As much as we criminal lawyers complain about the juvenile detention system in Washington, D.C., we sometimes forget that there are other hard-working juvenile defense attorneys in other states who have a rough go of things as well. We got to speak to Jill Ruane about some of the issues she faces in her home state of Connecticut.

What privileges do adults with mental illnesses get in Connecticut adult court vs. privileges given to New Haven juveniles in juvenile court?

To begin, I’d like point out that adult court is a different legal process than juvenile court.  That being said, in adult court, offenders with mental illnesses have access to rehabilitative programs.  One such program is Connecticut’s new Supervised Divisionary Program (SDP).  This program gives adults with mental illnesses more consideration than youthful offenders with mental illnesses receive in juvenile court.  There is no similar program for youthful offenders.  Mental illness is considered for minors only if their attorney advocates for them and informs the prosecutor of the illness during negotiation.  Unfortunately, in many cases prosecutors are not receptive to mental illnesses.

What is the Supervised Divisionary Program?

The supervised divisionary program is legislature that became law a few years ago.  The court became concerned that there was a high concentration of nonviolent mentally ill males in jail.  With overcrowded jails, the state began to wonder if these people could be moved out of jail and rehabilitated in some other way.  A program was created to get mentally ill criminals help through court intervention.  This would keep them out of jail.  The SDP mimics the accelerated rehabilitation program, which is fairly similar.

What are some requirements for the SDP?

In order to be eligible for the supervised divisionary program, you have to commit an eligible crime.  People who commit serious crimes will not be taken into consideration for the program.  The program is geared towards poor individuals that cannot afford their medication.  If individuals commit a crime because they can’t afford medication or because they are using illegal substances in order to self-medicate, they probably aren’t violent criminals.  It is their illness that makes them act out.  This generally leads to crimes such as stealing, possession of illegal substances, and breach of peace.  These offenders are generally not violent, but these crimes can carry jail time as a potential sentence.  As an alternative to jail, these individuals could qualify for the supervised divisionary program.  In order to qualify, you must also be willing to have a CSSD evaluation done and you have to abide by the recommendations of the evaluation.

How is the supervised divisionary program different from the accelerated rehabilitation program?  Do you think that it is better?

I do think that this program is better because some of the main problems in the accelerated rehabilitation program are addressed in the SDP.  For example, the accelerated rehabilitation program only allows people to participate if they have not committed prior crimes.  You can only use the accelerated rehabilitation program once.  The SDP focuses more on a long-term process of rehabilitation by allowing criminals with prior records to use the program’s resources more than once.  Long-term treatment options have been lacking in our society since the 1980s.  There are no longer real mental institutions that you can get long term care from.  Instead, you are treated short-term by hospitals and rehabilitation centers.  This program seeks to offer a more concrete and lasting treatment plan to the mentally ill.

Why is there no equivalent to the SDP in the juvenile court system?

I think that one major problem is a lack of education on the part of judges and lawyers when dealing with New Haven juveniles that have mental illnesses.  Criminal behavior can be explained by mental illnesses such as anxiety, ADHD, depression, or autism.  Autism is a big problem these days, because more and more people are being diagnosed with it.  Autism explains a lot of criminal activity by minors – even violent crimes.  The problem is that it becomes the defense attorney’s job to educate the court on why the crime occurred and how it is related to mental illness, which can be difficult.  If you spend half an hour with the offender, you know that he or she needs help.  But when you just get a police report that says the minor assaulted his neighbor, you don’t see the big picture.  The prosecutor never has direct contact with the minor.  Similarly, the judge doesn’t get the chance to speak to him or her for a very long time.  This makes it difficult for them to understand that the child has a problem.

Can you give an example of how a youthful offender with a mental illness can be misunderstood by the court?

Take the autism example.  Let’s say that hypothetically, a teenager with autism is arrested for assaulting his sibling.  This outburst could be caused by the mental illness.  Kids with autism fear direct contact and have a hard time controlling themselves once they are angered.  So if a sibling gets mad and grabs the autistic teen’s arm, he is going to react very strongly, and possibly hurt his sibling.  But this is due to his illness, not because he is malicious.  He needs treatment, not a juvenile detention hall or probation.  On top of that, the illness might impact how the offender is received by a police officer.  The New Haven juvenile offender might come across as defiant or remorseless but in reality he’s afraid and doesn’t know how to handle the situation, as people with autism are not good with social cues.  Furthermore, some people with autism are literally unable to feel remorse.  Sometimes it’s hard for police officers or prosecutors to know if the youthful offender in question has a mental illness and needs help, or if he is a smart-aleck that needs to learn a lesson.

Do you think this happens to minors with mental illnesses across the board?

Not necessarily.  I do think that public defenders see this more than we see it in the private sector.  This is because poor teenagers don’t have the same access to mental illness services as rich teenagers.  As a result, the poor suffer, and this leads to the problem that we had with mentally ill, nonviolent people in adult prisons.

So what needs to change in the juvenile court system in order to fix this problem?

First of all, people need to be educated. This includes lawyers, judges, police officers – everyone needs to have a better understanding of mental illness when dealing with New Haven juveniles.  This is the only way that mental illness can be treated properly.  The legislature also must change.  They need to create a program for poor children that don’t have the money to deal with their mental illnesses.  If we intervene at a younger age, we can help solve the problem of having mentally ill adults commit crimes.

An Oklahoma district judge’s decision to sentence a 17-year-old to ten years of church attendance has caused quite a stir in the public and legal community. Despite numerous people asking legitimate questions about whether or not this type of sentence is constitutional, Judge Mike Norman is standing by his decision.

On December 4, 2011, Tyler Alfred drove a Chevrolet pickup into a tree. His friend, 16-year-old John Dum, was a passenger in the vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident. Police officers administered two blood alcohol breath tests to Alfred. His blood alcohol level was .06 and .07 – below the .08 per se impairment threshold established under the state’s DUI law. In Oklahoma, as in most jurisdictions, if you are underage and driving under the influence of alcohol, you can still be charged with DUI even if your BAC level is below the statutory threshold. Alfred was charged with vehicular manslaughter.

During Alfred’s sentencing hearing, Judge Norman ordered him to attend church for the next 10 years, in lieu of incarceration. Alfred is also required to finish high school and attend welding school. Apparently, the victim’s family agreed to the sentence.

