendant.

Firearms cases can have mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 5 years up to life imprisonment, depending on the type of firearm, how the firearm was used, and whether the defendant has other firearms-related convictions. The use of fire or explosives in the commission of an offense can raise the minimum penalty to 10 years.

Child and sex offense penalties can be among the most severe in the federal system, due to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which added or increased both maximum and mandatory minimum penalties for sexual offenses involving children.

A single count in a multi-count federal indictment involving a mandatory minimum sentence can raise the stakes for the defendant so as to invoke the final "tax" in the federal system: the "Trial Tax". That is, the mandatory minimum count can be used by the Assistant U.S. Attorney as a plea bargaining tool-- the government offers to dismiss the count with the mandatory minimum in return for a guilty plea by the defendant to some or all of the other counts in the indictment. In most cases, the defendant would be "taxed" for exercising his right to a jury trial by the specter of a much heavier sentence with the addition of a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence should the defendant be found guilty by a jury.

September 7, 2009

Western District of Texas Covers Huge Area of West Texas

The Western District of Texas is one of four U.S. Judicial Districts in Texas. The Western District's main headquarters is in San Antonio. The Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts are located in Houston, Dallas, and Tyler, respectively. The Western District is divided into several divisions: El Paso, Del Rio, Pecos, Midland, and Waco, with one or more U.S. District Judges assigned to each division. The Midland and Pecos divisions are 300-plus miles from San Antonio. There is even a courthouse and U.S. Magistrate in Alpine, although the U.S. District Judge usually holds court in Pecos to consider Alpine cases. Waco is in the Western District only by chance, as it is in central Texas between Austin and Dallas.

map_home.gif
Until the explosion of immigration and drug cases in far west Texas, there was only a Midland division and an El Paso division. In the nineties the Pecos U.S. Courthouse was built and a division created to deal with the highway drug stops, immigration cases, and U.S. Customs stops at the Sierra Blanca checkpoint on IH 10 west of El Paso.

There is now an imposing Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in tiny Alpine, recently constructed to handle the onslaught of immigration (now under the lofty title of Homeland Security) and drug cases. The U.S. Attorney's office and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are housed in a fortress-like building surrounded by a high wire fence, next door to the new courthouse.
article01_thumb1.jpg

I regularly appear in Alpine, Pecos, and Midland in defense of clients charged with federal
crimes. Immigration cases are usually handled by the public defender. But I often handle other federal cases in these areas, and have become quite familiar with these remote towns with the shiny new federal buildings.


250px-Alpine_texas.jpg

March 31, 2009

Forfeiture of Contraband is Big Money in Texas

I've noticed a big increase in cash forfeitures by west Texas law enforcement in the last few months. Mitchell County District Attorney investigators recently seized 2.7 million dollars in cellophane- wrapped bills from two men stopped on "traffic" by a local Texas Department of Public Safety trooper. In the same week, another stop was made in Hudspeth County where over $850,000 was seized at the Sierra Blanca checkpoint. An earlier Mitchell County highway stop resulted in the seizure and later forfeiture of over 9 million dollars in cash.

The two occupants of the automobile in the later Mitchell County arrest spent a brief period in the Mitchell County Jail before being released without charges being filed. Although Money Laundering is both a state and a federal offense, it is not unusual for the locals to turn the driver and passenger loose and keep the cash. Potential prosecution and imprisonment is sufficient incentive for the automobile's occupants to walk away from the automobile and its contraband.

The money is then subject to forfeiture in a separate civil action brought by the District Attorney against the money or the car or both. The case to be filed will then read: "The State of Texas v. $2,750,000.00 in United States Currency."

As for the passengers and driver, they will soon have troubles of their own; such as telling the bad news to the owners of the seized dough.

Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure deals with Forfeiture of "Contraband"-- defined as property used in the commission of a long list of felonies set forth in the code, as well as another laundry list of misdemeanors, as well as a "Crime of violence."

