tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19441196338036421642024-02-08T06:24:28.803-08:00Free in KentuckyAttorney Greg Simms is a Louisville Criminal Defense Lawyer at MURPHY & ASSOCIATES, PLC. For representation, call him at 502.473.6464. An initial consultation is free. This blog is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. It does not create an Attorney/Client relationship. Read the "Introduction" post before reading any other blog posts.Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.comBlogger234125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-18789156752223036942016-06-07T11:56:00.001-07:002016-06-07T12:21:11.836-07:00Free in Kentucky: Rapist Brock Turner 6 Months in Jail<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2016/06/rapist-brock-turner-6-months-in-jail.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Rapist Brock Turner 6 Months in Jail</a>: I don’t like to talk bad about judges. Not because I don’t have strong opinions about some judges. I do. And not because I’m not a ...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-36759621447276602782016-06-07T11:55:00.002-07:002016-06-07T12:21:52.513-07:00Rapist Brock Turner 6 Months in Jail<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I don’t like to talk bad about judges. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Not because I don’t have strong opinions about some judges. I do. And not because I’m not a loudmouth. I am. The reason I don’t like to speak ill of those on the bench is simply that badmouthing judges can really backlash on an opinionated, loudmouth lawyer like myself. But I will make an exception, because I think reasonable minds can all agree that Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky really made a horrible, horrible call this past week when he sentenced Rapist Brock Turner to only 6 months of jail time and probation.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Brock Turner raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. That is not my opinion. It’s a fact. He was convicted of three counts of sexual assault. Two guys stopped Turner because it was obvious that the woman was unconscious. The crimes he committed are about as heinous as crimes come. And it’s unforgiveable. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Let’s talk briefly about some crimes that poor people commit, and the years in prison they serve for those crimes.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">In Kentucky, there are several victimless crimes that can get you sent to prison. The first that comes to mind is using drugs. Making your own drugs, growing marijuana plants, and even the simple possession of drugs can all be felony crimes. Notwithstanding some exceptions for presumptive probation, “getting high” in Kentucky can get you WAY more time behind bars than Rapist Brock Turner will ever see. In fact, making your own meth, which is obviously a bad idea – but still a victimless crime, can get you 20 years in prison. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Theft - although it involves a perpetrator and a victim - also comes to mind. If someone steals an item worth over $500, that’s a felony. You can get 5 years in prison for Theft by Unlawful Taking. And anyone with half a brain will tell you that, even though theft is a crime that inherently involves a perpetrator and a victim, raping another person is a far more egregious action than taking someone’s iPad.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">If Rapist Brock Turner was a poor black criminal defendant, his swimming hobby would never have been reported.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">If Rapist Brock Turner was a poor black criminal defendant, you’d see his original mugshot in stories instead of the cleaned up frat version.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">If Rapist Brock Turner was a poor black criminal defendant, he would have gotten years upon years in prison for rape.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">One of the factors for deciding whether an offender needs prison time is whether they pose a risk of danger to society. In fact, it’s one of the factors Judge Persky “considered” stating bluntly, “I think he will not be a danger to others.” Well, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Judge Persky is flat wrong. Sex offender recidivism statistics are staggering; 43% are likely to be re-arrested and 5.3% are re-arrested for another sex crime within 3 years of release from prison (according to the DOJ).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">But you don’t have to know a single statistic to know “Rapists are dangerous to others.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">And as a side note – sure, it’s important to remind young people that getting blackout drunk is a bad idea. In fact, it’s ok to say that bad things happen when you get blackout drunk. But if you even insinuate that girls get raped because of alcohol, you’re contributing to the problem. Rape happens because of Rapists.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Jails and prisons are overcrowded.* </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">We spend more money to house someone in prison than to educate them.** </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">At a time when Judges need to make smart decisions about which convicts do serious prison time, offenders with clear victims (who clearly suffer) need to be the ones serving that serious prison time. </span><span style="font-size: large;">That’s why Judge Persky did wrong.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">* http://www.wdrb.com/story/31809242/release-louisville-metro-corrections-filled-to-capacity-some-inmates-to-be-moved-to-unused-jail-built-in-1950s; http://www.newsweek.com/unconstitutional-horrors-prison-overcrowding-315640; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">** http://money.cnn.com/infographic/economy/education-vs-prison-costs/</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-48554701060251247772016-06-05T10:51:00.001-07:002016-06-05T10:51:16.511-07:00Free in Kentucky: Murder, Assault, Insanity, Incompetency, Extreme E...<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2016/06/murder-assault-insanity-incompetency.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Murder, Assault, Insanity, Incompetency, Extreme E...</a>: The mental state of a criminal defendant can seriously affect the outcome of a criminal case. In fact, it can be determinative. Mental st...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-11322419691637516092016-06-05T10:49:00.001-07:002016-06-05T10:49:48.000-07:00Murder, Assault, Insanity, Incompetency, Extreme Emotional Disturbance<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The mental state of a criminal
defendant can seriously affect the outcome of a criminal case. In fact, it can be determinative. Mental state is so important that the exact
same action – killing another person, for example – can be one of several
different types of homicide charge, or no crime at all, depending on the mental
state of the person who killed another. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Often, mental state will be a
necessary part of the prosecution’s case.
The thoughts of the accused will be used as a weapon against the
criminal defendant in front of a jury.
Intent, wantonness, knowledge and recklessness will often be
requirements for the prosecution to prove in order to obtain a conviction. But occasionally the mental state of my
client can be used as a shield. That’s
what our conversation is about today. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The classic and often heavily
scrutinized example of using mental state as a shield is the “Insanity”
defense. Essentially, the defense is
that the criminally accused cannot be held responsible for their actions due to
psychiatric illness. The first
documentation of insanity as an exemption for criminal activity dates back to
the Code of Hammurabi in 1750 BC. At
least, I assume that’s correct. That may
or may not be some stuff I just read on Wikipedia.*<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">In Kentucky, our standard for the
Insanity defense is codified in KRS 504.020, and reads, “A person is not
responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of
mental illness or intellectual disability, he lacks substantial capacity either
to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements
of law.” Boiled down, it means that a
person is “insane” for the purpose of eluding criminal responsibility if they
are mentally ill or disabled, and they either 1) cannot understand that what
they are doing is against the law, or 2) they are unable to control their
actions. If an individual can prove they
were insane at the time of the alleged criminal activity, they cannot be found
guilty of a crime.**<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">“Incompetency” is different from
“Insanity.” If a person is not insane
for the purpose of criminal prosecution, it’s possible that they still may not
be competent to stand trial (and vice versa).
If you murder someone on Friday, and on Saturday you have an automobile
accident that leaves you severely mentally handicapped, it’s very possible that
you may have been completely sane for the purpose of criminal liability but
incompetent to stand trial for those criminal actions. KRS 504.090 governs the incompetent, and
states, “No defendant who is incompetent to stand trial shall be tried,
convicted or sentenced so long as the incompetency continues.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">When medical professionals
evaluate a person’s “Competency to stand trial” they take into account a lot of
different factors, including understanding of the charges against them,
appreciation of the penalties, appraisal of defenses, appraisal of the function
of courtroom personnel, understanding of court procedure, ability to
participate and assist in their defense, capacity to testify, and many more. If a Judge determines (after hearing the
medical evidence) that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, they must
also determine whether the defendant is likely to regain competency (with
treatment, medication, etc.). Assuming
the defendant is incompetent and not likely to regain competency, the charges
against them may be dismissed.***<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">If someone is sane, and also
competent, that doesn’t mean that an agitated mental state at the time of the
criminal conduct won’t be beneficial to their defense. If the crime alleged is murder or assault,
the Defendant could have an “extreme emotional disturbance” (EED) defense. The classic example of this sort of
shenanigans is: “Man comes home from work to find wife in bed with Friend. Man flies into a rage and kills wife and
friend.” This is the classic example of
extreme emotional disturbance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">For a Murder charge, the
prosecution needs to prove the LACK of extreme emotional disturbance. In the Murder statute, KRS 507.020, it states
that a person is guilty of Murder when “(a) With intent to cause the death of
another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except
that in any prosecution a person shall not be guilty under this subsection <b>if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance</b> for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in
the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed
them to be. However, nothing contained in this section shall constitute a
defense to a prosecution for or preclude a conviction of <b>manslaughter in the first degree</b> or any other crime[.]” So, if the prosecution cannot prove that
someone intentionally committed murder WITHOUT the presence of EED, the
defendant’s charge may be reduced to Manslaughter in the First Degree.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Concerning a charge of Assualt,
the burden would be on the Defendant to establish EED as a defense. KRS 508.040 governs Assault under extreme
emotional disturbance, and states, In any prosecution under KRS 508.010,
508.020 or 508.030 in which intentionally causing physical injury or serious
physical injury is an element of the offense, the defendant may establish in
mitigation that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance,
as defined in subsection (1)(a) of KRS 507.020.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Like the result in a homicide
case, Assault committed under EED would reduce the severity of the crime
committed. Specifically, an assault
committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance is a Class D
felony when it would constitute an assault in the first degree or an assault in
the second degree if not committed under the influence of EED; or a Class B
misdemeanor when it would constitute an assault in the fourth degree if not
committed under the influence of EED.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">In short, the mental state of
someone who injures or kills another person in Kentucky can be absolutely
crucial to their case. In some cases, it
can make or break the prosecution’s case against them. Insanity, Incompetency, and Extreme Emotional
Disturbance may be useful in defending a Homicide or Assault charge in
Kentucky.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Homicide and Assault charges are
extremely serious. In fact, they can be as
serious as charges come in Kentucky. If
you’re charged with Murder, Reckless Homicide, Manslaughter or Assault in
Kentucky, call 502-618-4949 for a free consultation with Attorney Greg Simms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">*It is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">**People who are not guilty by
reason of insanity can still be sent to a mental institution by a judge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">***Again, there’s the possibility
of involuntary commitment to a mental hospital.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-18704011474151386072016-01-15T12:05:00.003-08:002016-01-15T12:05:48.844-08:00Law is Changing - Get Your DUI Expunged NOW!<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I’ve never understood people who
want to make expungements more difficult.