Alfred’s criminal defense attorney also didn’t have a problem with Judge Norman’s sentence. The attorney stated that Alfred already attends church on a regular basis, so it will not be a problem for him to comply with the terms of the sentence.

Alfred’s attorney said that even though the sentence terms are unusual, he is not going to challenge it as unlawful or unconstitutional. As a criminal defense attorney, the priority is to get a client’s charges dismissed, get an acquittal at trial, or fight for minimal sentence terms upon conviction. From the perspective of Alfred’s attorney, a requirement that Alfred attend church and finish school rather than spend years in prison is a preferred outcome.

Judge Norman has ordered other criminal defendants to attend church, but it was never for a case that involved manslaughter, according to Assistant District Attorney Jim Carnagey. The seriousness of the charges against Alfred is also one of the reasons why Judge Norman’s church sentence has received national attention.

The U.S. Constitution requires a separation of church and state but Judge Norman has claimed that the Lord appears through him and the court. The judge attends a Baptist church in Oklahoma and believes that he has led more people to Jesus than has his preacher. As a judge in a criminal court, is it Judge Norman’s job to lead people to Jesus and require them to attend church? Of course not.Judge Norman has admitted that his sentence probably would not hold up if it was legally challenged; nevertheless, he firmly believes his decision was right in this case.

Even though religion is an important part of many people’s lives, as an officer of the court a judge is supposed to separate his personal religious views from how he decides the issues in a case. A representative from the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union stated that this type of sentence is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Since none of the interested parties in this case – the prosecutor, Tyler Alfred, Tyler Alfred’s attorney, the victim’s family – appear to have a problem with this sentence, the constitutional validity of the judge’s sentence will likely not be challenged.

If you have been charged with a DUI or violent offense, contact an attorney with our firm. Schedule a consultation so that your case can be evaluated. A DC DUI lawyer will explain your rights and help you reach the best resolution possible for your case.

New York State Senator Malcolm Smith, along with five other politicians, are facing charges in a public corruption probe initiated by the FBI.  Authorities arrested Smith and New York City Councilman Dan Halloran at their homes Tuesday morning. Officials also arrested Bronx Republican Chairman Jay Savino and Queens GOP vice chairman Vincent Tabone. Also facing charges are Noramie Jasmin, the mayor of Spring Valley, and her deputy mayor, Joseph Desmaret. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said, in a statement, that Smith attempted to bribe his way to victory in the upcoming New York City mayoral race. The alleged scheme dates all the way back to 2011.

If you’ve ever been involved in a domestic dispute, you understand firsthand what a contentious issue domestic violence can be within the household, for law enforcement, and in the courtroom. Choking is recognized as a common form of violence used in domestic violence cases. Due to a lack of evidence often associated with choking cases, the punishment inflicted on those convicted tends to be rather minor. In order to impose more severe punishments for choking incidences, thirty states have initiated measures that permit choking or strangulation to be classified as a felony criminal offense.

Choking or strangulation impedes the ability to breathe and can reduce the amount of oxygen flowing to the brain. As a result, choking can cause permanent brain damage and other physical injuries. A major complaint of police officers and prosecutors is that enough physical evidence isn’t involved in these cases to support pursuing charges of a higher offense. When the violent act is only prosecuted as a misdemeanor, there is the fear that the offender will likely repeat the violent act against the victim since the criminal punishment is minor. People who support the legislation believe that choking should be a felonious act since it can cause severe medical complications for the victim and in some incidences it can cause a victim to nearly die.

Criminal punishment for misdemeanors does not exceed more than one year in jail. Punishments may also include paying a fine, probation, and enrollment in a program that addresses domestic violence or anger management issues. Felonies are considered more dangerous or serious crimes that can entail multiple years in prison, higher fines, and strict parole terms.

If you believe in the theory that harsher punishments deter crime or reduce repeat offenses, then it can be argued that enacting the felony choking legislation is justifiable. But criminal defense attorneys and anyone who has ever been falsely accused of domestic violence charges have expressed some concerns with the new laws. The way the law is enforced could cause a lot of harm, especially when false accusations are made and significant physical evidence doesn’t need to be presented in order to pursue felony charges.

Domestic violence cases are so difficult to handle because they involve people who have strong personal ties to each other. Those relationships tend to have a history of divisiveness that existed for quite a bit of time before law enforcement ever got involved. Criminal and constitutional laws are created to not only protect victims and the general public but to also protect the rights of the accused. Making sure the law enforcement and judicial systems maintain a sense of fairness is a priority for many criminal defense attorneys. If cases can be prosecuted as felony offenses based on a person’s testimony and with very little physical evidence to support the claims, it could undermine the criminal justice system.

Domestic violence victims need the support of law enforcement and prosecutors, but reducing the burden of proof required in choking cases can jeopardize the ability of the accused to protect their rights and adequately assert their innocence in a court of law. If you are facing domestic violence charges and need legal assistance, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Fighting the criminal charges without a strong advocate on your side can seriously put your freedom and livelihood at risk.

Over the weekend, the Metropolitan Police Department arrested 60 people for what’s referred to as “prostitution-related crimes.”  This term encompasses both the solicitation of customers seeking to receive sexual favors in exchange for money and the offering of payment for sexual acts or contact.  The recent roundup of suspects included not just “street-level” offenders but also those using hotels or internet services such as Eros and Backpage.

MPD’s heavy crackdown on prostitution in the District can be traced back to the establishment of “Prostitution-Free Zones” back in 2006.  This law allow for the arrests of individuals whom police “reasonably believe” are engaging in prostitution-related crimes within zones designated by the city as high-prostitution areas, which is a lower standard than what is typically required for a prostitution arrests.  The areas that had been designated as Prostitution-Free Zones were usually in heavily-trafficked downtown commercial areas, and their status as Zones quickly became common knowledge amongst sex workers.  As a result, people one sees in these areas who appear to be offering sexual favors for money are more often than not going to be undercover police officers.  These undercover officers do not need to wait for prospective “clients” to initiate contact; they can make the initial approach to any unsuspecting person on the street, even if the person had no intention of seeking out a prostitute.

Since the establishment of Prostitution-Free Zones, there is little evidence that prostitution or solicitation has actually decreased in the District.  Rather, it appears to have moved away from the highly-visible downtown commercial areas into residential parts of the city.  As last weekend shows, MPD has no intention on easing their enforcement of prostitution laws.  Arrests of suspects believed to be soliciting sex for money are still being made frequently downtown, but the whole city is subject to the crackdown.  Regardless of whether you are accused of prostitution or soliciting someone to engage in prostitution, it’s important to have a D.C. criminal lawyer to help you defend your rights and push for a favorable outcome to your case that will limit your penalties to the greatest extent possible.

