DNA evidence has been seen as the gold standard in both exonerating and convicting individuals accused of crimes ranging from theft to rape to murder. DNA evidence in the realm of courtroom drama was largely first introduced to the American public in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Generally thought of as infallible, the existence - or lack of - DNA evidence carried tremendous weight with a jury. However, a recent study published in Forensic Science International: Genetics calls into question the actual reliability of DNA evidence.
According to lead Israeli researcher Dan Frumkin, anyone with a relative understanding of biology could essentially manufacture a crime scene. The researchers contend that DNA evidence can be faked and planted at crime scenes using basic DNA analysis techniques. One of the techniques involves the use of police genetic profiles. Police departments usually maintain some type of genetic information database, which stores a sequence of numbers corresponding to 13 spots on a person's genetic code. These databases are used to track former offenders, and also to compare actual DNA evidence legitimately found at a crime scene in an attempt to locate a potential perpetrator. Frumkin and his researchers were able to clone small pieces of DNA and insert it into the right spot of a DNA sample stored by law enforcement, thus changing the results. According to some at the ACLU, DNA evidence is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints.
Fortunately, Frumkin and his team also say that it may be possible to tell when a DNA sample has been faked. According to the researchers, DNA that has been modified lacks certain molecules that are found attached to unenhanced DNA.
While the thought of law enforcement, or any other individual entrusted with the enormous responsibility of investigating a crime scene intentionally planting DNA evidence and framing an innocent individual is frightening, the possibility should not be ignored.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Buckle Up!
Several new traffic laws have gone into effect over the past few months, some of which could lead to drastic consequences. As is very often the case, greater criminal problems result from a relatively harmless initial traffic stop. Law enforcement officials do not need a very strong reason to stop a motor vehicle, so taking note of the following new laws will help prevent you from being pulled over.
Increased Penalty for Seat Belt Violations
Until recently, failure to wear your seat belt while operating or riding in a motor vehicle did not give law enforcement officials reason to stop a vehicle. However, the new seat belt law now makes failure to wear a seat belt a primary moving violation and gives law enforcement officials the legal right to stop a vehicle if it appears someone is not wearing their seat belt. The former version of this law did not give law enforcement the right to stop a vehicle solely for not wearing a seat belt. The new law allows for increased traffic stops, which creates greater risk of further criminal consequences.
Enhanced Child Seat Requirements
Children under the age of eight or under 4 feet 9 inches tall must now ride in a child passenger restraint system if they are passengers in a motor vehicle. If a child passenger reasonably appears to be under the age of eight or under 4 feet 9 inches tall, a police officer may initiate an investigatory traffic stop of the motor vehicle.
GPS Devices on Windshields
GPS devices may now be placed on a driver's front windshield, provided they are placed on the bottom-most part of the windshield. Previously, any type of device or decal that appeared to obstruct a driver's view was grounds for a traffic stop.
These new laws give law enforcement further discretion in initiating a traffic stop. Police officers may now be able to rely on a reasonable appearance of a traffic violation as legal grounds to stop a vehicle, i.e., an officer may be able to testify that it reasonably appeared an individual was not wearing a seat belt or that a child reasonably appeared to be under the age of eight or shorter than 4 feet 9 inches tall. As is too often the case, greater criminal consequences result from a simple traffic stop. Remember, if you find yourself being placed under arrest, ask to speak to an attorney before you talk to the police.
Increased Penalty for Seat Belt Violations
Until recently, failure to wear your seat belt while operating or riding in a motor vehicle did not give law enforcement officials reason to stop a vehicle. However, the new seat belt law now makes failure to wear a seat belt a primary moving violation and gives law enforcement officials the legal right to stop a vehicle if it appears someone is not wearing their seat belt. The former version of this law did not give law enforcement the right to stop a vehicle solely for not wearing a seat belt. The new law allows for increased traffic stops, which creates greater risk of further criminal consequences.
Enhanced Child Seat Requirements
Children under the age of eight or under 4 feet 9 inches tall must now ride in a child passenger restraint system if they are passengers in a motor vehicle. If a child passenger reasonably appears to be under the age of eight or under 4 feet 9 inches tall, a police officer may initiate an investigatory traffic stop of the motor vehicle.
GPS Devices on Windshields
GPS devices may now be placed on a driver's front windshield, provided they are placed on the bottom-most part of the windshield. Previously, any type of device or decal that appeared to obstruct a driver's view was grounds for a traffic stop.
