Minnesota legislators are considering adopting a bill that would restrict public access to juvenile delinquency records, except in cases where the juvenile committed a violent crime or was charged as an adult.

The bill received strong support last week when it was presented to the State House, as it passed with a 120-13 vote.  Supporters of the bill are in favor of restricting access to some juvenile crimes because certain misdemeanors can carry heavy consequences 10, 20, or even 30 years down the road.

A Clean Slate

Proponents of the bill believe that by blocking the public from seeing juvenile convictions, those individuals who have learned from their mistakes can get a fair chance at opportunities later in life.  Oftentimes people who have committed a crime as a juvenile face an uphill battle when applying for school loans, finding a job, or securing a home.  Northeastern Minnesota Chief Public Defender Fred Friedman said he personally knows people who are still feeling the repercussion of an immature crime they committed during their youth.

“I know a woman in her 30s with a nursing degree and license and she can’t get work because when she was 13 or 14 years old some older guy talked her into delivering a package of drugs from Point A to Point B,” Friedman said. “Why should that keep her from getting work 20 years later?”

As we’ve discussed on our blog before, a juvenile’s brain is still developing well through their teen years.  Everybody wishes they could have a “do-over” at some point in life, and this bill could help give those people who have made positive changes in their life a chance to make amends for a mistake they made as a teen.

It’s also important to note that the crimes wouldn’t be completely erased from the record.  Law enforcement officials and judges would still have access to the juvenile records, ensuring that appropriate penalties would be levied against repeat offenders.  Violent or particularly heinous crimes where the juvenile was charged as an adult would remain part of the public domain.

Another reason why supporters of the bill hope the measure passes is because oftentimes very little information is available on electronic records, meaning academic officials or potential employers may not get the full story behind the alleged crime, said Arrowhead Regional Corrections Executive Director Kay Arola.

“The dissemination of the information is so broad that employers and academic institutions and others are not necessarily able to accurately interpret the data that they are looking at,” Arola said. “So just because I was arrested for a crime, doesn’t necessarily mean that I was convicted or did that behavior, and that’s the kind of fine nuisance that is often missed.”

Future consequences

While some juvenile crimes are more serious than others, some specific crimes can make it nearly impossible to receive a related opportunity. For example:

• Juveniles convicted of a misdemeanor shoplifting charge may find it next to impossible to land a job in retail or sales.
• Individuals who are convicted of drug charges are often denied federal student loans, meaning some teens can’t afford to go to college.
• Underage drinking violations can make it extremely difficult for a person to secure a position in law enforcement.
• Reckless driving charges can prevent teens from getting a job where extensive travel or driving is required.

There is no set date for when the bill may make its way in front of the State Senate, but the strong bipartisan support appears to show that the bill has a good chance of passing.  Rep. Carly Melin, who introduced the bill to the State House, said she believes its adoption would be a step in the right direction for Minnesota’s reformed youth.

This (bill) is a way to…recognize the fact that kids make mistakes and this shouldn’t be held against them for the rest of their lives.”

Related source:  Duluth News Tribune

Minnesota Marijuana Decriminalization – An infographic hosted at Appelman Law Firm

Embed this infographic on Your Site: Copy and Paste the Code Below

<a href="http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/drug-offenses/minnesota-marijuana-decriminalization-infographic/"><img src="http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/decriminfo.png" width="540"></a></p> <p>Minnesota Marijuana Decriminalization – An infographic hosted at <a href="http://blog.aacriminallaw.com">Appelman Law Firm</a></p> <p>

Former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Sam Hurd faces a minimum of 10 years in prison after pleading guilty Thursday to attempting to establish a drug-distribution network.

Hurd was arrested in December 2011 after he attempted to arrange for the purchase of a large amount of cocaine from an undercover investigator.

According to the police report, Hurd attempted to buy one kilogram of cocaine from the undercover officer, and later said he wanted to purchase 10 kilograms of cocaine each week if the supplier could make it happen.  Hurd told the officer he would pay $25,000 per kilo, meaning he’d be moving more than $1 million worth of cocaine each month.