Law enforcement is not able to solve every crime that is committed. When they are not able to collect enough clues to solve the case or they are not able to track down a suspect, the case grows cold. Every now and then, they will get a break in the case and it will be reopened. Nashville law enforcement authorities got the break they needed for 17-year-old unsolved murder case when a convict named James Washington confessed to the crime on his deathbed. Unfortunately for Washington, his misinterpretation of the law and miraculous recovery led to him getting convicted and sentenced for the murder.

In 2009, James Washington suffered a heart attack while serving time in prison for another unrelated crime. Washington believed he was going to die from the heart attack. When Washington was being transported to the hospital, he told one of the prison guards that he beat a woman to death. The prison guard informed police authorities about Washington’s confession.

In 1995, Nashville police investigated the murder of a woman named Joyce Goodener. Washington stabbed Goodener in the neck, bludgeoned her to death with a cinder block and set her body on fire. The police found Goodener’s body in an empty house.

Nashville police knew that Washington met with Goodener on the day of her murder. Washington was considered a “person of interest” in the case, but the police didn’t have enough evidence to press criminal charges against him. Since there were no other likely suspects, the murder remained unsolved for years.

Washington was never tried or punished for the crime and was seeking forgiveness when he made the confession. If Washington didn’t die, he assumed he was still safe from prosecution based on the mistaken belief that a statute of limitations applied to the case. He thought the statute of limitations ran out and it would prevent the government from pursuing a criminal case against him. In Tennessee as well as in other states, a statute of limitations isn’t usually applicable to serious criminal offenses such as murder.

After Washington made a full recovery from the heart attack, he tried to take back the confession. But it was too late. The confession was what law enforcement needed to reopen the Joyce Goodener’s murder case. Washington will now serve a life sentence after being convicted for Goodener’s murder. There is no indication that Washington ever spoke of the murder prior to his deathbed confession. If Washington didn’t make the confession to the prison guard, he could have served his time for the other crime and then been released from prison. But now he is serving a life sentence.

The value of speaking with a criminal defense attorney should never be underestimated. One of the most important rights a person has is the right to protect oneself against self-incrimination. This means that you should not reveal any information about a criminal case without your attorney present. Many people misinterpret laws or assume things will work in their favor and operate under the assumption that it will prevent them from being charged or convicted of a crime. Whenever you are facing the possibility of being charged with a crime, the stakes are too high to make decisions on your own without an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side.

What are the different drug schedules?

Under the law, there are five different schedules of drugs. These schedules are set up based upon two basic criteria. The first is the potential for abuse or addiction of that drug and the second is the current medical use of that drug, meaning whether or not the drug currently has an accepted medical use within the scientific community. Schedule I includes drugs that are highly addictive or highly subject to abuse and do not have a recognized medical use, an example of which would be heroin. Marijuana is also placed in Schedule I even though the potential for addiction seems to be relatively low and there actually are many documented medical uses for marijuana. Nonetheless, the government has maintained over many years that marijuana is a Schedule I drug. An example of a Schedule II substance would be cocaine. Cocaine actually has benzocaine, lidocaine, and other similar drugs in it that do have medical uses. Therefore, even though it is highly addictive, it’s in Schedule II. Other drugs such as Vicodin, Percocet, and Valium will be in different levels based upon how medically useful are they versus how addictive they are. The commonality between them all is that if it is on the schedule, whether it is in Schedule I, II, III, IV, or V, it is a controlled substance. For example, if you buy Advil at a pharmacy, it’s not a controlled substance because you can buy it over the counter. It’s not illegal to possess it even if you can’t document why you have it. In order to have drugs like Vicodin or Valium, however, you would need to have a prescription because you have to have a reason for possessing those drugs. Again, there is no prescription for other drugs such as heroin or cocaine, so there is no valid medical basis for having them. That is how the schedules work. Anything that is listed on a schedule will be a controlled substance such that if you possess it and do not have a valid prescription for it, then it is deemed to be unlawful.

In DC, if someone is caught with a significant amount of cold medicine, would that be considered possession since they have the potential to make meth with it?

That is an interesting question. If the drug itself is not controlled, then possession of any amount of it should not be against the law. However, if, for example, you are possessing a large quantity of one of the root chemicals used in the manufacture of ecstasy, then even if the possession of that root chemical itself is not illegal because it’s not on a schedule, if they can substantiate that the evidence indicates that you are manufacturing an illegal drug, then they can charge you with possession with the intent to manufacture an illegal substance.

Professional football players are viewed by most fans as gods among men; titans here on earth who go to battle every week in intense matches that require both physical and mental stamina. The unfortunate truth is that nobody is perfect, and even the strongest players can succumb to emotional difficulties.

Two NFL players who have been making headlines recently for their personal issues are Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson and Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, for assault and domestic abuse matters, respectively.

As Sports Illustrated reports, Peterson pleaded no contest Tuesday to reckless assault. He was originally charged with felony child abuse for hitting his son with a switch. Peterson—who has also lost lucrative sponsors– was placed on the NFL’s exempt list while his legal matters play out. The NFL rejected Peterson’s request for immediate reinstatement following his plea agreement and a decision on his status as a player is forthcoming.

According to The New York Times, Ray Rice is appealing a case over his suspension and later barring from the NFL after hitting his then-fiancée Janay Palmer, who is now his wife. Rice argues that he was penalized twice for the same thing, since he was suspended for two games when the incident first occurred and was then barred indefinitely when a video of the elevator assault went viral.

Domestic assault is a serious issue, but it is important for our criminal justice system to handle such matters without violating the rights of the accused. Overzealous punishment does not necessarily solve the deeper issues at hand in domestic violence cases. Oftentimes, those who are accused have deep-rooted emotional instabilities and are better served by seeking therapy and other forms of treatment than by extreme penalties imposed by the courts or the organizations who employ them.

As a criminal defense law firm devoted to fighting for the rights of the accused in domestic assault and other criminal cases, we hope that both Peterson and Rice receive the same fair treatment afforded to individuals who are not in the celebrity spotlight. Working in the public arena is accompanied by a unique set of challenges and stresses, and we are confident that any professional athlete who finds himself in hot water over domestic abuse, assault, or other issues would be well-served by finding the help they need to treat their emotional difficulties rather than suffering from arbitrarily harsh penalties imposed by the leagues that employ them.