These new laws give law enforcement further discretion in initiating a traffic stop. Police officers may now be able to rely on a reasonable appearance of a traffic violation as legal grounds to stop a vehicle, i.e., an officer may be able to testify that it reasonably appeared an individual was not wearing a seat belt or that a child reasonably appeared to be under the age of eight or shorter than 4 feet 9 inches tall. As is too often the case, greater criminal consequences result from a simple traffic stop. Remember, if you find yourself being placed under arrest, ask to speak to an attorney before you talk to the police.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Illegal Search and Seizure Leads to Rescission of Revoked Driver's License
Petitioner vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, August 3, 2009
Argued to the court by John Arechigo
On March 15, 2009, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Petitioner, Ms. Peterson, was arrested in her boyfriend's home in Eagan, MN for an alleged hit and run accident. Ms. Peterson had allegedly been involved in an accident and had fled the scene. Witnesses reported to Eagan police officers that the suspect vehicle had driven into the garage of a private residence.
Several law enforcement officers arrived on scene and approached the front door while several other officers entered the gated backyard. Upon answering the door, the homeowner indicated to the officers that Ms. Peterson was not in the home. The officers at the front door asked for permission to search the residence, but were told by the homeowner that they needed a warrant if they wanted to search his home.
Meanwhile, one of the officers in the home's backyard approached the ground-level window, which was located under a porch that extended 10 feet over the lower level of the home and stood about four to five feet high. Once at the window, the police officer admitted to standing about a foot from the window, shining his flashlight into the residence. The officer noticed Ms. Peterson lying on the basement floor, and radioed her location to the officers in the front of the home. The officers then entered the home, proceeded downstairs, and arrested Ms. Peterson. Ms. Peterson was ultimately charged with Second Degree DWI - Test Refusal, Third Degree DWI, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.
All of the officers testified that they did not have a search warrant for any of their activities at the residence. There were no reports of injury and none of the officers pursued the suspect vehicle from the scene.
The court found that Ms. Peterson was a social houseguest in the home and was therefore entitled to a legitimate expectation of privacy under Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990). The court further found that no consent was given to enter the interior of the home or to enter the backyard and shine a flashlight into the windows below the porch. Finally, the court found that no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search and there was no reason to believe that immediate entry into the house was necessary without a warrant.
Because the entry into the basement and seizure of Ms. Peterson without a warrant violated her constitutional rights to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, the court rescinded the revocation of Ms. Peterson's driving privileges.
Argued to the court by John Arechigo
On March 15, 2009, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Petitioner, Ms. Peterson, was arrested in her boyfriend's home in Eagan, MN for an alleged hit and run accident. Ms. Peterson had allegedly been involved in an accident and had fled the scene. Witnesses reported to Eagan police officers that the suspect vehicle had driven into the garage of a private residence.
Several law enforcement officers arrived on scene and approached the front door while several other officers entered the gated backyard. Upon answering the door, the homeowner indicated to the officers that Ms. Peterson was not in the home. The officers at the front door asked for permission to search the residence, but were told by the homeowner that they needed a warrant if they wanted to search his home.
Meanwhile, one of the officers in the home's backyard approached the ground-level window, which was located under a porch that extended 10 feet over the lower level of the home and stood about four to five feet high. Once at the window, the police officer admitted to standing about a foot from the window, shining his flashlight into the residence. The officer noticed Ms. Peterson lying on the basement floor, and radioed her location to the officers in the front of the home. The officers then entered the home, proceeded downstairs, and arrested Ms. Peterson. Ms. Peterson was ultimately charged with Second Degree DWI - Test Refusal, Third Degree DWI, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.
All of the officers testified that they did not have a search warrant for any of their activities at the residence. There were no reports of injury and none of the officers pursued the suspect vehicle from the scene.
The court found that Ms. Peterson was a social houseguest in the home and was therefore entitled to a legitimate expectation of privacy under Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990). The court further found that no consent was given to enter the interior of the home or to enter the backyard and shine a flashlight into the windows below the porch. Finally, the court found that no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search and there was no reason to believe that immediate entry into the house was necessary without a warrant.
Because the entry into the basement and seizure of Ms. Peterson without a warrant violated her constitutional rights to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, the court rescinded the revocation of Ms. Peterson's driving privileges.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Does Failure to Disclose DNA Test Results Constitute Manifest Injustice?
State vs. Bryson, filed June 24, 2008
On September 23, 2005, Appellant, Rafael Bryson, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Prior to pleading guilty, the prosecution notified the Appellant that the police had recovered a gun from the roof of a building that Appellant had run past when police were pursuing him; and that, according to forensic testing, the bullet casings found near the victim's body showed that the casings were fired by the gun retrieved on the rooftop; that the gun could not be eliminated as the gun that fired the three bullets removed from the victim's body; and that, according to forensic testing, gun-shot residue was found on the right sleeve of the shirt Appellant was allegedly wearing at the time of the shooting. After receiving this information, Appellant pleaded guilty.
