Connecticut Criminal/DUI Defense Blog

Connecticut Lawmakers Address Videotaping of Police

2012-04-25T13:56:00.000-04:00

Connecticut Senators passed a measure last week that would clarify both to law enforcement and citizens, the right to videotape cops when acting in their official duties. In addition, lawmakers passed another bill that serves to strengthen racial profiling prevention methods already in place.

According to the Hartford Courant, the bill makes it clear that citizens have a right to videotape officers, even allowing citizens to sue officers who interfere in their videotaping. It does, however, lay out some exceptions.

Officers will not be held liable for interfering if the officer “reasonably believes” his interruption was to protect a crime scene or investigation. If the videotaping somehow compromises such an investigation, the officer can stop the citizen from recording.

The need for this bill became particularly apparent after Roman Catholic priest Rev. James Manship was arrested after recording East Haven police officers accused of hassling Hispanic citizens. His case led to the FBI investigation and federal arrest of four East Haven cops on charges of obstruction of justice and excessive force.

The bill passed 24-11 after four hours of debate.

The racial profiling bill takes existing measures and strengthens them in an effort to prevent racial profiling by law enforcement in the state of Connecticut.

The original racial profiling law was passed about a decade ago, at which time officials said there wasn’t a pattern of bias against minorities. But, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams said this week, “Racial profiling is a problem in Connecticut and throughout the United States…it’s time to strengthen the law.”

A recent report from the Courant also said that minorities were more likely to receive tickets than white drivers after being stopped. Former state Representative Michael P. Lawlor backed this report when he said, “Almost every African-American has a story like that [of profiling], and very few white people do. It’s real.”

Now, all departments will be required to use a standardized form on all police stops. The form will include the officer’s name and badge number as well as the race, gender, age, color, and ethnicity of every person stopped. Also, rather than sending the reports only to the African American Affairs Commission, they will now go straight to the governor’s budget office.

The racial profiling bill passed 31-3.

Whether you believe you are a victim of racial profiling, or if you believe you were wrongfully arrested for recording police, we may be able to help.

You have rights when you are accused of a crime, and your defense attorney is there to help protect those rights. Contact my offices today to discuss your case.

East Haven Police Chief Steps Down Amid Racial Profiling Scandal

2012-03-12T11:37:00.004-04:00

The town of East Haven has been at the center of national headlines concerning race relations and law enforcement for some time now. The chief in the center of this scandal announced his resignation early this week after an insensitive statement he uttered brought even more negative attention his way. But, despite his willingness to leave the department, this won’t be the last that is heard of Len Gallo.

The U.S. Department of Justice begana civil rights investigation into the small town department back in 2009. In December 2011, they announced they had found a pattern of discrimination against Latinos in the town, including racial profiling, intimidation, harassment and even assault.

According to Roy L. Austin Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, “We found significant deviations from standard police practices that resulted in covering up or exacerbating the police department’s disparate treatment of Latino’s.”

As a result of the investigation, four officers are facing criminal charges and Gallo’s attorney revealedthat he is one of the “unnamed coconspirators” in the criminal case.

Current Mayor Joseph Maturo reinstated Gallo last year after taking office; the previous mayor had placed him on administrative leave pending the results of the federal investigation. The Department of Justice was reportedly unhappy with Maturo’s action. Maturo seems to remain loyal to Gallo, calling his decision to step down, an “unselfish act”.

Leading up to his resignation, Gallo made waves when he discussed eating tacos to ease tensions between himself and Latino residents. In response, and taking his failed humor to heart, the group Junta for Progressive Action delivered tacos to his office last week and hoped to have an open dialogue with Gallo.

Not everyone is happy about Gallo’s decision to take unemployment into his own hands; the head of the local police commission said he wants to fire Gallo so he cannot collect his outstanding vacation and sick pay, a balance that could cash out to more than $100,000.

Gallo is also named in a civil lawsuit, filed by Latino Groups in the area. He could also be charged in the case involving four of his officers, though the exact charges are unclear.

When the entire police department of a town cannot be trusted, it leads to a deepening divide between the law enforcement and those they are said to serve. This rift can only increase conflict and the chances of violence between the two sides.

If you are charged with a criminal offenseand don’t trust the officers who arrested you to tell the truth, your position is understandable and you are not alone. Having an experienced advocate on your side can help you get a fair shake in court.

Contact me to discuss the details of your charges.

New Haven Cops Raid Apartment, Leave Resident Bloodied

2011-12-30T08:13:00.000-05:00

Fifty-four year old Tomas Torres was cooking and watching television last Wednesday afternoon when the police stormed in unexpectedly. Torres says he was punched and stomped while police laughed about his blood spatters staining the pants of one of the officers. The cops say they were looking for a drug dealer, but no drugs were found and no arrest was made.

The police say they had a lawful warrant for that apartment. And while Torres says crack dealers and prostitutes are known to hang out in the hallway, he does not associate with them. As a matter of fact, he keeps a pool cue by the door just in case, for self-protection.

Interestingly, the cops used this pool cue’s presence as justification for their violence, saying it posed a potential threat to them.

According to Torres himself, he heard a knock and asked who was there. He heard nothing but saw the cop cars outside. As he moved to open the door, it was forced open and several officers came in. He was punched in the face and shoved to the ground. One officer smashed his boot into Torres’ face as he lie there. The police cuffed him to a chair and asked where the drugs were.

The police claim Torres tried to escape from a window and resisted arrest. It was only after a Spanish speaking officer arrived that he was released to go to the hospital, where he found out his arm had been fractured.

In response to the incident, Lt. J. Paul Vance, as a spokesperson for the state police, said that there was “no record of police action anywhere in New Haven on Wednesday.” Had an arrest been made, there would have been a record, he said. On the other hand, Lt. Jeff Hoffman, with the city’s Tactical Narcotics Unit, confirmed the raid.

It isn’t clear where the police got their information, the information that led them to believe someone was selling drugs out of Torres’ apartment. But when he came home from the hospital at 1 a.m. the next morning, he found his home trashed. (See photos here). Though the officers didn’t find any drugs, they sure tossed the place in their pursuit.