He was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute.  Hurd was apologetic when he addressed the court Thursday.

“I’m sorry for everything I’ve done,” Hurd told the court.

Although he was apologetic in court, his actions after his arrest did little to show that Hurd understand the gravity of his situation.  After his initial arrest, he once again ended up in front of the court after he failed two drug tests.  He also allegedly tried to arrange another drug buy, which came to light after two men linked to the deal pled guilty to related charges and were ready to testify against Hurd.

The prosecution and defense have been working aggressively towards a deal, but the two sides cannot agree on what information Hurd will acknowledge in the agreement.  The prosecution feels they have a strong case against Hurd, while the defense doesn’t want to accept a deal that puts Hurd in jeopardy of receiving a lengthy sentence.

Minnesota Drug Defense attorney Avery Appelman said Hurd apologized to the court in what is known as a “presentence investigation”, which occurs prior to any felony sentencing. The presentence investigation is a meeting with the probation officer who handled the case, in which the defendant’s demographics and prognosis for success on probation are examined.  The probation officer examines to details and makes recommendation to the court as to what the appropriate sanction should be. Appelman said it’s important that the accused expresses remorse during the presentence investigation.

“I prepare my clients for these very important meetings. They go to these meetings after pleading guilty, and they need to express great remorse and be honest about what they have done,” said Appelman.  “Should they proceed with a position that they are the victims, that the state is accusing them of more criminality than they are responsible for, that usually falls on deaf ears at probation and with the sentencing judge.”

Appelman added that the best approach for leniency, and in Mr. Hurd’s case a reduced sentence, is by expressing a sense of responsibility for one’s actions and being honest about what they have done.

“Offering half truths and whodunits will not achieve Mr. Hurd’s objectives,” said Appelman.

It’s a sad tale for Hurd, who had recently signed a deal worth $5.15 million with the Bears before his arrest.  He is scheduled to be sentenced in July.

Related source:  ESPN Dallas

The weather in Minnesota can only be described as strange (Thundersnow in April?!), and in keeping with the theme we decided to find a few DUI stories that make you say “are you kidding me?”  They also highlight the dangers of mixing marijuana with other substances.

Elephant in the road

Late last year, Samuel Phillips, 31, was arrested and charged with his seventh DUI after his Land Rover struck a guard rail.  When officers arrived on the scene, they noticed that Phillips was acting erratically.  An officer proceeded to ask Phillips about the accident, including why it occurred.  Phillips said he was merely attempting to avoid hitting an animal.

Let’s just say officers weren’t buying his story.

According to the police statement, “Phillips told the trooper that the accident was the result of…. swerving to avoid an elephant he observed running in the path of the vehicle.”

Officers suspect that Phillips’ observation was a result of the combination of PCP dipped marijuana he admitted to smoking before getting in his car.  Phillips was charged with his seventh DUI, as well as driving without insurance.  He was held on a $21,000 bond.

No other citizens reported seeing an elephant, and no zoos reported any missing Dumbos.

Tonight, I gotta cut loose, footloose

Earlier this month, authorities were called to the scene of a single vehicle crash to find the driver, 34-year-old Felix Lockett, dancing in the street.

Without his clothes on.

A Florida Highway Patrol officer who responded to the call opened Lockett’s car door to investigate the scene, only to experience symptoms of exposure to hazardous materials.  A Haz-Mat team was called to assist in the situation, and they found a bottle containing formaldehyde inside Lockett’s vehicle.

Formaldehyde is most commonly used during autopsies, to determine the cause of death and to help preserve the body. Lockett told authorities that he had mixed formaldehyde with marijuana before driving.

The trooper and two other law enforcement officers were taken to the Orlando Regional Medical Center for treatment after experiencing symptoms associated with chemical exposure.  None of the illnesses were considered life threatening, although they reported watery eyes and trouble breathing.

