Thursday, November 21, 2013

"Burglary" and "Robbery" Don't Mean the Same Thing.

Robbery and Burglary are often used interchangeably by the general public.  “Some Ahole burglarized my car.” or “My house got robbed last night.”  But Robbery and Burglary are 2 very different crimes.  Today, we’re gonna talk about the differences between the two – so that next time you’re at a party and someone screws it up, you can point that out.  That’ll make you really popular.

The Kentucky statute that governs Robbery in the Second Degree is located at KRS 515.030, and states:

 (1) A person is guilty of robbery in the second degree when, in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft.
(2) Robbery in the second degree is a Class C felony.


Basically, we’re dealing with stealing from another person by use of force or threat of force.  The definition of robbery doesn’t usually surprise people – but the definition of Burglary usually does.  Let’s check out KRS 511.030 and we’ll get the basic scoop on Burglary.

 (1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when, with the intent to commit a crime, he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a Class C felony.

So Burglary means that you entered a dwelling (and for the purpose of this conversation that means any building owned by another person) with the intent to commit a crime, and you did not have permission to be in that building.

The primary differences between Robbery and Burglary are 1) Burglary involves being in a building unlawfully, and Robbery does not; and 2) Robbery is a theft crime and Burglary is not necessarily a theft crime.  While it is true that often Burglary involves stealing, it doesn’t have to.  Example?  Sure.

Let’s say you broke into your enemy’s home for the purpose of urinating on the rug.  Let’s assume this rug REALLY tied the room together.*  Once you break into the home with the intent to commit that particular bit of criminal mischief, you have burglarized the home.  It does NOT matter if you actually carry out the act of rug pissing.  Breaking in with the intent to micturate upon it is sufficient to make you guilty of Burglary.

This blog post is not intended to be a full spectrum analysis of the differing degrees of Robbery and Burglary – just know that each of those crimes can be made more serious depending on whether weapons are involved.

So there you have it.  Robbery means “Stick-up” in the parlance of the 1950s*, while Burglary involves being unlawfully in a home with the intent to commit a crime.

For any more questions on Burglary, Robbery or the difference between the two, feel free to give me a call.  502.473.6464.



* Did it not?  #shutupdonnie

*#putupyourdukes

Monday, November 11, 2013

Free in Kentucky: New Mexico Anal Cavity Search and Police Misconduc...

Free in Kentucky: New Mexico Anal Cavity Search and Police Misconduc...:         Police misconduct is unfortunately more common than most people understand it to be.  Last week the story about the police officer...

New Mexico Anal Cavity Search and Police Misconduct

        Police misconduct is unfortunately more common than most people understand it to be.  Last week the story about the police officer who ordered the anal cavity searching drew a lot of attention.  
         For those of you who are unaware of the story, a New Mexico man named David Eckert was stopped for running a stop sign.*  After he got out, the officer claimed that Eckert looked to be “clenching” his buttocks.  Because of this, the officer drove Eckert to a nearby hospital and asked a doctor to perform an anal cavity search.  The doctor refused on the grounds that it was unethical.  The police officer then drove Eckert to a neighboring county hospital and found another doctor who was willing to perform the search.  Here’s what happened next:
1.       According to Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2.      Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3.      Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4.      Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5.      Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6.      Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7.      Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8.      Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

            After this story surfaced, I heard a lot of people call this sort of police activity “Shocking” and “Unbelievable.”  I don’t find it to be either of those things.  Sure, the facts of the New Mexico case are a little out there because we’re talking about a repeated cavity search.  But the core issues, police misconduct and cover-up, are not unusual.
            And don’t get me wrong – there are a lot of great cops out there.  A lot.  There are many police officers who work their butts off at a very dangerous job for too little pay, and they never engage in misconduct like unlawful arrests, police brutality, or other violations of citizens’ Constitutional Rights.
            The problem is when the bad deeds of the rotten apples go unpunished.  Then police misconduct spreads like a virus.
            In Louisville, police misconduct is not unbelievable.  It’s not shocking.  Unfortunately it isn’t even “uncommon.”  I’ll give you a few examples of some cases I’m working on.

            “Barry” – Even the police agree that when Barry was walking down the street, he was doing nothing illegal.  He was just walking to his mom’s house one night with a backpack on.  The police pulled up and spotlighted him, stopping him on the sidewalk because he “matched a description.”  The problem with that description is that the only description the police are trying to rely on was a generic description of an average black male with dark clothing who had dreadlocks.  And Barry did not have dreadlocks.
            But the police continued to detain Barry, demanding to search his backpack (which contained nothing illegal), frisk searching him for weapons (he had none), and eventually throwing him to the ground after he objected to the frisk search.  They busted one of his teeth out when they threw him to the concrete.
            Barry’s story checks out because he just so happened to be recording the incident on a digital recorder.  By the way, he had the recorder because he had been stopped NINE times in the past year for no reason.  Just for walking down the street.


