Texas Criminal Lawyer Blog

Back in October, this blog discussed a case called United States v. Jones that was about to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. The question before the Court was where the Fourth Amendment draws a line between a valid search and seizure and one that violates the Constitution. In Jones, FBI agents and local police officers attached a hidden GPS system to a car belonging to Antoine Jones, whom they suspected of trafficking cocaine. They then used the GPS system to track Mr. Jones to a stash house, where he was later arrested. Since in past cases, like United States v. Karo, the Supreme Court found that certain tracking devices did not violate the Fourth Amendment, many wondered if the current Supreme Court Justices would erode the right to be "secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects" even further.

As it turns out, the answer is no. The Supreme Court issued its decision on Monday, unanimously reversing the conviction of Mr. Jones for drug trafficking. All of the justices agreed that the conviction could not stand when the evidence was invalid -- the FBI and police installed the GPS device without the protection of a warrant, having waited too long (beyond the warrant's 10-day window) to install the device. However, the Justices differed on what overturning the conviction meant for Fourth Amendment protections. Five Justices supported the lead opinion, written by Justice Scalia, while four Justices supported Justice Alito's rationale.

Justice Scalia wrote that there was no doubt that the government "physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information," which made the GPS tracking device a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This notion of unlawful search was based on the common law notion of trespass, as understood by the drafters of the Constitution, rather than the newer Katz v. United States rationale, which states a search is unlawful if it violates the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy. Scalia argued that the Katz was an addition, not a substitute for, the common law trespass test.

Justice Sotomayor, in her concurrence, agreed with Justice Scalia's rationale and also added: "it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties." Sotomayor gave examples of disclosing your phone number when you text and phone, or an IP address when you surf the Internet. She doubted "people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year." However, their Constitutional protection could only be assured if the courts stopped treating secrecy as a prerequisite to privacy.

In his concurrence, Justice Alito argued that the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test should be used because there were no eighteenth century situations that could be compared to the technology of today's world. There did not need to be a physical trespass in order for violation of privacy to occur.

When you think of "probable cause," you tend to think of dramatic scenarios. Such as a police officer doing a vehicle search for weapons or drugs. Or a police officer obtaining a warrant to search a house for suspicious content. Probable cause is written into the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The general definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime." It is the backbone of the criminal legal system, preventing (in theory) police officers from searching or arresting based on a whim.

However, you don't usually think of probable cause -- or the Fourth Amendment -- clashing with the First Amendment. Yet that appears to be the case in Reichle v. Howards, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear.

In 2006, Steven Howards visited a shopping center at Beaver Creek Mall in Colorado. His visit coincided with that of Vice President Cheney, who brought along a massive security detail, including several Secret Service agents. While talking to a friend on his cell phone, Howards saw Cheney leave a grocery store and stated: "I'm going to ask him how many kids he's killed today." One Secret Service agent decided that it was "unhealthy" and "not quite right" for someone to make this statement (presumably about the Iraq War). He and the other Secret Service agents monitored Howards while Howards waited his turn to speak to the vice president. When Howards reached Cheney, he told him that his "policies in Iraq were disgusting" and touched his right shoulder. The Secret Service agents had seen enough: they believed that they had probable cause for arrest. Howards was later arrested for assaulting Vice President Cheney.

After Howards was detained at the local sheriff's department and the charges against him dropped, he filed suit against the Secret Service agents for violating his both Fourth Amendment rights through an unlawful search and seizure, and his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. The issues that the Supreme Court will consider are whether probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim and whether the court below erred by denying qualified and absolute immunity to the Secret Service agents.

There are a few places in Texas where one might see Secret Service agents, but Sierra Blanca isn't one of them. Moreover, along the U.S.-Mexico border, free speech issues don't often come up in search and seizure situations. But this case does illustrate how murky "probable cause" can be, and how easily federal and state agents can claim to have it when the situation requires. How many people have performed acts that could be misconstrued as threatening by someone determined to think the worst of them? Fortunately in this case, the county sheriff decided not to pursue harassment charges. In many other cases, though, it is up to a federal criminal defense attorney to stand up for the suspect's rights.

