The Maryland Board of Public Works has approved a $55,000 settlement with a Philadelphia man who claimed state troopers stopped him three times in two months because he is black and then pursued trumped-up charges that cost him 20 days in jail after he filed a Public Information Act request for details of the traffic stops.
Police needed a warrant to search a FedEx package suspected of containing marijuana, the California Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a suppression order.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a New York fund manager could not be convicted of extortion under the Hobbs Act based on his attempt to compel an employee to recommend that his employer approve an investment.
Police could not conduct a Terry stop based on suspicious behavior observed nearly a week earlier, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a drug conviction.
The “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule applied to allow the admission of evidence of child pornography discovered on a defendant’s iPod during the execution of a warrant to search his residence, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming the denial of a motion to suppress.
WASHINGTON — In a ruling that limits the information courts can consider when determining whether to impose sentencing enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that courts cannot parse the facts behind underlying convictions if the statutory elements of the crime are clear.
A strong odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of a lawfully stopped automobile justified the warrantless search of the vehicle’s passenger, the Illinois Appellate Court has ruled in affirming a drug conviction.
A state court did not violate the constitutional rights of two criminal defendants by denying a Batson motion based on the prosecutor’s explanation that he made an honest mistake in removing a Hispanic juror, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming the denial of habeas relief.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s splintered ruling allowing a witness’ pre-arrest silence to be introduced at trial — its latest decision carving out more of the contours of defendants’ well-known right to remain silent — seemed at first blush to be a devastating blow to defense attorneys and their clients.
This week’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on criminal sentencing will reverberate most in drug and gun cases, which frequently have mandatory minimum prison sentences as an element.