Crime figures were released last week by the Detroit Police Department and the news wasn’t good when it came to homicides. The city has seen 23 more homicides compared to the same third-quarter period in 2010, marking a 31% increase. Overall, 2011 murders have jumped 19% and the department says it’s largely the fault of offenders already on probation.

“It’s important to note those who are constantly causing havoc in the community…have been placed on probation,” says Inspector Dwane Blackmon of the Department’s homicide unit.

It isn’t clear if Blackmon is implying these people should have been off the streets to begin with or if he is making a general observation. While no one can predict who will commit a murder and who will be a successful probationer, many people see probation as a walk in the park or a free ride for a convicted criminal.

While it’s true that probation is definitely easier than jail time, it’s far from a walk in the park and the courts are cautious about who is granted this suspended sentence and who is required to serve time.

Judges take many things into consideration when determining who will receive a suspended sentence. Often, the prosecutor plays a major role in this determination as well, through the use of plea bargains. A defendant may agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence (probation). But it’s rare that the prosecution and then the judge would agree to such a bargain if there was any indication that the defendant would become violent if allowed back on the streets.

The city’s homicides aren’t telling the whole story, though. Violent crimes dropped overall in the third quarter, about 11% overall for the year so far. Burglaries saw a 10.78% drop and rapes are down 6.2%.

The city is concerned that the increased homicide rate is due to lack of community involvement, because people are reluctant to work with police. “The community has to wake up and see the importance of protecting their community. The community has to get involved,” said one concerned resident.

Last summer the police began “Operation Inside Out: Night Angels” to assist in quelling the violence. This program deployed officers who would normally work a desk job to an 8 hour patrol shift once per week. This program put 40 to 50 additional officers on patrol on each shift.

Visible members of the community and the police alike see a need for cooperation to reduce crime overall but acknowledging it and making it work are two different things.

In 2008 the Detroit crime lab located in Brush Park was ordered to be closed due to “sloppy investigations.” But apparently the sloppiness didn’t end when the unit stopped handling investigations. The Detroit Free Press found last week that the lab, housed in a former elementary school, still contained criminal evidence and files.

Televisions, cameras, microscopes, files, old blood samples, and even live ammunition littered the abandoned building. And perhaps the worst part—the building had been open, with a fence down and windows busted open, for at least a week.

The Free Press alerted the police department which launched an immediate investigation into what happened. Police Chief Ralph Godbee Jr. said “I will make sure that this never happens again,” after being told of the situation at the old lab.

When the lab was originally closed in 2008, existing evidence was to go to the State Police which was taking over for the lab. Obviously, not all the evidence made it. Investigation records, sealed evidence, and even bullet proof vests were left behind. Abandoned buildings in Detroit are not unusual, but abandoned buildings with this sort of stockpile are extremely rare.

A photographer who travels the city shooting photos of abandoned buildings walked right through the front door last week of the old crime lab and was shocked at what he saw. “My concern is that a scrapper or homeless person can go in and stock up on ammunition and a bullet proof vest.”

But the dangerousness of the wrong people getting a hold of potentially dangerous items is only part of the concern. The evidence left behind could be part of ongoing cases and appeals. The preservation of evidence in a criminal case is crucial. One threat to the integrity of evidence could mean the difference between a conviction and dropped charges.

As a matter of fact, many cases are filtered out of the courts because of problems with evidence collection and handling. The presence of case files, blood samples, and ballistic testing materials from weapons cases in the abandoned lab could potentially have a significant impact on the cases they were related to.

The Wayne County Prosecutor’s office is already reviewing 557 crime lab cases, brought to their attention by a number of people in the legal community. It seems they may have more to look at after this latest discovery.

If you are facing criminal charges, the evidence in your case is sometimes all the prosecution has. If the physical evidence was seized unlawfully, it could be “thrown out” of court. Understanding the rules of evidence and your rights is the job of your defense lawyer. Contact our attorneys today if you’re in need of counsel and we can provide a free initial consultation.

A Bay City judge this week ruled the statewide ban on stun guns is unconstitutional. But because this is a trial judge, it’s certain we haven’t heard the end of this argument, which will eventually have to be settled by higher courts.

photo credit: Yohei Yamashita

According to ConnectMidMichigan.com, an employee of the Old Town Party Store in Bay City liked to keep a stun gun tucked in his belt while he was working. Working in a store that sold alcoholic beverages likely made this employee think he needed a little extra protection on his job. But he was reported, arrested, and charged with a felony weapons charge.

