Research shows that while false confessions occur among defendants of any age, the phenomenon occurs more frequently among juveniles. The Innocence Project explains that people may admit to a crime they didn’t commit for the following reasons:
Back in 1971, as some readers here in Pleasanton may remember, then President Nixon dramatically declared a "war on drugs," as is explained by the Drug Policy Alliance. In the years that followed, drug agencies grew in size and strength, resulting in hundreds of thousands of drug charges and equally as many convictions. Although drug detection techniques have become more sophisticated over the years, one staple has remained the same for generations: the drug-sniffing dog.
Consider for a moment the world around you, particularly when it comes to standards. When you go to the doctors or visit the hospital, there are health care and safety standards in place. The roads you drive on to get to these locations and the signs you follow are all thanks to standards. Even the vehicle you drive in needs to meet certain federal standards before a manufacturer it allowed to sell it.
If your child has been arrested, you might have no idea what to do or where to turn. Juveniles can face very harsh penalties under California law, and it is important that you talk to a lawyer to ensure you understand exactly what your child is up against.
According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, 38 states have laws in place that allow police to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Among these states is our own state of California which, thanks to the 1987 case of Ingersoll v. Palmer, has rules in place to govern how these checkpoints are to be conducted in order to avoid violating a person's rights. One such rule is publicly announcing checkpoint locations and the dates and times they will be active.
Most people are familiar with the concept of double jeopardy. Present in both the United States Constitution as well as Article 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution, the jeopardy doctrine protects an individual, who has been convicted or acquitted, from being tried again for the same offense.
The American Bar Association and several law schools focusing on national security issues brought together a panel of high-level intelligence and law enforcement officials for a discussion in the fall. This was the 23rd Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law and, as a senior writer for the ABA Journal wrote, we ignore the nexus of national security issues and cybercrime at our peril.
In 1989, a 19-year-old man was caught having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. It was entirely voluntary and consensual, and indeed the couple married and have been man and wife for 24 years now. Strictly speaking, however, the sex was statutory rape. He agreed to plead guilty to a count of oral copulation with a minor, thinking to minimize the consequences. It didn’t work.
A D.C. Circuit Court judge released a blockbuster ruling this week, saying that the massive collection of Americans’ telephone call and location data by the National Security Agency is probably in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures by government agencies. In fact, he found the violations likely enough that he issued a preliminary injunction against the program.
The chief judge of the 9th Circuit court of appeals just issued a stinging rebuke to members of his own court, assistant U.S. attorney who tried the case before them, and federal prosecutors across the nation. His comments were part of his dissent in a federal weapons case in which the prosecutor appeared to have held back evidence he had been legally and ethically bound to deliver to a defendant facing federal weapons charges.