If you need a reason to believe drug smugglers deserve a fair trial like anyone else, this is the story for you. A number of people have been used as unwitting vehicles to smuggle marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs across the Texas border into Mexico and vice versa.

For example, Ricardo Magallanes, a United States citizen and El Paso college student, was crossing the border into Mexico when the U.S. Border Patrol stopped his car and performed a search and seizure. The Border Patrol agent found 112 pounds of marijuana that had been stuffed into duffle bags sitting in his car trunk. Magallenes was shocked to learn about the marijuana and terrified about his fate. "I was wondering if I was going to spend years and years in prison." The same thing happened to Jose Molina, a Mexican citizen with a long employment record and clean criminal history. He was given a free bus ride across the border to Houston; in exchange, he brought some saddles through U.S. customs. It turned out that the saddles were filled with cocaine worth $20,000.

Over and over, respectable people who crossed the border every day to earn a living were arrested for possessing drugs that they never knew were there. Of the five people arrested in El Paso, one was convicted by a jury and two pleaded guilty in order to face a reduced prison sentence.

According to Houston attorney Norm Silverman, "[t]his has been going on as long as there has been smuggling." For a drug trafficker, having an unwitting courier is the best possible situation because that person won't show the signs of nervousness that could be a tip off to law enforcement officials. The Department of Justice doesn't keep track of how many federal cases involve unwitting couriers. However, 2009 figures show that of the 3,846 defendants charged with drug trafficking in the Houston to El Paso area, 126 were dismissed.

Magallanes was lucky. After refusing to plead guilty, he was convicted by a jury, and would have gone to prison if District Judge David Briones hadn't stepped in. Judge Briones said that there was no evidence that Magallanes knew that the duffle bags were in his trunk. The judge might not have ever voiced his concerns if he hadn't spoken to a colleague who presided over the same situation. The suspect in that case was found not guilty. Judge Briones's suspicion led to a new federal investigation, where a confidential informant finally told the truth about what happened.

Back in July, this blog discussed a disastrous attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to track down Mexican drug cartel leaders. They let 2,000 guns be smuggled across the border, thinking that they could keep track of each one, only to lose most of them and be indirectly responsible for 150 murders, including a Border Patrol agent's. Now the ATF is trying to redeem itself with a new leader, B. Todd Jones. Jones is a former U.S. Marine who once commanded a military police unit. His goal is to get the ATF to focus back on stopping violent crime, rather than the two big federal investigations taking place in Washington under the watchful eye of House Republican Darrell Issa.

The ATF's general mission is to prevent illegal use of firearms and explosives, and the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products. It is one of many active federal agencies along the U.S.-Mexico border, sometimes involved in house and vehicle searches and seizures that are possibly illegal. While many of its aims are worthy ones (such as stopping violent crime), it has a somewhat checkered history. Besides the total failure that was its "Fast and Furious" program, the ATF was also part of the tragedy at Waco, Texas in 1993, when agents held a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidian sect, ending with a fire that killed 76 people. At the same time, it is hard to fault the ATF for trying to regulate firearms, which are so numerous and unregulated that even Al Qaeda instructed its members to go purchase weapons at gun shows.

It is too early to know what to expect of B. Todd Jones's leadership. It certainly can't be any worse than his predecessors'. Even now, crimes continue to be committed with weapons connected to the "Fast and Furious" program -- the most recent in Arizona, where a Mexican national committed aggravated assault on a police officer. If Jones succeeds in cleaning up the ATF, it would be a good thing for all of us. However, it would be even better if he could do it without violating people's rights. The temptation is there: the ATF needs to look responsible, find the missing weapons, and prevent catastrophes like "Fast and Furious" from ever happening again. So they become even more aggressive with their searches, leave no stone unturned and no house or car unexplored -- even if that means entering stopping a car without reasonable suspicion, searching a house without an adequate search warrant, and questioning suspects without first informing them of their Miranda rights. With his military background and history cleaning up the Minnesota District Attorney's office, Jones sounds tough, but is he tough enough to stand up to potential abuses?