In July 2005, State had requested and received a continuance to allow for forensic testing of additional evidence collected from under the victim's fingernails and Appellant's clothing. This information was apparently not received by the prosecutor's office prior to entry of Appellant's guilty plea.
In March 2006, Appellant filed notice of appeal. The appellate court stayed the proceedings and remanded the case to district court for postconviction proceedings. In district court, Appellant filed a postconviction motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea.
The day before the hearing was scheduled on Appellant's postconviction motion, the prosecution received reports from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension detailing additional forensic test results. The reports indicated that the Appellant's DNA was not found under the victim's fingernails and that no blood was found on the stained shirt allegedly worn by Appellant. This report was dated August 17, 2005, more than a month before Appellant pleaded guilty.
The Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the postconviction court for determination of whether the State's failure to disclose these BCA reports constituted a manifest injustice, i.e. whether it prevented the Appellant from entering an accurate, voluntary and intelligent plea. Also at play is the prosecutor's obligation to disclose all exculpatory material within his "possession and control."
Stay tuned.
On September 23, 2005, Appellant, Rafael Bryson, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Prior to pleading guilty, the prosecution notified the Appellant that the police had recovered a gun from the roof of a building that Appellant had run past when police were pursuing him; and that, according to forensic testing, the bullet casings found near the victim's body showed that the casings were fired by the gun retrieved on the rooftop; that the gun could not be eliminated as the gun that fired the three bullets removed from the victim's body; and that, according to forensic testing, gun-shot residue was found on the right sleeve of the shirt Appellant was allegedly wearing at the time of the shooting. After receiving this information, Appellant pleaded guilty.
In July 2005, State had requested and received a continuance to allow for forensic testing of additional evidence collected from under the victim's fingernails and Appellant's clothing. This information was apparently not received by the prosecutor's office prior to entry of Appellant's guilty plea.
In March 2006, Appellant filed notice of appeal. The appellate court stayed the proceedings and remanded the case to district court for postconviction proceedings. In district court, Appellant filed a postconviction motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea.
The day before the hearing was scheduled on Appellant's postconviction motion, the prosecution received reports from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension detailing additional forensic test results. The reports indicated that the Appellant's DNA was not found under the victim's fingernails and that no blood was found on the stained shirt allegedly worn by Appellant. This report was dated August 17, 2005, more than a month before Appellant pleaded guilty.
The Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the postconviction court for determination of whether the State's failure to disclose these BCA reports constituted a manifest injustice, i.e. whether it prevented the Appellant from entering an accurate, voluntary and intelligent plea. Also at play is the prosecutor's obligation to disclose all exculpatory material within his "possession and control."
Stay tuned.
Another Wrong Place/Wrong Time Story
Here:
And if we needed more evidence refuting the accuracy of witness identifications:
Last Dec. 29 Blake Shamar Officer, a 17-year-old African-American, was on his way home from work at a local sandwich shop when he stumbled onto a crime scene in South Minneapolis. A middle-aged Latino man had been shot nonfatally during a robbery in front of an apartment building at Pillsbury and 28th avenues south. As Blake happened by, he caught the attention of police officers who believed the tall teen-ager matched the victim’s physical description of the shooter. After officers questioned him, the innocent yet nervous teen-ager was arrested, charged with four felonies and placed on house arrest. In a kind of legal limbo, he waited several months before charges against him were finally dropped.
And if we needed more evidence refuting the accuracy of witness identifications:
The alleged shooter was African-American, dressed in all black, and somewhere between 5 feet 8 and 5 feet 10. Despite the fact that Blake was wearing a gold shirt and stands 6 feet 5, the victim twice positively identified Blake as the culprit.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Is a Kick to the Groin Reasonable?
The D.C. Circuit Court says no.
The relevant facts of the case:
The relevant facts of the case:
Juan Johnson is a police officer whose off-duty act of kindness to a stranger in distress landed him in the middle of a drug bust in which he was repeatedly kicked in the groin by a police officer who mistook him for a criminal. Johnson claims he was a victim of police brutality and sues both the officer alleged to have kicked him and the District of Columbia.
The court reasoned that "a reasonable officer would not have repeatedly kicked the surrendering suspect in the groin." Wow. Really? This is one of those rare situations which does not involve a suspect's word versus the word of an officer. In this case it is the officer's word versus another officer's word. Where would this case be if it had been the suspect's word vs. officer's word? I imagine it would not have gotten this far. The officer would have said the suspect was fleeing and resisting and...case closed.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
The cop side of the story. The defense attorney/law professor, of course, is right. Don't ever talk to cops.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)