UPDATE: Oct. 3, 2014: The plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit that brought about the District of Columbia’s new concealed carry law have asked the federal judge who reviewed the matter to block the law’s implementation, according to the website guns.com. The motion in Palmer v. D.C. challenges the structure of the recently revised Washington, DC gun laws. The plaintiffs were successful in their bid to challenge the city’s ban on handguns outside the home in the District, with U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin striking down the DC law last July and giving the District 90 days to either appeal or adopt gun licensing laws that adhere to constitutional requirements.  The DC council last month approved by unanimous vote a may-issue permitting or licensing process that gun advocates feel is too restrictive for those applying for a concealed carry permit. The challenge against the new regulations was filed Thursday, October 2, 2014.

July 28, 2014

The fight over gun control in Washington, DC continues to develop as a District Court Judge announced a decision Saturday that DC’s ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. stated that the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry guns outside of the home for self-defense. The suit that prompted this ruling was originally filed in 2009 by the nonprofit Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of three District of Columbia residents and one New Hampshire resident. The complainants felt that their Second Amendment rights were being violated by DC’s gun laws, which were amended following a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down the city’s total ban on carrying ready-to-use handguns in public, because they wanted to carry a gun for protection but could not get a permit.

Prior to the 2008 ruling, a 32-year-long handgun ban had been strongly in place in the District of Columbia. The new laws required residents to register their guns and keep them in their homes. Gun owners were also required to take a safety class, be photographed and fingerprinted, and re-register their weapons every three years. Those requirements were challenged in court in May but were upheld by a federal judge.

Judge Scullin’s decision cited the 2008 court case as well as a 2010 ruling involving Chicago’s handgun ban. He wrote, “There is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.” Scullin also wrote in his ruling that he was stopping enforcement of the 2008 law “unless and until” the city adopted a constitutionally valid licensing mechanism.

DC police officers were instructed Sunday not to enforce the laws prohibiting the carrying of guns in public. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier gave an order that District residents are permitted to carry pistols if the weapons are registered. However, the number of registered pistols is thought to be low, and a person caught carrying an unregistered pistol could be charged on those grounds. Lanier’s instructions to police also included that residents of other jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying pistols.

However, according to Ted Gest, the spokesman for the District’s Office of the Attorney General, this ruling may not be upheld for long. Gest defended the handgun ban in court, and said they will be “seeking a stay shortly.” Many officials find this ruling troubling and are also hoping to seek a stay on the ruling while they begin the process of appealing it. The city’s Attorney General, who defended the gun bans, said, “protecting government officials and infrastructure is a challenge in every city,” but even greater in DC. He believes that allowing people to carry handguns would make it “far more difficult” for police to ensure public safety and security.

The fact that the District of Columbia is our nation’s capital and the site of innumerable government agency offices does not mean that DC residents have different constitutional rights and protections than all other American citizens. Luckily, it seems that their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms will be protected, at least for now.

 If you are facing gun charges in DC, contact one of our lawyers for a free case evaluation. 

Earlier this month, the DC City Council voted unanimously to advance a bill that would permit many persons previously convicted of a crime that is now decriminalized or legalized the ability to seal all record of their arrests and related court proceedings. The bill, titled the “Record Sealing for Decriminalized and Legalized Offenses Amendment Act of 2014,” was first introduced in September 2013 in an effort to allow those convicted of non-violent, marijuana possession offenses to seal their criminal records. The council’s Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety amended the bill in September 2014 to expand its coverage to any offense which has been decriminalized or legalized since the date of conviction. The bill will require a second vote by the council, signature by the mayor, and a successful congressional review period before it takes effect. Needless to say, for those facing the consequences of a misdemeanor or felony marijuana possession arrest or conviction, the law would provide much needed relief.

Record Sealing Under the Old Law

For nearly a decade, defendants who were convicted of misdemeanor marijuana possession were considered eligible for a record sealing motion only after a period of eight years from the date they were released from jail or probation and only after they had paid all fines to the court. Defendants convicted of felony marijuana possession could not seal their records under any circumstance. Consequently, many of these defendants were unable to find employment despite being well-qualified, rent an apartment despite a history of on-time rent payments, or attend educational programs and obtain a degree despite prior success in schooling.

Recording Sealing Under the New Law

The new law will open a new way forward for many of these people who have suffered serious roadblocks and overly punitive punishment. A defendant’s arrest, charge, or conviction must have been decriminalized or legalized after the date of the arrest in order for it to be eligible for consideration under the new law. Furthermore, a defendant’s motion to seal may only be granted if the defendant was not initially arrested for or charged with a more serious crime in conjunction with the decriminalized offense. For example, if a defendant was initially charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, an offense that is still illegal in the District, but later pleaded guilty to simple possession of marijuana, an offense which is decriminalized, the plea-bargained charge would not meet eligibility requirements for the individual to have the record sealed.  However, the law also requires the government to prove that the defendant’s conduct has not been decriminalized or legalized; meaning that if a defendant files a motion to seal a misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction and the government fails to prove the defendant was originally arrested for felony distribution, the motion will still be granted.

If a defendant’s offense qualifies for sealing under the new law, the judge who reviews the defendant’s motion must seal all records of the offense. This is a change from the old record sealing law, in which judges were offered great discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a defendant’s motion. This often led to inequitable results in which similarly situated defendants were treated much differently by judges depending on the individual judge’s view of record sealing.

Effective Record Sealing and Expungement

The new law is a huge improvement over the old record sealing law for those looking to put a troubled past behind them and start anew. It addresses many of the issues that the original law failed to address and will provide defendants who were denied relief under the old law with a real chance to move on with their lives and complete their path to success.

Oct. 21, 2014 — UPDATE: Oscar Pistorius was sentenced today to five years in prison for the culpable homicide of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp and received a three-year sentence for negligently discharging a firearm in a crowded restaurant, though that term was suspended, according to The Guardian UK. The British newspaper noted that Pistorius looked distressed and clasped hands with family members as police led the Paralympian from the dock down 23 steps to the holding cells below the high court in Pretoria. The world famous athlete had faced the possibility of 15 years behind bars when he was formally sentenced by Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa, who said Tuesday that it is a judge’s duty to impose a sentence that is neither too harsh, nor too light. An attorney representing Steenkamp’s parents said Pistorius will likely qualify for parole and serve two years in prison, with the remaining three years under house arrest.