Criminal defense attorneys in Texas and other border states see too many cases where criminal suspects must answer charges based on evidence that the police gained illegally. A skilled criminal defense attorney can do his best to get illegally obtained evidence suppressed, but it is always better when we don't have to.

As if the Border Patrol didn't invite enough controversy, Texas is now permitting private guards to police the U.S.-Mexico border. The Texas Department of Public Safety has given the International Security Agency license to operate in the Rio Grande Valley. Its clients would be ranchers and local businesses threatened by violence from drug cartels. With the promise of this extra safety, however, comes questions of who exactly controls these new knights in shining armor.

ISA President Jerry Brumley insists that his guards are seasoned, responsible veterans. Any applicant to the ISA must have been in the military for at least four years with an honorable discharge, a federal or civil law enforcement officer with at least two years of service, or a security officer with six years of experience. Unlike the Blackwater guards in Iraq, his guards have never been charged with a crime. And the guards themselves would only police private property near the border -- not interfere with border agents' duties.

Yet the ISA also peddled their services to local ranchers and farmers by showing newsreel clips of a bomb exploding in a city, of smugglers abandoning cars and goods in the Rio Grande -- events that are not only not on private property, but are designed to get people pumped up and hotheaded. And ISA guards aren't troubled by traditional limitations like waiting for culprit to shoot first. "Our practice is if someone raises a weapon to me and I feel threatened, with my life or the life of my client, I am taking action," says Brumley.

So we have a private company meant to operate on private land, yet for a very public reason--the federal government failed. "It is the federal government's responsibility to protect Americans by securing the international border," says Governor Perry's press secretary, Katherine Cesinger. "[T]he federal government is not fulfilling that responsibility." With these sentiments in mind, it's a question of how long before one of these private guards takes action on public property. If they do, they might not be bound by the Fourth Amendment the way public law enforcement agencies are.

The Fourth Amendment prevents public law enforcement agents from searching a house without a warrant, auto search and seizure without probable cause, and detaining someone without reasonable suspicion. In other words, you can't just go up to someone, pin him down, and start searching through his pockets. While Fourth Amendment protections have been weakened in many troubling ways, the idea still is that you must have a reason for detaining someone, more than just a vague suspicion. What is more, your use of force must be in proportion to the danger.

In what signals a welcome trend, Texas is closing down its first prison. Not only will the state close down the Central Unit in Sugar Land, but it will also shutter three juvenile detention centers. The reasons have to do with budget cuts, as well as a shift from prosecution to rehabilitation for drug use.

In 2005, Texas began to make changes to its sentencing procedures, shifting money the from tough-on-crime approach to rehabilitation and prevention programs. This slowed the number of incarcerations and led to a 12.8% drop in the number of violent crimes since 2003. Since then, the state has seen its crime rate drop to a 38-year low and has saved $2 billion that would have otherwise been spent on building new prisons.

By closing Central Unit and the juvenile detention centers, Texas has become part of a national trend of prison closure. The Central Unit closure in particular has a special significance. Opened in 1909, it was made famous in the folk song "Midnight Special" sung by inmate Huddy "Lead Belly" Ledbetter. Lyrics include "you'd better walk right" or else "Benson Crocker will arrest you, Jimmy Boone will take you down" and "you're Sugar Land bound." Since Central Unit's opening, the surrounding farmland has been replaced by suburban neighborhoods. Since prisons and suburbia don't mesh, the prison's days were numbered. Lawmakers finally decided to close it to save $25 million over two years.

