Stacy Kaye has been with Appelman Law Firm for over five years.  She served as a Law Clerk for three years before joining the team as an associate in October 2010.  Stacy specializes in a variety of criminal defense areas, including DUI, drug, juvenile, theft and violent crimes.  In her Q&A, Stacy talks about the challenges of working as a defense attorney, and she shares some of her favorite interests.  For more information about Stacy, or to talk to her about your case, give her a call at (952) 224-2277.

1) What first got you interested in law, and more specifically criminal defense?

I was a history/political science major as an undergraduate at Macalester College. My specific academic focus was how governments and laws have been designed, modified, and interpreted in order to achieve political/philosophical/moral aims throughout American history.  I figured the only realistic career option was to become a history professor, but my history professors told me to consider criminal defense instead. They said it was because then I’d have a chance to try and address injustice as it was happening, which I think was a nice way of saying they thought I liked to argue too much to be anything other than an attorney. In any event, I’m very glad I took their advice and switched courses career-wise.

2) Tell us about the strangest/most impressive/weirdest case you’ve ever worked?

It’s a case that’s unfolding right now, actually, so I probably shouldn’t say much else, other than the cops violated their own procedures, as well as my client’s rights, in dozens of ways. In most cases, I’m happy to have a few issues to litigate, but this case implicates virtually every issue a defense attorney can challenge. It’ll be exciting to see how it unfolds.

3) What is the biggest day-to-day challenge as a criminal defense attorney?

I love how exciting and fast-paced our day-to-day case load is, but it can be tough at times to juggle those responsibilities with the unexpected emergencies that always seem pop up just when we least expect them. But that’s what makes the job continually stimulating and interesting, and it’s very rewarding to be able to help people navigate what can often be a very stressful and overwhelming system.

4) You served as a Law Clerk for Appelman Law Firm for three years before joining the team as an associate.  How helpful was it to get that experience as a law clerk before becoming an attorney?

It was invaluable. Considering that clients are placing a tremendous amount of trust in you to protect their rights and freedom, being a young criminal defense attorney is intimidating enough without having to simultaneously learn the practical ins and outs of the system from scratch.  The reality of the criminal justice system bears little if any resemblance to anything they teach in law school, so I’m very glad to have had the opportunity to gain practical experience in every aspect of our practice prior to becoming a licensed attorney.

5) Tell us a little about your background.  You went to college and law school in the Twin Cities….have you been in Minnesota your whole life?

No, but I have officially lived here for half my life as of this year. My family is from the northeast, although my mom’s side has Minnesota roots. I was born and raised just outside Philadelphia, where I lived until I started high school at the Taft School in Connecticut. After my mom moved to the Twin Cities, I transferred to St. Paul Academy in St. Paul, MN, and stayed in the area for college at Macalester and law school at the University of Minnesota. Minnesota has turned out to be quite a nice place to live, so I have no plans on leaving anytime soon.

6) What do you find most rewarding as a criminal defense attorney?

I love a lot of things about the job, but just to name a few: helping people through stressful and difficult situations, the mental stimulation involved in devising creative legal strategies, keeping the police honest, the exciting nature of our cases.

Stacy’s Favorites

1) Favorite Food: Fried chicken

2) Favorite Books: The Plague; The Stranger; The Road to Wigin Pier; The 42^nd Parallel; Crime and Punishment; The English Patient; No Exit; A Secret History; In Cold Blood

3) Favorite Movies: Chinatown; Double Indemnity, The Spanish Prisoner; V for Vendetta

4) Favorite TV Shows: Curb Your Enthusiasm; Bored to Death; Veronica Mars; Law and Order; Game of Thrones; Wilfred; Sherlock; Arrested Development

5) Favorite Teams: Phillies; Eagles

6) Favorite Hobby: Reading

7) Favorite Vacation: Anything involving boats, water, and/or Canada

8) Favorite Quote: “Distrust in all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.” –Nietzsche

9) One Person From History You’d Like to Meet: Ben Franklin

10) Favorite Criminal Charge to Defend: Controlled substance charges

Oscar winning actress Reese Witherspoon was arrested early Friday morning for disorderly conduct for failing to follow an officer’s orders in connection with a sobriety test that was being conducted on her husband.

