on behalf of Hebets & McCallin, posted in Drug Crimes
The case involving the recent arrest of heiress Paris Hilton outside of a Las Vegas casino for alleged cocaine possession may hinge on whether police followed search and seizure laws. In the hope that the case will be dropped by the Las Vegas District Attorney’s office, Hilton’s attorney David Chesnoff is planning to introduce the argument that not only was Hilton illegally searched by police, but also that the purse that contained the alleged cocaine did not belong to Hilton.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides protection from illegal search and seizure and is in place to ensure that law enforcement follows clear guidelines when interacting with alleged criminal activity. This essential civil right against illegal search is extended to everyone, not just multi-millionaires. Many times, criminal cases can be attacked on the basis of improper police conduct or illegal police procedure, and search and seizure issues. If evidence was obtained illegally it may be suppressed, leading to the dismissal of the case.
An experienced criminal defense lawyer should always examine the evidence and determine if law enforcement violated Constitutional rights, such as those protected by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
Resource: Paris Hilton May Claim Illegal Search to Beat Cocaine Rap
Paris Hilton May Claim Illegal Search To Beat Cocaine Rap
by Colin McCallin
The attorneys at Hebets & McCallin are avid bicyclists, and we love being able to ride in Colorado, one of the friendliest bike states in the country. Since the bicycling season is in full swing, we thought we’d send out a friendly reminder that biking drunk is in fact a crime that has very serious penalties. All of Colorado’s motor vehicle laws apply to bike riders, including Biking Under the Influence. It is a misdemeanor that can result in jail time and probation. Biking is more prevalent in Denver now than ever before, and as a result, we are seeing an increase in these arrests. Please be safe and responsible while out on the roads, and enjoy the beautiful bike trails that Colorado has to offer.
by Russell Hebets
As of July 1st, 2010, anyone charged with a multiple DUI or DWAI in Colorado will be facing much harsher penalties. House Bill 1347, effective in July, takes discretion away from judges in sentencing these cases. Some of the most significant changes require that straight jail be imposed for individuals convicted of a second DUI or DWAI offense within 5 years, as well as straight jail time for those on their 3rd conviction. Good time will not be awarded for the minimum mandatory sentences in these cases, and In Home Detention will no longer be authorized. A judge will not be able to consider mitigation of any sort as it relates to the imposition of these sentences in DUI or DWAI cases.
These new statutory regulations for DUI cases will have many far-reaching consequences, some intended and some unintended, as more and more people are sentenced under this new scheme. Some of the likely issues which will need to be addressed include the ability of jails to adequately care for defendants with serious medical conditions, the loss of employment precipitated by a jail sentence without the option of work release or school release, and a large increase in Colorado’s jail population and the expense associated with this increase. We will keep you updated as these and other issues reach the forefront of the debate surrounding this new DUI law.
Russell Hebets is a Denver DUI Attorney and member of the National College of DUI Defense.
by Russell Hebets
Nearly 10 years ago voters in Colorado legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. This law lay dormant during the Bush years, as federal law enforcement continued to enforce federal prohibitions against marijuana even in states which had legalized medical use. The Obama administration changed that with an executive memo relating that federal law enforcement should not conduct raids against individuals using medical marijuana in compliance with state laws. This change opened the flood gates to medical marijuana in Colorado. Currently in Colorado there are well over 50,000 individuals licensed to use medical marijuana and there are more dispensaries in Denver than there are Starbucks.
Earlier this year Governor Ritter signed House Bill 1284 into law in a legislative attempt to tighten regulation of medical marijuana. The intent of this bill was to prevent recreational marijuana users from using Colorado’s medical marijuana laws as a back door to non-medical drug use. The law imposed significant additional burdens on dispensary owners and physicians while giving local municipalities much more power to limit or ban dispensaries within their limits.
Among other requirements, dispensaries must now pay application and registration fees that tally into the thousands, must grow at least 70% of their marijuana themselves, can no longer be located within 1000 feet of any school or daycare, and owners or operators of dispensaries must be Colorado residents for a minimum of 2 years and must not have any felony convictions. Physicians may no longer be employed by dispensaries, must keep separate records on any medical marijuana patients, and may not have any financial relationships with dispensaries.
With these new regulations will inevitably come new lawsuits challenging various provisions of HB 1284 with the possibility of future attempts to clarify or change the law at the polls. These issues have not gone away and Colorado medical marijuana law will continue to evolve into the foreseeable future.
Resources: ColoradoMedicalMarijuana.net, NORML
Russell Hebets is a Denver criminal attorney and co-founder of Hebets & McCallin, P.C.
by Colin McCallin
On July 1st, 2010, there were very significant changes made by the Colorado Legislature to the Indecent Exposure and Public Indecency statutes. For years prior to the change, there was great confusion on the part of law enforcement and the legal community as to whether a certain act by a defendant would fall into one category or another. For example, if person was caught urinating in public, they could possibly could have been charged with either offense depending on the facts of the case. If charged with indecent exposure, that person would have been required to register as a sex offender and complete sexual offense specific treatment and therapy, and even have the possibility of jail for up to 2 years for the simple act of public urination.
Realizing these issues, the legislature took this issue up in 2010 and made attempts to clarify the laws. The classifications and penalties for each offense have not changed, but their definitions have. As a result, as of July 1, 2010, Colorado Revised Statutes 18-7-301 and 18-7-302 now attempt to correct this confusion and prevent public urination from falling into the category of a sexual offense.
Hopefully the legislature’s move here will provide a bit more consistency as to how these laws are applied.
Former District Attorney Colin McCallin is a Denver criminal lawyer and co-founder of Hebets & McCallin, P.C.