It is exciting to see that Texas's new approach is paying off. A Texas criminal defense attorney knows how frequently clients' freedom can be taken away based on trivial crimes. The state and federal sentencing guidelines have traditionally been tough on repeat offenders, even for nonviolent crimes. Texas's juvenile justice system has often served young people poorly, ignoring constitutional protections and punishing them harshly for minor crimes. Furthermore, prison time is hardly the deterrent that many tough-on-crime advocates believe it to be. People who go to prison often become hardened and are highly likely to return to crime once they are released. Meanwhile, prison conditions can be highly dehumanizing. In Brown v. Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal judges who found that California's overcrowded prisons violated the Eight Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. These judges had ordered the release of 46,000 inmates. While no one has suggested that Central Unit's conditions were so brutal, the prison's age was making it more expensive to maintain. Its 900 inmates have been transferred to other facilities.

There has been so much dismal news about criminal suspects -- usually about how their rights have been chipped away little by little. To hear that Texas is making progress by using a less punitive approach is very welcome news indeed. Coupled with the news that states across the country are rethinking their sentencing guidelines, maybe it is finally safe to say that lawmakers are turning away from the tough-on-crime approach for good. That is something that in the long run could benefit Texans and the country as a whole.

Willie Nelson was in the news again recently. As reported several months ago, the famous country singer was arrested in 2010 after a Sierra Blanca checkpoint search and seizure for possessing six ounces of marijuana. He was later charged with a misdemeanor. Most people in his position are turned over immediately to the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office, where they might remain in the Hudspeth County jail for 48 hours before seeing a Justice of the Peace and having a bond set.

Nelson recently sought a plea deal, where he would plead guilty to the violation and pay a $500 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia. When the prosecutor floated this idea to Hudspeth County Judge Becky Dean-Walker, she rejected it. Willie Nelson shouldn't get special treatment, she said- claiming that County Attorney Kitt Bramblett wouldn't make this deal with anyone else. In fact, my experience has been that most people with a good lawyer don't end up with jail time, but rather pay a hefty fine and face conviction for a class B misdemeanor.

In Nelson's case, the ball is still in Bramblett's court, because it his responsibility to prosecute misdemeanors in Hudspeth County. That is, it is the County Attorney's job to see to it that the prosecution moves forward -- if not, the case could be dismissed in a few years for lack of prosecution. However, the notoriety of Willie Nelson's arrest makes that prospect a remote one indeed.

The continuation of Willie Nelson's story comes at an interesting time. The federal government recently declared that marijuana has no health benefits. The Department of Justice claimed that "marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision." This might come as a surprise to medical marijuana users in California and the 15 other states that have made it legal. A decade ago, medical marijuana supporters asked the federal government to reclassify cannabis, claiming that it helped treat glaucoma and ease the side effects of chemotherapy. In its latest decision, the government claimed that marijuana had "no accepted medical use" because no adequate studies had been performed of its health benefits. Well that settles everything.

The federal government is in an increasingly awkward position. For decades, it has been locked into the mentality that no drug is a good drug. Mild drugs like marijuana are just a gateway to more lethal drugs. Yet among the general public, acceptance of marijuana use is growing. Many of those who have smoked marijuana during a serious illness have testified to its benefits, while managing to not become serious drug abusers in the process. Many of those caught at border checkpoints like Sierra Blanca or in police raids on their homes did not pose a danger to anyone else. They were not violent or psychotic -- not even Willie Nelson. Yet the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Justice can't just give up decades of strongly held belief. It is easier to force people who dabble in drugs to hire a federal criminal defense attorney to keep them out of jail than to rethink their punishment.

This is not to say that marijuana is harmless and we shouldn't be cautious. Marijuana can have harmful effects on an individual -- but about how many over-the-counter and prescription drugs could we say the same? Studies crop up all the time showing how seemingly "safe" (DEA-approved) drugs harm our bodies. Before too long, there will be a study proving that illicit drugs are safer than some of the most common prescription medicines.

The criminal justice system is rife with inequalities, and juveniles are one of the groups hit hardest.