In a perfect world, warrants are issued in the pursuit of real justice, only after steps have been taken to assure their integrity and correctness. But this isn’t a perfect world and mistaken raids are more common than they should be.

There are rules that must be followed by police in the issuance and execution of warrants and in searches. When they fail to abide by these rules, any evidence found can be ruled inadmissible in court. Combing through the evidence of a criminal case to ensure that the cops did their job correctly is often left to the defense lawyer.

If you are accused of a criminal offense and are in need of assistance, contact my offices today.

East Haven Police “Profoundly Broken” Say Feds

2011-12-27T08:03:00.000-05:00

After a two-year investigation into the East Haven Police Department, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is saying the department is “broken” and will take years to fix. They are accused of violating the civil rights of Latinos within the community and as many as 15 officers could face criminal charges.

Investigators for the DOJ say this particular investigation was one of the hardest they’ve ever encountered to get information about. The reason for this difficulty is at least partially the Police Chief. Chief Leonard Gallo is mentioned in the 23 report as “creating a hostile work environment” for anyone that chose to help the DOJ. Through this and other efforts, he is accused of creating a “blue wall of silence” around the investigation, even making a bulletin board to out “rats within the PD.”

The police are accused of targeting Latinos unfairly and treating them more severely than other demographics. The Hartford Courant reports that the police stopped Latino drivers at far higher rates than whites or others within the community. Though they account for 10% of the town’s population, they accounted for anywhere from 33-50% of traffic stops for officers on the 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. shift.

Latinos within the town were followed and watched by officers waiting for them to make a mistake or violate a law. In one instance, an officer looked up a driver’s insurance information before pulling them over. In other words, they were seeking excuses to stop Latino drivers.

Once stopped, the DOJ found that Latinos were treated more severely than others as well. From having their cars towed to being subject to arrest whenever possible, the police went out of their way to hassle this segment of the local population.

Mayor Joseph Maturo, who reappointed Chief Gallo after he was placed on administrative leave in April by Maturo’s predecessor, criticized the report as being “slanderous” to the community. Others, including police commissioners, state that Gallo is not the person that will be able to lead the Department into reformation.

“’We absolutely need a new chief, It all starts from the top,’ Police Commission Chairman Frederick Brow said. ‘But the mayor has pretty well put us aside as a board and doesn’t want our opinion.’”

The civil rights investigation is now complete, though a criminal investigation is ongoing. It isn’t clear at this time what charges are being considered and against whom. Twenty-four officers have been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.

What will happen to the East Haven Police Department remains to be seen. But for Latinos and anyone else in the town with a conscious, this could be the start of some much-needed changes.

Unsentenced Inmates On the Rise, as Other Incarceration Numbers Drop

2011-09-22T17:47:00.000-04:00

Two state penal institutions have been closed in recent months; 21 correction supervisors have lost their jobs; and another institution will be shutting its doors soon. While all of these facts signal a smaller prison population statewide, the number of unsentenced inmates is climbing.

According to the CT Mirror, the number of inmates still facing criminal charges in Connecticut and jailed pending court dates has risen over the past three months. Since May, the number has climbed 8% to 3,632 in August. Despite this, the total number of all inmates (both sentenced and those yet to be sentenced) has continued to decline.

In most states if someone is not granted bail pending trial they are held at a county jail, separate from the population of sentenced inmates. Not so in Connecticut. Here, we throw them all together.

Although their numbers have risen in each of the past three months, the amount of unsentenced inmates in August of this year is actually down slightly from January and almost 12% lower than August of 2010. This paired with the declining general inmate population still has the state on track to close Enfield Correctional Institution by October and another either at the end of this fiscal year or beginning of the 2012-13 fiscal year.

Michael P. Lawlor, former state representative and head of the state’s Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division says that the increase in unsentenced inmates is simply due to increased enforcement and seasonal changes. This population, he says, is particularly volatile and it’s not unusual to see the numbers climb towards the end of summer. “For 10 years now it’s been a real area of concern.”

There are a variety of reasons that other states keep their sentenced and pretrial inmates in separate facilities. Counties are largely held responsible for the costs of pre-sentence detainment in this way and those detainees are not subject to quite the same level of institutionalization as those who have already been tried and sentenced.

Connecticut isn’t the only state closing prisons either. Many states are changing the way they do business in order to save money. With corrections accounting for a huge portion of the budget, it seems logical to find ways to slash this spending. By changing sentencing practices or releasing more inmates via parole, states can work to save money while chipping away at the out of control incarceration rates.

Whether you count yourself as a pretrial detainee or someone who believes they may be under investigation for a crime, I might be able to help. Contact me today to discuss your case and to potentially receive some valuable free legal advice.

State Crime Lab Faces Heat from Feds for “Staggering” Backlog

2011-08-15T16:15:00.001-04:00

The Connecticut state forensics crime lab is under serious scrutiny after two federal audits and subsequent feedback. In 2004 there was no backlog in the lab. Today, there are 3,900 cases waiting processing, some nearing their statute of limitations deadline. As a matter of fact, the state is so concerned about these deadlines that the entire lab staff may have to solely focus on these cases, disregarding the others, in order to beat the deadline before cases have to be dismissed.

Governor Malloy has said “The audits fit into a larger picture. There are serious problems at the state crime lab.” He has since announced the creation of a 17 member panel to develop a plan to reduce the backlog. He’s also asked judges, police, and prosecutors to prioritize evidence going forward, giving lab workers some direction for handling the most urgent of cases.

The cases in the backlog represent everything from DNA rape tests to ballistics testing.

Part of the problem--DNA evidence submitted to the lab has jumped 400% since 2005. And while the cases coming into the lab have skyrocketed, staff has dropped 10%. In order to staff the lab full time to overcome the backlog, it’s estimated the state would have to spend an additional $3.7 million per year.

The federal audits were concerned that this backlog and lack of staff could create serious vulnerabilities and potential errors in the cases as existing staff struggles to keep or catch up.