According to the police report, the arresting officer stopped her vehicle because the driver was driving erratically.  Witherspoon’s husband was driving the car and she was riding in the passenger seat.  The officer noted the strong smell of alcohol coming from the vehicle, and he asked Witherspoon’s husband to step out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.

While the police officer was administering the tests, Witherspoon refused to stay in the car despite warnings from the officers.  After her husband was placed in the squad car, Witherspoon again emerged from the vehicle and harassed the officer, saying “Do you know my name?” and “You’re about to find out who I am.”

The officer then placed Witherspoon under arrest for disorderly conduct.  She was later released and issued a public apology for her actions, saying she “clearly had one too many drinks” and “she was disrespectful to and officer who was just doing his job.”

We will not speculate on whether Reese attempted to tunnel out of her jail cell Witherspoon.

Minnesota criminal defense attorney Avery Appelman said he is uncertain if Witherspoon’s actions amount to disorderly conduct.

“Minnesota Statute Sect. 609.72 defines Disorderly Conduct is acting in a manner that the reasonably tends to ‘alarm, anger or disturb others, provoke an assault or breach of the peace,’” said Appelman. “Ms. Witherspoon’s behavior in defying a police order to sit in her car is not disorderly.”

Appelman went on to say, “police need to have a higher level of patience and tolerance for abuse than the ordinary person. It is part of their job to deal with intoxicated, mentally ill and those that are under an extreme amount of emotional distress.”

“Ms. Witherspoon did not pose a risk to the public nor to the officers on the scene. When the only audience is a police officer who is trained to control similar situations, it is difficult to fathom how Ms. Witherspoon’s actions amounted to criminal conduct,” said Appelman.

Related source:  LA Times

Although April is coined as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, many Minnesotans are voicing their opinion about the sex trafficking industry as a new bill aimed at providing care for sexually abused children makes its way in front of state legislators this week.

The bill is called the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Youth bill, and it asks for nearly $14 million to provide shelters, services and treatment for children who have been the victim of sexual exploitation.

Minnesota law enforcement has seen a rise in the number of girls being sold for sex, and proponents of the bill said it is because the girls lack a safe place to turn to.

“They try to reach these girls only to have them disappear because there is no place they can bring them that’s safe right now,” said Lee Roper-Baker, CEO of The Women’s Foundation of Minnesota.

Roper-Baker said there are currently only four shelter beds across the state that provides services for victims of child sex trafficking, and the funding would help establish more clinics that could reach a greater amount victims.

“We are poised to become the first state in the nation to set up systemic shelter and treatment for girls who’ve been sex trafficked,” said Roper-Baker.

In addition to asking the public to contact their state legislatures to voice their opinion on the bill, there is also a radio campaign called “MN Girls Are Not For Sale”.  The commercials air on select radio stations through April 1, and they detail the struggles these children face on a daily basis.

Jeff Bauer of The Family Partnership said the radio commercials are having the intended effects.

“The commercials are hard hitting,” Bauer said. “They’re pretty direct.”

Bauer also said the bill would help by putting the perpetrators behind bars.

“It’s $13.5 million for a safe shelter and housing, for comprehensive services and treatment and for training for law enforcement to better identify victims and investigate cases,” he said. “We need people in every community across the state to stand up right now to end this thing.”

Roper-Baker echoed that sentiment, saying now is the time for Minnesotans to stand up for sexually exploited children.

“This is an unimaginable crime of violence against our children and we have a chance now to be part of this solution to end it,” she said.

For more information about the program, you can visit the MN Girls Are Not For Sale website, or you can click here to learn how you can get in touch with your local senator to voice your opinion.

Related source:  CBS Minnesota

Although the Harlem Shake seems to be all the rage this month, there is another internet sensation that is drawing ire from local food stores and law enforcement officials.

