Well, it's been a while since I posted, but thought it was necessary to get back on here and add some new insight to the world of serving as a Raleigh DWI Attorney. Recently, there's been an increase in police activities on the roads of Wake County. Mainly, I have seen more and more Wake County DWI checkpoints and license checkpoints in place. These checkpoints are an easy way for the State to try and catch those who could be violating the laws of North Carolina. What many driver's do not realize is what rights they have with regards to these checkpoints or any other traffic stop.
First, the general public needs to understand that your participation with MOST of these stops is voluntary, and your compliance could hamper your Apex DWI Attorneys efforts to avoid a conviction. Under our laws, you are required to stop, produce your license and registration and that is it. If the Police Office asks you to exit the vehicle, you do have to comply as it could be for safety reasons. Beyond those few things, you are not required to answer questions, consent to a search, attempt standardized field sobriety tests or submit to a preliminary breath test. Now, it's important to note at this point that the breath test performed AFTER a driver has been arrested, the one performed on an Intoxilzyer, is voluntary, but does come with consequences should you refuse, so decide carefully whether you want to refuse. However, beyond that, the walk and turn test, one legged stand test, the finger dexterity test, eye test, counting, alphabet, etc. are all voluntary. And the fact that this is voluntary is true whether it's a regular traffic stop or a check point.
As a Raleigh DWI Lawyer, I always find it interesting to learn what the Police Officer's stated to my client to convince them to perform the tests. In most cases, the verbiage they use 'implies' that it's required and not voluntary. Statements like "I'm going to have you perform some tests" or "I need you to blow into this device." My favorite was a client who was told by an officer that he was probably going to let him go, but he needed my client to perform some tests just to be sure. Understand that Police Officers are not required to be honest with you. There is no law on the books that says police must always tell the truth to a Defendant they are investigating. The biggest mistake that the general public make when dealing with the police is thinking that you are smarter then the police and that you will not be outwitted by them. The reality is, this is their profession, they know all the best moves to try and get the evidence they need in order to arrest and ultimately convict you.
Another thing that has popped up across the Wake County area is more attempts to catch drivers speeding, texting, driving without a seatbelt, etc. Again, I was amazed at some of the creativity I have seen. Recently, on Highway 55 in Holly Springs, I have seen Police Officers set up on the overpass of 540 where they were using a radar to track the speed of the Defendant and radioing to other Police ahead on 55 to report who needs to be pulled over. Additionally, I saw Police set up around construction on 55 where traffic was narrowed from 4 lanes down to 2. This caused driver's to slow down, providing police enough opportunity to look into cars and see if the Driver had their seat belt on, or if they were texting. Certainly these type of tactics lead to many Driver's having to seek out a Wake County Traffic Attorney.
All of this activity has resulted in an influx of Wake County residents contacting local attorneys looking for legal assistance. It's important to remember while out on the road, that the Police are always out there looking to catch driver's violating the law, so be careful.
If you do end up receiving a ticket or are arrested for a dwi, contact the Matheson Law Office. We have proudly served as the Raleigh DWI Lawyer for and traffic lawyer for hundreds of clients. We provide a free consultation when you call where you will speak directly with an attorney. Call us at 919-335-5291.
Showing posts with label first amendemnt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendemnt. Show all posts
Friday, May 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Why I Love Being a Criminal Defense Attorney
I have a confession to make, I enjoy the practice of Criminal Defense. As a Raleigh Criminal Lawyer and Durham Criminal Lawyer in North Carolina, I represent those charged with a crime, whether it's North Carolina Traffic Cases, North Carolina DWI Defense, North Carolina Misdemeanor cases or North Carolina Felony cases. As per the explanation I have heard from many people, I defend the 'scum of the earth.' Since deciding this was my area of practice as an attorney, I have heard from friends, family and even total strangers that my chosen profession is 'wrong,' 'despicable,' I've even been told what I do is "what's wrong with America." I try to have a legitimate discussion with these individuals to explain my decision to practice criminal defense. Sometimes, these discussion go well, other times they do not. In either case, publishing an article which conveys the rational of this Criminal Defense Attorney might provide some insight to those who otherwise do not understand, and certainly do not approve of, defending the accused.