In Texas, the State must prove that the property is subject to forfeiture by establishing that the property is contraband as set forth in the Code. Before seizing property thought to be subject to forfeiture, the State has to show probable cause. Probable cause in the forfeiture statutes is a reasonable belief that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity set forth in the statute.

Thus, probable cause to seize such property is not the same as the probable cause necessary for the lawful search, lawful arrest, or lawful search incident to arrest as set forth in the statute. Rather, the substantial connection must be shown after the legality of the search itself is tested.

Law enforcement agencies throughout the nation, both state and federal, are aggressively utilizing these forfeiture statutes to pile up billions of dollars in seizures from private citizens, many of whom were not present at the time of the alleged offense leading to the forfeitures, nor had any knowledge of any crimes being committed.

This process has led to a great deal of controversy, such as the recent uproar caused by the seizure of property by police in Tenaha, Texas.


February 9, 2009

San Angelo,Texas criminal defense is often a long process

Texas Criminal Defense in the San Angelo area starts with a lawyer who knows his way around the courthouses. I say courthouses, because there is also a County Courts building on Harris street behind the main Courthouse on Beauregard. Most DWI and possession of marijuana cases are held in the County Courts building. Felonies are in the big main courthouse.

San Angelo judges also hold court in Eldorado in Schleicher county, Mertzon in Irion County, and Ballinger in Runnels County. Robert Lee and tiny Paint Rock also have courthouses where San Angelo judges preside.


TomGreenCountyCourthouseTX605TJnsn1.jpg


There are two County Courts at Law in Tom Green County, which are called The County Court at Law and County Court at Law 2. (You notice I didn't say County Courts at law 1 & 2) ALR hearings are held before the Justice of the Peace in the basement of the building next to the main Courthouse on Beauregard.

Continue reading "San Angelo,Texas criminal defense is often a long process" »

November 28, 2008

Texas Traffic Stops--Just Say "NO" to Automobile Search

Well, the holidays are upon us and travelers are going to take advantage of the low gasoline prices to jump in the car and go somewhere. Some travelers will have something in their car which is illegal, like drugs, or will have been drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana and will be stopped by the Texas Department of Public Safety somewhere on Texas highways or interstates. Most of the stops are for some traffic violation, but many will end up with drug charges against the occupants of the automobile. Any driver, regardless of whether he or she has anything illegal in the automobile, is is much more like to be stopped and asked for permission to search their vehicle if the driver or passengers are young, black, hispanic, or otherwise different in appearance than the average Texas State Trooper.

However,in order to search your car, the officer is required by law to have what is known as 'reasonable suspicion" to delve further into the situation which presents itself after the officer has "made contact" with the driver of the automobile. The smell of alcohol or marijuana is the most obvious example. Short of this more obvious ground, the appearance of the driver is almost always cited; nervousness, (isn't everyone nervous when stopped by a cop?) bloodshot eyes, etc. After these initial reasons, the driver's answers to the troopers questions are often used--for instance, the question "where are you headed" answered by a city in the opposite direction in which the driver's car is going, is often used as reasonable suspicion for a consent search of the vehicle.

The driver has the obligation to furnish a Drivers license to the cop when requested, and to answer preliminary questions regarding the correct address on the license and other such questions regarding identity. After that, no further answers are required by the driver.

I have seen hundreds of police reports regarding highway stops from Sierra Blanca to Fort Stockton to Sonora, and from Eastland to El Paso, along Interstates 10 & 20, as well as Highway 84 from Abilene to Amarillo. You, driver, do not have to give consent to search your vehicle. Do not give it! If you are searched anyway, there will be a video of the stop. Do not reply to questions. Refuse to do any roadside sobriety tests. Do not blow into any breath devices. Then, since you are going to be arrested anyway, it makes my job easier when I defend you! Happy Holidays.