By nature, we’re talking about people who made a mistake, and years have
passed – during which time they have made better life decisions and kept their
noses clean. Why try to make things more
difficult for them??? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Second chances. WWJD and whatnot.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">On January 5<sup>th</sup>, 2016,
House bill 13 was introduced and passed to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill will make expungements more
difficult for Kentuckians with blemished records. So it’s time to act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">If you’ve been convicted of a
D.U.I. five years ago (or more), this news is extremely important for you. HB 13, as it reads, amends KRS
189A.010(5) [Your Kentucky law
concerning D.U.I conviction penalties] to allow the court a longer “look-back” period
to examine one’s D.U.I conviction history, to determine the severity of one’s
punishment. Currently, KRS 189A.010(5) provides that any D.U.I conviction
within a five-year period from a previous D.U.I conviction, is subject to
increased sanctions. House Bill 13 doubles that window of time to ten years.
This means if you’ve been convicted of D.U.I, the state will hold that charge
over your head for ten years and increase the sanctions for a subsequent D.U.I
conviction. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">THIS MEANS that if you were
convicted of a D.U.I. charge five or
more years ago, you need to expunge that charge from your record, <b>IMMEDIATELY</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">If you were convicted of a
D.U.I. or any other misdemeanor offense,
five or more years ago, and wish to have that charge cleared from your record,
contact Attorney Greg Simms, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">at (502) 618-4949, or by cell
phone text to 270-402-4581. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">See the text of the bill at <a href="https://legiscan.com/KY/bill/HB13/2016">https://legiscan.com/KY/bill/HB13/2016</a></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-9435762939584822015-12-17T14:01:00.001-08:002015-12-17T14:01:01.628-08:00Free in Kentucky: Published KY Supreme Court Roadblock Decision!<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2015/12/published-ky-supreme-court-roadblock.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Published KY Supreme Court Roadblock Decision!</a>: Today we got a beautiful piece of artwork delivered by the Kentucky Supreme Court in the Commonwealth v. Billy Cox , a published opinion ch...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-75319038902222245232015-12-17T14:00:00.001-08:002015-12-17T14:00:14.963-08:00Published KY Supreme Court Roadblock Decision!<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Today we got a beautiful piece of artwork delivered by the
Kentucky Supreme Court in the <i>Commonwealth v. Billy Cox</i>, a published opinion changing
roadblock law in this great Bluegrass State of ours.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This case was one of the very first cases I tried as a first
year lawyer. So it’s been about eight
years in the making. And I lost the
trial, so I’ve had a fire burning to turn that loss into a “W.” Now that’s happened. <o:p></o:p><span style="line-height: 107%;">Also,
I argued the case against Joe Mattingly – the Marion County Attorney, who is an
exceptionally bright individual and a class act.</span><span style="line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 107%;">So it was a pleasure to work the case.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">My argument was this: When roadblocks are constructed by
police, they need to be done to take the discretion out of the hands of the
officers in the field. That means the
start and stop times should be determined in advance, so the cops performing
the roadblock have no choice in the matter.
For example, “Here comes a white guy…here comes a white guy….here comes
a white guy…here comes a Mexican! The roadblock starts now.” Also, there were some noncompliance issues with
this particular roadblock. For examples,
the officers weren’t wearing safety vests, and no advance warning signs were
placed out before the roadblock.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">To be honest, I didn’t concentrate really heavily on the
advance warning issues. Because under previous
Kentucky caselaw, courts kinda didn’t give a damn about that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">They will, now. Which
is nice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Essentially, the Supreme Court did take some issue with the
start and stop times (“undetermined durations may be symptomatic of broad discretion”
p. 8). But more importantly, and to my
pleasant surprise, the Court found a huge problem with the failure to provide
advance notice of the roadblock. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The concurrence provides some spectacular language, which I
believe, boldly changes roadblock law in Kentucky. Previously, advance warning signs (like “Roadblock
Ahead”) were only suggested and nearly never used. However, they will now be absolutely
necessary for a roadblock to be considered reasonable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And, crucial to this determination, is the reasoning that
roadblocks need to be a CONSENTUAL encounter with police. THAT – is big news. This is a major change for Kentucky
caselaw. Here are some gems from the
concurring opinion on that issue:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">“At the heart of that reasoning is the fact that with the
presence of a sign warning of a road block ahead, if a citizen proceeds to the
roadblock, he has functionally consented to the ensuing encounter with the
police. It is this functional, or implied, consent that allows the roadblock
stop to be reasonable despite the absence of a warrant or any individualized,
articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” p. 12.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">“By the same token, if proceeding to the roadblock serves as
consent, then turning away from the road block is simply not consenting, and is
the equivalent of requiring law enforcement to get a warrant if they wish to
stop your vehicle, absent some other qualifying fact such as observable
(plain-view) illegality. There is significant clarity in this reasoning that
leads to a further conclusion: the purpose of the restrictions and the notice
requirement is to allow a citizen to make an informed choice about whether he
submits himself to the roadblock. What other purpose is there for a sign
warning that a road block is ahead? It is ludicrous to say that the warning is
for informational purposes only. The driver will have the information soon
enough when he comes upon the road block. And how does simply knowing that a
road block lies ahead help the driver? Obviously people are given information
so that they may do something with it. Regarding a road block, that information
is for the purpose of allowing a citizen to choose not to consent to a
warrantless seizure.” p. 12-13.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Essentially, the law of Kentucky is now that you can avoid a
roadblock if you don’t want to engage with police officers. Previously, that was not allowed – and your
avoidance of the roadblock was considered, in and of itself, to be reasonable
suspicion to pull you over.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">It’s a pretty case.
And if you’re a law nerd like me…or if you just give a damn about your
individual liberties…check out the full opinion at:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2013-SC-000618-DG.pdf</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-2346383165212477792015-09-02T07:31:00.001-07:002015-09-02T07:31:44.596-07:00Free in Kentucky: I Get Reviewed by Kids, Part Deux<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2015/09/i-get-reviewed-by-kids-part-deux.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: I Get Reviewed by Kids, Part Deux</a>: This past week I got the privilege of playing the defense lawyer in a Jury Trial reenactment at the Kentucky State Fair. The organi...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-63648782641108542182015-09-02T07:29:00.003-07:002015-09-02T11:17:15.789-07:00I Get Reviewed by Kids, Part Deux<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large; line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 200%;">This
past week I got the privilege of playing the defense lawyer in a Jury Trial reenactment
at the Kentucky State Fair.</span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 200%;">The
organizers chose a trial loosely based on a case I worked on in real life, assisting
the feared and famed, Honorable Steve Romines (the Defendant was a Doctor who
struck his wife with a boat and killed her – he was charged with Murder).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> I
played the part of “Defense Lawyer” which was obviously not a stretch for me. Kinda like when Howard Stern played himself
in Private Parts or when Seth Rogan plays any character in any movie.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> At
the trial reenactment, a law class from Silver Creek High School came to watch –
and some actually got to participate. A
group from the class got to serve as the jury.