According to the Hartford Courant:

In the validation section of the DNA audit, the investigators checked "no'' on each of the following questions: Does the lab follow written analytical procedures approved by the technical leader? Are the lab's standard operating procedures reviewed annually by the technical leader? Does the lab have standard procedures for each analytical method?

State officials are cautious to say that any errors have been made or that the reports open the door for any criminal appeals on cases that have already been processed. Kevin Kane, the Chief State’s Attorney says “these are preliminary reports” and that it would be “premature” to say any cases which hinged on DNA evidence were affected by the findings.

Of his newly appointed panel, Governor Malloy would like to see a plan in place by Feburary to get started on resolving the backlog and chronic understaffing. He plans on asking lawmakers to address the staffing situation as soon as possible.

The integrity of criminal evidence is crucial in any case. From the moment it is seized by the police, evidence must be handled with the most careful attention to detail in order to maintain its quality and its admissibility in a court of law.

If you are facing criminal charges in Connecticut and have questions about the evidence in your case contact me today.

CT Lawmakers decriminalize pot possession

2011-06-20T15:19:00.003-04:00

The Connecticut legislature has passed a bill decriminalizing possession of marijuana. Governor Malloy has indicated his support, and will sign the bill into law.

The Wilton Bulletin reports that under the new law, possession of marijuana under half an ounce will only be a civil infraction, and not a criminal misdemeanor charge. The penalty will be a fine of $150 for a first offense, and up to $500 for a 2nd or subsequent possession offense.

However the law is different for those under 21 years old. Similar to alcohol possession, there is a mandatory 60 day driver's license loss for possession of pot, and a required drug education program.

Under the present law, marijuana possession is punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1000 fine for possession of under 4oz. However, Attorney Erin Field is quoted as saying that such penalties are virtually never enforced. Typically, under the old (current) law, a deal would be worked out and a person would pay $700-800 for a drug treatment program, after which they would have their record cleared. So no permanent criminal record typically occurs.

Thirteen other states have decriminalized possession of marijuana, including Massachusetts and New York.

Previously: CT Marijuana decriminalization passes legislature, awaits governor's signature.

Marijuana Decriminalization Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature

2011-06-13T15:31:00.001-04:00

Just a few months ago I blogged about the possibility of our state becoming the next to decriminalize a small amount of marijuana. Well, the legislature has passed the measure and the governor is planning to sign it into law in coming days. Despite critics’ worry that the decriminalization sends the wrong message, lawmakers came through with common sense and a law that will help reserve the courts, jails, and probation staff for more serious criminals.

Decriminalization and legalization are far from the same. As it stands the new law will make it an infraction, punishable by a fine, to be caught in possession of less than a single ounce of marijuana. Currently, it’s considered a misdemeanor crime and carries potential jail time.

Jail time for a joint hardly seems necessary and is definitely not a good use of resources, particularly at a time when funding and personnel are stretched thin. Instead the courts should be used for those offenses that put the public at risk.

This new law will make Connecticut the eighth state to decriminalize pot according to the Yale Daily News. They also point out that some states have removed the possibility of jail time, though keeping possession a misdemeanor offense.

After the new law is signed, if you are caught with less than an ounce of marijuana you will be fined $150 for a first offense. After the first offense, fines will go up to $200 to $500, but the offense will still remain an infraction, sort of like a traffic ticket. However, if you are under age 21 and found in possession, the bill will allow the court to take your driving privileges for up to 60 days.

There’s nothing new or surprising in the arguments against this new bill. Though it passed by a vote of 90 to 57, the 57 are pretty adamant that the decriminalization of pot could open the floodgates to further criminality and somehow negatively affect the youth. But their worries are unfounded.

One lawmaker says, “What kind of message does this send to our children? This law undermines a fundamental lesson that our schools, social service programs and parents teach our children: that taking drugs is bad for you.”

While the Senator’s concerns seem heartfelt, decriminalizing possession of a small amount of pot doesn’t send children the message that drugs are okay. After all the offense is still penalized. And no one contests the wide availability of alcohol despite the thousands of alcohol related deaths every year.

When it comes to crime, it really doesn’t matter what the charge is, some people will look negatively on you because you are accused of a crime in the first place. Having an advocate on your side can help. Contact me today to discuss the details of your case and how I might be able to help.

Exonerated Seek Compensation from State

2011-06-02T12:03:00.002-04:00

Two men are seeking monetary compensation from the state of Connecticut for the years they spent behind bars for crimes they didn’t commit. The claims filed with the claims commissioner will, in a sense, test the new Connecticut compensation for wrongful incarceration law that was passed just a few years ago. The process will also likely test the men, who struggle to make it in a world that’s moved on without them.

It can take up to three years for someone who has been exonerated and released from prison to receive compensation. Depending on the length of their incarceration, some of these people don’t have anyone to turn to when they are freed, leaving them to struggle to find employment, housing, and even food.

There are five claims pending in total at this time, two of which total more than $16 million. Miguel Roman served 20 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. Kenneth Ireland also spent time locked up for murder, 21 years worth. He was exonerated in 2009.

Unlike many other states, Connecticut’s law doesn’t put a cap on how much can be recovered from the state. It also doesn’t bar the exonerees from seeking relief elsewhere. Roman is suing the city in federal court in addition to the claim he has against the state.

Both of these men were freed with help from the Connecticut Innocence Project who pushed for DNA testing in their cases.

Determining how much they might be entitled to is a matter that will be handled in the civil courts, with the state attorney general’s office representing the state. The men’s attorneys will evaluate how much potential income was lost over their decades in prison, any loss of earning capacity, and they will try to put a value on the damage done to the men’s mental and emotional help as well as any damage to personal relationships.

There’s little doubt these men and others like them feel a sense of vindication on the day they are released from prison. In both of these cases, the state has since found who was actually responsible for the murders. But nothing can undo the damage that’s been done by a wrongful conviction.

It’s difficult to be accused of something you didn’t do. It’s especially hard when those accusations come from the state in the form of criminal charges. When you are faced with criminal charges and you’re innocent, it can feel like no one believes you and no one is on your side. Your defense attorney is.