August 19, 2008

Expunction of a Criminal Record in Texas is Almost Never a Routine Procedure

In my experience, Expunction of a criminal record requires a great deal of care. First of all, the facts must be exact: exact date of arrest, date of offense, and place where the offense was filed. Once those details are determined, then all lesser offenses, if any, must be tracked down and identified.

For instance, I have had a number of cases where a client was arrested on a drug charge and the cops filed a class C misdemeanor Possession of Narcotics Paraphernalia along with a State Jail Felony Possession of Controlled Substance. The Class C rested comfortably in the files of the Sheriff's Department, while the Felony charge travelled across to the District Clerk's Office and emerged as an Indictment. Unless the misdemeanor was discovered, one charge would be ordered expunged, but the other would stay and would remain as an arrest. So all records must first be searched--local Police, District Clerk, District Attorney, and the County Sheriff. Cops like to charge as many offenses as they can out of one arrest--its like looking for a mouse-there is never just one.

3mice3small.jpg


A Hearing cannot be set less than thirty days from the date the Motion for Expunction is filed. And guess what? The DPS doesn't have to show up at the hearing or even file an answer-- but nevertheless, they can still appeal the judgment! So, I try the case as if the DPS is looking over my shoulder. Because they are.

Most hearings are not contested; that is, the District Attorney rarely objects and the Department of Public Safety never shows up anyway. For that reason, these hearings rarely take long and should be granted as soon as a well-prepared lawyer puts on the proof. But remember, the DPS can file a motion for a new trial or appeal until the records are actually destroyed.

It should not matter to the client how far his lawyer has to go to get to the hearing as long as the lawyer knows what to do when he gets there. That is a lot more important than having a lawyer who offices right across the street from the courthouse but doesn't know how handle an expunction properly; that is, carefully, thoroughly, and in great detail.

July 28, 2008

In Texas, a Consent Search is not always a Legal Search

Many cars are searched by Texas Department of Public Safety Troopers on Texas highways and interstates. Most are the result of stops for various traffic violations, which escalate to search of the vehicle by state troopers or local deputies. Many of these searches are by "consent" -- after the officer becomes suspicious that some illegal activity may be taking place. Some of these searches are legal, some not. How do we know ?

The answer to that question is: it depends, always, on the specific facts of each case.

texas%20state%20troopers.jpg


An officer may conduct an investigative detention by stopping and detaining a person in order to determine the person's identity, reason for being in the area, or some other such inquiry. The officer does not usually need to have probable cause to investigate potential criminal activity, if he can give specific facts which support his reason for the detention. Legal terminology for this is referred to as "specific and articulable facts", which, together with "rational inferences" from those articulated facts, would warrant the detention.

A hunch, suspicion, or even good faith belief of the officer, without such articulated facts, is never sufficient justification or excuse for an investigatory detention. Properly articulated facts justifying a detention or stop is referred to as "reasonable suspicion". Without such "reasonable suspicion", any evidence or contraband seized should be suppressed, or thrown out, by the reviewing court.

For consent to be valid, it must be free and voluntary, and must be obtained from an individual authorized to consent to a search. For instance, if a passenger seated in the back seat of the car who has no ownership rights to the vehicle tells a trooper its o.k. to search, that's not consent. Free and voluntary means just that. A coerced, or forced, consent is not valid.

Six factors are often cited to be used in considering voluntariness: 1) whether the custodial status is voluntary; that is, was the person free to leave? 2) were there coercive police procedures present? 3) the extent and level of cooperation with the police; 4) How aware the person was of his right to refuse consent; 5) Education and intelligence of the person giving the consent; 6) the person's belief, if any, that no incriminating evidence will be found.

These factors are taken into consideration by the courts on a case by case basis. And don't ask me how they decide factor number 6!

July 24, 2008

Wanderings of a West Texas Criminal Lawyer

West Texas is a vast, sparsely populated area west of Fort Worth to the north and San Antonio to the south. The region's major cities are Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, and Abilene; only the first two have populations over 100,000 people. The further west one goes, the more the population thins out.