Although he was able enough to dance, Lockett was later hospitalized in “serious” condition.  Authorities did not announce what charges would be brought against the man.

If convicted on a felony level, Lockett’s next dance may be from behind bars.  No word on if dancing is banned in the area penitentiary.

Related source:  Orlando Sentinel, The Philadelphia Inquirer

There have been some oddball sentences in the past, but a recent ruling out of England sounds more like a punishment you’d see in high school rather than the court of law.

Terry Bennett, 32, was arrested with two pounds of marijuana and told officer that he had planned to sell the drug.  When he went in front of a judge, he was given a one-year suspended sentence with 240 hours of community service.  If Bennett completed the community service, he would not need to spend the year in jail.

Community service went out the window after Bennett suffered a shoulder injury while snowboarding.  He then asked the judge if there was another way he could pay his debt to society.

Judge Julian Lambert considered Bennett’s plight, and decided that he could write a 5,000 word essay on the dangers of marijuana in lieu of community service.

“It was a shock to be given such an unusual punishment. It’s been ages since I last wrote an essay,” said Bennett.

In addition to the essay, Judge Lambert imposed a four-month curfew, meaning Bennett needs to be at his residence from 8pm until 8am.  Bennett said he is happy with the alternative sentence, and he believes he can use it as a chance to learn.

“I think it’s good in a way because it gives me a chance to express my opinion about the crime that I’ve committed,” he said in an interview with SWNS. “And it also gives me more of an understanding of why the crime’s illegal, because I’m having to actually do the research.”

Bennett initially wanted to construct an essay that argued the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana, but the judge nixed the idea.  Lambert said the essay needed to focus on the dangers of marijuana, so Bennett wants to brush up on the little-known dangers of cannabis.

“I’m just going to write about certain dangers caused by cannabis that people might not necessarily know,” Bennett said.

Bennett went on to say that he’s already started his 10-page thesis, which focuses on “the dangers that come about because it is illegal, rather than the nature of weed itself.”  He added that his main points are the mental, physical and societal dangers cannabis consumption can cause.

Bennett needs to submit the essay by April 4 or he will violate the conditions set by Lambert.

Related source:  Yahoo

Everybody makes mistakes, especially in our early years.  Children are often given more responsibilities when they hit their teenage years, and sometimes they make poor decisions.  Although it’s important that teens learn from their mistakes, a lapse in judgment shouldn’t cost a child the chance to further their education.  Below we provide some tips for applying to college if you have a juvenile criminal record.

1.  Do some research – Some schools require that you disclose your criminal past while others do not.  Oftentimes public universities and community colleges will not ask for this information, while private schools will ask that you provide it.  Depending on your past convictions, you may be better off applying to a school that doesn’t request this information up front.

2.  Learn about Federal Aid restrictions – If you plan to take out a loan to pay your way through school, you might have a tougher time receiving student aids or scholarships because of your previous convictions.  You may not be able to receive federal aid if you have previous drug charges, but state and school funding may still be possible.  Keep your budget in mind when picking a college.

3.  Tell the truth – If you are asked about past convictions on your college application, tell the truth.  If a prospective student is caught lying, it can automatically disqualify their application, even if they’ve already received a letter of acceptance from the school.  Telling the truth is the first step in showing the college that you’ve accepted responsibility for your past behavior.

4.  Be prepared – As we alluded to in our previous blog titled, “How to Job Hunt with a Criminal Record”, be prepared the answer questions about your past if the school asks you to come in for an interview.  Some important things to stress are that you’ve accepted responsibility, you understand your mistakes, and you’ve moved on.  Try to put a past conviction in a positive light by emphasizing what you learned and how you were changed by the incident.=

5.  Write a cover letter- Some colleges ask you to write a personal statement or cover letter to accompany your application.  If the application asks you to list past convictions but doesn’t give you ample room to explain your story, the personal statement can be a great spot to talk about your past.  Even if the college doesn’t require a personal statement, you may want to consider adding one if you feel like your juvenile record needs to be explained.6.