I have known that I wanted to be a Criminal Defense Attorney ever since I took criminal law and evidence in law school. However, I didn't know why this profession was so important until I studied Constitutional Law. It is the Constitution which provides every one of us the freedoms which we enjoy today. Most people take these freedoms for granted, mainly due to the fact that they are not faced with a situation where these rights would protect them. Nevertheless, these rights remain available should they be needed. Examples of these rights include the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and due process, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
These Constitutional Rights were designed, and are upheld, in an attempt to ensure that innocent people are not convicted as a result of forced confessions, lack of legal representation or lack of due process. And though our system is imperfect, in that innocent people are still convicted, these Constitutional Rights are the best balance of providing protections to those accused while at the same time not overly limiting the Government's attempt to identify, arrest and ultimately prosecute those who are criminally responsible.
The beauty of these rights and how they are applied today is that not only are they the result of the brilliant minds of our forefathers who draft the Constitution, but they are applied as a result of centuries of caselaw precedent. What this means is, since their inception these rights have been argued in countless trials where a ruling was made as to exactly how they should be applied given certain facts. These rulings have been evaluated by higher appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. That means that an unimaginable number of legal scholars, from Defense Attorneys and government Prosecutors to Judges throughout the court system have come together to make a determination in exactly how they should be applied. And though occasionally precedents are overturned when given new facts, that should only provide greater comfort in knowing that, though not common, they can be overturned if circumstances have been changed since the precedent was set. As an example, think of how the internet has changed countless laws with regards to copyright, defamation, libel, Fifth Amendment, harassment, etc.
I mention these rights as they are what a Defense Attorney is truly defending. In my numerous discussions with those that have a problem with Criminal Defense, the other party normally falls into one of two categories: 1. they feel too many rights are given in our system and Criminal Defendants should have less protection or 2. they feel the rights are adequate and should be upheld, unless the Criminal Defendant is 'obviously guilty.'
As for the first category, these people normally hold this perception because they believe they would never face criminal prosecution and therefore the limitation of these rights would never apply to them. However, too many times innocent people are suspected of crimes and without these rights in place, they could face prosecution and ultimately conviction without these safeguards in place. A simple matter of 'wrong place, wrong time' can result in an innocent person being accused of crime. And as careful and lawful as one can attempt to live their life, there is ALWAYS the chance of a mistake identification or chance encounter which can turn a person's life upside down. As example, would you really feel comfortable if an Officer had the right to stop you on the highway solely because you look suspicious, search your car because he/she feels like it, and arrest you without first having established Probable Cause?
As for the second category, this idea of different standards for different people is a narrow, and more importantly incorrect view. These Constitutional Rights work only if EVERYONE is afforded the same protection. These rights are given to us by the Judicial Branch and limit the function of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government in their handling of Americans. If the Government could all-of-a-sudden make their own determination of what rights are given to what Defendants, than the power of determining what limitations could potentially prohibit the prosecution of the Defendant is given to the same government entity who's job it is to prosecute the Defendant. In other words, the Prosecutors would be permitted to determine what Rights, and more specifically what potential problems with their case there are and whether they would permit the Defendant to utilize them. Though most people cannot imagine themselves in a place where they could potentially face criminal prosecution, in the oft chance that you are, would you really like that kind of power to be held by those entrusted with your prosecution?
As mentioned before, everyone sharing the exact same rights as everyone else is the only truly fair way to ensure our system is operating as effectively as possible. Do guilty Criminal Defendants get off as a result of these Constitutional Rights? Absolutely. But the second that our system overlooks a misstep by the Government (whether in the Police's attempt to gather evidence or with the Prosecutor's handling of the case) in order to convict an 'obvious' guilty Defendant, than forever will the same opportunity to 'overlook' these mistakes be available to those who are not so obviously guilty.