The store clerk faced four years in prison for the offense but he was fortunate enough to be seen by Bay County Judge Joseph Sheeran.

Judge Sheeran determined the law banning stun guns as unconstitutional precisely because it bans them rather than regulating them. The charges were thrown out and the clerk was released.

The defense attorney on the case made an interesting point that seems to sum up the judge’s thoughts as well, stating “the individual working with my client had a firearm and that was constitutionally protected, while a less lethal stun gun is not apparently…”

His attorney argues that the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution is the right to “bear arms” not solely “firearms” and that weapons including stun guns should be included under this protection.

Seven states have banned stun guns. It will be interesting to see how this judges ruling plays out over the course of coming years. It wouldn’t be surprising to see other similar cases arise in the other six states that ban the weapons (New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Hawaii).

The 2^nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms but the states reserve the right to “regulate” this. This is precisely what the judge was referring to when he stated that the current ban oversteps its boundaries in banning rather than regulating the stun guns.

It’s this regulation that has resulted in so many weapons laws in Michigan and across the country, these laws often being at the center of hot debate.

When you are facing gun charges you are essentially accused of violating these regulations that control just how you can own and use them. If you are accused of violating these laws, a local criminal defense lawyer may be able to assist you in navigating the courts and achieving the best results possible. Contact our attorneys today for a free consultation on your Michigan gun charges.

There are times where a crime could be charged, where the law would allow it, but where common sense just tells you it’s a waste of taxpayer money, court time, and generally just doesn’t make sense. Such is the case of a 23 year old Jackson man now facing charges of animal cruelty.

What he did might not have been in good taste. But, it was something that many others would have done given the same set of circumstances.

He’s charged with killing a raccoon. Not a pet. A wild raccoon who had invaded his property and made a mess of his garage. The raccoon in question ransacked his garage, putting a hole in it, breaking a door, knocking over things, and eating bird seed.  So the young man sent his dog after it.

One night last year, he sent his blue heeler into the garage. The dog came out with the raccoon and the man encouraged the dog to kill it. All the while two teens looked on, one recording the scene on his phone.

Now the young man, free of a raccoon, is facing 90 days in jail and a $500 fine for the criminal charge of animal cruelty, a misdemeanor.

Some may have done the same thing while I imagine countless others would’ve called animal control or even the police. Instead, he took the matters into his own hands, as a property owner, and eliminated the problem.

According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment you can hunt raccoons during certain seasons and that regardless of the season, a property owner can kill a raccoon if it is damaging his property. The problem here and the seeming reason for the charges is that he used his dog to kill the coon.

There are many who are wondering what the point of the charges are. It’s been covered by several local and even state media sources with the staff of the Jackson Citizen Patriot calling on the DA to drop the charges. She can charge him; it fits the language of the law. But it doesn’t necessarily fit the intent.

You might be facing similar charges, charges that simply don’t make sense to you. A local defense lawyer can help make sense of it all and crusade for your cause in the local courts. Contact us for a consultation on your case today.

Recent charges filed by Oakland County prosecutors have defense attorneys and many others scratching their heads. A thirty three year old man is facing criminal charges for accessing his former wife’s email account on the family computer prior to their divorce. He discovered she was having an affair with a previously abusive man and took action to protect the woman’s son.

This particular marriage was the woman’s third. Her second husband was her new object of affection and had previously been arrested for beating her in front of her son. The third husband, upon realizing who she was having an affair with, shared the email information with the first husband, father to the woman’s son.

Now, for doing what he thought was the “right” thing in regards to the child and the integrity of his marriage, he faces a February court date for felony charges.

The crime he is being charged with was added to Michigan statutes to protect against hackers and attempts at identity theft. It isn’t clear if it’s ever been used in this capacity before and it’s applicability to this situation is being seriously scrutinized.

The Oakland County prosecutor is defending her choice to bring charges, calling the defendant a “hacker”. The defense lawyer on the case calls her analysis of the situation “dead wrong”.

The defendant claims the computer was the family computer and was kept in a common area. He states he routinely used the computer for work and his wife actually kept a book with her password right next to the machine. If all this is true, her reasonable expectation of privacy should be a main issue at trial.

Even the ex-wife admits the man was the one who purchased the computer.

Where do we draw the line on privacy in this technological age. People can go on social networks and share their most private moments with the world, but a man cannot access an email account on his own computer and use that information to protect a child and the integrity of his marriage?