Many counties out west have populations of less than ten thousand, and some have fewer than that. Mentone, the county seat of Loving county, has fewer than a hundred souls, making this the least populated county in the state.

I have offices in Snyder, which is an hour and a half drive from Lubbock, Abilene, San Angelo, and Midland. Interstate 20 passes through 30 miles to the south, on its way from El Paso to Shreveport, La, a distance of over 650 miles.

Further south, Interstate 10 crosses the state from its intersection with I 20 east of Van Horn and passes through Pecos, Crockett and Sutton counties, all the way east to the Texas/Louisiana border near Beaumont, a distance of well over 800 miles. I once served as an assistant District Attorney for a sprawling Judicial District extending from Fort Stockton in Pecos County to Sonora, in Sutton County, over 150 miles to the east.

15speed.span.jpg

Continue reading "Wanderings of a West Texas Criminal Lawyer" »

July 7, 2008

Religious symbols no longer reasonable suspicion for search of vehicles in Texas

A Federal Judge in the Western District of Texas has recently limited the right of Texas state troopers to use the presence of religious symbols as reasonable suspicion for the search of cars stopped on the highways of Texas. "What?," you ask?"Cops were busting people for having statues of the Virgin Mary in their cars?"


images.jpg


Well, not quite. This particular case involved an arrest arising from the traffic stop of an automobile after troopers noticed it had a wobbling tire. While talking to the driver, the arresting officer testified that he observed a religious statue of the Virgin Mary on the dash of the car. The officer further testified that from his experience, " religious symbols were present in vehicles when drugs were seized from them." He went on to say that such religious symbols are possible indicators that increase suspicion of drug trafficking. He then claimed to have reasonable suspicion to obtain "consent" from the driver to search his car for drugs, which were later located in the vehicle.

U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson disagreed. He found First and Fourth amendment violations in this particular search, based upon his previous rulings on searches arising in the Pecos Division of the Western District of Texas.(The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects private, religious expression, both verbal and written; the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.)

In analyzing the officer's calculation of "reasonable suspicion", Judge Furgesen concluded that the use of the presence of a religious symbol was a violation of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, and that the consideration of a religious symbol as a factor in deciding to search a vehicle was a violation of both the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Continue reading "Religious symbols no longer reasonable suspicion for search of vehicles in Texas" »

July 2, 2008

Law West of the Pecos

As a West Texas Criminal Lawyer, I frequently travel to remote parts of the state in defense of clients who have been arrested for small quantities of marijuana or drugs found in their cars as the result of highway stops by Texas troopers on Interstates 10 or 20, or at the Border Patrol checkpoint at Sierra Blanca.

Recently while driving to a pre-trial hearing in Sierra Blanca, I stopped for gas in Van Horn, which lies 35 miles to the east of Sierra Blanca along Interstate 10 in far west Texas. As I got out of my car I counted 37 Texas Department of Public Safety vehicles in one motel parking lot. The longer I stayed, the more DPS cars I saw. As it was late in the evening, I noticed troopers standing by their patrol cars conversing with each other or with U.S. Border Patrol agents parked in their familiar green and white 4 wheel drive trucks

Van Horn, a town of about 2,500 people, is headquarters for border enforcement for over a thousand square miles of ruggedly beautiful desert adjoining the Mexican border. From Pecos on IH 20 to Sierra Blanca on IH 10, down to Fort Davis, Marfa, and Alpine in the Big Bend country, and then along IH 10 from Fort Stockton in Pecos County to Ozona in Crockett County to Sonora in Sutton County, the Texas troopers patrol the highways in search of illegal drugs and illegal aliens. As the speed limit is 80 mph for two hundred miles east of the El Paso County line, speeding tickets shouldn't generate too many traffic stops.

