Reputation.Resources.Results

In Arizona, property owners can lose their houses, cars and other valuables when someone else uses the property to commit a crime. Does this mean you can lose a $50,000 car because, for example, a wayward relative drives it to go shoplifting? Before 2019, the answer was “yes.” Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, it is “maybe.”

According to the Government up to 95 % of all criminal cases in the United states are resolved through plea bargaining.  In fact, in one recent study  only 2% of federal criminal defendants went  to trial, and most who did were  found guilty.

Even the most experienced immigration lawyers can sometimes be completely baffled as to why USCIS denies a particular petition, especially when USCIS claims the applicant committed some type of fraud. In these cases, it can be very difficult to obtain the exact information which led to the finding, which also makes it difficult to develop a strategy for appealing the decision.

There are clear rulings from the Courts regarding the responsibility of defense attorneys to inform their clients of the potential immigration consequences of a plea deal in a criminal case, and a slew of cases where the Court made “ineffective assistance of counsel” findings under these circumstances. Still, there have not been as many precedent cases clearly addressing errors made by immigration attorneys in immigration cases. Last week, the 9th circuit ruled in favor of an applicant for permanent residence in Peters v. Barr, who was caught in a 14-year-long “bureaucratic nightmare” due to the action (and inaction) of her immigration attorney, back in 2006.

Since the beginning of Operation Streamline in 2005, thousands of migrants have been criminally convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1325 and 1326, for unlawfully entering the United States. Other than a few cases appealed on procedural grounds, the vast majority of these cases are dispensed of within a matter of minutes, hence the name “Streamline.” But, a defendant recently appealed his conviction all the way to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing that he did not “elude” inspection when he crossed without inspection in a remote area of the border.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions that explain what the police must do to satisfy the Fourth Amendment when conducting a blood draw or a breath test for a DUI investigation. In 2013, the Court decided that, in most circumstances, the police need a warrant to conduct a blood test without a person’s consent. But in 2016, the Court held that a warrant is not required to conduct a breath test incident to a motorist’s arrest. In 2019, the Court decided Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which held that a warrant is not required for a blood test, too, provided that the motorist is unconscious and, therefore, cannot consent to a draw or give a breath test.

This blog will discuss the implications of Carpenter v. U.S., a case the Supreme Court heard last year, holding that police generally need a search warrant to request this historical Cellular Location Site Information (CLSI) from cell service providers.

Under federal law, anyone who uses a gun while committing a “crime of violence” faces an especially stiff prison term. But what is a “crime of violence?” According the U.S. Supreme Court, the answer is “we can’t tell and it’s not our job to say,” so the law is unconstitutional.

When the police stop a car due to a traffic violation, they can demand to see the identification of the driver and all passengers, right? Not necessarily. While drivers must produce identification, this is not necessarily so for passengers, as the Ninth Circuit recently held.

in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 878 (1992), a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court, extending Roe V. Wade, held that a state cannot place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion; consequently, a provision of law is constitutionally invalid.