In theory, juveniles have almost the same constitutional protections as their adult counterparts. No matter how reprehensible the crime, the teenager is entitled to be defended in court by a criminal defense attorney. To search a teen, law enforcement officials must have probable cause (the exception being a search on school grounds by a school official). Juveniles must have notice of the charges they are facing. They also have a right to representation in court proceedings, and to have an attorney appointed if they can't afford to hire one. At the same time, the widespread view is that many juveniles who commit crimes deserve a second chance. Therefore, juveniles convicted of their crimes at a hearing usually go to a youth detention center instead of a regular prison in order to be rehabilitated. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles could not be forced to serve life sentences without parole for crimes other than murder.

In practice, however, constitutional and other protections are often overlooked. Juveniles lack even adequate counsel, let alone an experienced criminal defense attorney who knows how to defer prosecutions or navigate the minefield of discovery, notice requirements, and motions to suppress. Furthermore, social outrage over certain crimes has led many states to make it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults. Teens are forced to serve lengthy sentences in adult prisons, despite the large gap in perspective and reason that too often exists between teens and full-fledged adults. In adult prisons, juveniles are more likely to be abused than adults, and have fewer opportunities for rehabilitation and education. Juveniles who serve less than a life sentence in adult prisons are more likely to return to crime than if they had served in a juvenile facility.

The harsh mentality toward juveniles can lead to some cruelly absurd results. For example, the age of consent in Texas is 17 years old. Anyone less than 17 years old is a considered to be a child. That means in theory, a teenager could be found guilty of sexual assault (a second-degree felony) if he or she had sex with someone younger than 17. While in certain situations, punishment for sex with a child may be justified, a 17-year old male in Texas could be sentenced for having consensual sex with a 13-year old whom he thought was really 14. There may be no indication of coercion or trickery, but the 17-year old is punished just the same -- despite the fact that his "crime" is far different from that of a 30-year old having sex with a 13-year old girl. The 17-year old is forced into a system that mistreats him, and faces the loss freedom for a significant amount of time. This could have a lasting impact on him, creating a criminal where one might not have existed otherwise.

That is not to say that juveniles who commit crimes should be let off the hook. All crimes should be dealt with seriously, especially violent crimes. Still, with teenagers, you always need to consider whether the crime merits a lengthy sentence in adult prison or juvenile facility. Was the crime caused by carelessness or short-sightedness that is so often found in that age group? Is there no reason to believe the teen can turn his or her life around? Many people erroneously assume that the mold has been set, that a "bad" teen will be an adult criminal. But if the teen's situation is treated with sensitivity, instead of being dismissed, the criminal justice system may be able to prevent this from happening.

In the recent case of Kentucky v. King, the Supreme Court ruled that police can create an emergency that allows them to enter someone's home without a warrant.

Normally, the home has the highest level of protection available. Police cannot just enter and search because the Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." To enter and search a home, police must have a warrant, which is based upon probable cause. Probable cause requires more than just a hunch that the homeowner is, for example, selling drugs. Police must have a reasonable belief, supported by circumstantial evidence, that the homeowner committed a crime. They must then submit an affidavit stating the basis for their belief to a magistrate. If the magistrate accepts the reasoning, he or she will issue a search warrant that clearly states the scope of the search. Police cannot search the upstairs of a house when the warrant limits the scope to downstairs.

One exception to the scenario above is known as "exigent circumstances." Under exigent circumstances doctrine, police do not need to obtain a warrant to enter a home as long as they have probable cause. Sometimes an emergency situation exists, requiring the police to enter immediately. The suspect might be on the verge of destroying the evidence, harming someone else, or escaping. Over the years, there has been some conflict over what is urgent enough to be "exigent circumstances." Now the U.S. Supreme Court has held that police-created emergency situations fall under the exigent circumstances heading.

In Kentucky v. King, Lexington police officers followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment building. Though they didn't know which apartment the suspect had gone into, they smelled marijuana coming from one. After they knocked on the door and announced themselves, they heard shuffling noises. They opened the door and found the suspect with drugs and drug paraphernalia.