Eagle%20Mts%20Vista.jpgHowever, I spotted over a dozen troopers working the interstate between Pecos and Van Horn, a distance of about 85 miles. Some cars were cruising at below speed limit, and some were parked in the median or on the side of the road, usually at the bend of a winding stretch of IH 10 through the mountain passes.

On one of my trips through Van Horn, I happened to be present during a DPS shift change. I watched as troopers emerged from their motel rooms to start their patrol for the night. I have learned that DPS troopers come from all over Texas for their temporary duty in the trans Pecos desert. I was told by a local motel clerk that the Department of Public Safety even rotates the motels where the troopers are housed in order to accommodate the local businesses.

It is no wonder that the Culbertson County Courthouse is a busy place; it is also no wonder that the courthouses in Hudspeth, Brewster, Pecos, and Jeff Davis counties are busy places as well. This kind of activity also extends two hundred miles to the east as far as Ozona and Sonora, where prosecutors face dockets loaded with drug cases made by searches of cars on the interstate.

All of these remote little courthouses have crowded dockets of cases against young people from out-of -state who are charged with possession of small amounts of drugs and who have had to post bail and pay storage charges on their cars impounded after their arrest.

For these areas, business is booming.

June 20, 2008

Nondisclosure of Criminal Records in Texas apply to Deferred Adjudication

Texas Motions for Nondisclosure are only available to those who have been granted Deferred Adjudication by a Texas judge. Deferred Adjudication means that a judge will defer, or put off, finding the defendant guilty and will place him on probation or community supervision for a period of time. Deferred Adjudications are not expungable. They can only be nondisclosed; that is, be made unavailable to any entity other than law enforcement. This requires that a Motion for Nondisclosure be filed and usually involves a hearing in front of the convicting court.

Motions for Nondisclosure of Criminal Records became necessary as a response to the barrage of internet sites whose purpose was to make criminal records available to the general public. For many years before the internet explosion, the average client, as well as his lawyer, was secure in the assumption that upon successful completion of deferred adjudication any record would remain private. Some even mistakenly believed that an individual who had completed deferred was eligible for expunction of the arrest and conviction.

Unfortunately, this was not the case, and with the onslaught of internet providers,such records formerly kept hidden away in the courthouse were being placed on internet sites, and thus became easily available to potential employers, apartment complexes, schools, and even little league sports organizations doing background checks on potential coaches or volunteers.

With the support of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, a bill was finally passed by the Texas Legislature addressing the disclosure problems brought on by the internet age. The original bill has since been amended to shorten waiting periods for felony deferred adjudication, and to allow most misdemeanors to be nondisclosed immediately upon successful discharge of the deferred sentence.

June 4, 2008

Sierra Blanca, Texas has busy border patrol checkpoint

Sierra Blanca is the county seat of Hudspeth County, located in far West Texas. For a tiny little town of 535 people, Sierra Blanca has a very busy courthouse. The reason for all this courtroom activity is the proximity of the United States Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 10 a few miles to the west.

The Sierra Blanca Border Patrol checkpoint is considered a "functional equivalent of the border", which allows Border Patrol and U.S. Customs agents to conduct searches of all vehicles going east or west along Interstate 10.

vanhornsign.jpg

All I-10 traffic is routed through the checkpoint area where drivers are routinely asked the same sort of preliminary questions directed to anyone crossing the border into the United States. If the questioning agent becomes suspicious, the offending automobile is directed to pull over into another area and a search of the vehicle is conducted. Sometimes drug dogs are used to assist the agents.

When drugs are found, most cases are referred to the state for prosecution. The larger quantities become the responsibility of the feds, and are turned over to the DEA for presentation to the United States Attorney in Alpine, Texas.

The smaller cases go to the little courthouse in Sierra Blanca.

sierra%20blanca%20ct%20house.jpg

Continue reading "Sierra Blanca, Texas has busy border patrol checkpoint" »