Conrad Barrett, 27, has been charged with a federal hate crime for allegedly breaking a 79-year-old man's jaw in what authorities described as a racist take on the "knockout game." The victim suffered two jaw fractures and was hospitalized for several days, the complaint said. Barrett's attorney, George Parnham, raised the issue of his client's mental health in court, saying his client has been diagnosed as bipolar and was not on his medication at the time of the attack. Parnham could not say whether his client carried out the attack, but, "mental health issues definitely played a part in anything that occurred." Barrett "is very sorry for this person," Parnham said, adding that he and his client haven't had much opportunity to discuss the facts of the case.
In Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court ruled that a “sniff test” by a drug detection dog at the front door of a home constituted an unreasonable “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In that case, the Miami-Dade police received a “crime stoppers” tip that Mr. Jardines’ home was being used as a marijuana grow house. The police set up surveillance outside of his home and brought a drug detection dog to the porch of his residence. Only after the handler of the dog notified the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of marijuana did the detective obtain a search warrant.
Consequently, the police searched his home, discovered the marijuana plants and arrested Mr. Jardines. After being charged and convicted of marijiuana trafficking, Jardines argued that the sniff test constituted an illegal search without probable cause and thus the evidence should be deemed inadmissible. The trial court granted Jardine’s motion to suppress the evidence, but the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The state appealed the case and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision by a 5-4 margin along ideological lines. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court, joined by Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion was focused on a citizen’s property rights rather than the right to privacy. The Court argued that at the heart of the Fourth Amendment stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
The Court conceded that police officers have the right to engage a homeowner in a “knock and talk” for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant as homeowners have reasonable expectations that the public will approach their door. However, Scalia pointed out that homeowners do not license visitors to “explor[e] the front pant with a metal detector” or the police to “peer into the house through binoculars with impunity.”
The Court determined that bringing a drug detection dog onto a person’s property to obtain evidence without a warrant was an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Although the majority opinion did not address whether Jardines’ privacy was implicated by the search, Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, arguing that both his privacy and property rights were implicated. The concurring opinion analogized drug detection dogs to the high-powered binoculars referenced in the majority opinion and argued that where a device is not “in general public use,” and is used to obtain evidence in one’s home, it violates a persons “minimal expectation of privacy.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have been subjected to an unreasonable search by law enforcement, contact Parnham & McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com. for a free consultation. We are dedicated to protecting your Constitutional Rights.
According to crash report data compiled by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)Texas leads the nation in DWI fatalities, and although drunk driving accidents account for only about 4% of traffic accidents statewide, TxDOT reports
that DWI accidents were responsible for 1,099 deaths making them the leading cause of death on Texas roadways.
According to the same statistics Harris County led the state in DWI
Accidents, totaling more than 2,809 reported alcohol-related crashes in
2012. Houston alone had a total of 1,662 reported drunk
driving accidents and 94 fatalities in 2012.
In Texas, anyone who causes an auto accident while driving while intoxicated (DWI)
is facing very serious criminal charges. Convictions will mean felony charges and may result in 10 to 20 years in state prison if the accident resulted in serious
injury or death to another passenger or driver.
The two specific charges involved with vehicle accidents (including watercraft, aircraft and amusement rides) that involve impaired drivers are Intoxication Assault and Intoxication Manslaughter.
Intoxication Assault Texas Penal Code 49.07 states that a person commits an offense if the person, by
accident or mistake, while operating a motor vehicle in a public place
while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily
injury to another. Serious Bodily Injury refers to any injury that
creates a substantial risk of death, causes serious permanent
disfigurement or causes "protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ."
Intoxication Assault is a third degree felony and punishable by 2 to 10
years in prison, fines of up to $10,000 and up to 600 hours of community
service. Texas law also requires any repeat intoxicated assault offenders to install an ignition interlock device on their primary vehicle: you are required to blow into this
device before you can start your car, and if it detects alcohol the vehicle will not start. You will not be allowed to drive any vehicle that is not
equipped with this device.
If you are charged with Intoxication Assault, the prosecution must only show beyond a reasonable
doubt that you were intoxicated and caused serious bodily injury to
another person; they do not need to provide any proof that you intended
to hurt another person. Even though the other parties injuries could
have been the result of an accident or mistake, you can still be
charged with this serious offense.
Intoxication Manslaughter is a second degree felony,
punishable by 2 to 20 years in state prison, fines of up to $10,000 and
up to 800 hours of community service. Intoxication Manslaughter differs from regular Manslaughter or Vehicular Manslaughter
charges, which require some evidence of a reckless act or reckless driving: by
the mere act of operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated the law automatically presumes that you are acting in a reckless manner. However, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's
intoxication was the cause of the other person’s death.