6.  Apply to multiple colleges – Most people apply to more than one college, but it is especially important if you have a criminal record.  Ultimately you don’t know how the admissions office if going to view your past convictions, so you’ll increase your odds of getting accepted if you apply to multiple places.

Related source:  eHow.com

An investigation by the Pioneer Press and the Duluth News Tribune revealed that more opioid painkillers are being legally distributed than ever before in the state of Minnesota, which makes it easier for people to illegally obtain the pills.

The amount of painkillers being distributed is astounding.  The investigation revealed that enough oxycodone and hydrocodone was distributed throughout the state to provide 18 pills per person.  Considering the number is up from two pills per person in 1997, we see an 800 percent increase over the last 15 years.

As prescription drugs rates continue to rise, so do drug-related crimes, arrests and deaths.

Officials also warned that pill addicts have begun to switch to harder drugs like heroin, which has become more readily available in the Twin Cities over the last few years.

“Clearly we have all the ingredients of a prescription opiate and heroin epidemic in the state of Minnesota,” said Carol Falkowski, a former drug-abuse strategist for the state of Minnesota.

Falkowski said the “epidemic” stems from an increase in the number of opioid prescriptions.  Painkillers that were once used to ease discomfort for patients with chronic pain are now being prescribed for other conditions, and leftover pills can be easy targets for teens and young adults looking for a quick high.

The study also found that in 2012, 24 out of every 10,000 Minnesotans between the ages of 18 and 24 received treatment for opiate addiction, which represented a 179 percent increase since 2008.

Over Prescribing?

Opioids are tightly controlled by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and are often prescribed to treat cases of ADD and ADHD.  Oftentimes teens that have trouble focusing in school are prescribed some form of opiate, which can make it easier for the drug to enter into the school system and be distributed among social groups.

As more children are diagnosed with ADHD, an increased amount of opioids are legally distributed from doctors.  Minnesota saw a 72 percent increase in the legal distribution of opioids from 2005 to 2011.

In 2011, Duluth had the highest rate of opiate painkiller distribution in the state. This year, the largest increases were seen in Ramsey County and the northwest corner of the state.  The increased supply of opioids has led to more people sampling the drug.

“Supply is a key ingredient in any drug epidemic,” Falkowski said. “You have to have an adequate supply in order to propel it into epidemic proportions.”

Dr. David Schultz, who runs the MAPS Medical Pain Center in Minneapolis, said the current prescription system is partially at fault.

“Patients are happy when they get a prescription, and doctors’ satisfaction ratings go up.  If they say no to a patient, then they’ll give them a bad rating,” Schultz said. “There are a lot of perverse incentives to write a prescription, and that’s an unfortunate situation.”

More Prescription Drug Findings

The findings by the Pioneer Press and the Duluth News Tribune highlight some dangerous trends.  More findings from the investigation can be seen below.

• A fourfold increase in Minnesotans who died from prescription opiate use between 1999 and 2010.  The Centers for Disease Control reported that 192 people died from prescription opiate use in 2010 compared to only 42 a decade earlier.
• The Department of Human Services reported that the number of Minnesotans who sought treatment for opiate abdication has more than doubled since 2007.
• Over a 10 year period there has been a 13 percent increase in instances where prescription opiates and heroin were listed as reasons for entering a treatment facility.
• Crimes to get drugs or to get money to pay for drugs have been more prevalent, according to police.  In 2012, there were been 10 armed robberies of pharmacies, compared to seven in 2011.

Related Source: TwinCities.com

As we talked about in an earlier post, getting a job in this market is tough enough even if you don’t have a criminal record.  Many job applicants believe they may be dismissed from contention for a position because of a past incident on their criminal record.  While the court won’t expunge (or seal) certain convictions, you may want to consider sealing your records if you feel they will hinder you in your future endeavors.

What is criminal record expungement?