They found my client “Dr. Hardy” Not Guilty on Murder and Guilty on
Reckless Homicide (exactly how the real case turned out). One of the juries gave my client 1.5 years in
prison – another group gave him 3 years to serve (both a little better than in
real life, where our client took 5 years).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> After
the event, the students took the time to write me letters. Most were general “thank you” letters. Others took the opportunity to review me as a
lawyer. Here are some of their comments…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The part you played was realistic.” <i>I am
not sure this student understood that I was a real lawyer</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“You were easy to hear.” <i>Yeah.
I’m loud. I get it</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“You did a great job in persuading the
jury that the husband was innocent.” <i>We’ll talk about the difference between “Innocent”
and “Not Guilty” later. But, thank you.<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Even though your client did end up
with jail time, it was still better than life in prison.” <i>TRUF.<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> “Your defense case was excellent and I
believed everything you said. Your
honesty made me realize and think about how serious these things are and how
you can change someone’s life.” <i>Aw thanks, dude</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“You rambled on a little more than I
thought you should have. Also, if you
ever need fashion advice, don’t be afraid to make a call! It could help you win a case.” <i>No
shit, that’s a real comment from a kid!!!!<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><span style="line-height: 200%;">“</span></i><span style="line-height: 200%;">You did a
great job in undermining the witnesses<i>.”</i> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“I thought you did a tremendous job
representing Dr. Hardy. I thought you
completely controlled the trial and beat the prosecution.” <i>That
made my day, buddy. Thank you</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> This
concludes “I get reviewed by kids, Part Deux.”
Hope you got a kick out of the kids’ comments. I sure did.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-11248557278715158712015-06-16T10:29:00.002-07:002015-06-16T10:29:41.512-07:00Free in Kentucky: Analysis of Police Shooting in Louisville (may sur...<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2015/06/analysis-of-police-shooting-in.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Analysis of Police Shooting in Louisville (may sur...</a>: If you ask the wrong question, you’ll get the wrong answer. And if the answer to your question sucks, you get a new question. That’s a...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-24692602049606392512015-06-16T10:29:00.000-07:002015-06-16T10:29:08.901-07:00Analysis of Police Shooting in Louisville (may surprise you)<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">If you ask the wrong question, you’ll get the wrong answer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">And if the answer to your question sucks, you get a new
question. That’s a lawyer trick.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">This week I saw a video of a police shooting in
Louisville (link below). It appears that the officer
pulls up alongside a man – who seems a little stumbly – and questions him. The encounter is brief and the officer does
not touch the man. The man walks off
screen, then comes back toward the officer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">As reported by WHAS11, Kenneth Williams, who said he saw the
shooting, thought the use of deadly force was unjustified. "He was drunk.
[The officer] could have maced him. He could have used his stun gun. He didn't
have to shoot that man. He wasn't no threat."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">I disagree with Mr. Williams – after watching the video it’s
impossible to say that the man was “no threat.”
Rather, the video shows the man come back at the officer with a metal
pole. The man swings the pole and
strikes the officer. There is no doubt
that the officer was not the first physical aggressor. There is no doubt that the man struck the
officer with the metal pole. And it
would be very difficult to argue with a straight face that someone swinging a
metal pole is not a threat. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">This blog post is about picking the right question to
ask. So now let’s choose our
question. I’ll pose 3. Question 1) Could the officer have used a less
lethal means of force? Question 2) Is it
possible the man had a gun or other deadly weapon? Question 3) Did the officer have evidence
that the man was armed and dangerous – and did the officer reasonably think
deadly force was appropriate?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">Now let’s answer the questions given the video we have
(which I am sure will NOT be all the evidence that comes out with regard to
this case).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">1) Could the officer have used a less lethal means of
force? Sure. The officer could have reached for his taser
or mace (Assuming he is given mace. Some
departments are in transition on that at this time.) and deployed that at the
man. Luckily for the officer, this
question is not the legal standard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> 2) Is it possible the
man had a gun/deadly weapon? Yes. And in this case, a metal pole could be
considered a deadly weapon. How many
strikes would it take to kill the officer?
If he was struck in the head with enough force, maybe one strike,
right? So it’s possible that if the man
got in another hit, the next blow could kill the officer. But let’s assume the man doesn’t have a
pole. Let’s assume he came at the
officer without anything in his hands.
The answer to our question, “is it possible the man had a gun/deadly
weapon?” is still “Yes.” Because anyone
who is wearing clothes could be concealing a deadly weapon. But that doesn’t mean police have carte
blanche to kill anyone wearing clothes.
Luckily for society, this question is not the legal standard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Did the officer have evidence that the man was armed and
dangerous – and did the officer reasonably think that deadly force was
appropriate? This question, number 3, is
the closest of the 3 to the real legal standard for when deadly force can be
used by an officer. The answer to our 2-part
question is Yes, the officer did have evidence that the man was armed and
dangerous. And in fact, the man was
willing to use said weapon against the police officer. Concerning the second part of the question, “did
the officer reasonably think that deadly force was appropriate?” we would have
to ask the officer. But I bet he would
respond affirmatively. Is that
reasonable? Probably. Unfortunately, sometimes less lethal means of
force don’t subdue a person who is attacking a police officer. I’ve seen times when someone got maced and
continued to act belligerently. The same
with tasing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">In this situation deadly force didn’t have to be used. But if I am trying to be objective, I think
it was acceptable under the law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">The legal standard for use of force is a “plus one”
analysis. If an officer believes you are
uncooperative and the officer legally has the right to tell you to do something
(for example, “put your hands on the car, you are under arrest”) the officer
should first use verbal commands. “Sir,
you need to put your hands on the car now.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">If the person is uncooperative verbally or physically, the
officer can use “plus one” force. Let’s
say the officer says “put your hands on the car.” and you just stare at him,
respectfully uncooperative. At this
point the officer can grab your shoulder and steer you to the car. If you jerk away – the officer can use “plus
one.” At that point the officer could
put you in an arm bar, for example, and take physical control of you to
effectuate the arrest. If you resist,
they can take you down. If you strike,
they can hit you or use a taser. Get
it? They can use one more level of force
than you have presented, in order to make a lawful arrest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">The best indicator for the acceptable use of deadly force is
this question, “Did the officer have evidence that the man was armed and
dangerous – and did the officer reasonably think that deadly force was
appropriate?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">I’m a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer. I sue police for using force inappropriately. I can tell you that police misconduct and brutality
do happen and they happen in our own backyards.
Police need to be held to the highest level of professional conduct –
because when they make mistakes, people can die. But in this case, I cannot say that this
officer should be held to any criminal or civil penalties for the use of a
firearm on a man who attacked him with a deadly weapon. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">And to my clients, I would say that attacking a police
officer with a metal pole is a good way to get shot.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.whas11.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/13/metrosafe-police-investigate-shooting-near-3rd-and-oak-street/71178474/">http://www.whas11.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/13/metrosafe-police-investigate-shooting-near-3rd-and-oak-street/71178474/</a></span></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-48509202798567500092015-01-05T12:49:00.001-08:002015-01-05T12:49:23.843-08:00Free in Kentucky: So...Cars are Driving Themselves. Am I Out of a J...<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2015/01/socars-are-driving-themselves-am-i-out.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: So...Cars are Driving Themselves. Am I Out of a J...</a>: I’ve been talking to anyone who would listen about how cars will be self-driving in the future. The concept is fascinating and the time is...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-58577145990494610642015-01-05T12:48:00.000-08:002015-01-05T12:48:24.842-08:00So...Cars are Driving Themselves. Am I Out of a Job Now?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I’ve been
talking to anyone who would listen about how cars will be self-driving in the
future. The concept is fascinating and
the time is nigh. Audi is the first
company (that I know of) to put one on the public roads. Last year they tried letting it drive itself
to the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas, but the system failed and the driver
had to take over. This year they’re
trying it again.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Soon we will enter the car, say “take me home” and it will!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Audi calls the technology
"Piloted Driving," and has been showing a good deal of advancement
with the technology. Now Audi says the sensors in the car are "production
ready" which should both excite you and scare the bejeezus out of you.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">How does it
work? The A7 comes with long-range
forward radar (previously used for adaptive cruise control), two rear-facing
and two side-facing radar sensors, a laser scanner (LIDAR) and a 3D camera also
look forward, while four smaller cameras monitor the front and rear views from
the corners of the car. The information
from all these sensors and the car's GPS location get processed by an onboard
computer, which can control braking, acceleration and steering. The system will work from 0 to 70 mph, but
when the car approaches an urban area it will alert the driver to take over
manual control. If the driver does not take over within a set amount of time,
the car will turn on its flashers and pull over to the shoulder. While on the highway, the A7 can initiate its
own lane changes and passes.*<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">This is gnarly
because it’ll be the wild west of legal gray areas for DUI and Personal Injury
law. If your car is driving itself, can
you be held accountable for “operating” the vehicle? What about insurance rates!? – will they
decrease for a decreased window of liability due to operator error? How will this affect dramshop liability for
restaurants and bars who over-serve alcohol to people? At what point will it be reasonable to assume
that people don’t drive cars – that cars drive cars?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I don’t have
answers for the questions I’m presenting.