All of the justices joined the majority opinion except for Justice Ginsberg. They held that exigent circumstances applied even in police-created emergency situations because a police search needed only to be reasonable and based on probable cause. While a warrantless search was presumptively unreasonable, the presumption could be overcome when the "exigencies" of the situation made the needs of law enforcement compelling enough. The Court rejected the lower courts' "police-created exigency" doctrines, which were created as an exception to the usual "exigent circumstances" rule. These doctrines placed too great a burden on police officers to behave in a certain way that would not create an unnecessary crisis. The Court found that the police did not act in bad faith and had the necessary probable cause before entering.

This recent article discusses a push by conservatives to change criminal sentencing guidelines. The guidelines in question apply only to the state of Arizona, but this issue involves Texas and every other state in the union. Conservatives are realizing that mandatory sentences, modeled after those of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, often lead to harsh, unfair, and absurd results.

For those unfamiliar with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, here is a refresher. Up through the 1970s, criminal sentences were determined by judges and reviewed by parole boards, based on individual circumstances. But criticism of uneven sentencing and rising crime in the late 1970s paved the way for the United States Sentencing Commission and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The Commission created a Sentencing Guidelines that dictated the length of a sentence by the type of crime and the defendant's criminal history. Suddenly judges had to put aside their wisdom and experience to issue a sentence already set in stone. Defendants without a strong federal criminal defense attorney had little hope of evading a harsh sentence. United States v. Booker (2005) changed the rules so that the Guidelines were advisory, not mandatory, but they still hold great influence even today.

While the federal guidelines were being developed, states such as Arizona and Texas rushed to create their own sentencing guidelines. Like the federal version, the state guidelines often looked at the type of offense and the defendant's history. The state sentencing guidelines included offenses not listed in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. And soon, like federal sentencing, state criminal sentences began to produce harsh, unfair, and absurd results.

Much has been made of the disparity in federal drug sentences. Until 2010, there was a 100:1 disparity in the sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine. Crack cocaine was more "powerful," it was reasoned, so its users deserved more jail time. Never mind that the difference in power was the source of continuous debate. While it's fortunate that the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced the disparity, other absurdities remain. Likewise, the article notes that an Arizona woman spent nearly two years in prison for her first DUI because she had previously been convicted of marijuana possession. Arizona imposes mandatory sentences for nonviolent crimes such as drug possession and DUIs. Its guidelines are especially harsh on repeat offenders can even if their past crimes were nonviolent.

To their credit, conservatives who support tough-on-crime measures think that the Arizona sentencing guidelines need to be reformed. Other states, such as Texas, have begun to reform their procedures as well. In 2007, Texas started a program that created an alternative to prison time by allowing offenders to substitute probation plus time in a substance abuse program. The Texas Public Policy Foundation has a Right on Crime project that is currently reviewing mandatory sentences.

President Obama made an early 2012 campaign stop in El Paso to make the case for comprehensive immigration reform. The time was right, he claimed, because he kept his promise and secured the U.S.-Mexico border. This includes doubling the number of Border Patrol agents since 2004, nearly completing the border fence, tripling the number of intelligence analysts, and setting unmanned aerial vehicles on the border. His policies have resulted in more drugs, currency, and weapons being seized than ever before.

The president's words deserve a grain of salt, since this blog has previously discussed the holes in border security. Even so, border security advocates' embrace of more and bigger barriers is baffling on several levels. Their most often-cited reason is to stop illegal immigrants - the regular economic kind, and the could-be-a-terrorist kind - from entering the country. Yet illegal crossings have actually declined over the years, to less than half of what they were in 2005. To listen to some, you would think that they had doubled. As for terrorists illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, no conclusive evidence has ever been established.

There are some real border problems. Drug smugglers still find their way into the U.S. Conversely, Guns from the U.S. flow into Mexico. Both have led to violence and the destruction of lives. Yet you don't hear border security advocates discuss that very much. In fact, this beefed-up border security has become part of the problem. When the Border Patrol is not looking the other way, its members may be overzealously stopping and searching vehicles belonging to otherwise law-abiding Americans. These people then must find a criminal defense attorney to help fight the federal crimes they have been charged with.