It seems this application of the law is a perversion of its intent and like the defense attorney on the case asks, “Don’t the prosecutors have more important things to do with their time?”

When you are facing charges, it’s not unusual at all to feel like they aren’t being applied fairly. Consulting with a criminal defense attorney you can trust will help you get an objective opinion of your case and the potential penalties you might be facing.

The act of “Sexting”, or sending sexually explicit images or texts can lead to felony sex offender charges under Michigan law, even by willing participants. That is the conclusion of one attorney, in discussing an investigation by the Macomb County Sheriff’s Department into alleged “sexting” by teens who are students at Dakota High School.What is not discussed or hinted at in this article from WDIV clickondetroit.com is how insane that fact is. The attorney in the article lays out how a teen girl taking pictures of herself and sending them to her boyfriend can be charged with manufacturing child pornography, and face 20 years in prison and a lifetime as a registered sex offender.

There is no doubt that sexting is a dumb thing to do, but is should dumb behavior by teenagers that harms no one else really a major felony offense?

In states nationwide, there is a push to reform state sexting laws, to make them fit the crime actually committed. Sex offender laws need to catch up with the reality of juvenile sexual behavior and exploration in a world where every teen has a camera phone with them at all times.

These child pornography laws were meant to prosecute sexual predators, not teens doing something stupid.

Reform efforts in Pennsylvania and many other states are working on laws to allow for misdemeanor offenses, juvenile courts, and education program to find a punishment and deterrent that truly fits the crime, if a crime is even committed.

Of course there can certainly be cases of sexting where coercion is used, photos are distributed without the original sender’s permission, or where adults are pressuring and threatening teens.

Sex offender law reform to reflect the actual action taken and harm committed is necessary to reflect reality, and not destroy kids lives for a momentary lapse of judgement.

Please contact us for a consultation on any criminal sexting charge or sex offense in Michigan.

Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case that changed how police did business across the country. It took a small step in watering down the Miranda Rights—those rights we all know by heart. Local officials in the Bay City area, however, state it will have little effect on the way things are done around there.

They begin, “You have the right to remain silent” and we can all recite many more lines that follow. Known as the Miranda Rights these rights are read at the time of arrest before police questioning. They are designed to simply inform a suspect of the rights they have, should they choose to use them.

The recent Supreme Court ruling addressed the first line in particular, the part about remaining silent. Yes, it’s true—you don’t have to answer questions if you don’t want to when you are under arrest. But, does that mean you can sit there silently and the police will understand this is you invoking that “right to remain silent”?

The Supreme Court says no. They ruled that in order to invoke the right and completely stop questioning by police, you must verbally tell them you want to remain silent. Seems strange right? In order to remain silent, you have to break your silence. And this is why many people are saying the latest ruling doesn’t make much sense and only serves to whittle away the Miranda Rights.

Police in Bay County state this won’t be an issue there because they routinely read a suspect their rights and then make the suspect sign off on the rights that they want to speak with police. No signature, no questioning. This practice is excellent and ensures the police and everyone involved know the suspect wanted to talk.

But, this practice is only in place in certain departments. This isn’t a statewide procedure and definitely isn’t a countrywide one either. So the conundrum remains, why should someone have to verbally invoke their right to remain silent when the right itself dictates they don’t have to speak?

One local attorney says “It’s not a surprising decision. I’m surprised they haven’t chipped away more at Miranda than they already have” and he isn’t alone. These pesky rights make it difficult for police to “get the bad guy” and anyway in which they can be bypassed serves to make things easier.

Whether we are talking about your Miranda Rights or the protection you have against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is your defense attorney’s job to protect you in court. If you are facing criminal charges, you need an advocate looking out for your best interests at all times.

Drug charges or assault charges—you deserve to be treated fairly throughout the criminal justice process and we can help. Contact our law offices today for a free consultation and to discuss your options.

There’s a fairly lengthy list of odd laws still on the books in towns across the state. Though they are rarely enforced, they are still present—making them enforceable. While some are just silly, others have caught the eyes of activists who say they need to be stricken from the books for good.

Simple because a law is present doesn’t mean it’s always enforced. The Detroit Free Press features a story alerting us to all of the outdated rules in towns and cities in the area, some of which are quite laughable.

In some areas you can’t have a sandwich in the cemetery, can’t throw snowballs, operate a gym that allows men and women to mingle, use profane language, paint a bird, loiter in the morgue, or neglect your wife. While some of these acts might actually be morally wrong to some people, the government is no longer recognized as being the moral compass in a community and many of these laws would be considered unconstitutional.