The craze is called “gallon smashing”, and it involves intentionally smashing a gallon of milk in a grocery aisle.  In order to get away with the mess, participants act like they slipped and “accidentally” dropped the gallons of milk.  Before it became popular, a group of teens videotaped themselves performing the act at a variety of convenience stores.  You can see the video below.

Although the video is mildly assuming, grocery stores and their employees aren’t laughing.  They are forced to clean up the mess, and sometimes property and other food products are damaged by the spilled milk.

It’s uncertain if the teens in the original video ever received any citations, but one St. Paul teen learned her lesson the hard way when she tried to emulate the prank at a local Target store this month.

An off-duty officer was at the University Avenue Target when the incident occurred.  When he asked the manager what happened in the aisle, the manager said a “gallon smashing incident” had occurred.

Law enforcement officials did not state whether or not the incident was captured on video or if witnesses saw the teen perform the act, but when questioned, the 16-year-old admitted to intentionally smashing the gallon of milk.

The off-duty officer wrote the teen citations for disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property.

“Stores should be on the lookout for this behavior,” said St. Paul police spokesman Sgt. Paul Paulos.  “The kids should know it doesn’t just cost property, but jeopardizes the safety of themselves and other customers.”

A Cleveland man who spent 11 years in prison was awarded $13.2 million in a civil suit after his murder conviction was reversed.

David Ayers was convicted of aggravated murder in the beating death of 76-year-old Dorothy Brown.  Ayers and Brown lived in the same high-rise apartment complex at the time of the murder, and Ayers was employed as a security guard for the housing complex.

Ayers was originally arrested in March of 2000 and was convicted later in the year.  The most damaging evidence against Ayers was testimony from his cellmate while he was awaiting his hearing.  His cellmate claimed that Ayers confessed to the murder, but that testimony later dismissed after a jury ruled that detectives supplied the cellmate with information to aid in a conviction.

Ayers maintained his innocence while in prison, and later had his case taken up by the Ohio Innocence Project in 2008.  Eventually, Ayers convinced a state appeals court to order the trial judge to allow DNA testing on a single pubic hair that was found on Brown’s body.

While the hair was being tested at a lab, the 6^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision against Ayers, saying his sixth amendment rights to legal counsel were violated because the State “ intentionally creat[ed] a situation likely to induce [Ayers] to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel.”

Despite the overturned ruling, the medical lab still tested the hair for DNA.  The lab found that the hair did not belong to Ayers.

Ayers said he was pleased with his exoneration, and he hopes nobody else has to go through a similar ordeal.

“This should have been stopped a long time ago,” Ayers said after the jury’s verdict Friday. “My goal is that it never happens to anyone else ever again.”

In addition to ruling that the judge had improperly allowed testimony of a jailhouse informant, a federal jury ruled Friday that the two detectives who worked with the jailhouse informant fabricated or withheld evidence in order to secure a guilty verdict.

According to the Associated Press, detectives Denise Kovach and Michael Cipo conspired to fabricate a confession, convinced a friend of Ayers to lie by saying that Ayers had told him about the murder before Brown’s body was uncovered, and gave key information to the jailhouse informant to be used against Ayers during trial.

Ayers’ lawyers said they believe Kovach and Cipo attempted to frame Ayers because he was gay, even though investigators found that Brown had been the victim of sexual assault.

No criminal lawsuits have been filed against the officers at this time.

Related source:  USA Today

A Pain in the Butt

Police made a routine traffic stop which led to the drug arrests of 4 passengers. Two passengers, however, gave police a little unexpected surprise. When police asked 20-year-old Alexis Clancey if she had any drugs or paraphernalia on her person, she informed the officers that there was a hypodermic needle stashed in her anus. She then procured the needle, seemingly unharmed and was arrested along with 3 others for possession of a controlled substance.

“Da Gingerbread Man”

21-year-old Mark Gross Jr. has been wanted by police since October on a bench warrant when he was seen selling cocaine. A local news outlet posted a message about Gross on their Facebook page, asking for any details of his whereabouts. Gross responded to the post with the retort: ”im not turnin my self … run run as fast as u can u cant catch me im da ginger bread man……sincierly da gingerbread man.” On Monday, he was found by police and taken into custody.

