Most people are aware that they may face consequences if they are convicted of a crime. However, they may not realize that there are a number of situations in which police officers or other law enforcement officials may take money or property that they own. These forfeitures may be ordered as a sentence following a conviction, but many people are also subject to civil asset forfeitures in which money or property is taken because officers believe that it was related to criminal activity. Some recent court decisions involving federal crimes may play a role in cases where law enforcement attempts to seize people’s money.
In the case of United States v. Akhavan, which took place in a federal court in New York, a judge overturned a forfeiture order against a man who was convicted of bank fraud. The defendant had operated payment processors that tricked banks and credit card companies into accepting payments related to marijuana, even though their policies prohibited these types of transactions. More than $156 million in payments were processed, and the man accepted over $17 million in commissions. The government attempted to seize the entire $17 million, since it had been obtained through fraud.
For nearly two years, people throughout the United States have been taking precautions to limit the spread of COVID-19, protect against infections, and stay as safe as possible. During the pandemic, people have become used to certain protective measures, such as wearing face masks when indoors and maintaining social distancing. However, these precautions have had some unexpected effects, including in courts that have resumed in-person trials while taking steps to protect the safety of everyone in the courtroom. Some legal analysts have raised concerns about how face masks worn by people involved in trials will affect the rights of criminal defendants.
During a criminal trial, the ability to see and read people’s facial expressions can be crucial. However, this has become more difficult due to the requirements that people involved in trials wear masks. In Connecticut, an executive order issued by Governor Ned Lamont requires everyone entering state Judicial Branch facilities to wear facial coverings over their mouth and nose. Depending on the procedures followed in different courts, witnesses may provide testimony without wearing masks, and attorneys may be able to go unmasked when questioning witnesses or making arguments before a jury. However, other people in the courtroom will usually wear masks during a trial.
Rideshare apps such as Uber and Lyft are used regularly by people throughout the United States. These services can make transportation easy and convenient. However, people may not be aware of the risks that they may face when using rideshare apps. In a troubling trend, thousands of people have reported sexual assaults by rideshare drivers. Those who have been assaulted or otherwise harmed by drivers for Uber or Lyft will want to understand their options for pursuing a personal injury lawsuit against these companies.
Due to ongoing concern about the safety of rideshare passengers, Uber and Lyft have released reports detailing the number of incidents that occurred in recent years. Lyft’s most recent report showed that there were 4,158 reports of sexual assault from its customers between 2017 and 2019. These incidents included 360 reports of rape, with other cases involving nonconsensual touching of body parts or attempted sexual penetration. Reports involving Uber drivers have been even more troubling. Between 2017 and 2018, the company logged around 6,000 reports of sexual assault, including 235 rapes.
For nearly two years, people throughout the United States have been forced to deal with drastic changes to their lives due to the threat of COVID-19. People in prison are among the most seriously affected, and many have struggled to maintain their safety when being confined in close quarters alongside others and with limited access to medical care. While some recent changes to laws and policies have provided prisoners with benefits that have helped them remain safe, many prisoners who have been convicted of federal crimes are in a state of legal limbo due to ineffective implementation of policies and potential changes once the pandemic ends.
The FIRST STEP Act, which was passed by Congress in 2018, provided many benefits for federal prisoners, and one key policy change involved the ability for prisoners to earn time credits and reduce their sentences by participating in rehabilitation programs. The law also included provisions encouraging prisoners to participate in these programs by offering incentives such as increased phone privileges, more visitation time with family members, and transfers to prisons that are closer to their homes and families.
Encounters with police officers can be stressful. Whether a person is pulled over in a traffic stop, has an officer knock on the door of their home, or is approached by police in other situations, they may worry that if they say or do the wrong thing, they could be arrested or face criminal charges. If police officers perform a search of a person’s vehicle or other property, they may uncover evidence that may be used to pursue drug charges or other types of criminal charges. Due to concerns about police misconduct, a person may worry that these types of searches will provide officers with the opportunity to plant evidence that may be used against them in a criminal case. Fortunately, recent changes to the law and rulings by courts have limited police officers’ ability to perform searches based on claims that they smell marijuana.
A criminal conviction can have many effects on a person’s life. While most people understand that a conviction can result in criminal consequences, such as the requirement to pay fines or serve time in prison, they may not be aware of the collateral consequences that can follow a person for years after they completed their sentence, and in some cases, for the rest of their lives. In many cases, these collateral consequences are related to a person’s criminal record, which may prevent them from obtaining employment, housing, education, or public benefits. However, one less-known issue that may affect convicts in Connecticut involves the state’s ability to take action to force a person to pay for some of the costs of their incarceration.
