The Court of Appeals in Facebook v. Wint, decided on January 3, 2019, determined and analyzed if a criminal defendant is entitled to issue a criminal subpoena on a provider (here Facebook) to obtain certain communications. Specifically, Mr. Wint charged with multiple murders requested the trial Judge to authorize defense subpoenas duces tecum on Facebook for records, including communications relating to certain accounts. Facebook objected pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), arguing that Facebook was prohibited from disclosing such information in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena. The trial court approved the subpoena request and held Facebook in civil
Read More
Archives for criminal law dc
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STALKING STATUTE: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Beachum v. US decided on December 20, 2018, analyzed and ruled on whether the DC Stalking Statute as written was constitutional. Section 22-3133 (a)(3) in pertinent parts provides that: It is unlawful for a person to purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual . . . [t]hat the person should have known would cause a reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances to: (A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person; (B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or (C) Suffer emotional distress. The appellant argued
Read More
PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA NON-CUSTODIAL: NEW DIRECTIVE FROM THE MAYOR: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The current DC Statute on consumption of marijuana in public is clear and concise categorizing the act as a misdemeanor offense with significant penalties. However if appears that the Major’s directive issued on September 21, 2018, limits the penalties to a non-custodial arrest and payment of $25 fine for posting and forfeiting. The Statute specifically criminalizes consumption of marijuana in or upon a public space including: A street, alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area; A vehicle in or upon any street, alley, park, or parking area; or Any place to which the public is invited. For the purposes of this subsection,
Read More
HANDGUN LICENSING REQUIREMENTS LESS RESTRICTIVE NOW: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: WASHINGTON DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals in Hooks v. U.S., decided on August 30, 2018, in effect modified the DC handgun licensing requirements to be consistent with the D.C Circuit Court Decision in Wrenn. The DC Statute currently applicable to licensing is codified under D.C. Code § 22-4504 (a) and provides: The Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (“Chief”) may, upon the application of a person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the District of Columbia, or of a person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the United States and a license to
Read More
US SUPREME COURT SIDING WITH THE PRIVACY RIGHTS:
The US Supreme Court in a significant privacy rights case in Carpenter v. U.S., decided on June 22, 2018, reversed a the lower court decisions allowing for Cell Site Location Information (“CSLI”) to be used to obtain a conviction without a proper application of warrant. Carpenter was convicted of armed robbery and weapons’ charges as the investigators were able to map his whereabouts for a 27 days period with 107 data points or location tracker per day through the CSLI data collected by his cell phone carrier. The government had only to show a “reasonable grounds” for believing that the
Read More
EXIGENT EXCEPTION TO WARRANTLESS SEARCH: 4TH AMENDMENT: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Ball v. U.S. decided on May 24, 2018, narrowly affirmed weapons’ conviction under the exigent exception to warrantless search under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The trial court had dismissed motion to suppress the evidence based on illegal search and seize paving the way to a conviction. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution under certain emergency and exigent circumstances allow an officer to enter a dwelling without a warrant if the officer has an objectively reasonable basis for believing that: The entry is necessary to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant, or
Read More
DC VOYEURISM STATUTE: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Castillo v. U.S., decided on March 8, 2018, once again addressed, defined and further expanded certain statutory provision and language of the Voyeurism Statute. Castillo, a cleaning employee of a restaurant, was accused of entering a women’s bathroom and peeping under a stall. On appeal from the conviction under the Voyeurism Statute he argued mainly that technically he was not ever in “a hidden observation post” as the Statute requires and that he had only entered the bathroom to start the cleaning process. The Statute in the pertinent part provides: (b) Except as provided in subsection
Read More
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
D.C Code §23-110, the main statutory language for ineffective assistance of counsel provides for the judicial officer an authority for reversal of sentence due to “denial or infringement” of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Specifically, if the court finds that: (1) The judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, (2) The sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, (3) There has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, The court may vacate under these circumstances the conviction and set aside the
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in Miles v. U.S., decided on March 29, 2018, reversed gun related charges and conviction due to defendant’s 4th amendment violations. An anonymous 911 call and tip formed the basis for the Terry stop which led the arrest and seizure of weapons. The tip provided by a concerned citizen described a man wearing a blue army jacket with characteristics similar to Mr. Miles’s shooting a gun in the air. Miles argued on appeal that: The 911 tip was not sufficiently corroborated at the scene and thus was not shown to be reliable. That his flight from
Read More
DC LEAVING AFTER COLLIDING STATUTE: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Cherry v. District of Columbia decided on July 27, 2017, revered and remanded the defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident after colliding and expanded and defined the statutory language. Cherry’s car had collided with the wall adjacent to a convenient store. Cherry had exited his car and initially walked toward the convenient store while police officer were already at the scene. He had initially failed to identify himself but had later (about 12 minutes) after the accident had come forward and identified himself as the driver of the vehicle and to the police
Read More