If you are facing charges you are innocent of, contact my offices today. I will hear you out and help you determine the best course of action for your case.

Will Connecticut Be Next To End Death Penalty?

2011-05-03T09:45:00.002-04:00

A few weeks ago the Judiciary Committee voted to repeal the death penalty. It wasn’t the first time the committed passed such a bill along, but last time it was vetoed by the governor. Now, reports are stating there’s a chance Connecticut could be the next to end application of the most severe form of punishments.

There hasn’t been an execution in the state for fifty years, save one exception. “Connecticut’s death penalty is a failed public policy,” says the executive director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty.

While there are a few arguments for retaining this age old penalty, there are many against it—namely its failure to prevent similar crimes and the seeming increasing likelihood that it be applied to the innocent (more than 250 people across the country have been exonerated since 1989).

According to the Middletown Press, sixteen states have abolished the death penalty thus far, a move that’s been spurred by several arguments already mentioned and the fact that most “modern” nations around the world have long abandoned state-sponsored executions.
Because of possible exonerations and the appeals processes associated with the death penalty, Connecticut pays an estimated $4 million annually just to have the law on the books.

This passing by the committee isn’t the end of the road for the bill, it still has to make it through the Assembly and across the Governor’s desk. Many are hopeful, however, that it will make that journey quickly.

It seems, through reading over arguments for and against capital punishment, that the only reason left for it is retribution. It doesn’t prevent other crimes, it has historically been applied unfairly, and for some it’s hypocritical to take the life of someone as punishment for taking the life of someone.

If repealed, the harshest criminal penalty will be life without the possibility of parole. However, there are harsh sentences doled out every single day in Connecticut courtrooms that don’t quite add up to life imprisonment. After all, a few years behind bars is a significant sentence for the average person to even begin to contemplate.

When your life or even a few years of your life are on the line, you want to put your confidence in an attorney that has your best interests in mind, one that will fight for the best results on your case. If you’re facing criminal charges, contact me today for a consultation.

Will Connecticut Decriminalize Marijuana?

2011-03-31T17:11:00.001-04:00

If the Governor gets his way, Connecticut will become the next state to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, leading them to be punishable by a fine rather than criminal charges. Though it seems like a no-brainer, particularly since nearly all surrounding states have already taken the step, some are still opposed to the idea, worrying it appears “soft”.

The main opponent, the Chief State’s Attorney is worried that the legislation could “send the message that the state of Connecticut tolerates marijuana,” according to the Wall Street Journal. He also says the bill has many gaps, not differentiating between adult and juvenile offenders, and creating no limit on the number of allowable infractions. He also claims it wouldn’t save much money, stating possession alone rarely leads to jail time.

Supporters of the measure argue, however, that the bill would save significant money and man power, both of which is needed to fight more serious crime.

Currently, possession of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail and $1,000 in fines. It often leads to probation in lieu of jail time, leading recreational pot smokers to be supervised by probation officers, officers who could be spending more time monitoring their more high risk probationers.

The Department of Public Safety Commissioner supports the bill and says “While the state has been spending millions in arrests, prosecution, and post-conviction probation for small amounts of marijuana, it has been failing to fund necessary staffing for DNA analysis that will solve cold cases and bring to justice the state’s most violent criminals.”

And if the state’s attorney’s argument is largely centered on the fact that pot smokers don’t end up in prison for pot alone, he shouldn’t be too worried that decriminalizing marijuana would somehow allow these criminals to fall through the cracks. After all, their primary offense would still be fair game.

According to the Governor’s office, the Office of Adult Probation supervises an estimated 1,090 people for misdemeanor possession of marijuana in CT. In 2009, 2,700 of the 8,118 marijuana arrests were for possession of marijuana alone and 75% of these cases were for less than a single ounce of marijuana.

From the police, to the courts, to corrections and probation, there are several areas that would experience a load off if marijuana was decriminalized. And it seems that many locals support the measure as well.

Currently, the bill is before the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee and lawmakers are discussing potential changes and additions to it.

In the meantime, if you are caught in possession of marijuana you will be charged with a crime. Contact me today to discuss your options and how I might be able to help you clear your name.

CT May Pass Tougher Penalties For Driving While Phoning

2011-03-18T14:07:00.002-04:00

A law banning the use of traditional cell phones while driving was enacted in 2005. Legislators are now considering increasing the penalties for a violation of this law—a law they say currently lacks “teeth” or any significant reason for people to adhere to it.

The state Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing this week to discuss two separate bills, one of which would allow the cops to actually take your phone.

Last year the legislature abolished the once-existent “pass” for first time offenders of the law. When it was enacted in 2005, the law allowed a one-time pass, so long as the driver promised to get a hands-free device for their phone. Last year this pass was stricken from the law books in an effort to bring more accountability.

This year they are looking at two additional bills. House Bill 6366 would allow an immediate driver’s license suspension of anyone found to be using their phone to make calls, text, or send or receive emails in two or more incidences. It also increases fines, to $100 for a first offense and $500 for a second offense. Also, for a second or subsequent violation, you could be sentenced to up to 3 months in jail.

The second piece of legislation being considered, SB 961, might actually anger more citizens than the first. This proposed bill would allow the police to seize your mobile device for 48 hours when issuing a summons. Yes, two entire days without your telephone-certainly something most modern folks couldn’t handle.

It’s early in the law making process for these two bills. There’s little doubt in my mind that SB 961 will meet with some serious opposition. Anytime it’s suggested that the government be able to seize your property, there should be opposition, particularly in cases where the seizure occurs prior to you being afforded the due process of the courts.

And opponents suggest that dangerous driving behavior is already covered under Connecticut's Reckless Driving statutes.

We’ll keep an eye on these bills should they go before the legislature. As a criminal defense lawyer in Connecticut, it’s my duty to stay informed of the newest laws being passed as I will no doubt be called upon to defend a client under such laws.

Understanding the legal system can be difficult with so many laws and processes. Having an experienced defense lawyer on your side can help. If you’re facing criminal charges, contact me today to discuss your case.

