 |
|
Right to speedy trial denied...cases dismissed.
Application for medical marijuana card justified possession
of marijuana ... not guilty
Flattery hired us. We proceeded to trial, where we stipulated
that Flattery was in possession of the pipe with marijuana residue, but argued that because he had made application for marijuana
card, even though it had not been approved, he was exempt from the application of criminal laws proscribing the possession
of marijuana. The judge accepted our argument and found Flattery not guilty. No probable cause to search new house … case dismissed
State v. Gallagher and Schwimmer
A police officer swore that an unnamed informant told him that he or she had purchased large quantities of marijuana from Gallagher several months earlier at a residence Gallagher previously shared with Schwimmer, that a second unnamed informant told him that he or she had seen Gallagher supply another person with marijuana and had heard Gallagher talk with other people about future marijuana sales several months earlier at the previous residence, that the second informant also told him that Gallagher and Schwimmer had moved from the previous residence to a new residence a few months earlier, and that he had located that new residence.
The next day, the officer obtained a warrant to search the new residence. He and other officers searched the new residence, and seized more than a pound of marijuana and approximately $175,000 in cash. Gallagher and Schwimmer were charged with felonies involving marijuana.
They hired us. We filed a motion to suppress, arguing that
the officers sworn statement was insufficient to establish probable cause to search the clients new residence at the time
the warrant was issued. The prosecutor reviewed our argument and dismissed the criminal charges against both clients. State v. Harris
Harris hired people to manufacture casting flux for the aerospace industry in an industrial part of town. A neighbor became suspicious and called the police. The police went to the back of the premises without a warrant, and seized several garbage bags from a porch. They took the bags to a police crime lab, which analyzed the contents, and concluded that a novel process was being used to manufacture methamphetamine. The police obtained a search warrant, searched the premises, seized additional evidence including a methamphetamine lab, and charged John with manufacturing methamphatamine. Harris hired us. We argued that the police violated Harris’s constitutional
rights when they went to the back of the premises and seized the garbage bags, and that all seized evidence and its "fruit"
must be suppressed. The judge first ruled that the seizure was lawful. We renewed our arguments, and the judge changed his
mind, ruled that the seizure was unlawful, and ordered all evidence suppressed. The state appealed, but then changed its mind
and dismissed the appeal and the criminal charge.
State v. Hembree
Hembree got off the Amtrak train in Albany and was confronted by officers
who said they had information that he had paid cash for a one way ticket and was suspected of transporting narcotics. He declined
to allow officers to look in his suitcase, but thereafter agreed to let a drug dog sniff his suitcase. A police dog hit on
the suitcase, and officers obtained a warrant to search it. The suitcase contained eleven pounds of marijuana sealed in plastic
tubes. Hembree was charged with possession and delivery of a substantial quantity of marijuana.
Hembree hired us, and we filed a motion to suppress. We argued that the
initial stop was not based upon reasonable suspicion, and that Hembree’s agreement to let a drug dog sniff the suitcase
was tainted because the police continued to request his consent after he stated that he did not wish to consent. The Court
found that Hembree did not feel free to leave when the questioning and dog sniff occurred, and suppressed all evidence seized.
United States v. Makham
For more than 15 years, Reynolds manufactured and distributed methamphetamine. During that time, Makham lived with Reynolds as husband and wife on rural premises she owned, took trips with Reynolds on which he distributed methamphetamine in sealed pet food bags, handed sealed pet food bags to customers sometimes, and maintained a nursery and a fan import business with Reynolds on property they jointly owned next door to the home. Reynolds also had a chemical supply business, and other property in the area. One night, Reynolds was horrifically injured in a flash explosion
that occurred in a warehouse on the property next door to the residential premises. Makham was not home. A bystander
took Reynolds to the hospital.
Makham cleaned up the explosion site after she arrived home that
night. Nobody called the police or fire department.
Several days later, Makham called Smith on the phone, and Makham
and Smith, Reynolds’ partner in the methamphetamine and ecstasy business who had received a call from Makham at her
home in California, loaded up chemicals from Reynolds’ chemical business and other property into a U-Haul truck.
Smith hitched her car up to the truck, and headed for
California.
A few hours later, Smith was involved in a collision with another
car. The chemicals spilled out into the median area of the freeway. The police soon arrived on the scene.
