Tucson DUI & Criminal Defense Blog

Electronic communication plays some role in almost all modern accusations of stalking or harassment. In Arizona, a person could be convicted of harassment or stalking solely based on electronic communications. Unlike verbal harassment, victims of cyber harassment often keep the electronic records of communication that definitively identify the perpetrator and preserve his or her every word.

It is possible to be charged with a possession crime if you are riding in a vehicle where any type of contraband is found. When contraband, such as a firearm or drugs, is not actually found on a person’s body or in a person’s hand, the elements of “constructive possession” must be met in order for the person to be convicted of a possession crime.

Since the beginning of Operation Streamline in 2005, thousands of migrants have been criminally convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1325 and 1326, for unlawfully entering the United States. Other than a few cases appealed on procedural grounds, the vast majority of these cases are dispensed of within a matter of minutes, hence the name “Streamline.” But, a defendant recently appealed his conviction all the way to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing that he did not “elude” inspection when he crossed without inspection in a remote area of the border.

There are conflicting studies as to whether a confident eyewitness is actually a more accurate eyewitness, so some jurisdictions now instruct jurors not to give more weight to an eyewitness identification just because the eyewitness seems confident.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions that explain what the police must do to satisfy the Fourth Amendment when conducting a blood draw or a breath test for a DUI investigation. In 2013, the Court decided that, in most circumstances, the police need a warrant to conduct a blood test without a person’s consent. But in 2016, the Court held that a warrant is not required to conduct a breath test incident to a motorist’s arrest. In 2019, the Court decided Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which held that a warrant is not required for a blood test, too, provided that the motorist is unconscious and, therefore, cannot consent to a draw or give a breath test.

This blog will discuss the implications of Carpenter v. U.S., a case the Supreme Court heard last year, holding that police generally need a search warrant to request this historical Cellular Location Site Information (CLSI) from cell service providers.

Under federal law, anyone who uses a gun while committing a “crime of violence” faces an especially stiff prison term. But what is a “crime of violence?” According the U.S. Supreme Court, the answer is “we can’t tell and it’s not our job to say,” so the law is unconstitutional.

While the Sixth Amendment gives us the right to a trial by jury when accused of a criminal offense, this right is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant generally does not have a right to jury trial for petty offenses where the maximum penalty does not exceed six months incarceration. Even if the penalty is five years probation and a five thousand dollar fine, this is still considered a petty offense for the purposes of determining whether a defendant has a right to a jury trial. Additionally, if a defendant is charged with multiple petty offenses and faces an aggregate sentence of more than six months, there is still no constitutional right to jury trial.

It is a common misconception that a person accused of a crime automatically has a right to a court-appointed attorney at no cost. Generally, only defendants facing jail time who have earnings below the poverty line are entitled to a public defender.

In many areas of immigration law, the immigration officials within the U.S. government used to have a great deal of discretion and were permitted to use their judgment to make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis. But in the current political climate, more of this discretion is being taken away from individual officials and these officials are often asked to instead enforce hard and fast policies. One of the most easily penalized demographics are non-immigrant visa holders with criminal convictions, because there is an almost completely discretionary element to the issuance of most non-immigrant visas. This means that even seemingly innocuous misdemeanor convictions, such as reckless driving, can greatly affect an individual’s eligibility for a non-immigrant visa.