Criminal record expungement is the process of sealing past court orders so only certain officials have access to them.  It’s important to understand that expungement doesn’t mean that your records are destroyed, and certain departments like the FBI, immigration officers and law enforcement officials still have access to your sealed records, but expungement can keep the general public from learning of your past convictions.  People commonly request their record to be sealed if they have been denied a job or a lease because of past convictions.

What types of crimes can be expunged?

While sealing your criminal record may sound like a good idea, it’s important to know that not all crimes can be sealed.  Crimes like murder, sexual assault and driving while intoxicated are never expunged due to their severity.  Common crimes that may be expunged include:

• Possession of a controlled substance (like marijuana or pain pills)
• Traffic violations
• Underage consumption
• Various juvenile crimes

Although some cases are easier than others, just because you request your record to be expunged doesn’t mean that a judge will comply.

Getting your record sealed

The court often grants expungement for cases that were ruled “in your favor”.  Court details will show up on a background check even if you were found not guilty of a crime.  If you were arrested and the charges were later dismissed, you should consider sealing your record.  Also, if you were allowed to attend a diversion program, like alcohol awareness sessions, you should be able to get your record sealed because you did not plead guilty.

Getting your record expunged for cases that were ruled “not in your favor” is a tougher process, but it can be done with the help of an attorney.  For cases that were ruled not in your favor, expungement will only seal the court’s records.  This means that if you pled guilty or were convicted, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will still have record of the case, which means it will still show up on a background check.

Getting your record expunged is a complicated process regardless of whether a case was ruled “in your favor”, and there are a variety of legal documents that need to be filled out.  If you’re thinking about getting your record sealed, contact an attorney to talk about your options.

If you took a national poll and asked people to explain a DWI charge, a common response would be that someone was caught drinking and driving.  While alcohol consumption certainly falls under Minnesota statute 169A.20 that governs Driving While Impaired, there’s more to the law than most people realize.  Below, we’ll present four examples.  Can you determine which scenarios constitute a DWI charge?

A)  William just found out he got accepted to graduate school.  He and some of his friends decide to go out on the town to celebrate.  William sticks to beer throughout the night, and when the bar closes he decides he’s sober enough to drive.  A state trooper notices William driving erratically, so he pulls him over.  William, against our better judgment, submits to a breathalyzer test and blows a .12.  Can he be charged with a DWI?

B)  Sally has been working as a custodian at Maple Grove High School for 14 years.  One day, she hurts her back while moving a desk into a teacher’s room.  She visits her doctor and she is prescribed Vicodin to deal with her back pain.  Not wanting to lose any of her valuable vacation days, Sally pops a pill and drives into work.  An officer notices Sally has a broken taillight, so he pulls her over.  Can she be charged with DWI?

C)  Mitch is new on campus.  He’s eager to make friends, so he attends an off-campus party with some people from his dorm.  Mitch knows that he’s the designated driver for the night, so he doesn’t drink any alcohol during the party.  Later in the night, Mitch steps outside to get some fresh air.  Two girls are smoking marijuana on the porch steps, and they offer Mitch a hit.  Mitch decides to smoke with the girls, and an hour later he drives back to campus.  A cop spots Mitch driving without his seatbelt on, so he pulls him over.  Can Mitch be charged with a DWI?

D)  Dave wakes up early one morning to join his friends for a round of golf.  Knowing the side effects of the Adderall medication he takes for his Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, Dave arranges for one of his friends to pick him up on the way to the golf course.  Dave and his buddies have a great day golfing until the 18^th hole.  Dave tries to whip a donut with the golf cart and ends up rolling the cart.  A clubhouse manager witnesses the accident and calls the police because he wants to make sure he is not liable for injuries.  Can Dave be charged with a DWI?

Before we give you the answers, take a look that the DWI law:

“It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, when

• the person is under the influence of alcohol;
• the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
• the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person’s ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;
• the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3); or
• the person’s body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.

Did reading the law change your opinion of William, Sally, Mitch or Dave?  Let’s take a look at the answers.

Can they be charged with a DWI?

