There is a degree of wiggle room -- an exception, if you will -- in the 4th Amendment's requirement for police officers and other enforcement officials to secure a warrant prior to engaging in a search and potential seizure of criminal evidence.
The U.S. Constitution directly addresses citizens' rights in the face of governmental search-and-seizure actions.
Many people would automatically assume that if you are accused of a drunk driving charge, whether you are truly guilty or not, you're gonna be in a lot of trouble. The consequences are so severe and the implication of the charge so strong that the accused individual has little they can do to actually help themselves. But this perception is purely a myth. There are plenty of ways that an accused individual can defend himself or herself against a DUI charge.
Individuals blindsided by misapplied "justice" in a legal matter often suffer dire consequences as a result. That is true whether a challenge resides in bankruptcy, family law, business litigation or estate planning.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a case that questions when police can use information held on cellphones to build a case against an individual accused of a crime. The case marks one of many that attempt to clarify how to use cellphone data and other forms of technology in criminal cases.
Euphoria dashed in an instant.
One legal commentator calls it "shocking."
In candor, we certainly can't say that we are surprised by the unambiguous results of a recent DUI/DWI-related study conducted by a national provider of information on insurance rates and consumer options.
The longest federal sentence ever imposed upon a defendant in a health care fraud case was recently handed down by a federal judge in Texas … to a terminally ill mother of young twins who has advanced breast cancer and a dire prognosis.
IRS agents, as well as federal and state criminal task forces across the country, have routinely defended the confiscation of assets from individuals and families under asset forfeiture laws. The oft-advanced argument touting program policies and results is that law enforcers are merely going after bad guys, that is, depriving law breakers of the spoils derived from ill-gotten gains.