I just like asking the questions.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Anyway, it’ll be
interesting to see how the Audi A7 makes its journey to Vegas. Check it out and watch the future unfold.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">*All taken and
paraphrased from http://www.cnet.com/news/audis-550-mile-self-driving-gamble/</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-44186486182192941082014-12-22T12:04:00.001-08:002014-12-22T12:05:21.757-08:00I Get Reviewed by 8th Graders<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 32px;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; line-height: 200%;">You can find lots of lawyer reviews online. Reviews usually
come from clients or peers of said lawyer.
But today I got a package of about 25 letters written from 8<sup>th</sup>
graders, where I gave a talk to a middle school. I’ll share their reviews. Here are some choice snippets-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“When
I first saw you enter the classroom I thought your presentation would be
boring.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">(different
child) “It was way more interesting than I thought it was going to be.” [<i>clearly my first impression was ‘boring old
guy in a suit.’</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Anyway
I also think that you did a nice job teaching us how to mess with people’s
minds. Then I thought it was pretty cool
how you can defend people who do bad stuff.” [<i>we may have been on 2 different wave lengths.</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“I
was kind of scared but also impressed.” [<i>I
don’t know how to react to that</i>.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“I
hope my classmates weren’t so mean to you or anything.” [<i>they were not. thank you for the
concern.</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">About
the cases I have lost: “I don’t think that’s so bad at least you tried your
best.” [<i>thanks, kiddo</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“I
feel great because knowing all these new things about being a lawyer was pretty
cool.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Does
your boss and co-workers clap and congradulate you when you win a case?” [<i>unfortunately, they do not clap for me.</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">About
Framing the Issue: “I learned that changing the question to make a better
argument is a good strategy.” [<i>! bingo</i>.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“When
I asked you “How do you know if that person is inacent or guilty” you didn’t
answer my question.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“You
made a major impact on me.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“I
learned that not being guilty and being innocent are two different things.” [<i>! bingo, again</i>.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“It
was a easy grade and all I had to do was pay attention.” [<i>glad I could help</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">(from
a child in the class, not a teacher) “I think you made a very good impression
on the class because they have never been that respectful to a visitor ever.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">“You
have inspired us all to become very successful in life like you.” [<i>aw</i>.]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">So my Monday is going pretty well. Hope yours is, too.</span></span></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-88768833606245975152014-12-15T11:11:00.000-08:002014-12-15T11:21:14.603-08:00Overcriminalization and Excuses for Police Misconduct<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 32.4000015258789px;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Another attorney, Shane Benson, shared an article this week from the Washington Post, which stated, "Overcriminalization has become a national plague. And when more and more behaviors are criminalized, there are more and more occasions for police, who embody the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence, and who fully participate in humanity’s flaws, to make mistakes."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 32.4000015258789px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is my response to Shane and that article. It will not be solely responsive to the issue of overcriminalization, but will give you some fine examples from our great Bluegrass State.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">These
days the issue of police brutality/over-militarization/police misconduct seems
to be omnipresent. Good. Regardless of your position, I’m glad the
discussion is open. We should talk about
this. It’s good for us. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">For
those of us who live in the trenches of civil rights litigation, we usually
have pretty strong opinions on the subject. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Inevitably
in the conversation about police misconduct, you hear one or both of these
things: 1) “If you don’t do anything illegal, you don’t have to worry about the
cops.”; or 2) “[police officers] have to
have officer safety as a #1 priority.
You never know if somebody might have a weapon.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Let’s
start with #1. “If you don’t do anything illegal, you don’t have to worry about
the cops.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">First,
the statement is patently and objectively false. I’ve represented multiple clients and
collected thousands and thousands of dollars in settlements because police
stopped/ searched/ detained/ arrested/ used force on someone who wasn’t doing
anything illegal. I’ve also represented
a slew of clients who were arrested and were genuinely Not Guilty of the crimes
for which they stood accused. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Police
officers are people just like me and you.
They make mistakes like we do.
But their mistakes can be more dangerous.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Second,
the statement is terrifyingly misleading and shifts the focus of a discussion from freedom to
safety. Essentially, the statement “If
you don’t do anything illegal, you don’t have to worry about the cops.” is a
way of saying, in the negative, “Cops save us from criminals. And I’m not a criminal
so that’s good for me.” </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;">If you believe
that we should give up freedom for safety, fine. But I’m not signing up for that. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give
up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety.” Giving up liberty is
not safe in the long run. It’s a lot
more dangerous than the criminals among us.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Which
brings me to the next point.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Third,
everyone does illegal things. We are all
criminals. Show me one person who has
never violated the law. One. To say that only criminals need to worry
about police misconduct is to say that all of us need to worry about police
misconduct. Stop assuming that criminals
are bad people who deserve whatever punishment a police officer decides to dole
out on that particular day, and start understanding that we all break the law
at one time or another and that people’s Constitutional Rights matter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Let
me tell you about the ways you break the law. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Aside
from the slew of people around us (not you, of course, you would never do these
things) who may have had a few drinks and driven, smoked a joint in college, taken
something that wasn’t theirs or written a bad check, the vast majority of
people around us violate laws, regularly, sometimes without any knowledge of their
criminal conduct. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Do
you or someone you know have a pill container to keep your prescription
medicine in – for vacation or for normal daily use? That’s illegal. You can’t even separate some pills into
baggies to keep in your car or at work for “use as needed.” Unless you ALWAYS keep your prescription
medication in the original container, it’s a class B misdemeanor. KRS 218A.210.
I, personally, am a criminal. I’ve
taken multiple prescription pills in a baggie on vacation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Have
you or someone you know ever worked on Sunday in Kentucky? That’s illegal. Pursuant to KRS 436.160, that’s a violation
of the law (even though most states have long abolished these type of
laws). I, personally, am a
criminal. I work every Sunday.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Did
you know that dentists, chiropractors and doctors who advertise are
criminals? KRS 438.065 expressly prohibits
advertising or soliciting by those in the “healing arts.” They can get up to a YEAR IN JAIL for
that. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">These
are just a few examples of laws that we all break regularly – sometimes with no
conscious decision to violate the law.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">So
don’t let someone in this type of conversation look down their nose and pretend
they’re not a criminal. These people,
these criminals like us and among us, are the ones saying “If you don’t do anything
illegal, you don’t have to worry about the cops.” Snotty bastards. Don’t be so arrogant to think the legal
shortcomings of everyone else are in some way worse than your own. Everyone has their own reasons for violating
the law. Some people get away with it
and some people “have to worry about the cops.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">You
know what the crazy part about it is? I
really don’t have to worry about it. I
don’t have to worry about my criminal activity.
These dentists – the ones advertising on television and billboards –
they are committing a crime a full class higher than possession of
marijuana. They don’t have to worry
about it, either. Do you think they’re
hiding their criminal activity in an Altoids tin beneath Wendy’s napkins in
their glove compartment???* No. They commit a crime that could land them a
year in jail – and they literally advertise it.
You know what? They don’t have to
worry about police, either. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Why
do you think that is?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Let’s
move on to #2. “[police officers] have
to have officer safety as a #1 priority.
You never know if somebody might have a weapon.” Both of those statements are true, and
neither are an excuse for police to be held to anything other than the highest
level of accountability.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Police
officers do have to consider officer safety to be the #1 priority. Absolutely. They need to get home to their families just
like I do. Which is why we allow
officers to use force, even deadly force, when circumstances allow. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">But
let’s not start spitting out the phrase “officer safety” as an excuse to
refrain from discussing whether the circumstances allow.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Being
a police officer is a dangerous job. And
the good ones are to be highly commended (and honestly should be paid twice
what they’re paid). The bad ones should
be cut out like a cancer. I don’t know
why this statement makes people uneasy.