—

Oct. 13, 2014 – UPDATE: The sentencing phase of Oscar Pistorius’ trial began today. According to The New York Times, the sentencing hearing began with Pistorius’ defense team requesting leniency from Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa.

Defense witnesses described Pistorius as “a broken man” and his attorneys requested a punishment of house arrest and community service with no jail time. The sentence is ultimately up to the discretion of Judge Masipa and could range anywhere from a fine to 15 years in prison.

—

Sept. 12, 2014 – UPDATE: Related to this matter, Oscar Pistorius was found guilty today of culpable homicide for the shooting death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Feb. 14, 2013.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Judge Masipa – who cleared Pistorius of two murder charges yesterday – convicted Pistorius of the lesser charge of culpable homicide, which is negligent, unintentional killing. Pistorius could face no jail time at all or significant time behind bars depending on how reckless the judge deems his actions.

The judge cleared Pistorius of two firearms charges in connection with other incidents – recklessly firing a weapon out of the sunroof of a car and illegal possession of ammunition – but convicted him of a third charge of recklessly discharging a firearm in a public place. The charge was related to an event where Pistorius says a gun accidently went off in his hand.

A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13.

—

A judge established Thursday that South African track star Oscar Pistorius is not guilty of murder for the shooting death of his model girlfriend, 29-year-old Reeva Steenkamp. According to The New York Times, Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa cleared Pistorius of the two most serious charges against him – premeditated murder and another, lesser charge of murder.

Charges were brought against Pistorious after he shot and killed Steenkamp through the bathroom door of his villa in Pretoria, the capital of South Africa, thinking that she was an intruder. Pistorius, who is a double amputee, stated that he thought he heard the sound of the bathroom window opening and, believing there was an intruder in his bathroom, made his way down a darkened hallway before firing on the locked bathroom door. Pistorius then broke down the door with a cricket bat and discovered Steenkamp’s body inside.

In the South African judicial system there are no jury trials, therefore Judge Masipa, assisted by two aides, will render a verdict on her own for all charges against Pistorius. According to South African procedures, the judgment includes a summary of the facts, a breakdown of the evidence, and a verdict for each individual charge. Judge Masipa suspended court proceedings for the remainder of the day following her ruling clearing Pistorius of the two murder charges and adjourned the hearing until Friday before issuing a verdict on the charge of culpable homicide, which is considered the negligent killing of another person and is similar to the criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter in the U.S. The penalty for culpable homicide is at the discretion of the judge, but can range anywhere from no jail time to 15 years behind bars. Pistorius also faces three counts of firearms charges.

In her judgment, Judge Masipa dismissed much of the prosecution’s evidence aimed at highlighting the tumultuous relationship between Pistorius and Steenkamp in order to establish motive, stating that normal relationships are “dynamic and unpredictable.” Some of that evidence included text messages that were exchanged between the couple and testimony from neighbors who claimed they heard a man and a woman arguing before the shots were fired.

Judge Masipa stated that there is no doubt about the fact that Pistorius picked up and fired a loaded gun, but that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of premeditated murder. The most credible part of Pistorius’ testimony, according to Masipa, is that he genuinely believed that someone had broken into his home and was hiding in the bathroom when he shot and killed Steenkamp.

In being cleared of the murder charges, Pistorius has avoided a possible jail sentence of up to 25 years, although he may still face some time in jail if found guilty of the homicide charge.

As a firm dedicated to protecting the accused from unjust punishments, we are intrigued as to how this South African justice system will handle the outcome of Pistorius’ case and we will update this blog when more information becomes available.

In a response to the ongoing controversy sparked by the police shooting of an unarmed black team in Ferguson, MO, the Metropolitan Police Department has joined several other agencies across the country in the move to test our body-mounted cameras on patrol officers. The MPD will launch a six month citywide pilot program, starting October 1. WJLA quoted MPD Director of Communications Gwendolyn Crump said the program’s planning has been going on for the past 18 months and the initiative will be publicly announced soon.

The body camera pilot program’s details were discussed Wednesday at a stakeholder meeting with police, lawyers, and civil liberties advocates, according to the Washington Times.

DC is among several other cities implementing similar body camera programs. The New York City Police Department announced Thursday that it is launching a pilot program to test sixty body-mounted cameras.  New York City Police Commissioner, William Bratton, believes that the cameras will soon be a part of an officer’s every day attire, including radios and bulletproof vests.

The Metropolitan Police Department says that $1 million of District funds were withdrawn in May to purchase the body cameras.  So far, they have received 250 cameras according. The Ferguson Police Department received a donation for cameras for every police officer on their force.

Reports of excessive force, police brutality, and racial profiling have severely tarnished Ferguson’s image and have shed light on on-going problems not only in Missouri, but throughout the country. The extreme police brutality that lead to Michael Brown’s death — as well has the inept handling of the events following his slaying — has subjected the area’s law enforcement agencies to extreme scrutiny.

There are two schools of thought on the body cameras, with one group maintaining that use of the body cameras will cause police officers to think twice before using excessive force. Conversely, the cameras may also provide clear cut evidence of events involving use of force. In the case of Brown’s shooting, for example, a camera would likely have shown if he rushed the officer repeatedly, as the officer has claimed, or if he was backing away with his hands in the air, as numerous witnesses have described, when he was shot and killed.

DC Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it very succinctly when she was quoted by the Washington Times as saying, “One of my top priorities is to implement a pilot project to test the use of body cameras for our police officers, a tool that more police agencies are using to establish a record of police actions. These records can help to protect the public in cases of officer misconduct. It also protects officers from spurious complaints.”  The District’s Police Complaints Board has endorsed the department’s decision to go ahead with the pilot program.

Many questions remain, including whether or not the images will be made available to the public, or to an individual or their attorney if they have a claim of brutality or use of force against an officer in relation to their arrest. But the pilot program, at least on the surface, seems an obvious step in the right direction. It is too early to say whether or not this pilot program will cause changes regarding racial profiling, police brutality, and excessive force amongst police officers.  However, one could imagine how differently certain situations — like the death of Michael Brown — could turn out to be if body cameras are available and in use.