Related Sources:

Sun Sentinel

Under normal circumstances, topless massage is not considered prostitution and is legal in Minnesota. However, several conditions must be met to ensure that the exchange is within the law.

To help explain the fine line, we will start by examining the legal definition of prostitution, as stipulated by the Minnesota penal code.

According to Minnesota Statute 609.321 Subd. 9:

“Prostitution” means hiring, offering to hire, or agreeing to hire another individual to engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, or being hired, offering to be hired, or agreeing to be hired by another individual to engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact.

In the state of Minnesota:

“Sexual contact” means any of the following acts, if the acts can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of satisfying the actor’s sexual impulses:

(i) the intentional touching by an individual of a prostitute’s intimate parts; or

(ii) the intentional touching by a prostitute of another individual’s intimate parts.

For the sake of the topless massage context, we can define prostitution as sexual penetration or contact with genitalia for hire.

A topless massage that follows the guidelines of normal massage practice would not be considered prostitution. However, if there is sexual contact involved at any time during the massage, then the legality of the situation may be compromised.

There are also regulations in Minnesota that govern the practice of massage therapy. Massage therapists are required to have a license from the state in order to practice. This rule extends to topless massage as well. Additionally, there are certain stipulations that licensed massage practitioners must abide by. These requirements vary by municipality, but in general:

·       Home based businesses must not have a sign. (I.e. It must look like a home)

·       No employees practicing massage therapy may live outside of the home.

·       No more than 25% of the home may allocated to the massage practice.

·       No building outside the home on the property may be used for the business, and there may be no separate entrance used to facilitate the business.

·       Neighbors may need to be notified that business will be practiced in the residence.

·       Approval by a council may be required to acquire a massage practitioner’s license.

If this conditions are met and the practitioner has acquired a license for their massage services, and if all laws regarding prostitution are followed, then topless massage is legal in Minnesota.

However, considering the amount of gray areas in the laws, law enforcement may still choose to launch an investigation against the practitioners and/or the clients. If you are questioned by police, arrested, or under investigation for prostitution-related charges stemming from a topless massage, contact an experienced MN criminal defense attorney right away.

Related Sources:

MN Statutes

Massage Therapist and Bodyworkers Guild

President Barack Obama will visit Minneapolis on Monday as part of his nationwide tour to overhaul gun laws across the United States.

Gun control issues have been at the forefront of national and state legislatures after the deadly shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that claimed the lives of 26 students and teachers.  The White House has previously commended Minneapolis for being ahead of the curve in trying to prevent gun violence, but President Obama is determined to further evaluate gun laws across the nation.

“We have done so much, and we’re committed to doing more,” said Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. “But there is also only so much you can do at this level to prevent illegal guns from getting into the hands of kids, the mentally ill and people who shouldn’t have them.”

The White House has closely followed gun violence in Minneapolis over the past five years.  The youth violence initiative that was launched in 2008 has been successful in reducing juvenile crime, and new background checks during the gun buying process have also helped keep weapons out of the wrong hands.  The Minneapolis Sheriff’s Department has made it a priority to input arrest records and mental health court orders into the system as quickly as possible, which then provide the most update to date information during a background check.

“Those who should not have guns is what we should focus on,” said Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek.

The timing of the president’s visit is anything but coincidental, as state legislators are set to begin talks on a variety of new gun control proposals this week.  The proposals range from a statewide ban on assault weapons to limiting the size of ammunition clips.

The proposals on the state level are similar to what the president hopes to implement on the federal level.  All changes are expected to be met with opposition from groups who don’t want to restrict the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Gun Violence over the Years

Gun violence in Minneapolis has been a hot button issue for the last 20 years, dating back to 1995 when the city reported 99 murders.  The murders represented an increase of over 50% from the previous years, and law enforcement officials were tasked with curbing the disturbing trend.

The violence leveled off for a few years, but came under review in the early 2000’s.  The city saw a spike in juvenile gun violence between 2003 and 2006, when over 80 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 were killed by gunfire. The increase in gun violence made homicide the leading cause of death for young people in Minneapolis that year.  Mayor Rybak said the spike in gun violence in the early 2000’s was sporadic and unpredictable.

