Should I Plead Guilty, Not Guilty or No Contest?

If you're charged with a crime, the most important decision you will make in your case is to decide whether to plead guilty, not guilty or no contest. If you plead guilty to the charges against you, you are admitting that you committed the charges as alleged and your admission can be used against you in a later criminal or civil proceeding. For instance, if you're charged with reckless driving in a case where you are the cause of a traffic accident and you plead guilty, in a later personal injury action against you, the plaintiff will be able to prove that you were driving recklessly by merely placing into evidence your guilty plea and conviction. By pleading guilty, you give up the right to a trial of the evidence and also agree to give up the right against self-incrimination and answer any questions by the judge as to why you believe you are guilty.

By pleading not guilty, you are contesting the charges, which then requires the prosecutor to prove all charges against you beyond a reasonable doubt. With a plea of not guilty, you retain your right against self-incrimination and cannot be forced to take the witness stand and testify in the case. The last form of plea, a no contest plea, simply means that you are not contesting the charges, but you are also not admitting guilt. In the above example concerning reckless driving, if a personal injury action is later brought against you, you're no contest plea cannot be used as an admission. With a no contest plea, the judge will review the evidence and if the evidence is sufficient to convict you, the judge will find you guilty of the offenses charged.

If you are charged with a crime, it is the duty of your defense counsel to conduct damage control. This means that he or she should conduct a thorough review of the evidence against you and interview any and all relevant witnesses. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence is completed, your attorney should be able to provide you with an opinion on the probability of success if you were to contest the case by way of a trial in front of the judge or jury. If the chances of success are small, and the prosecution is offering a good plea agreement, it may be in your best interest to plead guilty or no contest in the case, thereby reducing your punishment in the end. Alternatively, if the chances of winning at trial are good and the prosecution is not offering much in the way of a plea agreement, it may be in your best interest to plead not guilty and contest the case, hoping to obtain a not guilty verdict, and no punishment in the end. No matter what the evidence is against you, it is your constitutional right to plead not guilty and force the prosecution to prove its case against you beyond a reasonable doubt.

For more information on typical criminal offenses charged in Arizona, as well as potential sentences and possible defense strategies, please visit my web site at http://www.win-law.com/.

Arizona Asset Forfeiture Law

Under Arizona's asset forfeiture law, law enforcement is allowed to seize assets they have probable cause to believe were used in the furtherance of certain crimes. The burden then shifts to the owner of the property to essentially prove the property's innocence. Assets can include vehicles, money, houses, and just about any other asset that can be used to further a crime. As can be seen, an innocent owner, who lends property to another, who then uses the property to further a crime, is subject to having their property forfeited to law enforcement. An owner of the property who had no knowledge that the property was being used to further a criminal venture can reclaim the property if he can show: (a) He acquired the interest before or during the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; (b) he did not empower any person whose act or omission gives rise to forfeiture with legal or equitable power to convey the interest, as to a bona fide purchaser for value, and he was not married to any such person or if married to such person, held the property as separate property; and (c) he did not know and could not reasonably have known of the act or omission or that it was likely to occur.

A subsequent purchaser of the tainted property can reclaim seized property if he can show: (a) He acquired the interest after the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; (b) he is a bona fide purchaser for value not knowingly taking part in an illegal transaction; and (c) he was at the time of purchase and at all times after the purchase and before the filing of a racketeering lien notice or the provision of notice of pending forfeiture or the filing and notice of a civil or criminal proceeding, reasonably without notice of the act or omission giving rise to forfeiture and reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture. If unsuccessful in an action to reclaim property, the court can order the claimant to pay the prosecution attorney fees and costs of the action. Unfortunately, Arizona's forfeiture laws can lead to unintended results and subject innocent owners to hefty costs and legal fees in order to reclaim their property. Further information concerning Arizona criminal law can be found at my website www.win-law.com.

Entrapment: A Police Officer Doesn’t Have To Reveal His/Her Identity When Asked

Entrapment exists when the police create the crime. This takes place when the idea to commit the crime comes from the police, or someone working on their behalf. It must be shown that the accused never would have thought of committing the crime or the means of committing it if the police hadn’t suggested it. Additionally, the accused must not have been otherwise predisposed to commit the crime involved, which means that he/she wouldn't have committed this type of crime had they never met up with the police. For example, a drug dealer who is approached by a police officer who asks the dealer to sell him some cocaine is generally not being entrapped, because the drug dealer is already predisposed to committing the crime, as he is in the business of doing so.

Does the defense of entrapment exist when a police officer goes undercover and fails to reveal his/her true identity when asked? This is a common misconception as an undercover police officer is not required to reveal himself/herself when asked whether they are a police officer or not. For further information on Arizona criminal law, please visit my website at http://www.win-law.com/.

Plain and Simple: If There’s Something To Find, Don’t Consent To The Search

We have all seen the episodes of the television show "Cops" where the police pull over a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and the police officer asks the driver whether the driver will consent to a search of his vehicle. Despite the fact that the vehicle contains drugs or drug paraphernalia, the driver consents, the contraband is found, seized, and the driver is taken off to jail. When these individuals are asked why they consented to a search of their vehicle, the usual response is that they didn’t think they had a choice and that the police would find the drugs anyway. This reasoning clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding by most citizens regarding their constitutional rights.