“Tommy” – Tommy was hanging out with his cousin in the backyard of his cousin’s house.  They were just standing around, talking.  A police officer approached and, flashing the light in their eyes, walked into the yard and told them he would have to search them.
Tommy was wearing a cast following a recent surgical procedure on one of his arms.  He raised his hands the best he could and advised the approaching officer that he had both a handgun and a CCDW license for the weapon in his back pocket. After removing the handgun and license from his pocket, the officer handcuffed Tommy’s free arm to his belt loop and called a second officer to the scene. While Tommy was in handcuffs, one of the officers drew his service revolver and pointed it at Tommy.  When Tommy asked the officer not to point the gun at him, the officer replied, “I’m not fucking pointing it at you.  Shut your fucking mouth.”        Tommy said “that’s uncalled for, man” - at which time the officer slammed Tommy’s head against the police cruiser.  The cop took him to the ground, injuring his knee (needing surgery after the fact), while another placed his knee on the back of Tommy’s neck. The officers then repeatedly punched him in the side, repeatedly slammed the arm that was in a cast against the pavement, and tore a lock of hair from Tommy’s head.
            Toward the end of the encounter, the officers advised Tommy that they had been searching for burglary suspects in the vicinity.  The officers took Tommy and showed him to the burglary victims, who were seated in a nearby police cruiser.  They confirmed that Tommy was not involved in the burglary of their home.
           
            I wish I could say that those 2 cases were the only police misconduct cases I had right now.  But that’s just the beginning.  And the worst thing about these cases is that the police who engage in this behavior never admit to any wrongdoing – often the police departments they work for stand behind them and stick up for the misconduct.  They protect their own.
           
            Not all of it is driven by racism, but a lot of it is.   

            When police misconduct is allowed, corruption is invited.

            I don’t really have a follow up, cathartic ending to this story.  Hopefully we’ll get some legitimate justice on some of these cases soon, and I’ll keep you posted.  Until then, I just hope to shed some light on the problem.  Maybe next time something like this hits the news, people won’t be so “shocked.”
           


*All of the info I received on the New Mexico case was from the Huffington Post, so if I got some details wrong, sue them.  Not me.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Free in Kentucky: This is Why David Camm is Not Guilty

Free in Kentucky: This is Why David Camm is Not Guilty: David Camm has been incarcerated for 13 years.  That's a helluva lot of time.  He was twice conviced of the Murder of his wife and chil...

This is Why David Camm is Not Guilty

David Camm has been incarcerated for 13 years.  That's a helluva lot of time.  He was twice conviced of the Murder of his wife and children, and those convictions were overturned by a higher court.  This past week, he was retried for the 3rd time and found Not Guilty of the Murders.  He is a free man.

Here is why that’s the right result:

1) Another guy killed Camm’s family.  Charles Boney killed Camm’s wife and kids.  He has been convicted of the killings, and is serving a 225 year sentence for that conviction.  Boney testified in the Camm trial.  That was the prosecution’s major piece of evidence.  A previously convicted felon (not just for the Camm family murders) who had ALREADY been convicted of killing the Camm family.  That alone, is reasonable doubt.  No matter how detailed Boney's account could have been, no matter how fervently his accusation may have been - the Defense gets to say "Of course he's going to say that.  He is the one who killed Camm's family.  We know that because he's already been convicted."

2) Camm had nearly a dozen alibis.  Camm was playing basketball at the time his family was killed.  He came home to find the family murdered.  Part of the reason he was arrested (three days after the family was murdered) was because Camm had blood on his clothing.  However, Camm’s story was consistent with having some blood on his clothing.  Which conveniently brings us to blood spatter evidence - which happens to be my next numerical paragraph (this is called a transition sentence).

3) Blood Spatter Evidence doesn’t help anyone.  On either side.  Aside from the testomy of Boney, the other big piece of evidence was blood spatter analysis.  In fact, some people following the third Camm trial believed that the entire result would hinge on blood stain pattern analysis.  If you looked at the stains on Camm’s clothing and believed that they were “high velocity impact spatter” then you would believe that it was the result of bloog “mist” that is present after a victim is shot with a gun.  Supposedly, this type of blood spatter travels up to about four feet.  

But if you believed the blood on Camm was the result of “contact stains” then you would believe that the blood pattern is consistent with Camm’s statements that he made contact with the bodies themselves.  

OR you could just believe that blood spatter analysis is hokum, and that the “experts” just make it up as they go along.  Either way it isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

4) People don’t kill their kids unless they are absolutely nuts.  Just as a practical matter, it is much more common for a person to kill a spouse and much less common for a person to kill their own children.  Usually that type of homicide is committed by someone who is having very serious mental health issues – and there wasn’t any sort of evidence to support that in Camm’s case.