Intoxicated Assault and Intoxicated Manslaughter are extremely serious charges. If you have been in an accident and have been charged with impaired driving, you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at
(713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for more information.
Section 724.011 of the Texas State Transportation Code states that anyone who is arrested for Texas DWI: "is deemed to have consented, subject to this chapter, to
submit to the taking of one or more specimens of the person's breath or
blood for analysis to determine the alcohol concentration or the
presence in the person's body of a controlled substance, drug, dangerous
drug, or other substance."
This is known as "Implied Consent", and as mentioned earlier it essentially means that by the mere act of accepting a Texas State driver's license you have automatically consented to take a blood alcohol level test if the police deem it necessary.
Based on the implied consent clause, Texas (and many other states) have begun implementing what are known as "No Refusal" weekends. This program is a law enforcement strategy that allows jurisdictions to obtain search warrants for blood samples from any drivers who are suspected to be impaired but refuse roadside breath or blood tests. During these events, usually scheduled around holidays such as Labor Day or New Year's Eve the police, prosecutors and judges streamline the warrant acquisition process in order to obtain blood draw warrants.
During these "No Refusal" events the District Attorney’s Office usually stations staff members at centralized locations in order to immediately consult with the arresting officer. They collect the probable cause information used in the arrest and rubberstamp a warrant which is immediately faxed to a waiting judge. If there is any probable cause that warrant will be signed and returned, the suspect is taken to an on-site blood draw room and a nurse or phlebotomist will draw the suspect’s blood. If the suspect is uncooperative or combatant, officers will restrain the suspect while the blood draw is occurring.
This rubber-stamp process is prone to several types of legal errors; there may be an omission or a mistake on the warrant, the
warrant may not meet requirements for accuracy. There may also be issues with the probable cause as determined by the arresting officer. If you are facing Texas DWI charges, you need to hire a skilled
criminal defense attorney to help you navigate the legal system without
jeopardizing your rights. Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at
(713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for more information.
Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
In the State of Texas, a DWI arrest actually creates two separate cases: both the original criminal charge as processed through the county or district court system, as well as a separate civil proceeding known as Administrative License Revocation. Any driver arrested when they refuse a breath or blood
test -or fail the test- will automatically have their license suspended.
The Administrative License Revocation (“ALR”) program was created by
the Texas Legislature in 1993 and became effective on January 1, 1995 with the intent "...to provide a fair and efficient administrative hearing
process for determining whether the proposed suspension by the
Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) of the driver’s license of a person
who has been accused of driving or boating while intoxicated (or in
the case of minors, driving or boating with any detectable amount of
alcohol in their systems) should be upheld".
Texas maintains an "implied consent" statute, stating that any person who applies for a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway has consented to provide a specimen of breath or blood if arrested for DWI. The implied consent statute also applies to watercraft in Texas.
If you are arrested for DWI and have a Texas driver's license, the police are required to take possession of it and issue you a temporary driving permit that will expire 41 days later. If you request a hearing to challenge the suspension, that will delay any ALR sanctions until a hearing takes place.
ALR suspension are automatic unless you specifically request a hearing to challenge the suspension, in writing, WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS after receiving notice of suspension from the arresting agency.
Even thought the notice of suspension states that the suspension will automatically begin 41 days, requesting a hearing postpones the suspension from starting until after the hearing actually takes place and an administrative decision is issued by a judge. Further, in the event of an ALR appeal your suspension can be delayed for an additional 90 days.
Burden of proof in an ALR hearing is on the Department of Public Safety: if you or your attorney have made the request for a hearing within the 15 day time limit, the Department of Public Safety must prove the following elements before a suspension can be imposed:
There must have been reasonable suspicion to stop or probable cause to arrest the driver,
The person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated,
The person was placed under arrest and was offered the opportunity to give a specimen of breath or blood after being notified both orally and in writing of the consequences of either refusing or failing a breath or blood test, AND
That the person either refused to give a specimen on request of the officer, or failed a breath or blood test by registering an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater per 100ml of blood or 210 liters of breath.
If you don't have any prior alcohol or drug related offenses during the previous 10-year period, the suspension is usually 180 days in cases where the driver refuses to submit to the test, or 90 days if the test results are above the legal limit.
If you DO have a prior alcohol or drug related charge within the past 10 years, a refusal will result in a two year suspension and a one year suspension if you take the test and the results are above the legal limit.
If no suspension is imposed at the hearing, DPS must return your license; if a suspension is ordered, either automatically or after a hearing, you must submit a reinstatement fee of $125.00 to TDPS before the license will be reinstated. Because reinstatement of your license will be held up until the fee has been both
received and entered on the TDPS computer system, it is usually advised to send your fee to TDPS as soon as you find out that a suspension has been ordered.