William – YES.  William can be charged with DWI because he violates the first part of the law, which states a person may not operate a motor vehicle with a Blood-Alcohol Content above .08.

Sally – YES.  Sally can be charged with DWI because she violated the final clause in the DWI law, which states that a person may not operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance listed as a Schedule I or II drug.  Vicodin is listed as a Schedule II drug, and driving with it in your system, even if it’s prescribed by a doctor, is against the law.

Mitch- YES.  Mitch can be charged with a DWI because he is operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance.  Cannabis is also shown to affect a person’s reaction time, so he is also violating the clause that restricts driving under the influence of a hazardous substance.

Dave – YES.  Much like Sally, Dave can be charged with a DWI because Adderall is listed as a Schedule II drug by the FDA and DEA.  Although he had a friend drive him to the golf course, you can still be charged with a DWI on a golf cart because it qualifies as a motor vehicle.  Even though Dave was prescribed Adderall by his doctor, and he got a ride to the golf course from his friend, his slip up with the golf cart can land him in hot water.

Fighting a Prescription Drug DWI Charge

Getting charged with a DWI because you took a drug prescribed by your doctor doesn’t seem fair, but how does one go about fighting the charge?  In Minnesota, Subdivision 2 of statute 169A.46 offers an affirmative defense for a prescription drug DWI charge:

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of section 169A.20 subdivision 1, clause (7) (presence of Schedule I or II controlled substance), that the defendant used the controlled substance according to the terms of a prescription issued for the defendant in accordance with sections 152.11 and 152.12

What this means is if you can prove that you were taking your pills in accordance with your doctor’s orders, than the charges may be dismissed.  The only downfall of this defense is that most defendants must take the stand to defend themselves, and the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense.

We had an exciting and successful year here at Appelman Law Firm. We were able to facilitate positive case results for many clients. Below are a few case studies detailing the successes our attorneys have had this year.

Note: client names have been changed or shortened to protect anonymity.

1. State vs. J.A.– J.A. was arrested after a police officer observed her vehicle drive from a restaurant parking lot into and out of a ditch and onto a county road. The client failed field sobriety tests on the scene and was arrested. Her Blood Alcohol Concentration was over .20 (the legal limit is .08). With masterful negotiation and client preparation, the charges were amended to a misdemeanor level offense and J.A. did not serve any jail time as is customary for similar offenses in Crow Wing County.
2. State vs. S.C. – S.C. was stopped 15 miles after a police officer initiated pursuit of the vehicle. S.C. failed field sobriety tests, was arrested for DWI, and tested well over .08 BAC. He was charged with a gross-misdemeanor 2^nd Degree DWI and was facing 90 days in jail and the forfeiture of his vehicle. Avery held a hearing challenging the stop of S.C.’s vehicle. After thorough cross examination employing the squad video of the stop, the court reinstated S.C.’s driver’s license. Ultimately, S.C. plead guilty to misdemeanor Careless Driving, a non-alcohol related offense, and has since had his car returned.
3. State vs. T.B. – While entering a local store, T.B. made a comment to a young woman sitting in a car. The woman went home, advised her mother, and returned to the store with the police who detained T.B. Avery sprang into immediate action, sent a lawyer directly to the scene who insulated T.B. from the police investigation and secured his immediate release from police custody.  The case was charged and ultimately dismissed.
4. State vs. C.P. – C.P. was arrested in a prostitution sting targeting providers from a certain agency. C.P. claimed that prior to her arrest, the undercover officer allowed her to perform a sex act. Using this information, Avery Appelman filed a motion to dismiss for a Due Process Violation. Prior to the hearing the State dismissed the case.
5. State v. J.R.– J.P. received a phone call from his relative late one evening asking him to meet up. At the meeting, the relative asked J.P. to go and get his truck parked on the side of a road. J.P. approached the vehicle and was immediately confronted by police who took him into custody for fleeing from the police. Avery Appelman conducted an investigation and shared the information with the prosecution who ultimately dismissed and prosecuted the relative.