As a side note, the first 2 convictions never should have happened.  In the first, there were allegations that Camm had a previous affair(s) and that basically he wanted to dip his wick in anything that moved.  A higher court correctly found that this evidence is inadmissible (and tends to smear a man’s name) when they had no proof whatsoever of a link between the evidence and killings (that Camm killed his wife for another woman, for example).  In the second trial, the prosecutor made some argument that Camm had molested his daughter – the second conviction was overturned in 2006 after an appeals judge ruled that the trial judge, Robert Aylsworth, should not have allowed Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson to argue that Camm murdered his family to cover up alleged molestation of Jill.  From what I understand, there wasn’t much of a basis for the Prosecutor to make that argument.

There was reasonable doubt all over this case.  A lot of people think Camm probably did it.  But the standard of proof in a criminal case is not “probably.” 

In order to take away your children without your consent, and do an involuntary Termination of Parental Rights (making you legally no longer the parent of your kids) the standard of proof is “Clear and Convincing Evidence.”  It is a high standard of evidence.  But that standard is NOT as high as Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. 

It takes less evidence to take your kids away from you than it does for a jury to convict a person of ANY crime.  It is the highest burden in our court system.

The fact that Charles Boney was already convicted of the killings was enough evidence, alone, to provide reasonable doubt in the Camm Murder case.

Whether you agree or not, I hope you’ve enjoyed this little discussion.

If you have any more questions about Camm, homicide, or criminal burden of proof, feel free to give me a call.

Greg Simms


Murphy & Powell, PLC.  502.473.6464

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Free in Kentucky: The Government is Watching You. Try Not to Say An...

Free in Kentucky: The Government is Watching You. Try Not to Say An...: " just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you." - Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings There’s ...

The Government is Watching You. Try Not to Say Anything Dumb.

"just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."
-Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

There’s an article out on NBC News today about how police (and schools) monitor social media sites.  This shouldn’t come as a surprise to you or to anyone, really.  Your government is watching you. 

Watching.  Judging. 

And if you are charged with a serious crime, you’ll be less than thrilled to know that modern technology has gone to the trouble of collecting and documenting evidence for the police.  If you’d like to read that full article from NBC News, you can find it below.*

All social media activity is fair game during a police investigation.  If your spouse dies under mysterious circumstances, you can bet the police are going to be rooting through your Facepage and tweeters, looking for any evidence whatsoever of an imperfect marriage.  If you complained a year ago via status update that your hubby won’t take out the trash, that’s going to be blown up on a monitor in high definition for the jury to see.

Whilst gathering all of your social media data, the police are going to subpoena your cell phone service provider for all of your records.  This will allow the coppers to use what they call “ping” data to pinpoint your exact location the moment your husband had that mysterious “accident.”  As long as you are carrying a cell phone, you are carrying a bona fide tracking device that will let the police know where you are at any point you have that phone.  Within feet.  Not yards.

This obviously doesn’t just pertain to Murder investigations.

Anyone on probation or parole should delete their social media accounts IMMEDIATELY.

It should go without saying (but it doesn’t) that when you FacepageFriend your probation/parole officer and you put pics or status updates about your illegal activity on the web, you are going to get in more trouble.

This may sound like something you wouldn’t need to tell people.  But I’ve had countless clients who got home on a Thursday afternoon and updated their status something like “Can’t wait to bust into that first cold beer!!!” or “Who fixin’ to roll this big blizzy laced with hizzy?  This guy!” 

Guess who gets called in for a “random” drug screen the next day?  That guy!

Long story short - social media, cell phones and pretty much any advancement in technology whatsoever are all problematic for those who engage in activity not approved by the masses.

Not to mention people going through civil lawsuits, not-yet-litigated disputes over things like contracts or property, and especially Divorce and Custody cases.  You might think it’s cool to brag on the internet about all the ladies you’ve been slaying, but when you try to get more overnight visits with your kids, you will regret the information you put on the internet.  Because some Judges consider that to be a poor moral example.**

Again, you can find the NBC News article below.

And if you have any more questions about how the government is watching you and wants to listen to your conversations, you can call me at 502.473.6464.  My door is always open.  Or you can go ask a homeless person.  Apparently all that crazy paranoid ranting is somehow legit.

Have a fantastic day.

Greg Simms
MURPHY & POWELL, PLC
455 South 4th Street
Suite 1250
Louisville, KY 40202







**Take any advice I give you about Divorce/Custody with a grain of salt.  I’m not really that kind of lawyer.  For more information about that stuff, see Rosalie Guthrie at Murphy & Powell PLC.  And if she's not available, my little sister Rebecca Simms seems to know everything about that stuff.