I’m a lawyer. And when I hear
about a lawyer in this city who swindled a client out of money or committed a
heinous violation of the ethics rules, I think “that guy/gal gives us a bad
name. I wish they weren’t a lawyer.” Police officers, however, are a
brotherhood. It is the FRATERNAL order
of police. They back each other’s
plays. In my experience, I have found them
much less likely to support cutting out the bad members of their
occupation. That’s unfortunate.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">That
brings us to the second part of the phrase “[police officers] have to have
officer safety as a #1 priority. You
never know if somebody might have a weapon.”
Let’s talk about the “weapon” part.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">This
is an odd phrase. “You never know if
somebody might have a weapon.” It’s like
saying “It is what it is.” You really
haven’t said anything at all, but for some reason people hear it and think the
discussion is over.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Obviously
it’s true. If the person you are dealing
with is wearing any clothing at all, it is possible that they could be hiding a
weapon. No doubt. Fortunately for those of us who give a damn about
civil rights, the question of whether police brutality is acceptable doesn't hinge on whether the person was wearing clothes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">The
question for determining how much force can be used is not “could the person
have been hiding a weapon?” If an
officer frisk searches someone or used force solely because a person “may have
had a weapon” the question is “Did the person give the officer any reasonable,
articulable suspicion that they were armed and dangerous?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">The question is not: “Could they have had a gun?” The question is: “Is there any evidence that
they had a gun?” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">One
means an officer has justification to engage the subject. The other gives a police officer carte
blanche. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">In
short, I’m glad we’re talking more about police misconduct. I’ll leave you with this thought – Police officers
have an incredibly difficult job. Thank
God for the good ones. We should make
sure they are commended. And as for the
bad ones – there’s nothing more dangerous than a dirty cop. No criminal in the world is more
dangerous. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">If
we don’t cut them out, none of us are safe.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">*Don’t
hide your weed there. They always look.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-24036817828437774002014-12-11T12:33:00.001-08:002014-12-11T12:33:47.678-08:00Free in Kentucky: Holes in the Kentucky Implied Consent Law<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2014/12/holes-in-kentucky-implied-consent-law.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Holes in the Kentucky Implied Consent Law</a>: At the heart of Implied Consent is a balancing act. We need to walk that thin line between making the streets safe and taking dangerous pe...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-35060765960803808682014-12-11T12:27:00.002-08:002014-12-11T12:33:01.215-08:00Holes in the Kentucky Implied Consent Law<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">At the heart of Implied Consent is a balancing act. We need to walk that thin line between making the streets safe and taking dangerous people off the road - and ensuring that people still have a 5th Amendment Right not to incriminate themselves. It's nice to have rights. We should care about that.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">When
someone is arrested for a DUI in Kentucky, an officer will most likely ask them
to submit to a blood, breath or urine test.
Before the test is given, the officer should read the Kentucky Implied
Consent law to the newly arrested individual.
Specifically, under KRS 189A.105, an officer is required to read a set
of three (3) paragraphs about Kentucky law on refusing the test. The portions we are going to discuss today
include: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> “1. That, if the person refuses to submit to
such tests, the fact of this refusal may be used against him in court as
evidence of violating KRS 189A.010…and if the person refuses to submit to the
tests and is subsequently convicted of violating KRS 189A.010(1) then he will
be subject to a mandatory minimum jail sentence which is twice as long as the mandatory
minimum jail sentence imposed if he submits to the tests…and<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">3. That if the
person first submits to the requested alcohol and substance tests, the person
has the right to have a test or tests of his blood performed by a person of his
choosing described in KRS 189A.103 within a reasonable time of his arrest at
the expense of the person arrested.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">There
are a couple of problems with the above language (which is copied verbatim from
the Kentucky Implied Consent Statute). 1)
Officers are threatening people with jail time for a refusal. But the truth is that there is no mandatory
jail time for a first time refusal.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">This
is kind of a big deal. Police are
telling people that if they refuse they “will be subject to a mandatory minimum
jail sentence” -- and that is simply not the truth. Refusal is an aggravating circumstance for a
DUI 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, or 4<sup>th</sup>. Refusal is not an aggravating circumstance
for a First Offense DUI in Kentucky.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">When
officers read the above Implied Consent Statute, they threaten arrestees with
jail time for refusing. But, if
convicted, they would not actually be subject to mandatory minimum jail time.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Do you think this might have the effect of persuading more people to incriminate themselves?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">2)
Sometimes officers change the words to the Implied Consent Statute. In my own personal experience defending these
cases, sometimes the cop says “your refusal <b><u>will</u></b>
be used against you in court” instead of “your refusal <b><u>may</u></b> be used against you in court.” The wording change is subtle. But it makes a world of difference. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Note
that the word change makes the consequence more harsh.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">In
the actual statute, a jury may infer a refusal as evidence of guilt. But in the altered version, a jury will, in
fact, believe that a refusal makes it more likely that the person is
guilty. Faced with harsher consequences,
a person who is on the fence about submitting to a test may submit (even if
they have previously been advised by counsel to refuse).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">The
last problem with the Kentucky Implied Consent Law that we’ll discuss today is
3) the right to an independent blood test is frequently trampled by law
enforcement. The KRS provides that if
someone submits to an officer’s test, “the person has the right to have a test
or tests of his blood performed by a person of his choosing described in KRS
189A.103 within a reasonable time of his arrest at the expense of the person
arrested.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">The
first problem with this subsection is that it carves out a statutory “right”
but then hinges it on the person’s ability to pay for the test. Either it’s a right or it isn’t. And in this country, rights don’t belong to
only those who have money. They belong
to everyone. That’s how rights work.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">The
second problem is that some police officers don’t make reasonable efforts to
provide the arrestee with the right to a blood test. I’ve heard them say things like “you can get
a blood test if you want but we’ll take you to ____hospital___ and you have to
have $400.00 in cash” effectively talking the person out of an independent test. In another case, after being read the Implied
Consent, my client said “I don’t know how I would pay for it – my wallet is in
my car.” The officer did nothing. Obviously, if a police officer wanted to make
reasonable efforts to afford this right to the arrestee, they could take the
person to their car at police impound and retrieve the wallet.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">In
short, the problems with the Kentucky Implied Consent law are numerous – both in
black and white and in their application through law enforcement. At this time, the Kentucky Legislature (and courts)
are unwilling to do anything about it. But
awareness is the first step. Hopefully
this will provide some awareness.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Have
a great week.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Greg
Simms – 502.618.4949</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-53270276291779529982014-11-17T05:19:00.001-08:002014-11-17T05:19:48.697-08:00Free in Kentucky: Gary Carver and the $96,000.00 Police Brutality Se...<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2014/11/gary-carver-and-9600000-police.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Gary Carver and the $96,000.00 Police Brutality Se...</a>: There was a news story this past week about a police brutality/false arrest case I settled a few weeks ago. The story was hastily written ...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-74364458658305923672014-11-16T09:43:00.001-08:002014-11-17T05:19:16.058-08:00Gary Carver and the $96,000.00 Police Brutality Settlement<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">There
was a news story this past week about a police brutality/false arrest case I
settled a few weeks ago. The story was
hastily written and contained some incorrect statements of the case. So I’d like to take this opportunity to
straighten it out. Also, some of the
comments attached to the story seem to indicate that people think $96,000.00
was an exorbitant amount for this case, and that “taxpayers” shouldn’t have to
pay it. I’ll address that as well.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">This
post is written with the permission of my client, Gary Carver.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> First, the WDRB story indicates “Metro
Government has paid $96,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a
man who claimed he was unreasonably searched, assaulted and then wrongly
arrested by two Louisville Metro Police officers in 2012. The city on Oct. 24
issued a check to Gary Carver and his girlfriend, Amanda Price, settling a
lawsuit stemming from the arrest of Carver on Jan. 12, 2012, and a vehicle stop
of Price two days later.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Those dates are wrong and it is not
true that the stop of Amanda Price happened two days later. The false arrest and brutality of Gary Carver
happened January 14, 2012, and the illegal stop of Amanda Price happened April
4, 2012. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> WDRB also stated, “Gregory Simms, an
attorney for Price and Carver, did not immediately return a phone call seeking
comment.” I’m not sure why they wrote
that, because I was in contact with WDRB on multiple occasions during this
incident. My contact person was Natalia
Martinez. We exchanged numerous phone
calls and eventually at least 6 emails, wherein I answered all of her questions
and provided her with a slew of court documents. In fact, at the end of the WDRB article, they
reference documents that I sent them. So
it burns my toast a little that they say I didn’t return a phone call.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> The story also says that Carver "tensed up and "began pulling away," grabbing Trevino's leg and causing both officers to fall, according to the officers." This is not true, the police never said Carver grabbed a leg. Rather, Trevino actually said that he is the one who grabbed Carver's leg. That's pretty important.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #383838; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here's a link to the full WDRB story:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><a href="http://www.wdrb.com/story/27386865/city-pays-96000-to-settle-lawsuit-claiming-wrongful-arrest-assault-by-lmpd">http://www.wdrb.com/story/27386865/city-pays-96000-to-settle-lawsuit-claiming-wrongful-arrest-assault-by-lmpd</a></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Regardless, this is the real story
of Gary Carver’s interaction with the police:
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Gary
Carver is one of many tall, thin, black men who live in Louisville, Kentucky
(no citation). On January 14, 2012, at
approximately 2:00am, Gary Carver was walking on Lonsdale Avenue toward his
mother’s house. Carver was carrying a
backpack of belongings. Both police
officers involved in this case concede that, as he walked down the street,
Carver was engaged in no illegal activity. <i>Suppression
Hearing</i>, July 18, 2012 (hereinafter “<i>Hearing</i>”)
at 11:38:02, and 12:20:50; Deposition of Officer Meek (hereinafter, “Meek”), P.