“The difference between the surge of violence in the 1990s and the surge we saw a few years ago was that those involved were much younger and much less predictable,” Rybak said.

In hopes of preventing juvenile gun violence, the city launched a series reforms in some of the most violent neighborhoods in Minneapolis.  The initiatives focused on providing at-risk youths with mentors, developing an anonymous tip line where youths who felt threatened could talk about criminal happenings, and mandating mental health assessments for juveniles who were hospitalized as a result of violent crime.

Although the crime rate slightly increased in 2012, the rate is significantly less than the rates during the mid-90’s, and in 2011 the crime rate reached a 30-year low.  The initiatives have been very successful in lowering gun crimes, as Minneapolis has seen a 66% decrease in youth involvement in gun-related incidents.  The city also saw a 41% decrease in youth injured by a gun in the last five years.

Although the numbers are encouraging, there have still been incidents involving children over the past months that show there is still plenty of work to be done.  A 3-year old and a 5-year-old both died in Minneapolis in the past year after being struck with stray bullets in neighborhoods where shootings are not uncommon.  There was also an incident in September where a man with a history of mental illness killed six people at a business in north Minneapolis after he was terminated from his job.

“Newtown was a tragedy that shocked America,” said City Council member Don Samuels. “What is happening in north Minneapolis is a slow-moving massacre.”

While it’s clear that the incidents in Minneapolis should prompt changes, it’s uncertain if those changes will be a result of new gun laws or the development of initiatives as was the case in earlier years.  President Obama’s visit may provide us with a clearer national view, but the debate at the state level is likely just beginning.

Related source:  Pioneer Press

Earlier, we wrote about the issues plaguing the St. Paul crime lab. Testing was suspended after an investigation revealed sloppy drug-testing procedures within the lab. Now, the city is seeking to reopen the facility, but under a very different brand of management.

Formerly, the lab was run by police sergeants. Now, however, the city is opening up the management position to someone with a scientific background. Candidates must hold a degree in chemistry, biology, biochemistry, or a related field.

The validity of many drug crime evidence samples tested at the lab is still being determined. A judge will decide if the samples are admissible in court. If it is determined otherwise, hundreds of drug cases processed by the crime lab could stand to be overturned.

This is a fascinating story to follow from a criminal defense perspective. The implications of the crime lab fallout could be enormous. Beyond the potential reversal of convictions, crime labs across the country are also likely to be subjected to further scrutiny.

Related Sources:

Pioneer Press

Star Tribune

The “Miranda Rights” afford American one of the most important civil liberties of the criminal justice system. Miranda dictates that any person in police custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed of the following rights:

- The right to remain silent; that anything the person says will be used against that person in court;

-The right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning,

- If the person is unable to garner their own attorney, that one will be provided at the cost of the state.

The Miranda rights were determined after the landmark ruling of the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case followed the 1963 arrest of Ernesto Miranda after he was arrested and charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was then into custody and questioned by police, eventually admitting to the crimes. However, prior to the arrest, Miranda was never ware of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and his 6th Amendment right to an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning. Ernesto Miranda was later told to submit his confession in writing. However, according to Miranda’s court-appointed attorney Alvin Moore, entered an objection during the criminal trial that the statement was not made voluntarily and was therefore inadmissible. However, the objection was overruled and Miranda was subsequently convicted.

Moore and Miranda then filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme court, arguing that the confession was not made with Miranda’s free will. Ultimately, it was the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren that any self-incriminating statements made to police, without first being informed of the 5th and 6th Constitutional Amendments, were inadmissible. Warren ruled that:

“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”

“If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease … If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.”

As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, Miranda’s conviction was overturned. However, he was later retried, convicted, and sentenced to 20-30 years. He was paroled in 1972. He was later stabbed to death in 1976.

The two most important things to remember if under arrest are your 5th and 6th Amendment rights. You have the right to remain silent and you have the right to an attorney. If you are under arrest or investigation, invoke your right against self incrimination and demand an attorney before you say anything,