UPDATED: Criminal Expungement or Set Aside – What Is It?

A criminal expungement or set aside is an action created by statute that can be used as many times as necessary SO LONG as the individual still meets the requirements of the Statute. The expungement law here in the State of Michigan is found with MCL 780.621 through 780.624, and MCL 712A.18e.

A criminal expungement or set aside can be one of two types: for adult convictions and another for juvenile adjudications.

In order to initially quality for an adult criminal expungement or set aside, the conviction (or release from incarceration) must have been at least 5 years ago; the crime cannot have been a crime that cases with it a possibility for life in prison; and the crime cannot have been a Criminal Sexual Conduct Crime in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Degree(s). Moreover, an individual must have only one felony conviction, two misdemeanors, or two minor misdemeanor convictions looking to be expunged or removed from his or her criminal record. UPDATE: There was a change in the criminal expungement statute in January 2015 that expanded the availability of applying for a criminal expungement. This means that if you believe you qualify for a criminal expungement contact Josh Jones today for your free consultation.

Furthermore, traffic offenses that amount to criminal sanctions do not qualify for a criminal expungement or set aside and will count against the individual when he or she is looking to have his or her record expunged. This means, for example, that an individual with a drunk driving on his or her record while also carrying, lets say, a retail fraud conviction on his or her record will be unable to the criminal expungement or set aside statute.

Expunging a Juvenile Adjudication is similar to the Adult Expungement process; however, the individual is not technically restricted to the 5-year rule. But instead, the individual can move for a criminal expungement or set aside when he or she is 24 years old or 5-years after the conviction or release from detention. It must be noted, and it is essential to understand that the judge and the court have the final determination and discretion to grant or deny the application to expunge or set aside the prior conviction.

It is important to know what can be done with the law, especially when it can affect your future and your life. A criminal expungement or set aside can allow for you to have a completely clean start when it comes to your criminal record. Contact Josh Jones today to move forward with a criminal expungement or set aside and clear your record today.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

GPS Tracking Devices In United States v Jones – United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court held that GPS tracking devices were not allowed to be attached an individual’s vehicle unless the government has first obtained a warrant to attach such a device. See United States v Jones. The defendant Jones was being investigated by the federal government, which included surveillance, cameras, and wiretaps of Jones’s phone. Using the information obtained from the investigation, the Federal Government applied for a warrant to use a GPS tracking device to track Jones’s movements, yet the government failed to attach the device prior to the ten-day deadline noted inside the warrant to use a GPS tracking device.

The Court began its analysis by looking at the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits an “unreasonable search and seizure.” In order to determine what is an unreasonable search or seizure the analysis hinges on the whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the area or thing being searched or seized. The Court noted previous holdings where it had to determine the legitimacy of a “beeper” GPS tracking device in the eyes of the Fourth Amendment. Those cases were different than in Jones because the item tagged with the “beeper” (or GPS tracking device) was owned by a third-party and not the individual defendant being investigated.

Even though the government is allowed to watch, follow, and tape an individual from a distance, the Court in Jones explained that attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle went too far. The need for a warrant is necessary due to the invisible line that is crossed when the government encroaches an individual’s personal property, even when using a GPS tracking device.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc. Always consult and/or retain a criminal or civil attorney when involved in any legal matter. Josh Jones handles all criminal and marijuana matters within the State of Michigan.

People v Carruthers Usable Marihuana Defined & Limited UPDATED

On Thursday, June 11, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied hearing the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case by order, which was on appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals. The People v Carruthers usable marihuana case when interpreted by Michigan Court of Appeal created many issues that Medical Marihuana Patients and Caregivers hoped to see settled by the Michigan Supreme Court. See People v Carruthers. However, the Michigan Supreme Court will not hear the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case; therefore, the opinion and legal analysis and statements by the Court of Appeals will remain in effect until there is a legislative modification.

What Did The Court of Appeals say in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case?

The court specially and repeatedly stated that resin (or THC extract) based brownies were not and are not considered “usable marihuana” as explained in Section 4 (Immunity). The court further explained that because resin brownies are not considered to be “usable” an individual in possession of such brownies does not qualify for Section 4. The court, in essence, found a loophole around qualifying an act for immunity even though it involves marijuana, and thus similarly as the Michigan Supreme Court in People v McQueen found, an individual in possession of resin brownies must rely on a Section 8 Affirmative Defense.

Usable Marihuana under the MMMA is defined as:

“dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.” MCL § 333.2642(3)(k).