Though this discussion has many more facets and areas which can be debated, this was simply a taste of what justification I have, to do what I do with my head held high.
I have known that I wanted to be a Criminal Defense Attorney ever since I took criminal law and evidence in law school. However, I didn't know why this profession was so important until I studied Constitutional Law. It is the Constitution which provides every one of us the freedoms which we enjoy today. Most people take these freedoms for granted, mainly due to the fact that they are not faced with a situation where these rights would protect them. Nevertheless, these rights remain available should they be needed. Examples of these rights include the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and due process, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
These Constitutional Rights were designed, and are upheld, in an attempt to ensure that innocent people are not convicted as a result of forced confessions, lack of legal representation or lack of due process. And though our system is imperfect, in that innocent people are still convicted, these Constitutional Rights are the best balance of providing protections to those accused while at the same time not overly limiting the Government's attempt to identify, arrest and ultimately prosecute those who are criminally responsible.
The beauty of these rights and how they are applied today is that not only are they the result of the brilliant minds of our forefathers who draft the Constitution, but they are applied as a result of centuries of caselaw precedent. What this means is, since their inception these rights have been argued in countless trials where a ruling was made as to exactly how they should be applied given certain facts. These rulings have been evaluated by higher appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. That means that an unimaginable number of legal scholars, from Defense Attorneys and government Prosecutors to Judges throughout the court system have come together to make a determination in exactly how they should be applied. And though occasionally precedents are overturned when given new facts, that should only provide greater comfort in knowing that, though not common, they can be overturned if circumstances have been changed since the precedent was set. As an example, think of how the internet has changed countless laws with regards to copyright, defamation, libel, Fifth Amendment, harassment, etc.
I mention these rights as they are what a Defense Attorney is truly defending. In my numerous discussions with those that have a problem with Criminal Defense, the other party normally falls into one of two categories: 1. they feel too many rights are given in our system and Criminal Defendants should have less protection or 2. they feel the rights are adequate and should be upheld, unless the Criminal Defendant is 'obviously guilty.'
As for the first category, these people normally hold this perception because they believe they would never face criminal prosecution and therefore the limitation of these rights would never apply to them. However, too many times innocent people are suspected of crimes and without these rights in place, they could face prosecution and ultimately conviction without these safeguards in place. A simple matter of 'wrong place, wrong time' can result in an innocent person being accused of crime. And as careful and lawful as one can attempt to live their life, there is ALWAYS the chance of a mistake identification or chance encounter which can turn a person's life upside down. As example, would you really feel comfortable if an Officer had the right to stop you on the highway solely because you look suspicious, search your car because he/she feels like it, and arrest you without first having established Probable Cause?
As for the second category, this idea of different standards for different people is a narrow, and more importantly incorrect view. These Constitutional Rights work only if EVERYONE is afforded the same protection. These rights are given to us by the Judicial Branch and limit the function of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government in their handling of Americans. If the Government could all-of-a-sudden make their own determination of what rights are given to what Defendants, than the power of determining what limitations could potentially prohibit the prosecution of the Defendant is given to the same government entity who's job it is to prosecute the Defendant. In other words, the Prosecutors would be permitted to determine what Rights, and more specifically what potential problems with their case there are and whether they would permit the Defendant to utilize them. Though most people cannot imagine themselves in a place where they could potentially face criminal prosecution, in the oft chance that you are, would you really like that kind of power to be held by those entrusted with your prosecution?
As mentioned before, everyone sharing the exact same rights as everyone else is the only truly fair way to ensure our system is operating as effectively as possible. Do guilty Criminal Defendants get off as a result of these Constitutional Rights? Absolutely. But the second that our system overlooks a misstep by the Government (whether in the Police's attempt to gather evidence or with the Prosecutor's handling of the case) in order to convict an 'obvious' guilty Defendant, than forever will the same opportunity to 'overlook' these mistakes be available to those who are not so obviously guilty.
Though this discussion has many more facets and areas which can be debated, this was simply a taste of what justification I have, to do what I do with my head held high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)