Why shouldn't these practices matter to border security advocates, who claim to care about individual rights and the American way of life? In fact, Citizens are being harmed by these practices. Their rights are being ignored at so-called border stops such as Sierra Blanca, Texas. People are spending time in jail and are charged with felony drug possession for small amounts of drugs or marijuana as a result of border patrol agents and local law enforcement abusing their authority. This should be a big deal, but it's not.

Immigration is an important issue. But the worst fears of border security advocates do not seem to equal what is happening to American citizens every single day. Perhaps they will be satisfied by President Obama's security measures and finally turn their attention to abuses at the border. More likely, though, border security advocates will just demand more security, and the issue of Americans' rights at the border will continue to fall by the wayside.

We are fast-approaching the 45th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona. This landmark 1966 Supreme Court case has become a mainstay of every law school classroom and nearly every lawyer-cop show on television. Almost anyone can recite the words by now: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney..." And if you are an indigent, you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you.

Under Miranda, law enforcement must give warnings whenever a suspect is in police custody, before an interrogation. The reason is to protect the suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This is especially relevant to clients taken into police custody after a vehicle search and seizure turned up drugs or other potentially incriminating evidence. Yet even though Miranda appears to have been embraced by the mainstream, it has been under attack since the very beginning. Many (including Richard Nixon) complained that it would undermine law enforcement's ability to go after serious criminals. Since 1966, law enforcement officials have looked for ways around the Miranda warnings. Sometimes they were thwarted by the Supreme Court, but too often - especially in recent years - they received its sanction.

In 2004, a plurality of the Court shot down a common police practice of withholding Miranda warnings until after they had interrogated the suspect in Missouri v. Seibert. Yet it introduced the idea that the pre-warning confessions could remain valid if the warnings were withheld "in good faith" - however ill defined. Six years and a few new Supreme Court justices later, we had Berghuis v. Thompkins. Here, the Court held that suspects who wanted to exercise their "right to remain silent" had to say so specifically. Speak for the right not to speak.

So now criminal suspects must do something counter-intuitive in order to exercise their basic rights--that is, if anyone even informs them of their rights in the first place. Suspects can waive their rights if done knowingly and voluntarily, but in reality, they often do so without understanding what's at stake. Too few suspects have a strong criminal defense attorney at their side when they speak to police. This latest development is destined to put more people in jail.

What will become of Miranda when it reaches its 50th anniversary? Hopefully this important case will still be honored. Yet the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems too willing to chip away at its holding. Unless there is a Justice Kennedy or Scalia retirement within the next few years, the Berghuis majority will be there to leave its mark on the next Miranda case. It will then be more important than ever for a suspect to have an experienced federal defense attorney at his side during questioning.

Earlier this week, Mexican police netted 105 tons of marijuana after a decisive confrontation with drug smugglers in three operations in and around the city of Tijuana. According to Mexican Army officials, the drugs had a street value of over 4 billion pesos - approximately $340 million.

The big bust happened after local police got into a shootout with a local gang riding in a convoy. The officers called in help from the military, and the subsequent gun battle led to injuries on both sides as well as to further raids on a nearby home and ranch, where more marijuana was found and seized. All told, police arrested 11 people and found 10,000+ color coded packages of drugs. Different packages featured different labels, depending on their ultimate intended destination in the United States. Some packages were decorated with pictures of Homer Simpson saying "Voy De Mojarra Y Que Wey!" - which essentially means "I'm gonna get high dude!"

Drug related violence south of the border has led to the deaths of nearly 30,000 people since Mexican President Calderon initiated action against the powerful Mexican drug cartels in 2006. To put that in perspective, around 50,000 Americans died in total in the Vietnam War - so the number of deaths in Mexico's drug war is already equal to more than half the number of Americans killed in Vietnam.