Upon questioning, Smith admitted that she had chemicals and glassware used for manufacturing methamphetamine in the truck.
After obtaining a search warrant, officers found 180 grams of methamphetamine in two separate containers, and 374 grams of
pure ecstasy. Officers also located a box with the address of the nursery.
Federal agents obtained search warrants for Reynolds’ properties.
The agents stated that Makham denied any knowledge of the explosion or cleanup, initially denied knowing Smith, and denied
knowing that Smith had rented a U-Haul. Makham was arrested. She admitted that she had cleaned up the explosion
site.
The bystander told the agents that Makham told her to keep her
mouth shut. Smith told the agents that Makham was involved in the methamphetamine business all along.
Reynolds died from his injuries.
Makham was charged with accessory after the fact and destroying
evidence during the initial cleanup, accessory after the fact and destroying evidence during the loading of the U-Haul, witness
tampering, distribution of methamphetamine, distribution of ecstasy, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. She
faced a minimum of 10 years in prison for each of the latter three crimes. The federal government also sought to forfeit
all Reynolds’ property, plus the residential premises and the jointly owned property next door.
Makham hired us. After a week long trial, we asked the judge
to find Makham not guilty as a matter of law instead of giving the case to the jury. The judge reserved her ruling and
gave the case to the jury. The jury found Makham not guilty of accessory after the fact and destroying evidence during
the initial cleanup, and all the drug charges. However, the jury found Makham guilty of accessory after the fact and
destroying evidence during the loading of the U-Haul, and witness tampering. The judge granted our request and found
Makham not guilty as a matter of law on the three remaining charges. Ultimately, the government agreed to allow Makham
to keep her home and the jointly owned property next door.
State v. Martinez
A police officer stopped Martinez for speeding. He noticed empty beer cans on the floor in back and cash which Martinez attempt to cover with her hand. The vehicle registration was in her husband's name, who the officer knew had armed associates, and had recently been jailed for selling substantial amounts of controlled substances. Two additional officers arrived for cover. Upon a consent
search of the interior of the vehicle, the officer did not locate any alcoholic beverages. He asked Martinez if there
was anything in the trunk that he needed to know about. She said no. He asked if she would open the trunk so he could
just take a glance inside. She hesitated, appeared nervous and asked if he had to look in the trunk. He said
that he did not, but that if she wasn't hiding anything, it was suspicious that she did not want to open the trunk, that she
had bundles of money. The officer said he would just take a glance inside if she would open it. Martinez said
there was a gun in the trunk, and opened it. The officer observed a shotgun with a detached barrel. The officer asked
if he could look at the gun and check the serial number. She said he could. The officer took the serial number
and conducted a records check. It matched a shotgun reported stolen a week earlier. Martinez was arrested and
charged with theft.
Martinez hired us. We filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the trunk, and statements taken from Martinez after the officer had completed the search of the interior of the vehicle and found no alcohol. The Court agreed that Martinez was illegally detained when she consented to the search of the trunk, and that the consent was ineffective to justify the search. Because the evidence was suppressed, the State dismissed the case. United States v. McIntosh
McIntosh and his wife lived in Los Angeles. McIntosh and his partner owned Popeye's carpet cleaning business in Los Angeles. McIntosh paid $10,000 in cash as a down payment on a new Ford Bronco for his wife. Two of McIntosh's associates owned Bluto's carpet cleaning business in Los Angeles. McIntosh and one of the associates were stopped by Tacoma police, and McIntosh produced false identification. A woman told police that she had seen McIntosh with several ounces of crack cocaine in Tacoma at the time of the stop. McIntosh's associates were convicted in Tacoma of federal crimes involving the distribution of crack cocaine. After the events in Tacoma, police in Grants Pass stopped Steve's partner,
who was driving the Bronco, and found more than a kilogram of crack cocaine inside a boom box in packages containing baggies
wrapped with duct tape. McIntosh was in Hawaii with his wife, but one of his fingerprints was found on some duct tape and
two of his fingerptints were found on the exterior of some packaging material. McIntosh was charged in federal court with
crimes involving the distribution of crack cocaine. He faced a minimum sentence of 188 months.
McIntosh hired us. He was detained without bail. We went to trial. McIntosh
waived jury and did not testify. A federal judge found him not guilty, and he was set free.
|
|
[Home] [Cases] [More Cases] [More Cases] |
|
|