The court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case interpreted this definition narrowly. Therefore, usable marihuana, as indicated in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case, does not include all parts of the marihuana plant, meaning the resins, nor does it include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” Marihuana, under general state law, on the other hand includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.

The court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case dealt with a resin based product known as “Cannabutter,” which contained THC extract. The THC extract can be taken from any part of the plant, and it would still, under the People v Carruthers usable marihuana opinion, not be considered “usable marihuana” under the MMMA.

So in the end, the court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case, explained that a substance must contain plant material in order to be considered  “usable” under Section 4 of the MMMA. It also went on to explain that Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) does not maintain a narrow definition for marihuana when compared to Section 4. Therefore, the court in the People v Carruthers usable marihuana case left open the possiblity for a Section 8 affirmative defense for issues involving resins based marihuana products.

The court, however, did note that the potency of resin brownies, under a Section 8 defense, would come into play when determining whether the individual possessed an amount reasonably necessary to alleviate or treat the medical condition. It also stated that “[g]iven the unmeasurable nature of the highly potent THC contained in such edibles, the health and welfare of Michigan citizens would be threatened, and prosecutions for possession and use of edibles containing higher-than-allowed quantities of THC would be systematically thwarted.”

It is always necessary to know the law, know your rights, and maintain your ability to fight, especially when dealing with the MMMA. This opinion has made Section 4 narrower and more specific on what you can and cannot do in order to qualify for Immunity. NEVER RELY ON ANY ARTICLE, INCLUDING THIS ONE, IF ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT OR DEFEND YOURSELF IN A COURT OF LAW. NOTHING ON THE INTERNET CAN COMPENSATE OR REPLACE LEGAL COUNSEL. LAWYER-UP.

Michigan Reckless Driving Law – What Exactly Is It?

An individual can be and will be convicted Michigan Reckless Driving law an individual will have a misdemeanor on his or her criminal and driving record. Michigan Reckless Driving law states that a person shall not drive their motor vehicle with a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of  other persons or property. A conviction under Michigan Reckless Driving law is a 93-day misdemeanor, meaning the maximum sentence allowable is 93-days in jail, and/or  a $500.00 fine. MCL 257.626. Moreover, there are mandatory drivers license sanctions, which are inflicted by the Secretary of State.

It is important to note that if convicted and entered on your criminal record the conviction under Michigan Reckless Driving law cannot be expunged, under Michigan’s criminal expungement statute. This is due to the Michigan Reckless Driving law being placed in the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, which are all precluded from a criminal expungement. All motor vehicle crimes are non-expugnable.

However, and at the end of the day, the state or prosecutor over seeing the case must still prove that you violated the Michigan Reckless Driving law beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict you of the crime. Therefore, they must show you drove recklessly, hence the phrase Michigan Reckless Driving law. And as noted earlier you must have driven your motor vehicle with a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property.

The Michigan Reckless Driving law defines “Willful or wanton disregard” as more than simple carelessness, but rather a knowing disregarding of the possible risks to the safety of people or property when involved with driving or operating a motor vehicle upon a road, highway or an area open to motor vehicles. Therefore, the prosecutor does not have to prove intent to cause harm, meaning there is a lower standard of proof than some crimes.

It is always essential to lawyer-up with a criminal defense attorney when charged under the Michigan Reckless Driving law, or with any other Michigan criminal crime (misdemeanor or felony). Josh Jones understands what is needed when facing such a charge under the Michigan Reckless Driving law and numerous others. Contact him 7-days a week by phone, text, email or instant message. He is your Michigan Criminal Attorney.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Consequences of Refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer during DUI Stop

Implied Consent Law: If arrested for a drunk driving offense in Michigan, all drivers are considered to have given their consent to take a chemical test to determine your bodily alcohol content (BAC) and refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer has repercussions to the drivers’ license.

Purpose: The immediate purpose of the ‘implied consent law’ is to obtain the best evidence of blood alcohol content at the time of the arrest of the person; the long range purpose is, of course, to prevent intoxicated persons from driving on the highways. Thus, the law punishes individuals for refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer.