CT Lawmakers Consider Pre-Conviction DNA Collection

2011-03-14T10:16:00.001-04:00

Connecticut may be on their way to becoming the next state to require DNA collection in all felony arrests. Under current laws, DNA isn’t collected until someone has been convicted. But supporters of the new legislation state earlier collection is needed to protect the public.

According to the ACLU this change translates to a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence. They oppose the change and say it is a violation of civil rights. But their opposition is not likely to stop the bill from moving forward—it seems to have relatively overwhelming support.

Even one lawmaker who originally opposed such laws in Connecticut has changed his tune, now sponsoring the bill. It seems the exoneration of James Tillman played a role. Tillman was freed after serving 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit—freed by the pre-conviction DNA of a Virginia suspect.

The legislation would make Connecticut the 25th state to pass such a measure. Supporters say the collection of DNA is no more intrusive than fingerprints or mugshots and state the DNA would be destroyed if the suspect was later exonerated of the arresting criminal charges.

Another lawmaker supporting the law states that the legislation is necessary as it will allow the cross-referencing of DNA and the potential solving of many currently unsolved crimes. What sources don’t saw is whether there will be any restrictions on the use of the DNA before the suspect is convicted. For instance, will law enforcement be able to cross check the DNA profile up until the person is exonerated and the DNA then discarded or will they only be able to use in reference to the case the suspect is currently facing charges on?

Another argument for the law points out that DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 200 innocent people, convicted for crimes they didn’t commit.

So, does the law infringe on the rights of the suspect and if so, is that infringement justified because of the potential for the DNA to vindicate the innocent and deliver justice to the guilty? That’s something that lawmakers will have to determine and no doubt something that might ultimately be challenged by the ACLU down the road.

In the meantime, you can expect to have fingerprints and other various non intrusive information gathered when you are arrested. But don’t think for a moment that you are immune to other intrusive procedures pre-conviction. Being strip searched and deprived of all of your personal effects can have a lasting impact on the human psyche.

If you’ve been arrested and are facing criminal charges, you might feel like no one in the system is on your side. An experienced defense attorney can be. Contact me today for a consultation on your case.

Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Protect People’s Right To Tape Police

2011-03-03T11:06:00.001-05:00

It’s been an issue that’s made the news across the country in recent years as more and more people walk around with video-recording equipped telephones. The issue is the people’s right to record police officers when acting in their official capacity. Many people have been arrested and some have been charged criminally for doing just this. One Connecticut lawmaker has introduced legislation that addresses this issue.

Perhaps trying to submit the shortest bill possible, Senator Martin Looney of the 11th District (yes the same one who introduced the gun registry legislation) has suggested in less than 200 words, that the people of Connecticut have a “right” to photograph or videotape an event.

The bill would amend the statutes to, “authorize a person to bring a civil action for damages against a police officer who has interfered with such person’s right to photograph or videotape an even if such person’s actions did not prevent or hinder the police officer performing his or her duties.”

Though this would make Connecticut one of the first states to address the issue via legislation, this proposed legislation does leave a few things to be desired.

First off, it only gives the people access to civil recourse. This means the citizen could file suit if their right to record was interfered with. It does not protect them against arrest or harassment. In addition, the language “if such actions did not hinder the police” opens the door for loose interpretation.

If it’s left to the police officer, whether or not their actions were hindered, you can be certain that the words “hinder” would appear in every police report involving a recording device. Worded correctly, someone standing off to the side of an arrest, recording, could seem to be a hindrance.

Currently, if you are recording police and it would amount to any other criminal violation you can be charged. It’s not the recording that would be against the law, but the potential problems the recording causes. For instance, a charge of obstruction or potentially disorderly conduct may be levied.

But, if an officer advises you that recording them is against the law—they would be wrong. It is not and no where within the Connecticut statutes will you find a criminal law that restricts recording of public officials acting within their official duty.

Whether or not this bill passes, we can expect to see additional cases of police recording in the news and in the courts. If you are facing criminal charges in Connecticut, whether a recording device is involved or not, contact me today for a consultation on your case.

Local Cop Accused and Cleared In Ninth Brutality Investigation

2011-02-17T15:14:00.000-05:00

A local New Haven police officer has walked away from yet another brutality investigation. In what seems to either be a pattern of excessive force or a very strange coincidence, the local officer has faced numerous accusations of abuse in the past and all but one have resulted in him being completely cleared of wrongdoing.

Local activists held a protest this week in response to what they feel is a departmental brush-off to the victim and accuser.

The man who accused him of brutality is a Guatemalan immigrant who was present when his brother in law was receiving a traffic ticket. According to the New Haven Independent, the man was shoved to the ground, punched, kicked, and verbally berated by the officer. According to the police department, however, his actions were warranted.

Although the local group New Haven Against Police Brutality states they aren’t taking sides in the matter, one spokesperson for the group states the department’s nonchalant attitude towards the victim is a complete “injustice”.

The alleged assault took place in January 2008. The department stated they opened an investigation soon after. According to a letter the victim claims he just received, the investigation was completed in January 2010, though they just got around to informing him of the findings.

Those findings were stated in the letter as follows: “The investigation concluded there was no evidence to support the allegation of verbal abuse. Regarding the allegation of Excessive Force, the officers were exonerated since their actions were found to be lawful, justified, and proper.”

While there’s really no telling how the arrest actually went down, it’s a true he said/he said case, the officer’s pattern of brutality complaints raises suspicions. How does one go about getting 9 different brutality investigations when one is completely innocent of acting with excessive force? One wrongful complaint is believable. Even two is a possibility. But nine seems a little extreme.

When you look at the big picture, police brutality is rare. Considering how many arrests and officer confrontations occur on a daily basis, excessive force isn’t a regular issue. But, when accusations do surface, they must be taken seriously.

Proving a police officer acted outside of the realm of “reasonable” force can be very difficult. But if there is evidence your rights were violated during the arrest, there is a chance the criminal charges against you could be dropped.

From reading you your rights to serving you with a warrant, there are many constitutional protections in the arrest and investigation process. If you are facing criminal charges and aren’t sure about the actions of the officers involved, contact me to discuss your case today.