If you neglect to request an ALR hearing, your license will DEFINITELY be suspended. By requesting a hearing you have a chance to prevent your license from being suspended. If you have been arrested for DWI you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer to protect your license. Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967
Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
Legal terminology may often be confusing, and this becomes apparent when applied to traffic laws- the ones we most commonly run afoul of. Two terms that are often intermingled are DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence). In some states the two terms are both used to describe impaired or drunken driving: in others both terms are used, with DWI referring to driving while intoxicated specifically by
alcohol and DUI being used when the driver is charged with being under
the influence of other drugs. The drugs don't necessarily have to be illegal narcotics for a DUI to be issued - they can simply be over the counter medication or prescription drugs.
In some states DUI is a lesser charge signifies a lower degree of intoxication (as determined by a
person's blood alcohol level at the time of arrest). For example, New York differentiates between DWI and DUI by establishing a blood alcohol level of .08 as the legal limit for DWI. If a person has a blood alcohol level of .07, the charges may be reduced to a DUI which carries a lesser punishment.
The distinction for the federal government is also based on severity; A
DWI is issued when the blood alcohol content (BAC) is over the 0.08
limit, whereas a DUI (a less severe term) applies when a persons BAC is
under 0.08. Because individual states have the power to regulate their own DWI/DUI laws the specifics vary across the country.
In Texas, the distinction is relatively simple: DWI is defined in Sec. 49.04. of the Texas State Penal Code and applies to any person over 21 years of age. In Texas, a person is legally intoxicated and may be arrested and
charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) with a .08 BAC (blood or
breath alcohol concentration). However, a person is also intoxicated if
impaired due to alcohol or other drugs regardless of BAC. Texas DUI specifically refers to minors (persons under the age of 21) who operate a motor
vehicle
in a public
place while having any detectable
amount of alcohol in their system. Generally, an
offense under this section is a Class C Misdemeanor.
A conviction of DWI or DUI can have serious effects on your
employment, insurance costs and many other aspects of your daily life.
If you have been charged with impaired driving you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at
(713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for more information.
Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
One of the most frequently asked questions regarding DWI stops is whether or not a driver should submit to a voluntarybreathalyzer or blood test when pulled over by the police.
Before you can be convicted of driving while intoxicated in the State of Texas, the prosecution must prove
beyond any reasonable doubt that you were operating a motor vehicle in a
public place while the alcohol level in your blood was
over the legal limit, or that you didn’t "possess normal use of your
mental and/or physical faculties".
The police are legally limited in their ability to administer certain types of
field sobriety tests, and they must rely on your cooperation when performing these tests. Field tests are not always reliable and usually cannot be forced upon a person; in fact all machines used at the roadside are inaccurate for precisely measuring alcohol concentration.
Even if you have not been drinking, several factors can produce a false positive in a field breathalyzer including recent dental work, chemical exposure, and even the Atkins Diet. People who work in the oil field or car body shops
and even manicurists are exposed to substances in their work environments which can be mislabeled as "alcohol" by the machine.
The officer may tell you that the results will not be used in court, but
this is not true: if you do consent to the roadside test and it reports
0.080 or higher,
prosecution of your criminal DWI case has become much easier.
Despite your constitutional
protections against self-incrimination, if you refuse a roadside sobriety test the officer will almost certainly arrest you. At this point you will be required to take further, more accurate tests at the police station. Things now become more complicated legally, and it is strongly suggested that you immediately exercise your right to an attorney.
Because Texas has an implied consent clause (Section 724.011 of the Texas State Transportation Code) stating that
anyone who is arrested for DWI in Texas "is deemed to have consented... to submit to the taking of one or more
specimens of the person's breath or blood for analysis to determine the
alcohol concentration or the presence in the person's body of a
controlled substance", you have automatically agreed to take an alcohol or drug test if a police
officer deems it necessary by the simple act of getting arrested. However, you still have the right to refuse the breathalyzer and the blood test. This refusal could lead to a suspension of your driving privileges
for 180 days if this is your first DWI.
If you refuse to take the breathalyzer or blood test or you accept
and fail, you have 15 days to request a hearing to save your license. If you don’t request this hearing within 15 days, you can’t stop your license from being suspended. Nonetheless, it is much harder for the prosecutor to convict you if you have refused
all sobriety tests because they don’t have any evidence to use against
you.
Police have also adopted "No Refusal" policies in some jurisdictions; if a driver refuses to give a voluntary sample, the police will seek a
warrant from a judge authorizing them to take a blood sample to determine the
driver's blood alcohol content (BAC).
Generally speaking, the attorneys at Parnham and McWilliams advise clients to refuse a roadside breathalyzer test and immediately exercise your right to an attorney unless you are 100% certain that the test will be clean.
A conviction of DWI or DUI can have serious effects on your
employment, insurance costs and many other aspects of your daily life.
If you have been charged with impaired driving you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at
(713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for more information.
Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