1. State vs. M.R. – 19-year-old M.R. was charged with DWI after a snow plow driver reported that a vehicle was stuck in a snow bank.  When police arrived, M.R. did not have her glasses or shoes, her cell phone was on the ground outside of the vehicle and she was very confused.  After a few hours she recalled a horrific scene wherein she was sexually assaulted by her boss while his wife sat in the next room.  Geoff took on the case and had her blood sample retested by a private lab to check for any date rape drugs. He also discovered that her boss was on parole for Criminal Sexual Conduct in Hennepin County.  Prior to her criminal DWI trial, Geoff presented the prosecutor with pages of evidence proving that she had no other choice but to flee the scene.  The prosecutor chose to proceed to trial, and after an hour and a half summit with the judge in chambers, the DWI was ultimately dismissed. The Attorney General’s Office also decided to go forward with the drivers’ license revocation, but after Geoff presented the evidence at the implied consent hearing, the judge rescinded the revocation.
2. State vs. D.B. – D.B. was pulled over after leaving a bar in the Mille Lacs area around closing time.  He had parked in a patch of grass outside the bar that was known by everyone to be the overflow parking, and drove up through a ditch and on to the road to head home.  A State Trooper pulled him over for illegally entering a roadway, citing no other illegal conduct.  After a combined evidence suppression and implied consent hearing, the Judge found that the officer lacked the requisite suspicion to make a traffic stop and summarily dismissed the criminal case and rescinded the revocation of his drivers’ license.
3. State vs. A.H. – A.H. was arrested after a minor dispute with his girlfriend.  When officers arrived, both parties were extremely intoxicated.  In fact, United Hospital sent the victim to detox before taking her back to treat her injuries. A number of witnesses stated that A.H. threw a potted plastic plant at the victim and each of them tried unsuccessfully to land punches and kicks on the other.  A.H. also admitted to police that he may have had his hand on her neck, which is a felony. Since there was no defense, and the client felt awful about everything, he agreed to go to chemical dependency and mental health treatment, in exchange for 60-days house arrest and a misdemeanor after he completes probation.  On the night after he pleaded guilty, the police were called to his house, where he was “playing chess” with the victim of the original case.  He was arrested, and Geoff argued successfully to have his conditional release reinstated the next day.  The prosecutor was not happy about this, and requested that another warrant be issued.  Geoff argued successfully that the warrant was illegal because the issue of his conditional release was already litigated.

1. State vs. J.V. – J.V. was charged with DWI. After being retained Stacy moved to suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to the initial stop of his vehicle on the grounds that the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. The judge agreed, suppressed all evidence, and dismissed the charges.
2. State vs. C.K. – C.K. was charged with sale of a large amount of marijuana in close proximity to a gun, which makes it a far more serious charge. Stacy took on the case and litigated the validity of the search warrant that uncovered evidence. She ultimately convinced the state that the gun was not the defendant’s and was not involved in any drug activity. The charge was amended to simple possession and the defendant was granted a statutory stay of adjudication, meaning that he was not convicted of any crime, and guaranteeing that if he successfully completes probation and some community service, all records of his arrest and charges will be expunged from his record.
3. State vs. C.M. – C.M. was facing felony charges of fleeing police in a motor vehicle. If convicted of a felony, in addition to the sentence for that charge, the defendant would have had to serve a prison sentence because he was on probation with the Department of Corrections. Stacy moved for a probable cause hearing on the basis that the state lacked evidence of the driver’s identity. Rather than litigate the issue, the state agreed to amend the charge to a misdemeanor fleeing on foot, which allowed the defendant to be released without serving any additional time in jail or on probation.
4. State vs. L.S. – L.S. was charged with domestic assault and possession of a handgun without a permit. Stacy challenged the legality of the search of his vehicle where the gun was found and the prosecutor agreed to continue both charges for dismissal, meaning that the defendant did not have to plead guilty to either charge and was not convicted of any offense.

Visit our website to read more of our case successes.