This border violence has ramped up the enforcement on the Texas side of the border, resulting in more highway stops, more vigorous random patrols, and in a considerable increase in law enforcement presence, both federal and state, in the border regions of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

If you've been accused of a federal drug crime -- such as possessing, manufacturing, or transporting drugs; or collaborating in a criminal conspiracy related to illegal narcotics -- you could face sweeping punishments according to US law. These could include (but will not necessarily be limited to) jail time, fines, mandatory repayment to victims of your crime, suspension of your driver's license, loss of certain rights, strict terms of probation and release, and secondary consequence of your conviction, such as the degradation of your professional reputation and a more difficult time getting loans or leases.

If you've been arrested in West Texas on federal criminal drug charges, money laundering charges, or weapons violations, a Board Certified criminal defense attorney can provide a strategic, results-oriented plan to fight back against prosecutors and reduce or potentially even eliminate your punishments.

If you work for a bank, or public institution, and you wrongfully use money or other assets entrusted to you, you can get arrested and face charges under Title 18, Chapter 31 of the US Code.

The definition of this crime of embezzlement -- which is essentially the intentional misuse of funds, assets, or other property put under an employee's trust -- can be quite broad. According to Section 656 of the US Code, different kinds of embezzlement carry different penalties. Federal, state, and local authorities can all pursue action against you and your associates.

Most embezzlement cases (approximately 4 out of 5, according to some surveys) involve the misuse of money, supplies, or inventory. But you can get charged for embezzlement for doing other things. For instance, if you steal letters or packages entrusted to your care by the bank or public agency or institution, that can be classified as embezzlement.

Embezzlement almost always charged as a felony , and punishment can be severe. Depending on what you did and how you misappropriated funds, you could face fines in the million of dollars and many months in prison, followed by a period of supervised release and mandatory restitution to the victim banks or institutions.

If convicted, the Court will look at (among other factors):

* criminal history
* the amount embezzled
* role in the offense, whether a leader or organizer
* whether you have a criminal record

If you've been accused of embezzlement or appropriating funds from a business, public institution, private charity, or other organization, whose funds are insured by the Federal Government, you may need a Texas Federal Criminal Attorney who is familiar with White Collar crime defense. Given the potential consequences for your freedom, bank account, and professional reputation, you want the highest quality defense possible.

Whether you got charged in Texas Federal Courts for participating in a complicated money laundering scheme that involved millions in cash, half a dozen offshore accounts and multiple steps -- or just got involved with money laundering charges involving drug transactions -- you may need a sophisticated federal attorney to defend yourself against the charges.

An array of international, federal, state and local law enforcement organizations can prosecute money laundering as a crime. Anti-money laundering institutions (at home and abroad) include:

* The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF)
* International Monetary Fund
* World Bank
* United Nations
* Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
* Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
* Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
* The State Department
* The Department Of Justice (DOJ)

Whether you got arrested for money laundering related to a simple drug crime in West Texas or a complex international scheme, prosecutors will strive to trace and reconstruct what you and your associates did. Most money laundering schemes operate over an extended period of time and involve numerous transactions.

Placement

Usually the first step is "placement," during which the launderer deposits cash into a bank or other financial institution. In the United States, banks must report deposits in excess of $10,000 to the government. So launderers typically break up large sums into smaller installments when depositing them.

Layering

The next stage, technically known as "layering," essentially allows the launderer to change the form of the money and remove it from its illicit source. For instance, the money may be transferred to an offshore account in the Cayman Islands, Singapore, Hong Kong, or another place where anonymous banking is allowed/encouraged. Or the money may be invested in a front, such as a "shell company," a business that looks like a legitimate business but really exists for the sole purpose of laundering money. Alternatively, the money can be funneled into a reputable business -- such as a car wash or bar -- and then cleaned that way.

Integration

Lastly, the laundered money gets "integrated" back into the legitimate economy. For instance, the money funneled into an account in the Caymans may be invested in a legitimate business and then transferred back into an above-the-board bank account in the US.

United States Code Sections 1956 and 1957 (Title 18) define money laundering as a federal offense and stipulate that those convicted can face serious prison time, as well as high fines and other penalties.

To defend yourself against charges of drug money laundering in West Texas, consult with an attorney who is Board-Certified in criminal law and who understands how to construct a potent defense on your behalf.