A Connecticut law that was passed in 1995 allows the state to make a claim against a former inmate and recover the costs of the person’s incarceration. These types of collections may be performed when a person receives a “significant windfall,” which will generally include situations such as winning money through the lottery, receiving an inheritance, or receiving compensation in a personal injury case. The state may collect payments within 20 years after a person was released from prison, and it may recover up to 50 percent of the amount received in a windfall.
The United States Supreme Court receives thousands of requests each year to review cases that were decided in lower courts, including state supreme courts and federal appeals courts. While the Supreme Court only selects a limited number of cases to review, looking at the petitions that are filed with the court can provide an indication of the types of cases it may consider. Recently, several petitions have been filed that address the rights of defendants in criminal cases, and if the Supreme Court decides to hear these cases, its decisions may have significant effects on issues such as searches, surveillance, and confessions.
Struve v. Iowa - This case involved a man who was pulled over after an officer observed him using a cell phone. While the man was not charged with violating the laws against texting or using an electronic device while driving, the officer observed methamphetamines in the back seat of his vehicle, and the man was arrested and convicted on drug possession charges. The man argued that he was subject to an illegal search because the officer pulled him over without the reasonable suspicion that he had violated the law, since it was not possible to tell whether he was texting while driving or using his phone for legal purposes, such as GPS navigation. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the officer used common sense when pulling the man over and that the traffic stop and subsequent search were legal. If the Supreme Court hears this case, its decision could affect people’s rights in situations where they are pulled over for traffic violations.
COVID-19 has affected the lives of everyone in the United States in a variety of ways. People have been forced to make adjustments in multiple areas of their lives, and many people and organizations are working to return to normalcy while dealing with ongoing health concerns. These issues have also affected the court system, and courts were closed for a significant amount of time in 2020 and 2021 to protect people’s safety. While in-person trials have resumed, ongoing issues related to the pandemic have affected court proceedings and jury verdicts. Those who are involved in criminal trials or civil litigation (including personal injury cases) can make sure these issues are addressed correctly by working with an experienced attorney.
The state of Connecticut has resumed jury trials as of June 1, 2021. To ensure that all participants in a trial, including jurors, judges, plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, attorneys, and court officials, will be safe, multiple protective measures have been implemented. Personal protective equipment (PPE) will be provided to everyone who needs it. Courts will also provide face shields for witnesses, ensuring that jurors and attorneys will be able to observe their facial expressions as they provide testimony.
When a person is convicted of criminal charges, they will face certain penalties. Depending on the nature of the offense, the person’s previous criminal record, and other factors, they may be sentenced to time in prison, required to pay fines, or face certain restrictions during a period of probation. However, there are a variety of other collateral consequences that can affect those who have been convicted of crimes. A criminal record can make it difficult or impossible for a person to find employment, housing, or education. To address this issue, the state of Connecticut recently passed a “clean slate” law that will allow some convicts’ records to be cleared once they have completed their sentences.
Currently, convicts in Connecticut are able to clear their criminal records by applying for a pardon. Depending on their offense and whether any victims have an interest in the case, a person may be required to attend a hearing before the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The process of applying for a pardon can be complicated, and many convicts struggle to clear their records and move forward with their lives.
Everyone should be able to use the road safely, whether they are inside a motor vehicle, on foot, or using other forms of transportation. In recent years, the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians has been a concern due to an increase in the number of pedestrian and bicycle accidents. The state of Connecticut has attempted to address this issue by passing a new law that is meant to provide additional protection for people who are crossing the street or riding bicycles or other forms of transportation near parked vehicles. This law went into effect on October 1, 2021.
Connecticut drivers are required to yield to pedestrians who are crossing the road at a crosswalk. Previously, this requirement applied once a pedestrian had stepped off of a curb or entered a crosswalk. Under the new law, a pedestrian is considered to be crossing the road if they are within any portion of a crosswalk, if they have stepped to the edge of a curb and indicated their intent to cross the road by raising their hand or arm, or if they move any part of their body or an extension of their body into a crosswalk. An extension of a pedestrian’s body may include a cane, crutch, wheelchair, bicycle, stroller, or cart, as well as a dog that is on a leash or using a harness.