CT Lawmakers Consider Gun-Offender Registry

2011-02-16T14:19:00.000-05:00

In a move that would mark the first of its kind, Connecticut lawmakers are weighing the creation of a gun-offender registry. The statewide registry would be similar to a sex offender registry but its data would only be available to law enforcement. Law abiding gun owners, however, are up in arms at the prospect.

According to the Hartford Courant this would be the first such system on a statewide level. New York City, Baltimore, and DC all have similar city systems, though nothing of the sort has been implemented at a state level.

Though supporters claim no law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected by the proposed registry, one has to wonder what’s next—a DWI registry or perhaps an assault registry? At what point do we allow someone who was convicted of a crime to carry on with their life?

The difference between this proposed registry and the national crime database is that it would focus only on Connecticut and would contain residential information, and my guess, possible employment and other contact information as well.

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, who proposed the registry states that it would give gun-offenders a heads-up that they’re being watched. Apparently this would serve as a deterrent.

Also on the table is a piece of legislation that would require gun owners to register all firearms. Speaking out against this proposal, one NRA member says “This is not gun control, this is state control of the people.” Under current law no such registration is needed for rifles and shotguns, only handguns.

The laws regarding weapons ownership and usage are complex. While gun rights advocates state many of these tiptoe on infringing upon their right to bear arms, the large majority of these laws were passed with public safety in mind. Understanding all of them is certainly no easy task.

The possibility of a gun registry brings to mind a vision of Big Brother, with the system always keeping a close eye on the people it oversees. While some people who have gun convictions will reoffend, most will not. And it seems to be overkill to suggest all of these people need to be tracked in some manner.

If you are facing gun charges or if you are facing criminal charges and you have a gun conviction on your record, you could be looking at some pretty serious penalties. Contact my offices today for a free consultation on your case.

Coerced Confessions and False Eyewitness Testimonies in New Haven

2011-02-03T11:32:00.001-05:00

Last April, two men walked out of court free, after serving seventeen years for a murder they said all along they didn’t commit. The judge ruled they hadn’t either, releasing them that very day. But, both men will be back in court this week as the state has appealed Superior Court Judge Stanley Fuger’s decision to release them.

In 1993 two drug addicted prostitutes tied the men to the scene—stating they saw them kill a Fair Haven shop owner. Now, the women are clean and have recanted their stories, stating New Haven police coerced them into identifying the two men in question.

As the New Haven Advocate reports, however, this isn’t the only case. Soon another hearing will take place, involving different defendants but several of the same original officers.

In this other recent case there are allegations of coerced testimonies, harassment, and intimidation. One of the defendants states he was threatened if he didn’t confess, his mother would be arrested and his twin infants would be put in state custody.

For many of the general public, it’s hard to imagine why someone would confess to a crime they didn’t commit. After all, why would you put yourself in a position to go to prison for something you didn’t do?

But many are surprised to find out that a large percentage of DNA exonerations involved a false confession. When under the pressure of an interrogation and particularly if you are threatened with more severe penalties without a confession, such a confession can seem like the only way out.

In these New Haven cases, what will happen to the men claiming innocence remains to be seen. As for the police that may have coerced confessions and eyewitness identifications it seems nothing will be done. The state’s attorney sees no reason for action at this point, even though he acknowledges the defense attorneys have a basis for the claims in the habeas petition.

Being questioned by police when you are a suspect can be extremely stressful. This isn’t just a friendly interview in many cases. Despite the fact that the investigating officer may initially seem to be on your side, they are investigating a crime and may suspect you played a role in it.

What some people don’t realize is that their right to an attorney exists at all stages of the criminal investigation process. If the police begin asking you questions you can refuse to answer them until you speak with an attorney. You are also protected against “self incrimination” which means you can refuse to answer questions based on the fact that you don’t want to say anything that the police may later use against you.

But when you are being interrogated, these things sometimes don’t even cross your mind. You just want to clear your name.

If you are facing criminal charges and aren’t sure what to tell the police and what to keep to yourself, consulting with a criminal defense lawyer is a good first step. Contact my offices today for a consultation on your case.

Windsor Locks Sergeant Faces Charges of Hindering Prosecution

2011-01-29T08:49:00.000-05:00

The father and police Sergeant of an officer facing charges for an accident that killed a local teen is now facing charges himself. Following the Windsor Locks case over the past several months, we’ve seen some developments, but the Sergeant’s role in the case had always been in question.

The 53 year old man was arrested a few weeks ago and brought before the court on charges of hindering prosecution and interfering with an officer. He entered an official plea of not guilty on January 11 and has been granted bail.

According to reports, he was the first law enforcement officer on the scene of the accident, an accident involving his off-duty cop son and a teenage boy. The son is charged with driving drunk and hitting the child, causing his death.

Upon arriving at the scene of the accident, at least one witness stated they saw the intoxicated officer throw a beer glass in the yard, a beer glass his father allegedly knew about but failed to disclose. He is also accused of keeping police from the emergency room at the hospital where his son was taken, stating he would not be giving blood tests and would not be providing a statement.

Access to his son, a then DUI suspect, was important because the blood test would be a crucial piece of evidence in determining his level of intoxication at the time of the accident. With every moment that passes, that blood alcohol content drops.

Both the Sergeant and his son are now facing a lawsuit as well. The family of the young victim has filed suit against both and have filed a notice of intent to sue the town. The added stress of civil litigation certainly won’t be helping the men as they fight criminal charges.

The father’s case has been continued to February 5th for the time being.

Police Harassment Alleged in East Haven, CT

2010-12-28T15:54:00.001-05:00

Hispanic and residents of the largely Italian-American town of east Haven are leaving, fleeing what they say is incessant police harassment. The United States Department of Justice has subsequently opened a civil rights investigation into some of the officers, though complainants state the entire force has a problem.

According to this Associated Press report, claims of profiling by the police began a few years back when the Hispanic population in the small town started growing. Currently, only about 7% of the population is Hispanic, coming from Mexico and Ecuador.