56, 9-13. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver
was carrying a digital tape recorder on his person, because (as of January 14,
2012) he had been stopped <b>nine (9) times</b>
by police officers in the preceding year when he was not engaged in illegal
activity. <i>Hearing</i>. at 12:11:32.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Although the Louisville Metro Police
Department (hereinafter, “LMPD”) agrees that Carver was engaged in no illegal
activity, Carver was stopped by officers Charles Meek and Michael Trevino. According to the officers, they had received
a call regarding a domestic violence altercation, and they were responding to
the call and searching for the suspect.
Officer Meek testified that he was taught to include all facts of
significance on a citation, and Meek filled out a citation for the arrest of
Carver. <i>Id</i>. at 11:37:10. Although Meek was taught to include all facts
of significance on a citation, and the citation Meek wrote contains no
description of the alleged domestic violence perpetrator, Meek testified that
the alleged victim of domestic violence gave him the following description:
“Tall thin black male wearing a dark shirt, dark pants, short dreads and he was
carrying a backpack.” <i>Id</i>. at
11:26:12. The woman who gave the
description did not give any indication that the assailant had a “weave,
extensions or any kind of fake hair.” <i>Id</i>.
at 11:50:12. Meek testified that once he
received the description, he shared this description on the radio with other
officers, and specifically in order to let Officer Trevino, his partner, know
who to be looking for. <i>Id</i>. at11:26:35.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Gary Carver does not have
dreadlocks, and did not have dreadlocks on January 14, 2012 when officers
approached him. The police concede that
on the night they approached Carver, it was readily apparent that he did not
have dreadlocks. <i>Id</i>. at 11:39:49;
Meek, p. 58-59, lines 23-9.
Additionally, the officers in the case have changed their stories about
the description of the domestic violence suspect. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">On
the night of the incident, Meek took a report indicating the description was
that he was an 18 year old black male, 5-10 and 160 lbs and, “HAIR LENGTH -
Short; BUILD - Thin; TEETH - Straight; HAIR FACIAL - Clean Shaven” <i>Incident/Investigation Report</i>, p.
2. During a suppression hearing, the
description given by Meek of the alleged domestic violence suspect was “Tall
thin black male wearing a dark shirt, dark pants, short dreads and he was
carrying a backpack.” <i>Hearing</i>,
11:26:12. When Meek gave his deposition,
the description changed again. This
time, the full description was, “about 6 feet tall, thin, had dreads, had some
facial hair, had a dark shirt. I believe
she said he had dark or dark khaki pants on.”
<i>Meek</i>, p. 30, 17-21.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Carver is 6 feet tall. He is currently 30 years old – 10 years older
than the teenage kid the police were supposedly looking for on the night in
question. On the night of the incident
Gary Carver had facial hair, and had shoulder length hair, which was straight
(not braided or in dreadlocks). Over
time, Meek’s physical description of the domestic violence suspect has transformed
more and more into to a description that more closely resembles Gary
Carver. The alleged suspect has grown
facial hair, grown 2 inches taller, and grown longer hair. The suspect has gained and lost a
backpack. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Gary Carver does not and did not fit
any of the descriptions given by the police at any time.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Meek agrees that his memory of the
night of January 14, 2012 was more fresh on the night of January 14, 2012. <i>Meeks</i>, p. 23, 3-6. Thus, the Incident/Investigation Report
written the night of the incident should be most accurate. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">The
facts are that the domestic violence suspect was a 5’10” black male, with short
hair, and clean shaven. <i>Incident/Investigation Report</i>, p.
2. Carver was 2 inches taller, had
shoulder length hair, facial hair, and was 10 years older than the 18 year old
suspect. In addition, Gary was carrying
a backpack, which was not included in the description. To state plainly, at the time of the
incident, Gary Carver was a black male in the vicinity, and the alleged suspect
was a black male in the vicinity. That
is the extent of the commonality.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Officers seem to indicate that they
recall the domestic violence incident and the stop of Gary Carver to be very
close in proximity. At roll call or
immediately after (which would have begun at the beginning of the midnight
shift and lasted approximately 15-20 minutes) they were dispatched to the
run. <i>Meek</i>,
p. 24, 23-24. The call was an assault in
progress. <i>Id</i>. p. 19-20, 24-3. And the victim indicated that the assailant
had literally just walked out the door. <i>Meek</i>,
p. 20, 17-20. Meek’s previous testimony
has been that immediately after leaving the domestic violence victim’s home and
turning a corner, he saw Carver – whom he thought was the domestic violence
suspect. <i>Hearing</i>, 11:27:32.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> It only takes 6 or 7 minutes to get
from the station to the area where the domestic violence victim was interviewed
(which is basically a block from where Carver was stopped). <i>Meek</i>, p. 29, 7-14. By his testimony, Meek would have been at the
victim’s home, taken a description, and left the home at around 12:30am. Meek’s rendition of that fact does not
support the timeline herein because his brief interaction with Carver lasted
only a few minutes, and Carver wasn’t arrested until 2:00am. The time of the
arrest is evidenced on the Citation, written by Meek the night of the incident
and attached hereto. Meek also indicated
in his Deposition that the arrest would have been at 2:00am. <i>Meek</i>, p. 25, 7-9. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The truth is that the domestic
violence run had absolutely nothing to do with Gary Carver’s stop. The run, which occurred hours earlier, is now
being offered by Defendant Officers to justify the arbitrary stop of an
innocent black man who was carrying a backpack.
The police lied about the description and timing after the fact in a
callous attempt to justify violating Gary Carver’s constitutional rights.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The interaction with Carver supports
this theory, in that the police did not confront him in any way whatsoever
about domestic violence. Officers never
mentioned the basis for their stop of Carver at the time of the incident. They didn’t ask one single question about a domestic
violence incident. Although Carver, in a
reasonable manner, inquired to the officers as to the reason for the stop, he
was met with a barrage of insults, had his person and personal belongings
searched, and ultimately was detained and brutalized. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Upon observing Carver, Officer Meek
spotlighted Carver, and got out of his cruiser.
At this point, Carver immediately started recording the incident using
an audio device concealed on his person.
Officer Meek approached him and Meek called out “Eric.” <i>Hearing</i>. at 11:28:40. The following is a transcription of the audio
tape of the incident, in its entirety, as authenticated by Defendant Officer
Trevino at the hearing on July 18, 2012:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Officer
Meek: “Eric your name?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “I’m Gary Carver. What seems to be going on?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Gary Carver?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “Gary Carver. G-A-…”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Do you have an ID on you?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “It’s at home. I’m about to go over to my momma’s. I got my backpack here…”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Over here.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> (At this point, Office Meek orders
Carver “over here” to place his hands on a police cruiser to be searched. There is no justification for searching him
or his belongings at this time.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “But I can prove I am who I say I am.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Anything on you that you’re not supposed to
have?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “No.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Officer
Trevino: “Don’t open that bag.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver:
“That’s got my stuff in there. Don’t
touch - Don’t touch my stuff. Hey
freedom of the press. Don’t touch my stuff.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> (At this point, Meek roots through
Carver’s backpack, looking for contraband.
Carver has no contraband, and this is an illegal search. Meek then prepares Carver to be frisked.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek:
“Put your hands on the car.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “ I haven’t done a damn thing. You can check my backpack.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “ID in here?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “No, I left that at the house. But I do - you can keep checking…”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “You have a soc…”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “1417 Lynhurst. Keep looking.
