Do the Police Have a Right to Enter and Search a House Without Your Consent?

June 5, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

They usually need a warrant to search a house.

As a rule of thumb, the more private an area is to an individual, the more difficult it is for the police to search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A home obviously has the greatest expectation of privacy and is clearly more private than an office or a car or any other place the police may search for drugs, weapons, or even computers.  Police can only search without a warrant in very limited circumstances.

If the police search a home improperly, then the evidence will not be admissible during a trial.  This can mean cases ranging from possession of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine or possession of drugs with intent to distribute, all the way up to murder cases, can be severely crippled or even thrown out because of an invalid entry by police into a home.

Police can use an exception called “exigent circumstances” to do warrant-less entries into the home.  Where police have probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and there are “exigent circumstances” they can enter a house without a warrant.

Examples include if they are in “hot pursuit” of a suspect, there is clearly danger to someone inside, or if the officer is in danger.  Another exigent circumstance is if the officer believes evidence is being destroyed inside.  For an officer to claim he fears that there is destruction of evidence, he needs to have strong probable cause of a serious offense.

The main way police search houses without warrants, however, is because the homeowner (or another resident) consents to the search.  The consent must be voluntary and cannot be coerced.  Displays of force or threats to get search warrants can call the search into question.  A person does not have to consent to a voluntary search of a home.

Police use a technique called a “knock and talk” which courts have consistently upheld as being valid.  This is where an officer suspecting drugs or drug trafficking (for example) merely knocks on the door and asks to search.  Where police attempt to manipulate or coerce consent is where there have been legal problems with the searches.

The police won’t tell you it is perfectly legal to tell them to go away the same as if they were trying to sell you cookies at your doorstep… and if you allow them to search voluntarily, you’ve punted a ton of rights away.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For specific legal advice, you should consult an attorney directly.


Do I need an Attorney for Drug Charges in Texas?

May 11, 2010

Yes.  The law of drug possession and/or distribution is a highly complex area.  The law surrounding possession, search and seizure, or what it means to have intent to distribute are just some some of the highly technical issues encountered in Texas drug cases.

Law enforcement is typically not interested in your side of the story — and that is where effective advocacy plays a role as well.  Just because the prosecutor and the police believe there is only their side to the story doesn’t make it so.  It is the Judge and Jury that often decide.

Even in situations where someone may have a substance abuse problem — Texas has long had the mentality that harsh punishment and cruelty will cure substance abuse.  While many prosecutors and judges are now getting the message — that these problems don’t solve themselves — stiff criminal penalties and criminal records can still haunt people for the rest of their lives.

If you’re facing drug possession or distribution charges whether it be for Marijuana, cocaine, or any other type of drug, an attorney can help attain the best result possible in your case.

Jeremy F. Rosenthal, Esq.

(972) 369-0577

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For specific legal advice you should directly consult an attorney.

 


Can They Make Me Testify Against My Husband/ Wife?

May 2, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

In Texas the prosecution can and will force one spouse to testify against another — often against their will.  I am often asked in disbelief in assault cases “can they really do this?”  Unfortunately the answer is, “yes.”

Texas Rule of Evidence 504 governs the husband-wife privilege.  Generally speaking, any communication made to one’s spouse is privileged under that rule during and even after the marriage.  Either spouse may assert the privilege whether they are a party to a case or not.  Unfortunately, the husband-wife privilege is riddled with far more exceptions than other privileges (such as the attorney-client privilege).

Tex.R.Evid. 504(a)(4)(D) is just one of the specific exceptions to this rule of privilege.  That rule states a spouse can be compelled to testify against their other spouse if that spouse is considered the victim of the crime or if any other member of the household or any minor child.

Additionally, it is important to note that in some cases, the testimony attempted to be compelled out of the “victim” spouse is not regarding communication but regarding conduct.  Obviously the privilege in and of itself only applies to “communications” in the first place.  The privilege, therefore, cannot be used to prevent disclosure of facts surrounding an incident where family violence has been alleged.

The state in assault cases must still prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.  Jurors are very sensitive to situations where it is clear one spouse does not want to testify against the other and don’t always appreciate the police and/or the state being overly-invasive of a family… so even where a spouse is compelled to testify against their will — the cases can and do frequently result in acquittals.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article should be considered legal advice.  For legal advice about any situation you should always directly consult an attorney.


Mens Rea — The Guilty Mind

May 2, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Here is some legal theory or law school 101 if you will.

Something every first-year law student learns in criminal law is about the concept of “Mens Rea” which is latin for “guilty mind.”  When a guilty mind is combined with a “guilty act” (or actus reus), then under common law, a crime has been committed. Most, but not all, crimes today have a mens rea requirement.

For example, to prove the crime of theft the prosecution must show the guilty act of appropriation of property (actus reus) plus the intent of the taker to deprive the owner of the property without consent (mens rea).  An example of a crime where there is no mens rea is strict liability crime — like statutory rape or what is known as an inchoate crime which is a crime of omission — like failure to stop and render aid.  Inchoate crimes typically require a special relationship between the victim and the accused. Modern criminal law has even varied the levels of mens rea.

Crimes enacted by code in Texas and the U.S. Government can require greater or lesser mental states for offenses.  Some offenses such as Arson are called specific intent crimes — meaning that the actor had to specifically intend the result of the crime.  Other crimes have lesser mental states meaning that if a person committed an offense “knowingly” or even less, with “criminal negligence” then they are guilty.

An example of a crime in Texas where criminal negligence is sufficient to convict is selling alcohol to  a minor.  In that type of a case, the actual intent of the defendant need not be proven as long as the jury believes the defendant acted with “criminal negligence.” The charging instrument (an information in a misdemeanor case or an indictment in a felony) will detail which of the mental states is being alleged.

Any and every criminal defense lawyer should read the charging instrument in your criminal case.  If the state proves the greater mental state then they have, as a matter of law, proved the lesser.

Discussing legal theory is like pulling the loose end of a sweater.  We could discuss this topic all day and all night.  If you’re interested in more discussion, you can read more here or here.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For specific legal advice about your case you should consult an attorney. 


DWI Surcharges Clog Texas Courts

April 27, 2010

The Dallas Morning News reports a former State District Judge from Waco, David Hodges, told the Texas Driver Responsibility Program in Austin that the surcharges assessed after DWI convictions were clogging the Courts.  You can read the article here.

Mr Hodges is echoing the opinion of many criminal defense practitioners who believe the punishments for DWI related offenses have become so harsh that it makes more sense to fight DWI charges than to simply give in and plead guilty.  Although the article also focuses on where the money for the DWI surcharges are spent by the state, it is important to note the surcharges that accompany a DWI conviction.  They are:

(1) $1,000 per year for 3 years following a DWI conviction;

(2) $1,500 per year for 3 years following a 2nd DWI conviction; and

(3) $2,000 per year for 3 years following a DWI conviction where the blood/ alcohol concentration was 0.16 or greater.

Jeremy F. Rosenthal, Esq.

(972) 562-7549

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article should be considered legal advice.  For specific legal advice about your own matters you should consult an attorney.