Hispanic business owners state that officers made a habit of parking outside of their store fronts and harassing their customers, threatening them with calls to immigration enforcement. One business owner is facing charges of child neglect for letting his son play right out in front of his grocery store that caters to the immigrant population.

That business owner has placed his store, Los Amigos Grocery, up for sale stating he can’t keep it afloat amid the harassment. He invested $120,000 in his business, something he states he wouldn’t do again knowing how the police would treat his customers.

The East Haven Police Chief denies that any of his officers are guilty of racial profiling or harassment. The Mayor has revealed, however, that the FBI was investigating and there were potential criminal cases in the works on some of the officers. Although the residents have said problems have declined slightly since the federal investigation, they continue to move to different towns and some even back to their native countries.

It’s against the law for law enforcement to harass someone solely based on their race or nationality. When there are allegations of officers not only targeting certain individuals and businesses but also using racial slurs when addressing foreign-born residents, there is a definite problem.

There’s a lot of doubt in my mind that an officer can fairly and justly enforce the law when they view a certain population (Hispanics in this case) in a negative light before they even clock in. If they see ridding the town of immigrants as part of their job, they are certainly in the wrong profession.

Although profiling can be difficult to prove, if you are facing charges and believe you were unfairly targeted, it’s something you should look at when discussing the case with your Connecticut defense lawyer.

A criminal defense attorney can objectively evaluate your case and give you a good idea of your options and potential solutions. They will also be there to ensure your Constitutional rights are protected as you journey through the Connecticut criminal justice system.

Cop Fired, Bar Closed in Windsor Locks Case

2010-12-15T08:55:00.003-05:00

A police officer facing charges for manslaughter in the DUI death of a young bicyclist was fired by the Windsor Locks police department last week. A commission voted on Dec. 9 to fire the officer at the center of a State Police investigation according to the Associated Press.

The twenty four year old officer was said to be drinking for around six hours at the local bar before leaving and ultimately colliding with a 15 year old riding his bike home from a friend’s house.

As we reported here last month, police response on the night of the accident is being investigated as there are some significant questions on how the accident was handled. It’s been suggested the suspect’s father, a police Sergeant himself may have overstepped his bounds on the night in question.

The young officer is currently free on a $50,000 cash bond and was initially on administrative leave until the commission decided to fire him. The same commission has also voted for an independent investigator to look at the handling of the police response that evening.

In addition to the cop losing his job, the bar that he was drinking at closed its doors for good. NBC Connecticut reported just this week that the Suffield Tavern has shut down. Although they state business wasn’t going that well to begin with, the press coverage of the accident certainly hasn’t helped.

The victim’s family intend on suing the tavern owners as well as the officer and his father, according to the NBC report.

More than just a DUI charge, this officer faces serious time if convicted on vehicular manslaughter charges.

Very few drunk driving charges result in accidents, injury, or death in tragic case like this. But you face a DUI in Connecticut, you still need an attorney on your side looking out for your best interests and telling you of your available options. Contact me today to discuss your case.

Judge Gets Award From DUI Advocacy Group

2010-12-09T08:44:00.003-05:00

A Connecticut judge was awarded a National President's Award from MADD for her use of victims impact panels and educating other judges about drunk driving sentencing options.

But is it a good thing for justice if a judge is receiving awards from victim's rights lobbying groups? Does this indicate a clear bias against defendants in DUI cases? If you are accused of drunk driving in Connecticut, can you really feel as if you are going to get fair treatment if you appear before this judge?

These questions are worth considering. Reader comments at the Middletown Press question whether it is proper for a judge to receive honors for directing defendants to MADD-sponsored victim's impact panels.

Everyone agrees that driving while drunk is a bad idea, but getting a fair shake in court is a right everyone must enjoy. While judges are human beings and have biases and tendencies, no defendant should have to feel intimidated knowing that they are going to appear before MADD's favorite award-winning judge in Connecticut. When your freedom is on the line, that's an uncomfortable and unfair place to be.

Windsor Locks Cop Facing Manslaughter Charges Amid Cover-up

2010-11-23T12:25:00.004-05:00

If you haven’t heard about this case, you haven’t been paying attention. It involves the death of a child, a suspected drunk driving cop, and a cover up—a definitely recipe for publicity. A Windsor Locks police officers is now facing charges for the results of an accident that happened on the night of October 29.

According to witnesses, the police officer had been enjoying some drinks at a local bar called the Suffield Tavern. He had been drinking there for about six hours and his beverages of choice included beer, whiskey, and tequila.

As he drove home, he was said to have been on the phone with friends. Accident reconstruction suggests the officer was going 70 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone.

Around the time the officer was heading off from the bar, a local fifteen year old was riding his bike home from a friend’s house. The two would collide at the intersection of Spring and West Streets. The child would die at the scene.

What happened from the moment of impact until the officer himself was transported to a hospital is in question. One witness claims they saw the officer stumble from his vehicle, throwing what would later be found to be a beer glass into the grass of a neighboring yard. It’s even been said that he didn’t check on the child and instead called 911 stating he wasn’t sure what had just happened.

One of the first officers on the accident scene would be the suspected officer’s father. The witness is alleged to have told this Sergeant about the discarded beer glass only to have their tip go unexplored. The police Sergeant would later tell state police that he did flash his light into the yard but didn’t see anything. The beer glass would later be found exactly where the witness described.

No one at the scene attempted to give field sobriety tests to the driver. The ambulance transporting him would not arrive at the hospital until 90 minutes after the accident and once it arrived, the officer had already spoken with his attorney who advised him to refuse any blood draws or breath tests.

Unfortunately for the police who responded to the accident, it’s state law when a driver involved in an accident is suspected of being intoxicated that they get a breath or blood sample. No one from the Windsor Locks police asked the officer for such a sample.

The officer has been charged with manslaughter, misconduct with a motor vehicle, negligent homicide with a motor vehicle, and attempting to tamper with physical evidence. The entire case was handed to the state police and there is an ongoing investigation into how the Windsor Locks PD handled the initial investigation and allegations of a cover up.