I gots other stuff in there that can prove I say - I who I am.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “What’s your name?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “G-A-R-Y C-A-R-V-E-R. This is the Ninth time I done been pulled
over this year for no damn reason.”…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> (Meek continues to frisk
Carver. Finally, Carver decides to
object to the frisking.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> “Are you finished checking my motherfucking
nuts and shit?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Shut up, man.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “You shut up and you just pulled my fucking
hair.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “figure out what’s going on –“<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “-Hey man hey hey don’t touch my recorder!
don’t touch my recorder!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Stop resisting!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “I’m not resisting!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Meek: “Stop resisting!”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Carver: “I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting. I’m not resis- (tape cuts off).”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> According to Officer Trevino, the
recording documents a time span from the police’s initial interaction with
Carver, and the tape recording continues until the time Carver is taken to the
ground by Meek. <i>Hearing</i> at
12:24:01. The audio recording is
documentation of the entire verbal exchange with Carver from the time police
called out to him the name, “Eric” until the time Gary Carver is physically
searched, assaulted, taken down to the asphalt, and eventually handcuffed. Any other verbal exchanges alleged in the
Defendants’ version of the “facts” are completely fabricated.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> For reasons unknown to the
Plaintiffs, the defendant police officers now claim that upon first contact
with him, Carver immediately began yelling obscenities. The audio tape of the incident evidences that
throughout the entire incident, Carver cursed only twice – but only after being
stopped, frisked, and the officers rifling through his belongings. When confronted with Carver’s actual reaction
to the police initiated contact, Meek admitted that Carver did NOT immediately
begin cursing. <i>Hearing</i>, at 11:40:21
(EMPHASIS ADDED). Any other assertion is
falsehood.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> In stark contrast to what the
officers claim, when confronted by police, Carver said “I’m Gary Carver, what
seems to be going on?” <i>Hearing</i>,
11:28:45. This type of initial contact
is what Meek would refer to as “polite interaction.” <i>Meek</i>, p. 42, 9-14.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The police agree that they never, at
any time, questioned Gary Carver about the domestic violence incident. <i>Meek</i>,
p. 72-73, 2-5; p. 41, 7-13; Hearing at 12:25:06. The central focus of the stop of Gary Carver
was to check what was in his backpack and pat him down. The Jefferson County District Court, in
finding that the police violated Carver’s Constitutional Rights, indicated that
the police gave “contradictory testimony” to the tape of the actual incident. <i>Court Ruling</i>, November 16, 2012 in open
court (hereinafter, “Ruling”), at 9:27:15.
The officers knew upon their initial interaction with Carver that he did
not match the description, and Carver specifically told the officers his name
and gave his address. <i>Id</i>. at 9:28:24. At that point, the District Court found that
the officers should have contacted the police department or did something in
order to “make sure that they actually had, in fact, the right person.” <i>Id</i>. at 9:29:00. If Carver engaged in any disorderly conduct,
the “police officers instigated it.” <i>Id</i>.
at 9:29:27.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The defendant police officers agree
with the District Court Judge regarding whether they could have taken a moment
to figure out whether they had the right suspect. When asked, “So you can tell that he does not
have dreadlocks and he identifies himself as Gary Carver. Is there anything that you could have done at
that point to verify his identification before searching his person or contents
of his bag?” Meek’s answer was, “Yes.” <i>Meek</i>,
p. 59, 4-9. “What could you have
done?” To which Meek replied, “Got his
name, date of birth, and his social security number.” <i>Id</i>. p. 59, 10-12.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Instead of doing that, Meek just
ordered Carver to “Put [his] hands on the car” in order to be searched. They grabbed Carver’s backpack and Carver
said “Don’t touch my stuff.” <i>Hearing</i>,
11:29:00. Then the police rifled through
Carver’s backpack – although neither officer seems to remember which officer
searched it, Meek admits it could have been himself. Deposition of Officer Trevino (hereinafter,
“Trevino”), p. 30, 8-15; <i>Meek</i>, 44,
3-17. Meek began searching through the
bag without permission, and without justification. When asked if he would have searched the bag
if he was Officer Meek, Trevino specifically indicated that he would not have
searched Carver’s belongings. Meek, p. 31, 2-13. Trevino agreed that he would have needed
either a warrant, or at least an individualized suspicion that Carver had some
contraband or a weapon. <i>Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The alleged victim of the domestic
violence incident did not claim that the supposed assailant was armed with any
weapon. <i>Incident/Investigation Report</i>, generally; Citation, generally; <i>Meek</i>, p. 53, 10-16. Both officers agree that the suspect they
were looking for was not alleged to have been armed. <i>Meek</i>,
p. 49, 5-7. They also agree that nothing
about Gary Carver, individually, made them think he would have been armed. <i>Meek</i>,
p. 49, 2-12. And he was, in fact, not
carrying any contraband whatsoever.
Thus, the pat down search ordered and performed by Meek was an
unjustifiable violation of Carver’s 4th Amendment Rights. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Most appalling, both Meek and
Trevino have lied under oath on multiple occasions in an effort to make the
frisk search seem consensual. First,
Meek testified at the suppression hearing that he didn’t order Carver over to
the vehicle to be searched. Meek said
that Carver just walked over to the car on his own and put his hands on the
car, voluntarily. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Officer Meek testified that, rather
than being told to assume a position for frisk, Carver volunteered. Specifically, Meek testified that he asked
“What’s in the backpack?” <i>Hearing</i>, at 11:29:10. This is false, as the audio recording
evidences the fact that Meek never asked this question. Rather, he went through Carver’s backpack
over Carver’s verbal objection (although Carver concedes that after Meek was
rifling through the backpack without permission, Carver said “you can check my
backpack”). Meek testified at the
hearing that after he asked Carver “what’s in the backpack?” that Carver then
“took his backpack off and assumes the position of someone about to be
searched.” <i>Id</i>. at 11:29:18.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> This testimony from Meek is
conclusively false. The audio recording
evidences Meek ordering Carver to “put your hands on the car.” Further, Trevino testified contrary to Meek’s
testimony; Trevino recalled Meek ordering Carver to put his hands on the car
and then Meek conducting the frisk. <i>Id</i>.
at 12:16:55. This is only one of several
instances where Officer Meek perjured himself.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Later, after hearing the audio tape
and confronted with proof of the truth, Meek finally admitted that he did order
Carver over to the cruiser, in order for him to be frisk searched. <i>Meek</i>, p. 47-48, 20-13. The audio tape evidences the fact that Carver
never said “Go ahead, you’re going to do it anyway” or any version of that
statement, as the defendant police officers now allege. Carver was frisk searched without consent and
without justification. Then the
Defendant police officers lied, under oath, in order to justify the violation
with consent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> After Carver was handcuffed, he was
then charged with Disorderly Conduct in the First Degree, under KRS 525.055,
and Obstruction/Interference with an Officer under KRS 150.090 (the KRS are
referenced on Carver’s citation). All
charges were Dismissed by the Jefferson District Court upon the finding that
the Defendant LMPD Officers violated Carver’s 4th Amendment Constitutional
rights by unreasonably detaining and searching Carver. Carver did not stipulate probable cause.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Worse still, is the fact that
Officer Meek has sought to harass and intimidate the Carver household because
of this case. Subsequent to the Carver
interaction on January 14, 2012, Meek – without justification - effectuated a
traffic stop on Plaintiff Amanda Price.
Price is Gary Carver’s girlfriend.
Meek claims the stop was because he couldn’t read the temporary license
plate in Price’s rear window. <i>Meek</i>,
p. 14, 7-9. However, Meek agreed that he
couldn’t recall anything obstructing the view, like a sticker or excessive tint
that would impede his ability to view the tag. <i>Meek</i>, p. 16 4-9. Also, Meek
admitted that once he got out of his cruiser, he could read the temporary tag. <i>Id</i>., 12-14. The truth is that the tag was clearly
visible. Deposition of Amanda Price,
(hereinafter, “Price”) p. 6, 5-6. The
stop of Plaintiff Price was completely unjustified and a violation of Price’s
constitutional rights.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Regardless of the fact that Meek
could read the tag outside his cruiser, he continued the stop of Amanda
Price. Once he learned that Price was
Gary Carver’s girlfriend, Meek turned off his video camera. Meek agrees that he turned off the video
camera during this stop, and he was reprimanded for manipulating the video
device through the LMPD. <i>Meek</i>, p. 79-80, 12-16. Meek threatened Price and told her she had a
warrant for her arrest; that he could arrest her if he wanted to. <i>Price</i>,
p. 7, 19-23. He threatened to take her
children away from her and place them with the Home of the Innocents. <i>Id</i>.
(The Home of the Innocents is a non-profit organization that provides
Social Services to children in crisis.)