With certain narrowly tailored exceptions, without a warrant, probable cause, or consent to search, a police officer has no right to search your personal property. What this means is that without a warrant, a police officer must rely upon your consent or probable cause to conduct a lawful search. If the police officer lacks probable cause (a reasonable belief that the area to be searched contains illegal contraband), than he must rely upon consent to conduct the search. If the individual refuses to consent, then without probable cause or a warrant, the police officer must return to his duties and let the driver go. If the driver consents to the search, then their defense attorney does not have much to work with in attempting to suppress the seizure of any illegal contraband. However, if the driver refuses to consent, and a police officer goes forward with the search anyway, a defense attorney can attack the search, arguing that the police officer did not have actual probable cause. If successful, the illegal contraband seized will not come into evidence and the charge will most likely be dismissed. For more information on Arizona drug offenses, including typical charges and possible defenses, please visit my web site at www.win-law.com.

Diversion Programs Offer a Second Chance to First-Time Misdemeanor Offenders

Most everyone has completed a job application as part of an interview process. The question will usually be asked whether or not the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic offense. Unfortunately, many young people in college and elsewhere get into trouble with the law for underage drinking, public intoxication and other minor alcohol-related offenses. To brand them as a criminal and have the conviction follow them for the rest of their life does not seem justified based upon the type of offense committed and the fact that it was a first-time mistake. However, many city prosecution offices offer a pretrial diversion program whereby a defendant charged with a first offense misdemeanor involving minor misconduct is allowed to attend classes and counseling in lieu of a court conviction. Following successful completion of the classes and/or counseling, the prosecutor's office dismisses the charges and no record of conviction goes onto the individual's record. For further information, please visit my web site at www.win-law.com.

Do I Have To Let the Police Search My Vehicle?

While driving down the road your vehicle is pulled over for a minor traffic offense. The police officer asks for your license and registration and takes it back to his police vehicle to run it through the system. The officer comes back and informs you that he is giving you a speeding ticket for going 15 miles over the posted speed limit. He also asks if you would consent to having him search through your vehicle. Do you have to consent to the search? The answer is no. If you don't consent, will the police officer be able to search the vehicle anyway? The answer depends upon whether the police officer has a reasonable belief that the vehicle contains illegal contraband.

Let's first discuss where the police officer can search without your consent. If the police officer possesses a reasonable belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons, the police officer has the right to conduct a search of be vehicle's passenger compartment (glove compartment), even without a search warrant or consent. However, without this reasonable suspicion, the police officer is not authorized to conduct a search of the glove compartment without the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Regarding other areas of the vehicle, in order to conduct a warrantless search without the consent of the owner, the police officer must have probable cause to believe that contraband exists in the vehicle. Probable cause can arise from a variety of different sources. The smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle may give the police officer probable cause to search the vehicle for marijuana. A drug pipe in plain sight, may not only allow the police officer to seize the pipe, but allow him to search the entire vehicle for drugs. Additionally, a drug detection dog, which conducts a sniff test around the vehicle and displays positive signs for the existence of drugs may provide the officer with probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains illegal contraband. A failure to give consent to a search does not give the police officer probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, as it is the right of the vehicle’s owner to refuse consent. Without evidence that the vehicle contains contraband, the police officer is not authorized, absent the owner's consent, to search the vehicle.

The bottom line is that if, for some reason, you believe your vehicle may contain illegal contraband, you have the right not to consent to a search. By consenting to a search, you leave your defense attorney with very little room to work with when contraband is discovered in the vehicle. Without consent, your defense attorney can attack whether the police officer had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband, and seek to suppress from the evidence items seized in the search. For more information on typical charges brought in Arizona, including potential punishments, and possible defense strategies, please visit my web site at www.win-law.com.

How are DUI checkpoints legal?

You are driving home from a July 4th fireworks display and you see the traffic backed up ahead. You know of a faster way home by taking a shortcut, so you veer around the car in front of you and turn down a side street to avoid the traffic. Just after doing so you are pulled over by the local police who request to see your driver's license and registration. The police officer goes back to his vehicle to run your license and plates. So much for the shortcut. He comes back and asks you why you were attempting to avoid the checkpoint. Not noticing any signs of intoxication, he returns your driver's license and registration. Are DUI checkpoints legal in the first place?

If kept within limits, DUI checkpoints are legal. Pursuant to applicable case law, brief detentions to check licenses, registrations, and sobriety are legal. The police must be following set procedures for stopping vehicles and cannot randomly chose vehicles to stop based upon the look of the vehicle or its occupants. What about in the above example? Can the police pull over a vehicle if they see the vehicle attempt to avoid the checkpoint? The police would need something more. Although the police could follow a vehicle they see turn off onto a side street, they would have to have another reason to pull over the vehicle, such as a traffic violation for speeding or weaving. However, if a vehicle goes through a checkpoint without stopping, the police can pull over the vehicle immediately.

Can the police go further and set up checkpoints for the purpose of stopping vehicles as part of drug interdiction efforts? After stopping vehicles at the checkpoint can the police, as their primary purpose, look inside your vehicle and have a drug dog conduct a sniff test? The answer is no. In the Supreme Court case of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the U.S. Supreme Court banned vehicle checkpoints as part of a drug interdiction effort, holding that vehicle checkpoints as part of general crime control are not authorized. However, one federal court has upheld the use of drug detection dogs at a license and registration stop, Merrett v. Moore, an 11th circuit opinion. It could, however, be argued that the use of drug detection dog makes the license and registration stop a mere pretext for a drug interdiction. For more information on DUI and drug offenses, please visit my website at www.win-law.com