Singer Chris Brown pleaded guilty Tuesday to misdemeanor assault for hitting a fan outside the W Hotel on Oct. 27. According to the Washington Post, prosecutors did not ask for jail time and instead requested that the judge sentence 25-year-old Brown to time served in exchange for the guilty plea.

Brown was accused of punching Parker Adams in the face after Adams tried to join a photo the singer was taking with two female fans. Brown’s bodyguard, 35-year-old Christopher Hollosy, was also accused of hitting Adams during the incident and was found guilty in a separate trial in April. Hollosy, who was supposed to serve as a key witness in Brown’s trial, declined to testify out of concern that his testimony might jeopardize his own appeal.

Judge A. Franklin Burgess Jr. agreed not to order any jail time as part of Brown’s plea deal, stating that Brown has suffered the consequences of what he has done. Brown already served two days in a DC jail after his arrest, as well as three months in a California jail and four months in an anger management rehabilitation center for violating the terms of his probation for the 2009 assault of Brown’s then-girlfriend and pop star Rihanna. As a result of the incident in downtown DC, Brown’s probation was extended until 2015 and he has about 500 community service hours left to complete as part of that sentence. So far, he seems to be doing well, obtaining negative results in his court-mandated, random drug tests from the 2009 assault case. As a result, his testing has been reduced from three times per week to two.

Brown’s guilty plea may end his criminal battle in the District, but the singer’s legal woes are not completely over. Adams has filed a $1.5 million civil suit against Brown and Hollosy. The lawsuit alleges that Adams suffered a fractured nose and other injuries to his face as a result of the incident.

Brown’s admission of guilt in the criminal case will surely hinder his defense in the pending civil case against him. His conviction will also be a factor for prosecutors and judges to consider should Brown once again find himself in legal trouble in the future.

Clearly, there are myriad consequences that can accompany criminal charges in Washington, DC. Fortunately for Brown, the court understood that he had already suffered punishment for his wrongdoing and did not use his celebrity status as an opportunity to make an example of him. If Brown’s criminal case had gone to trial, he could have potentially faced up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Thanks to the word of his criminal defense attorney, Brown was able to work out an acceptable arrangement with the prosecution.

If you are facing assault or other criminal charges in the district, contact an attorney to schedule a free case consultation.

By Julia Cole, Junior Editor 

It is becoming increasingly easy for Washingtonians to avoid last-minute beer runs by requesting that alcohol be delivered to their home with just a swipe of a finger. Two smartphone app-based services that deliver beer, wine, and liquor to one’s doorstep have been approved to begin operations in DC by the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA), according to Washingtonian Magazine.

Drizly, which advertises a delivery window of 20-40 minutes, already operates in Boston, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It is one of two at-home alcohol delivery services that were found to be compliant with regulations set forth by ABRA. Klink, a similar delivery service, also offers daily deals and a “party summons” option for users in search of drinking partners. Both apps use a scanning function to verify a user’s identification.

ABRA’s new guidelines regulating unlicensed online and app-based alcohol services were released Thursday. The full regulations can be found in this pdf. The ruling allows the services to facilitate the sale of alcohol by “connecting consumers over the Internet to District retailers such as liquor and grocery stores and/or promoting a retailer’s alcoholic products.”

The delivery services are also subject to strict limitations according to the guidelines. They are prohibited from “soliciting, selling, and shipping orders for alcoholic beverages; storing alcoholic beverages for sale to consumers; and collecting any money, fees, or transacting any credit or debit cards for the sale of alcoholic beverages.”

The services are required to transfer any credit or debit card information to a liquor-licensed retailer in order to complete a transaction. The retailers may approve or deny any order at their discretion.

Ultra, a similar delivery service that was operating in the District, was shut down by ABRA in June because it was processing payments itself instead of passing the orders to its partner stores. According to the Washington Post, the service’s new operations process falls in line with ABRA’s ruling and the app plans to re-launch in the District soon.

The growing number of alcohol delivery services in the area means that DC residents will no longer have to send friends or family members out on beer runs after they have potentially already consumed alcohol. Should one run out of adult beverages while entertaining guests in their home, they may now just pull up an app on their smartphone and with a couple taps of their fingertips, request a fresh batch of booze. The growing number of such services could have the added benefit of lowering the amount of DUI offenses in the District since people will no longer have to venture out themselves in search of more drinks. Now that safety and convenience are taken care of, it looks like DC residents may party on responsibly.

Aug. 6, 2014

Music fans in America and Canada will have to wait for the much-discussed reunion between Drake and Chris Brown. The singers were scheduled to perform together at the OVO Fest 2014 in Canada, which is Drake’s home country, for the first time since a widely publicized feud between the pair seemed to finally be settled. Media sites are reporting that the budding “bromance” and planned show, while expected to be wildly popular with rap, hip hop, and R&B music fans, would not carry the kind of weight needed to overcome Canada’s strict policies in regard to denying entry to non-citizens convicted of violent criminal felonies.

Chris Brown, as you may or may not know, was convicted in 2009 of assaulting his then-girlfriend and music sensation Rihanna. That conviction was followed by a number of alleged probation violations. He is currently awaiting trial on an assault case in Washington, DC in which he – along with his bodyguard – stands accused of attacking a man who tried to take a photo of him outside of the W Hotel last Halloween. The charge, originally filed as a felony, has been since been reduced to a misdemeanor.

Aside from what seems like his never-ending legal woes, Brown has suffered in many ways since his 2009 conviction. Though numerous fans still support him, he certainly lost a few. And the ensuing coverage of the incident triggered a sharp drop in business opportunities, according to interviews he has given over the last several years.

Certainly the average individual arrested and convicted of assault is not worried about potential record sales loss. They should, however, be concerned about damage to their reputation and current or future employment. Being barred entry into certain countries, including Canada and those within the UK, is just one of many potential complications that can arise from a criminal conviction. Such a mark on one’s record can prevent people from qualifying for certain background and security checks required of many jobs in the DC Region. Criminal convictions can derail loan applications or thwart clearance for rental agreements and can even result in expulsion from certain colleges and universities, or a denial of an application and scholarships.

Brown, who is only now 25, has spent five years in a very public struggle with alleged anger control issues, stints in rehab, and various probation violation issues. While some may argue that all publicity is good publicity, and that bad publicity is even better in the rap and R&B world, it seems likely that are a number of music executives and companies that have considered and rejected the idea of working with Brown based on his various troubles.

