A recent news story concerning malfeasance by an area Police Chief has been getting attention for the way the matter has been handled by the municipal oversight committee.

An investigation into the theft of Pocono Mountain Regional Police Chief Harry Lewis' service handgun cost taxpayers about $50,000, but officials who oversee the department now lack access to the report, a Coolbaugh Township representative said.

In a long statement at a commission meeting Tuesday night, Coolbaugh representative Bill Weimer requested a roughly 60-page report produced by Philadelphia attorney Neil A. Morris, who investigated the gun theft.

Lewis later confirmed the vehicle was unlocked at the time of the theft. Lewis, who is set to retire next month, has said he was not disciplined as a result of the incident, though Coolbaugh police representative Juan Adams has said Lewis was disciplined without specifying how.Two teens were accused of stealing Lewis' service handgun and wallet from his department-issued vehicle while it was parked at his Allentown area home in May 2013.

From - http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140710/NEWS/407100325

 At issue is the clearly irresponsible behaviour of the Police Chief in failing to properly secure his weapon. Would a regular civilian have gotten off as easily? Unlikely, in my experience. And now to withhold the investigative report from the public, which was financed by $50k in public funds, is an egregious exercise of official power.

Hopefully this matter is cleared up, shortly.

Warrant no longer required to search vehicle at roadside stop.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided a case which obviated the need for the Police to obtain a warrant during a roadside stop. Police are still required to possess probable cause, but they need not present that cause to a Judge before searching the vehicle.

From Pennlive.com -

The Supreme Court's ruling stems from a legal battle over a January 2010 traffic stop in Philadelphia.

Two police officers pulled over a sport-utility vehicle driven by Shiem Gary because they believed its window tinting was too dark. The officers then claimed they smelled marijuana coming from the SUV and that Gary told them there was "weed" in the vehicle.

Police said a drug-sniffing dog hit on the SUV and a subsequent warrantless search discovered about 2 pounds of marijuana hidden under the hood.

 Gary challenged whether the police had legally obtained the drug evidence. The case came to the Supreme Court on appeal after the state Superior Court backed Gary. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/04/divided_pa_supreme_court_oks_w.html

This is indeed a setback for personal privacy rights in Pennsylvania, as the requirement of a warrant issued by a neutral Judge was at least some check on the power of the Police.

It is likely that Police will still ask drivers for consent to search their vehicles, even when they believe they possess probable cause. This will be done so that if it is later determined the Officer acted on less than probable cause it is irrelevant if the search is consensual. A driver who refuses the search will likely have his or her car searched anyway. But by refusing the driver still retains the ability to challenge the evidence at a later Court hearing.

.

Child Custody 101

There are two different types of custody in Pennsylvania. Legal custody and physical custody.

Legal custody is the right to make decisions for one's child. Where he or she will go to school, whether the child will have a surgery, which church to go to. Those are all legal custody decisions. Most custody arrangements maintain a 50/50 legal custody situation so that both parents must agree before major life changes in the child's life can take place.

Physical custody is where the child actually resides on a daily basis. This can be structured differently depending on the needs of the parents.

House arrest as an alternative to incarceration.

In some cases, the defendant in a criminal matter may qualify for house arrest instead of being incarcerated. This is an especially important consideration in cases where there are mandatory minimum sentences, such as second offense DUIs and many drug cases. House arrest is an alternative sentence which allows the court to sentence the defendant to a term of home confinement (usually with an ankle bracelet of some form) instead of being sent off to prison.

House arrest allows the defendant to continue to work, to make scheduled appointments, and otherwise live their lives. The defendant is not restricted only to his/her home, as there will be scheduled times he or she can leave to go to work, run errands, etc. There is a requirement of a curfew, and many ankle bracelets now test for the presence of drugs or alcohol in a person's perspiration. But as long as the defendant is able to adhere to the requirements of the program, he or she stands a good chance of being admitted to it.

In my experience, any sentence longer than 3 months is unlikely (but not impossible) to qualify for house arrest. Of course, the defendant will be required to pay the costs of the program, which can be significant, but if the alternative is incarceration it is well worth the cost.

How will Google's driverless cars impact vehicle crime?

Google has unveiled it's completely driverless car and plans to test a hundred prototypes in California over the next few years. Unlike previous versions which featured steering wheels and the ability of the human driver to assume control, these vehicles are completely autonomous and have no way for passenger intervention.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/just-press-go-designing-self-driving.html

This could have major implications for vehicular crime. As the human driver is in no way controlling the vehicle crimes such as DUI would be meaningless. Driver licenses would be no more required to ride in a driverless car than they would be to ride in the back of a taxi. The income small municipalities receive from speeding offenses and red light cameras would dry up, as presumably the cars would be programmed to obey all rules of the road.

There would need to be significant changes in auto-insurance laws (currently mandatory in all 50 states) which could render that industry bankrupt. What about people who have lost their license due to a medical issue such as epilepsy? What about blind people "driving" these driverless cars?

It is an exciting development and I expect it will have a big impact on the current climate of vehicle crime.

Are prior criminal convictions relevant in a criminal case?

Generally, Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits the introduction of a defendant's prior bad acts including criminal convictions. This means that the government may not introduce such evidence in order to convict someone of a crime. There are several reasons behind this prohibition; including to prevent a confusion of the issues and to ensure a defendant is not convicted of the current crime based on past behaviour to which there may be no connection.

There are certain exceptions to this rule, however. Crimes of crimen falsi are sometimes permitted, for example. A crime of crimen falsi is a crime of lying such as fraud or theft. Such crimes go to the credibility of the defendant to tell the truth. Also, if the prior crime has some relationship to the current crime it may be admitted.

It is important for any criminal defendant to be aware of his/her prior record and to discuss it with the attorney prior to trial to ensure there are no surprises.

How to dress a client for court.

Although tangential to the actual determination of the issues at play in a case, it is still important to consider how the client will present him/herself in front of the Judge or Jury. The most important consideration is that whatever the client wears, it should show the proper respect to the Court.

Gone are the days when everyone wore suits to Court. Watching 12 Angry Men now, with the juror room full of men in suits and ties is not the norm anymore. This represents a relaxing of sartorial attitudes of society in general, not anything particular to Court proceedings. Now polo shirts, jeans, sneakers, and the like are the standard.

When clients ask what they should wear to court I always tell them to be respectful but comfortable. If a client can wear a nice conservative suit, that's great, but many clients are incredibly uncomfortable in a suit and tie and if he or she fidgets or sweats or otherwise looks out of place that may have a poor impact on the jury. If the client is more comfortable in chinos and a button-down shirt that is acceptable.

Of course it can go the other way as well, if a client projects an image of arrogance by wearing too-expensive tailored suits in front a of generally rural or suburban jury they may draw another adverse inference.

Clothing to be avoided:

Shorts
Jean shorts
Cut-off jean shorts
Adidas workout pants
Budweiser branded T-shirts
NWA concert T-shirts
NAZI regalia
Lingerie
Robes
Capes
Tuxedos

Footwear to be avoided
Sandals
Slippers
Crocs
Thigh high leather boots

Face tattoos, if applicable, should be covered in makeup concealer prior to entry to the courthouse.