That’s the issue some people are taking with laws like the one that allows bars to ban homosexuals. Of course, no area bars enforce such a rule, but activists would like it repealed just the same.

According to the Free Press, most of these laws were enacted in the beginning of the 20^th century and simply stayed on the books despite the gradual decline of enforcement. According to Clawson City Manager, “If we aren’t enforcing the laws, there isn’t an urgency to remove them.”

One man, slapped with a fine for cursing when he fell out of a canoe, feels differently. He apparently let out a string of foul language. The presence of children allowed him to be charged with one of these old laws. The Court of Appeals struck down the law, however, vindicating the man.

If the entire criminal appeals process is what it will eventually take to get these laws removed one by one, it could be a while before we see them gone. Because, although the police have the authority to enforce the laws, you won’t likely see them enforcing ones like the ban on “indulging in pointless, useless wandering from place to place within a public area without any excuse for such roaming other than impulse” as is a law in Washington Township.

Even when you are charged with a crime that seems trivial to you, the penalties can be very serious. It’s not likely that you have been charged with possessing a white cane (illegal in Pontiac) but you could be facing real criminal charges with real penalties.

Regardless what your charges are, I may be able to help. Contact us today for a consultation on your case.

A registered medical marijuana user and local activist filed a petition with the Detroit City Clerk seeking to loosen the marijuana laws in the city. According to The Detroit Free Press, Tim Beck submitted the petition featuring 6,100 signatures and got a “job well done” from Clerk Janice Winfrey.

According to the Detroit News, the Clerk has 10 days to verify the signatures before passing the petition on to the Detroit City Council. From there the council has 90 days to vote on the item or pass it on to voters to make the decision in November. With legalization support at all time highs, Beck no doubt is hoping for the latter.

The proposed initiative would make it legal for residents to be in possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use. Beck claims this measure has the potential to reduce some unnecessary spending in the budget.

In all honesty, not many are optimistic about the measure, even those who support it. Opponents will likely point to the belief that marijuana use leads to more serious drugs or that the legalization would run in contrast to state and federal laws.

Legislation like this is popping up all over the map this year as Californians will be going to the voting booth in November on the same issue. The War on Drugs is seen as largely ineffective by many and the recreational use of marijuana is surrounded by less and less stigma as time goes on.

Currently, however, if you are caught with a small amount of personal marijuana, you will face a criminal charge. Possession of marijuana in Michigan is a misdemeanor and carries up to 1 year in jail. Although the likelihood of you serving a year for a small amount of marijuana is not likely, the possibility is there.

If this is your first offense, there is a good chance we can have the charge conditionally discharged. This simply means you will be required to serve probation pre-trial. When the probationary period is completed satisfactorily, the charges are dropped.

If you are facing marijuana charges in Michigan, contact our attorneys for a phone consultation. Together we can discuss the options available to you under current marijuana laws.

Often when you think of theft you envision someone shoplifting or stealing a vehicle. Not very often does “theft” conjure thoughts of a family staying warm in their home in the dead of a Michigan winter. But, according to The Detroit News, up to 70,000 Detroit area homes and businesses are currently stealing gas and electricity from DTE Energy.

They say the majority of those residential thefts are done by families—people who simply can’t afford to pay the electric bill. While DTE lightens up on removing service over the cold months of winter, they estimate they disconnect up to 500 illegal hookups each day.

There are programs to help people who can’t afford their electricity bills but officials state that very few people know about these programs and that they are underfunded. Instead, families bypass the meters using dangerous wires and routing methods considered to be huge fire and electric shock risks.

Interestingly, however, there are many business owners also getting in on the free utilities. For many of them, it’s not a matter of not being able to pay but rather preferring not to. There are people within the community willing to hook up illegal utilities for a fee less than the average bill, making it an easy decision for some.

Although it doesn’t happen with every incident, the city can criminally charge those people accused of stealing utilities. Whether it’s electricity, gas, or even cable—stealing utilities is considered a criminal offense.

Just what kind of charges you face depend on the value of the services you are accused of stealing. If you had illegal cable hooked to your house for 1 year and the bill for the service you were receiving would have been around $100 per month, you could be accused of a felony charge.

When you are facing theft charges, whether for utility theft or shoplifting, an experienced attorney can help you decide what step to take and when.