Neither the officer nor his father, the police Sergeant, has worked since the accident, with the officer on administrative leave and the father using up sick time.

This definitely isn’t the last we’ll hear of this case as reports are suggesting the defense attorney is arguing his client wasn’t intoxicated and that poor visibility played a role in the accident.

CT Forensics Institute & Criminal Evidence

2010-11-01T09:44:00.001-04:00

With so many crime dramas on the airwaves these days, many people are under the mistaken assumption that catching criminals is a simple, though high tech, process. Simply comb a carpet for hair fibers or check the mud for shoe tread and you’re golden! It isn’t always this simple, though, and a $14 million addition to the University of New Haven seeks to show the public just how complex forensic sciences are.

According to CT Now, the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science was developed, in part, to educate society about forensic sciences and to dispel common misconceptions that many people have about the use of such sciences in real police work. But, the Institute also serves to educate students, majoring in forensic sciences, and training police, lawyers, and investigators into the latest developments in the forensics world.

So, what it forensics and how does it apply to a criminal case? Forensic science is the collection and study of evidence at a crime scene or other investigation. Everything from fingerprints to blood stains, and beer cans can be considered forensic evidence.

While blood evidence and DNA are what we commonly see on television, forensics can be far less exciting though similarly crucial in a criminal case.

For instance, if you are charged with possession of marijuana, the marijuana would be obvious evidence as would any paraphernalia. But just as important as the evidence itself is the collection of the evidence.

Certain procedural laws are put in place to dictate exactly how evidence is collected and handled throughout the case. These laws and rules are in place to ensure your rights, as the defendant, are protected at every stage of the game. If those procedures are violated in any way, there’s a good chance that evidence won’t be admissible in court.

Let’s say the police officer in the case searches you but doesn’t have any legal justification for the search. Because he violated your protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” as dictated by the Constitution, the evidence he seized wouldn’t be admissible. And depending on the facts of the case, the state might have to drop all charges against you.

The evidence is what determines the strength of a prosecutor’s case against you. If you are facing charges and curious about how the evidence in your case will affect your outcome, contact me for a consultation.

Why Police Interrogations Should be Recorded

2010-10-15T17:47:00.001-04:00

Donald S. Connery, an author and adviser to the Northwestern Law School Center on Wrongful Convictions aired his frustrations at the state supreme court and legislators this week in the Hartford Courant. The Court, he said, missed another opportunity to move towards mandating the recording of police interrogations, something that’s recognized by many as the foolproof method for preventing false confessions and safeguarding just convictions.

According to his commentary, the court recognized that it would be beneficial to know how law enforcement obtained their confessions but said, in essence, don’t look to us to change anything. Instead, the court defers to the legislator to make sweeping changes—something Connery says is a lost cause.

His disheartened attitude is due to him seeing such legislation fail again and again. The failure of such bills is largely due to misconceptions about what this simple policy change would mean.

A large percentage of wrongful convictions are tainted by a false confession. Recordings of police interrogations and confessions would show just how these situations are played out and uncover any leading or convincing done by the police when, in fact, the suspect is innocent.

Also, recorded interrogations would effectively limit appeals based on interrogation circumstances in cases where the conviction was appropriate.

It simply makes no sense that the police can record you when they pull you over or even when you’re walking down the street in some cities, but you cannot have a recording of a police interrogation when your rights are on the line. A simple camera would likely save the state millions in legal fees defending themselves from lawsuits and preventing baseless appeals and unwarranted convictions.

But as Connery says, “legislators are loath to challenge top cops”. Again and again the law makers believe what they are told by law enforcement and the state attorney’s office—that recording these secret confessions would somehow hinder their ability to catch the bad guy.

If you’ve ever been interrogated, you know it can be stressful. And it seems like the more serious the charge, the more intense the questioning is. However, even if they don’t say it: you have a right to talk to an attorney before answering their questions.

A defense attorney can help you determine the best course of action for your case. Many people think that invoking their right to an attorney will make them look guilty. Not so—invoking your right to an attorney makes you look informed.

If you’re facing charges and need some questions answered by a local defense attorney in Connecticut, I can help. Contact me today for a free consultation on your case.

Milford Police Lieutenant Suspended for Destroying Evidence

2010-09-28T15:40:00.001-04:00

A Lieutenant for the Milford Police Department has been suspended and the city’s evidence handling procedures are being called into question after he erased several days worth of video from a server. The video was all taken from police dashboard cameras and was subject of a Freedom of Information request at the time.

Attorney Bart Halloran had put in a request for the video under the Freedom of Information Act. Before he was given the video, a Lieutenant from the Records Division has ordered a staff member to destroy much of what was stored on the server.

The attorney wanted to video in hopes of backing his assertion that Milford police are using excessive speed when it’s uncalled for.

He represents the family of a teenager who was killed along with his girlfriend when a police cruiser hit them broadside. It is estimated the officer behind the wheel was going over 90 miles per hour before the impact. The officer has since been fired and charged with vehicular manslaughter.

The erased videos did not contain the video specific to the accident case but the attorney was hoping to use them to show a pattern of fast driving by police officers in the area.

According to the Connecticut Post, the department is required to maintain this video footage for the past 30 days at any given time. When files were deleted, the server contained somewhere between 18 and 20 months of footage.

Although the amount deleted was far over the required 30 days worth, the Lieutenant was made aware of the FOI request and told to maintain the files. Instead, whether intentionally or not, he directed a staffer to delete them. The Chief states he has since expressed regret for his error.

Evidence must be handled very carefully by police. There are rules in place to ensure that criminal evidence is handled in a way to protect it and the case it is related to. Although this video footage didn’t contain actual data from the date of the accident, it could have shown the court that driving at high rates of speed was commonplace despite its dangerousness.

When you are facing criminal charges in Connecticut, you want to be certain the evidence against you has been handled appropriately. This is the job of your defense lawyer—to ensure your rights are protected at all stages of the game.

If the evidence is mishandled in any way, we can motion to have it thrown out or to have your case dismissed altogether.

If you’re facing criminal charges and unsure of what to do or where to turn, contact me for a free consultation today.