Facts: An individual is driving South on Saginaw St., Flint MI, and is stopped by a Michigan State Trooper. A DUI Stop is then conducted (because the Trooper believes you have been drinking) where the driver will be asked to provide a proof a license, registration, and insurance. It is then typical for the Trooper to ask if the driver had consumed any alcohol prior to operating the motor vehicle; the driver will then likely be asked to step out of the vehicle to perform a number of sobriety tests. Additionally, if the Trooper believes that the driver is intoxicated,  the driver will then be requested to submit to a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT), not a Chemical Test Breathalzyer. If the driver is placed under arrest, they will be transported by the Trooper to the nearest holding facility and be asked to take a Chemical Test Breathalyzer. This is where therefusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer becomes important.

Ramifications:  Refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer for the first time results in a one-year suspension and refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer second or subsequent refusal in seven years results in a two-year suspension. Further more refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer results in six points being entered on the person’s driving record. A person who refuses a Chemical Test Breathalyzer reasonably requested by an Officer to submit to the test will have his or her license confiscated and is issued a temporary permit. MCL 257.625g(1). The nature of the permit will explicitly put an individual refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer on notice that a test has allegedly been refused. The individual will then have 14 days from the date of the arrest for refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer to request a hearing. MCL 257.625f(1). Failure to do so results in an automatic one- or two-year suspension depending on the individual’s driving record.

With regard to refusal to submit to an evidentiary chemical test (breathalyzer), a hearing shall only cover the following issues set forth in MCL 257.625f:

  • Whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Petitioner had committed a crime described in section 625c(1).
  • Whether Petitioner was placed under arrest for a crime described in section 621c(1).
  • Whether Petitioner was advised of the rights under section 625a(6).
  • Whether Petitioner unreasonably refused to submit to the test upon the request of the peace officer.

Possible Outcomes from the hearing for refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer:

  • Suspension.
  • If officer fails to appeal, charges will be dismissed.
  • First time offenders can petition the Circuit Court for their restricted license.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with a drunk driving attorney before relying upon or using any written advice, article, blog etc from this website or any other website on the internet. Whenever you are involved in a possible drunk or drug driving offense contact an attorney immediately because of the possible reprecussion of refusing Chemical Test Breathalyzer and the drunk driving law.

Josh Jones – ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis Examined & Explained

The ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis is a subjective forensic examination process that is used in many criminal trials and proceedings throughout the United States Criminal Justice System. ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis has been claimed to be infallible and maintain a zero-error result. In some situations this is the key or only corroborating piece of evidence connecting a defendant to the charged criminal offense.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to discuss the process and limitations of ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis. The reason fot this is because the ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis may be the most inaccurate process that we have seen, or at the very least have a much higher degree of error than claimed and believed. The ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis is a subjective, non-standardized, and non-tested examination process within the forensic examiner’s community allowed into evidence.

Because of the advancements in technology and biological understanding, DNA profiling and examination is superior to ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis, and thus we should no longer even want to consider or use the ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis for proving an individuals culpability. Furthermore, as times ticks on DNA matching has proven the innaccuracy of ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis in numerous cases throughout the United States.

Josh Jones has scribed a scholarly legal article available to the public in order for individual’s to obtain insight on the ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis issue and how it affects individual’s within the criminal justice system. It is his purpose to make individual’s aware that the system is not perfect, but that flaws do not impact individual’s requiring protection. ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis is not infallible, will likely be entered into evidence, but if the public is made aware of the true fallicies within ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis it is possible to have such evidence’s weight limited during the finding of guilt.

For more information on ACE-V Fingerprint Examination Analysis please read “The ACE-V Method: Reliable or Accurate?” This was written by Josh Jones, Michigan Criminal & Marijuana Lawyer. Contact him 7-days a week at 734-355-0424 or 810-691-7308.

IT IS NECESSARY TO ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THESE OPINIONS, COMMENTS, AND WORDS PROVIDED WITHIN THIS ARTICLE OR ANYWHERE ELSE WITHIN THIS WEBSITE SHOULD NOT BE USED WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS ATTEMPTING TO OR TRYING TO REPRESENT HIM- OR HER-SELF WITHIN A CRIMINAL COURT OR OTHERWISE. YOU MUST ALWAYS CONTACT, CONSULT AND SHOULD RETAIN COUNSEL. JOSH JONES IS HERE FOR YOUR 7-DAYS A WEEK, SO PLEASE CONTACT ME OR SOME OTHER ATTORNEY IF INVOLVED WITH A LEGAL MATTER (CRIMINAL OR OTHERWISE).  

Josh Jones handles criminal and marijuana matters within Genesee County, Metro-Detroit (Wayne County, Macomb County, and Oakland County), Washtenaw County, Livingston County, and Lapeer County.