As a criminal defense firm that advocates on behalf of those accused and convicted of crimes, we would like to point out that Brown deserves the same consideration as any other defendant in this country and bans or restrictions on his ability to earn a living are not lot likely to help him overcome what appear to be issues related largely to having too much fame and money at a young age. We would also note many people convicted of serious crimes, particularly in their youth, do go on to redeem themselves by staying out of trouble. When people are successful in these efforts, they deserve the opportunity to have their records expunged, or cleared of all charges. Expungement is probably the single most effective way to eliminate negative fallout triggered by having a criminal record. If you have a past criminal offense on your record and would like to learn more about having your record sealed or expunged, contact a defense attorney.

UPDATE: A federal judge today issued a 90-day stay on his decision to invalidate Washington DC’s long-time ban on handguns.

The stay was issued after DC police and city officials asked for more time to respond to the federal court’s decision, which was handed down Saturday by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. The DC Attorney General promptly filed for a stay pending an appeal, or at least to give elected officials time to revise the city’s gun laws. In the filing, the District of Columbia’s attorneys said the lead attorney for the plaintiffs did not object to a 90-day delay as long as the DC Council was working to enact new legislation. In his order issued today, Scullin said he would give the council until Oct. 22 to decide if and how to revamp current laws in a way that would be “consistent with the court’s ruling.”

As previously reported on this blog yesterday, the federal judge’s ruling this weekend stated that the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry guns outside of the home for self-defense and that the District of Columbia’s existing ban was a clear violation of that constitutional right.

The suit that prompted the ruling was originally filed in 2009. In their filing, the complainants argued their Second Amendment rights were being violated by DC’s gun laws, which were amended following a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down a total ban on carrying ready-to-use handguns in public, because they could not get a permit under the current law to legally carry a firearm in public.

Prior to the 2008 ruling, a total handgun ban had been in place for 32 years. After the 2008 ruling, the law required residents to register their guns and keep them in their homes. Gun owners were also required to take a safety class, be photographed and fingerprinted, and re-register their weapons every three years. Those requirements were challenged in May, but were upheld by a federal judge.

Judge Scullin’s decision cited the 2008 court case as well as a 2010 ruling involving Chicago’s handgun ban. As a result of Saturday’s ruling, DC police officers were initially instructed not to enforce laws prohibiting the carrying of guns in public as long as they were registered.

In answer to the question posed in the title of this blog, one can assume that DC’s ban on guns in public applies as long as the stay remains in place. Therefore, those of you with registered weapons would be wise to refrain from carrying your gun in public in the District of Columbia, at least until the matter is settled in October. In the meantime, city officials, and many others, will have to work out answers to a number of legal questions prompted by the ruling. This includes whether or not the elimination of the handgun ban would grants people the right to carry handguns on the National Mall or at the White House, or in the vicinity of a presidential motorcade or similar event.

If you are facing gun charges in DC, contact our office today for a free case evaluation with one of  our skilled defense attorneys. 

This is an update to a blog we posted yesterday, and only further strengthens our conviction that information regarding the use of unknown lethal injection drugs should be turned over immediately.

Yesterday’s post focused on the case of Joseph Wood, a death row inmate in Arizona who was granted a stay of execution by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based upon arguments by Wood’s lawyer that he had a First Amendment right to information regarding the manner in which he was to be put to death. The Supreme Court late Tuesday overruled that stay, and denied another request for a stay, sealing Mr. Wood’s fate.

Today, we awoke to the horrific news that Mr. Woods was executed by Arizona state prison officials late Wednesday and his death appears to have been a tortured one.

The botched execution took more than 90 minutes, some estimates put it at about two hours, as Woods gasped and snorted before death finally took him. The gruesome development prompted the state’s governor to order an immediate investigation. The Arizona State Supreme Court has mandated the preservation of whatever drugs were leftover following the execution.

Botched executions are, sadly, nothing new in the United States. Two similar cases have taken place within the past year alone, including the death of an inmate in Ohio whose botched execution has been linked to the same supply of fatal drugs that were used in Wood’s execution Wednesday night. This is fueling an already hot national debate on capital punishment. The cases highlight the usual ethical and moral issues. The punishing and drawn-out deaths also draw attention to the unpredictable outcomes of lethal injection and other barbaric methods that have been used in various states, from gas chambers to hanging.

In addition to the political forces that are gearing up on both sides of the debate, no doubt new legal arguments are brewing as other inmates, and their attorneys, seek to uncover basic information about the drugs being used to execute prisoners and the people administering those drugs. Hopefully, those efforts will prove successful.

We can also hope that someday the United States, as a civilized nation, could come to the same understanding as many of our counterparts in the UK and Europe; capital punishment is not only financially prohibitive but also a poor response to violent crime. Though proponents worry that abolishment of the death penalty could lead to a free-for-all of violent crime, statistics in many countries that have already done away with the practice prove otherwise. Justice certainly should be sought when law are broken. But we must ask ourselves at what point do we stop equating justice with revenge?

The Supreme Court vacated a federal appellate court ruling to stay the execution of an Arizona man Tuesday, despite concerns that remain regarding the secrecy that surrounds the lethal injection process. Joseph Wood was sentenced to death in 1991 for shooting his ex-girlfriend and her father, both of whom died. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in place, Arizona authorities are now set to proceed with his execution at any time.

Tuesday’s ruling was a devastating blow to First Amendment arguments centering on the lack of information available, or provided, to inmates and the public regarding lethal injection drugs used in executions in the U.S. It seems to this criminal defense firm that asking the state to provide basic details of its execution methods would be, to use a flippant term, a no-brainer, particularly in light of recent reports of botched executions. A three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals apparently agreed, ordering the stay against Wood’s execution until the state released the necessary information, according to the Washington Post. The full court later went on to uphold the decision on Monday, allowing the stay to remain in effect. However, in a pair of brief orders released late Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the stay and denied a request for a stay of execution, effectively sealing Wood’s fate.

Though some may argue SCOTUS’ ruling puts an end to the debate, criminal defense attorneys and those opposed to the death penalty would disagree. Serious ethical, moral and legal questions remain regarding the withholding of information on death penalty procedures. It’s important to note that though Wood’s case may not have proved successful in the courts, it certain highlighted the issue of whether the death penalty should be upheld for the American public.

