Recent Blog Posts in June 2010

Charges of drunken driving were dropped against a 54-year-old Dana Point woman after it was determined she was "not lawfully arrested."

According to the Newport Beach officer's report, the woman was stopped in March 2009 for having a broken rear license plate light.  The arresting officer (a second officer was waiting in the patrol car) indicated he observed the objective symptoms of intoxication, including the odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes, while speaking with the woman.  A breath test subsequently yielded a .12 blood alcohol level and the woman was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. 

As discovered during DMV proceedings, however, the patrol car's own video "clearly demonstrated" the light was on and functioning properly.  No probable cause, thus, existed for the stop making the arrest unlawful. 

While comments are not forthcoming from city officials, the city did agree to reimburse the woman for her attorney's fees and towing costs.      

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled a suspect's words can be used against him if he fails to "clearly tell the police that he does not want to talk." 

The case in question involved a male suspect arrested in connection with a shooting, one year prior, outside a Michigan mall which killed one man and left another injured.  According to reports, the suspect was read his rights and verbally indicated he understood those rights but did not sign a waiver of rights form. 

During hours of subsequent interrogation, the suspect said very little; however, when asked "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?", he responded "Yes."  While he refused to sign a confession or say anything further, he was later convicted of first-degree murder…due in no small part to this single word response. 

In rendering the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy said "[a suspect wishing to invoke his right to remain silent must] do so unambiguously."  Justice Sotomayor, though, strongly dissented, stating "[the ruling] turns Miranda upside down and marks a substantial retreat from the protection against self-incrimination."