Transporting Usable Marijuana 

Here in the State of Michigan Medical Marihuana patients and caregivers transporting usable marijuana are required to do so in a certain way. First, an individual must ensure that they are transporting usable marijuana inside a case and it is located inside the trunk.

MCL § 750.474 specially states that “[a] person shall not [be transporting usable marijuana] . . . in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel unless the usable marihuana is . . .”

  1. Enclosed in a case that is carried in the trunk of the vehicle; or
  2. Enclosed in a case that is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle, if the vehicle in which the person is traveling does not have a trunk. [emphasis added]

Therefore, the statute even goes so far as to direct those individual with motor vehicles that have no trunk then they the individual must be transporting usable marijuana in an area “that is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle.” Moreover, the statute does not define case or an area that is not readily accessible when transporting uable marijuana. This means that an individual’s case will need to be dealt with by a proper attorney who understands the law concerning traffic stops and encounters involving law enforcement. The smallest amount of marihuana transported improperly can and will bring about criminal charges.

Furthermore, the offense for illegally transporting usable marijuana, if convicted, is a 93-day misdemeanor, punishable up to 93-days in a jail and/or a fine of $500.00.

This new criminal statute, which applies to medical marihuana users, became effective on April 1, 2013. It is a statute that many individuals do not know about until they are charged. Whenever you are transporting usable marijuana make sure that you are following the requirements of MCL § 750.474 – because if not, you may be looking at and facing criminal charges.

UPDATE: In late 2014 and early 2015 there has been movement and debate over the constitutionality of the improper or illegal transporting usable marijuana here in the State of Michigan. Some lower district courts in some counties throughout Michigan have ruled that this statute was not enacted properly. If you are charged with improperly transporting usable marijuana here in Michigan, contact Josh Jones today for your free consultation. He always has your back.

Josh Jones is available 7-days a week by phone, text, email or instant message. He handles all marijuana criminal matters. Remember, Josh Jones handles marijuana and criminal matters in Genesee CountyMetro DetroitWashtenaw CountyLapeer County and Livingston County.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN AND IF ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST ALWAYS CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE OR INVOLVING ANY POTENTIAL CRIMINAL ACT. ALWAYS BE SAFE AND LAWYER-UP. 

Consent To Search – When To Deny? 

A consent to search occurs more often than not. Many people believe that if they agree to consent to search it may provide for a better outcome with the police officer. That is not always true, and it is best to never consent to search. The State or City Prosecutor are the only individuals who can make deals once criminal charges are issued. Police cannot do that.

If the consent to search is properly given then police will not need a warrant to effectuate the search. However, when consent to search is denied Police are not allowed to search, unless the situation falls within one of the several narrowly defined exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

What is required in order to provide or obtain consent to search? In order to be proper the consent to search must be voluntary (or freely given), specific, and unequivocal. Therefore, it must be free from coercion. The court will look to specific factors and the totality (complete set) of circumstances to determine whether the consent to search was proper. The following are factors courts review in determining that conclusion:

[W]hether defendant was a youth; whether defendant was uneducated or conversely, well versed in the law; whether the information on which the investigation was based was unlawfully obtained; whether defendant was given his Miranda rights; the length of the detention and the length and nature of the questioning; the use of physical threats; the familiarity of the surroundings; defendant’s freedom of movement during the questioning or search; defendant’s cooperation or lack of cooperation in the search; the number of officers present during the interview and search; whether the officers told defendant that he did not have to consent to the search; and whether the officers suggested that defendant give them the thing seized. See United States v Hearn.

It is always important to remember that you do not have to consent to search when requested by an officer. You are even free to change your mind if you initially consented. At the end, the consent to search will boil down to the circumstances and facts that are present within the individual case. This is why it is essential to never consent to search, and instead force law enforcement to perform their job.

By not providing your consent to search you are maintaining your constitutional right to be free from warrantless searches. This can also in-turn provide a better or more hopeful case for you and counsel once you are at the formal setting of the criminal process depending upon the circumstances of your case. Always know the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up with Josh Jones. He has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING OR ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR REPLACE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN ANY FASHION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST ALWAYS CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. ALWAYS LAWYER-UP!

REMEMBER, Josh Jones handles all criminal matters (felonies or misdemeanors), expungements, license restoration, traffic tickets, and probation violations, and specializes in marijuana law.