Certainly, there have been recent successes in this area, including one federal judge’s ruling last week that California’s death penalty is unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Cormac J. Carney said the system in that state is so broken, leaving executions to take upwards of 20 years, that the death penalty unfairly leaves inmates with uncertain fates and is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Political forces on both sides of the issue are already gearing up in light of the recent rulings, and the issue is not likely to be settled any time soon. In the meantime, we will continue to focus on fighting for the rights of the accused, and those already convicted. Though Washington, DC is among those jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty, we remain concerned about the fates of thousands of inmates in other states across the country who are awaiting execution. We can only hope that someday justice in this matter will prevail in every state, and throughout all levels of the American criminal justice system.

If you or your loved one have been charged with a crime, contact the law office today to schedule a free, initial consultation.

The battle wages on in the House of Representatives over Washington, DC’s gun and drug laws. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to a spending bill that, if passed, would make DC’s gun laws largely obsolete. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) introduced the bill, which would prohibit the city from enforcing the current gun laws, meaning no enforcement of requiring registration, banning high-capacity magazines, certain assault weapons, and forbidding residents from carrying guns outside their homes.

Massie’s amendment, which passed by a voice vote, comes after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) failed to push a similar amendment through the Senate last week. Some congressional Republicans have long taken issue with DC’s stern regulations surrounding gun ownership and what many find to be an infringement upon Second Amendment rights. On the other side of the political isle, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton – who represents the District in Congress but who cannot cast a vote on the House floor — argued Massie’s amendment to the spending bill infringes upon the District’s right to govern itself. Rep. Massie responded to Del. Norton’s comments by explaining that Congress is in fact the ultimate legislative authority over DC. DC may have an elected mayor and council, but “Congress has the authority to legislate in this area”.

DC’s gun laws are generally viewed as stringent. Though a 2008 Supreme Court decision struck down the District’s longstanding ban on handgun possession, many restrictions remain. That includes requiring residents to register their handguns every three years, complete a safety course, and be fingerprinted and photographed.

Members of Congress on both sides of the debate frequently cite conflicting studies when arguing for or against gun laws and restrictions. Massie is among those who insist criminals will be able to get their hands on weapons, regardless of the gun laws, and if the criminals armed then law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves. Safety advocates, however, question the viability of this approach, particularly in an area that has struggled with violent crime rates. Norton is among those who find it difficult to imagine lax gun laws making DC a safer place to live, work, and visit.

Meanwhile, an amendment introduced last month by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Maryland) seeks to block the District from spending any money to decriminalize marijuana possession. Mayor Vincent Gray signed a bill in March that decriminalized the possession of less than one ounce of pot, and which we have discussed extensively. The bill replaced criminal penalties for simple possession with a $25 fine one of the nation’s lowest. Since Congress failed to pass a resolution blocking the local law, it took effect yesterday. The amendment introduced to the spending bill, according to some, would only succeed in blocking the District of Columbia from issuing the $25 fines.

The amendments must still pass Senate muster and gain the approval of the president, neither of which appears likely, according to political pundits.

Starting today, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is no longer a crime in the District of Columbia. That does not mean it is legal, merely that it is a civil offense punishable by a $25 fine and confiscation of any marijuana or paraphernalia in public view. In fact, this civil fine is issued using the same Notice of Violation (NOV) ticket DC Metro police officers use to issue “littering” citations. Don’t believe me? See the document on the left.

The Law Behind The Change

Okay, now it’s time for us to roll up our sleeves and look at the legal authority for these changes. The Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014, which was passed by the DC Council this spring, takes effect today after having survived a 60-day period of congressional review. As the Washington Post noted in March, it was not certain that the bill would make through the congressional review period because of the controversial nature of such a law.

So what exactly does the Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014 do? First and foremost, it makes the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil violation. In doing so, it amends all other DC laws that say otherwise, including the DC Uniform Controlled Substances Act (beginning at DC Code Section 48-904.01). But just because possession of up to an ounce is no longer a crime does not mean the city has revoked its war on drugs, at least not totally. This law does not change the way other drugs and controlled substances are treated. This law also does not mean people can smoke marijuana in public. In fact, the law explicitly states that consumption of marijuana in public places is a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. The law isn’t too vague about what constitutes a public place either, defining it as “any of the following places:

• A street alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area;
• A vehicle in or upon any street, alley, park, or parking area, or;
• Any place to which the public is invited.”

The last of those categories includes establishments such as bars, restaurants, clubs, and concert venues. Also, we shouldn’t have to point this out, but when the law decriminalizes possession of one ounce or less, that does not include larger quantities, like, say, two ounces.

An equally monumental change has nothing to do with possession at all, but with warrantless searches. As those of us familiar with law enforcement practices know, one of the most common ways police officers justify warrantless searches, which require reasonable articulable suspicion, is by asserting that they smelled marijuana. Reasonable articulable suspicion requires the officers to justify the search with a reason they can articulate, as opposed to a hunch. Smelling marijuana is a convenient reason given for this purpose because it is hard to challenge in court—current technology offers no physical evidence of what constitutes a smell.

The law which takes effect today goes a long way toward ending this practice by law enforcement officers. It expressly states that the following observations cannot constitute reasonable articulable suspicion, individually or in combination with each other:

• The smell of marijuana or burnt marijuana,
• The possession or suspicion of possession of marijuana,
• The possession of marijuana in multiple containers,
• The possession of marijuana “in proximity to any amount of cash or currency.” See section 14(a) of the Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014.

Law enforcement officers will not be able to base reasonable articulable suspicion on these factors, except for one exception. The law states that this limitation on reasonable articulable suspicion will not apply in situations where law enforcement officers have pulled someone over for a suspected DUI, or where they are otherwise investigating whether a driver is impaired by alcohol, drugs, or any combination thereof. This means that police officers may be able to circumvent this restriction, albeit to a limited extent, by investigating drivers for impairment at every traffic stop.

For more information, look at the DC Metropolitan Police Department’s Special Order informing law enforcement officers how they should act going forward. Also, the Washington Post has done an excellent job of explaining the changes going into effect this Thursday.

Where this Law Does Not Apply

This law does not change federal law, nor does it change the how federal police agencies enforce the law, including the U.S. Park Police, the Secret Service, and the Capitol Police. These federal police agencies patrol a number of areas in DC. In other words, marijuana may not feel so decriminalized in DC if you are arrested by federal officers on the National Mall, near the Capitol Building, or near the White House.