But Meek made sure there was no record of this, by turning off his
video. For this disregard for protocol
and inappropriate actions, he was reprimanded.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Officer Meek stopped Plaintiff Price
for no legitimate reason, thereby violating her 4th Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable seizure. And once he
found out that she was Gary Carver’s girlfriend, he turned off the video system
in his cruiser so that he could threaten her and “show her who’s boss” without
any record of the incident. He
intimidated a witness. What Officer Meek
did was felonious behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The bottom line on this case – and the
reason it settled for $96,000.00 – is that Gary Carver was walking peacefully
to his mother’s house, doing nothing illegal.
The police stopped him, berated him, searched him illegally, and took
him to the ground. They smashed his face
to the asphalt, and broke his tooth.
Then the police lied about it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> That’s why the case was worth
$96,000.00. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Concerning “taxpayers” having to pay
this money – Louisville Metro Government is self-insured. That means the city has CHOSEN not to have
insurance for these purposes (the vast majority of counties and cities in
Kentucky do have insurance to pay for police misconduct). So, yes, this money comes from city
funds. But only because Louisville government
has chosen that path. If you think the
city should be insured for these kind of things, you should talk to your councilman.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> As for the people who say the money “should
come out of the officers’ salaries” – I don’t disagree. That would probably be more fair.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> In short, I hope this has helped to
put a real name on police misconduct and brutality in Louisville – and I hope
it makes people angry. We should all be
angry about this sort of police activity.
Gary Carver was walking down the street minding his own business, doing
nothing illegal. If it can happen to
him, what is to stop this from happening to you?</span><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> If you have been the victim of police brutality, call 502.618.4949 and ask for Greg Simms. The first consultation is free. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Questions answered in this blog post: How can I find a police brutality lawyer in Louisville Kentucky; Can I sue for False Arrest in Louisville; Which lawyers do false arrest cases and brutality cases in Louisville; Why did the city pay out $96,000 for the Gary Carver brutality case; Which police officers have a record of brutality in Louisville?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-82660022341343014942014-11-04T07:05:00.001-08:002014-11-04T07:05:22.866-08:00Free in Kentucky: Are You a Cop? Because You Have to Tell Me If You...<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2014/11/are-you-cop-because-you-have-to-tell-me.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Are You a Cop? Because You Have to Tell Me If You...</a>: No. No, they don't. Glad we had this talk. For more information, contact Greg Simms at 502.618.4949.Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-30671825114175866942014-11-04T07:04:00.002-08:002014-11-04T07:04:42.611-08:00Are You a Cop? Because You Have to Tell Me If You Are, Right?No. No, they don't.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glad we had this talk.<br />
<br />
<br />
For more information, contact Greg Simms at 502.618.4949. Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-86649520620693737372014-11-02T08:28:00.001-08:002014-11-02T08:29:40.563-08:00Take em or Leave em: my Suggestions for your District Court Ballot<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">If you’re looking for advice on who to vote for in the
District Court Judge’s races, here are my suggestions:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">1<sup>st</sup> Div: Annette Karem – She has experience and
she’s fair.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">2<sup>nd</sup> Div: Amber Wolf – Amber is a prosecutor. Yes, I’m telling you that you should vote for
a prosecutor. She’s smart, professional,
and she’ll be a great judge. Amber also
has a ton of endorsements from organizations across the city.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">3<sup>rd</sup> Div: Matt Eckert – I don’t know much about Matt Eckert. But by sheer
statistical probability, he will have a better approval rating than his
opponent. That is all I have to say about that...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">5<sup>th</sup> Div: Donald Armstrong – He has a ton of
experience and he’s a smart, nice guy.
Very professional.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">8<sup>th</sup> Div: David Bowles – David is a former police
officer and to be completely honest, he’s a little “tough on crime” for my
taste. But he’s an incredible judge – He’s
quick, smart, and he’s on the Judicial conduct committee. His ethics are second to none. David Bowles is the right choice for the 8<sup>th</sup>
Division.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">11<sup>th</sup> Div: Gina Calvert – Incumbent Judge Gina
Calvert is a no brainer on this one. She’s
an amazing judge and a bigtime victim’s advocate. And she really gives a damn about being
fair. I’ve seen her protect people’s
constitutional rights when it needed done, and I’ve seen her give serious jail
time to someone who hurt people in a DUI accident. She cares about making the right decision. Great judge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">13<sup>th</sup> Div: Anne Delahanty – When in doubt, go with
a Delahanty. That’s a good rule for
voting on judge’s races.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">14<sup>th</sup> Div: Stephanie Pearce Burke – She’s another
no brainer. Stephanie is a phenomenal
judge because she’s not afraid to make some people angry by making the right
decision. She isn’t controlled by the
media, or the county attorney, etc.
Stephanie has all the right qualities for a judge; you should keep her.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">17<sup>th</sup> Div: Erica Lee Williams – This is the only
race where I feel the need to tell you that her opponent would also make a
great judge. Dana Cohen has everything
it takes. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be
willing to sacrifice one of the best judges in our judiciary in order to put
Dana on the bench. Erica Williams is an
absolute model for how a judge should act on the bench – she’s incredibly
smart, professional and strong willed. Erica
Williams is the right pick.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">If you don't go with my picks - to each their own. But please vote!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-48132835910699480522014-10-07T13:01:00.001-07:002014-10-07T13:01:51.380-07:00Free in Kentucky: Opening Statement for a Rx drug DUI<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2014/10/opening-statement-for-rx-drug-dui.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Opening Statement for a Rx drug DUI</a>: You can click on this link to watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkM9yVDnRQ The above link is for an Opening Statement on...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-542867397122462982014-10-07T13:00:00.000-07:002014-10-07T13:00:57.239-07:00Opening Statement for a Rx drug DUI<span style="font-size: large;">You can click on this link to watch the video:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkM9yVDnRQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkM9yVDnRQ</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The above link is for an Opening Statement on a prescription drug DUI case. This is a case where my client was accused of mixing narcotic prescription drugs and driving. These cases are tricky because they usually get complicated and involve more evidence than a normal alcohol DUI. For example, you may need to deal with toxicology results, testimony from KSP lab technicians, toxicologists, treating physicians, and medical records from diagnostic tests. All of these were involved in this particular DUI case.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This is why I love doing DUI cases - every one is different. There's always a new, fun twist. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here's my advice (take it or leave it) for Rx drug openings:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) Right off the bat, you need to highlight the fact that there is no alcohol in the client's system and no illegal drugs. Repeat this a time or two during the trial and in a closing statement. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) If your drugs are in Therapeutic Range, say it slowly, repeat it, and explain what that means in language that sounds favorable to your client. When jurors hear that this means your client took their medication in a way that was prescribed to them, and tends to show they aren't abusing medication, jurors remember that kind of thing. And most jurors (especially those on medications) are hesitant to find someone guilty for DUI even if they took their medicine as prescribed - even if they believe the person might have been impaired. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Own the bad facts. In this case, my client was all over the road and the driving was extremely dangerous. He came to rest across 2 lanes of traffic. Obviously that's not good for me. But I made it good for us by pointing out how odd this is for a DUI. Normal intoxicated driving isn't that bad - which opens the door for consideration of another medical event. Also, their expert says he was intoxicated. You need to frame the issue on something like that. Tell the jury what to look for - "Ask yourself whether Dr. Davis looked at any of my client's medical history or pharmalogical history." I know the answer to that question and I know it's good for my client.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">4) Own the good facts. Fortunately for me, my client was actually not guilty. He had an abnormal EEG after the arrest that showed a brain injury from either stroke, anticholinergic crisis, seizure, or some other medical event. And he's on the same medications every day without an incident. All of this really sets the tone for a Not Guilty verdict. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The jury ended up making the right call in this case and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. They took about 7 minutes to deliberate.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Anyway, I hope this is at least entertaining - and if you're an attorney, I hope this helps prepare you for a Rx drug DUI opening.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">For any questions on Rx DUI cases, feel free to call me at 502.618.4949.</span>Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944119633803642164.post-843996773405266212014-09-22T12:35:00.001-07:002014-09-22T12:35:23.816-07:00Free in Kentucky: Watch an Opening Statement for a .105 DUI Case<a href="http://freeinkentucky.blogspot.com/2014/09/watch-opening-statement-for-105-dui-case.html?spref=bl">Free in Kentucky: Watch an Opening Statement for a .105 DUI Case</a>: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTlxk7Ulu74 The above link is to an Opening Statement I made in a DUI case in Hardin County (permission f...Greg Simms, Louisville DUI Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04565407249500786237noreply@blogger.com0