Michigan Drunk Driving [DUI/OWI] – Quick Overview

Michigan Drunk Driving Law provides that if you operate a motor vehicle in the State of Michigan with a blood alcohol level at .08 or above, you can be charged with Operating While Intoxicated (OWI). See MCL 257.625. This offense is classified as a 93 day Misdemeanor, 6 points on your driving record and restricted driving privileges for up to six months, the first 30 days suspended. The court can also impose a term of probation, order jail, require that you perform community service and counseling.

Additionally, the state of Michigan, through the Treasury department will require you to pay $1000.00 for a period of two years towards the Drivers Responsibility Fee. Failure to pay the fee will result in suspension of your driving privileges. You should also be aware that the 6 points will remain on your Michigan Driving record for a period of two years. As you can see Michigan Drunk Driving Laws are not friendly to those convicted of such a crime.

Also, Michigan Drunk Driving law provides that the conviction will remain on your record forever. The public is under the impression that after 10 years the offense drops off your record, this is not true. If that were the case then someone with two prior convictions during the 80′s who then picks up another in the year 2011 would be treated as if it was his first offense. Actually, under Heidi’s Law, he would be charged with a Felony. Three convictions under the Michigan Drunk Driving statute is considered a Felony no matter the duration between convictions.

Michigan does have a lessor offense known as Operating While Visibly Impaired. The difference between this offense and OWI is as follows: Impaired Driving is 4 points not 6. You will receive a suspended license for a period of 90 days, yet restrictions will be issued whereby you will be allowed to drive to and during the course of employment. The state of Michigan will impose a $500.00 Responsibility Fee for a period of two years. The court may impose the same terms and conditions as with an OWI.

For those of you under the age of 21 if you are stopped while operating a motor vehicle and you blow as low as .01 you will be charged with Zero Tolerance, Under 21 with a BAC. More information regarding this law can be found here.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying or attempting to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc. Make sure to maintain your rights and then lawyer-up when you are faced with a Michigan Drunk Driving charge. Josh Jones is your Michigan Criminal & Marijuana lawyer. He handles cases in Genesee CountyMetro DetroitWashtenaw CountyLapeer County and Livingston County.

WHAT ARE THE MIRANDA RIGHTS?

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, declaring that a person taken into custody must be read his or her rights before being questioned, i.e. Miranda Rights. Those Miranda Rights are enforceable through the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statements against himself or herself. As a result of Miranda, an individual in police custody must be told that he or she has the right:

1. To remain silent.

2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

3. You have the right to an attorney.

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

Read the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision here Miranda v Arizona.

What if police fail to advise me of my Miranda Rights?

When questioned, a suspect in custody without first being read his or her Miranda Rights then any statement or confession made maybe presumed involuntary and cannot subsequently be used against the suspect during his or her criminal case involving the matter. Any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession maybe suppressed unable to be presented during trial.

Suppose that “John” is walking down the street and Officer X was walking on the other side of the street at the same time. Because Officer X is an outstanding police officer and looks over every single warrant notice that the department issues, he recognizes “John” from a warrant he saw last week (which included the booking picture of “John”). Officer X walks over to “John” and asks him his name. “John” replies and Officer X calls the station to determine if this is in fact the “John” that has a warrant issued for his arrest. This is the correct “John,” and the warrant was issued for failure to appear at a hearing for a current criminal case pending involving “John.” Officer X subsequently arrests him and takes him back to the police station. He is never read his Miranda rights, shortly after “John” is booked at the station, Officer X puts “John” in the room where he is questioned for 30 minutes. Officer X still never read him his Miranda rights. During the interrogation, which was custodial, “John” made numerous incriminating statements about his criminal case that was still pending at the court.

The incriminating statements made by “John” would likely be suppressed when it came to trial, which means that the prosecutor working on the case would not be able to use the statements as evidence against John when prosecuting him for the crime. However, this would not preclude prosecution altogether, at least with regards to the facts as noted. Of course, the statements are only likely to be suppressed, and this is said because many situations, especially when dealing with the law, are not always black and white.

Circumstances can influence and/or change the outcome of any case, for better or worse. This article was supposed to point out that these things, such as Miranda rights, are key to defending any individual’s Constitutional and Moral rights. It is a defense lawyer’s job to notice these things, pull them out of the case, and determine if it will stick. If it does then we take a shot at it, if we advise.

Please do not rely on these principles if attempting or trying to defend yourself during a criminal proceeding, but instead speak with or retain an attorney. Whenever you are facing criminal charges, you need a criminal defense attorney. Josh Jones has your back and is available 7-days a week.