Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
Most Americans understand the general protections offered by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Its provisions are meant to guarantee the security of people, their homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Only a warrant, based on probable cause, is to give the government the power to override a person’s right to privacy.
The digital age, however, continues to offer new and increasingly ambiguous challenges to the application of law enforcement as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment. The latest example, involving the use of mobile phone records without a warrant, is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a case that is likely to set a precedent for many future decisions.
United States v. Quartavious Davis
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court in Florida ruled that the use of cell phone records obtained by court order did not violate a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision, relying on precedents set long before the proliferation of mobile technology. The court held that, by making phone call, a person gives up certain expectations of privacy, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland.
More than 30 marijuana possession convictions have been erased by Connecticut Superior Court judges in just a few months. While the number may seem relatively low compared to the thousands of marijuana-related arrests in the last several years, the rate of approval continues to be very high. Judicial branch records indicate that only 39 petitions had been processed through May 2015 to erase marijuana possession convictions, with more than 80 percent (a total of 32 cases) having been approved.
Decriminalization of Minor Possession
Earlier this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court was faced with a decision regarding the definition of decriminalization as it pertains to erasing a conviction. Under Connecticut law, a person who has been convicted of an offense that is later “decriminalized” may petition the court to have the conviction erased and all records of the case physically destroyed.
The moments after a car accident can be a whirlwind of activity, fear, confusion, and dizziness. If you have been injured, pain and uncertainty about the future can compound the situation. Certain injuries may be more evident immediately, such as a broken arm or leg, or lacerations from broken glass. Signs of other injuries, however, may not develop for hours or days after the accident even if you sought immediate medical attention. Among the most commonly delayed symptoms are neck and back concerns, including signs of whiplash, and the onset of chest pains that may be caused by a number of very serious conditions.
Possible Rib and Chest Injuries
While neck and back issues can certainly be causes for serious concern, the development of their related symptoms is rather unsurprising to most car crash victims. Chest pains, on the other hand, tend to raise many more questions as they are frequently associated with life-threatening cardiac conditions and episodes. Fortunately, after a motor vehicle accident, there may be several explanations for thoracic pain and discomfort.
For decades, interest groups and awareness campaigns have sought to educate the public about the dangers of driving under the influence (DUI). Photos of mangled vehicles, staggering statistics, and tragic stories of DUI fatalities have certainly succeeded to a degree, as virtually nobody would claim that driving drunk is a safe choice. Sometimes, however, there seems to be a significant divide between what an individual sees as drunk driving and what the law says. Operating under the influence, or OUI, as it is known in Connecticut, is a serious charge and one that can have long-lasting effects on those who are convicted.
OUI Laws in Connecticut
There are two sections of the Connecticut General Statutes that form the basis of OUI or DUI laws in the state. The first applicable section establishes the legal definition of operating under the influence as the operation of “a motor vehicle (1) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both, or (2) while such a person has an elevated blood alcohol content.” A driver may not operate a private vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or higher. For a commercial vehicle, elevated BAC begins at .04 percent.
If you receive Medicare benefits and are injured in an accident, federal law provides the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) with extensive authority to ensure that Medicare does not cover expenses for which it should not be liable. Commonly referred to in legal circles as a Medicare “super lien,” the power held by CMS is not actually a lien, but instead the right to recover any payment made for expenses that should have been the responsibility of another insurance company or liable party.
Conditional Payment
Under law, Medicare will not pay for items or services if payment “has been made or can reasonably expected to be made under a workers’ compensation plan, an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (included a self-insured plan or under no-fault insurance.” When payment is not made by the expected primary payer, however, Medicare may provide coverage on a conditional basis, which must be reimbursed if and when the primary payer does make payment. This includes payments made directly to a medical provider, as well as payments intended for the Medicare beneficiary in the form of a settlement, judgment or other award.
As Connecticut residents planned for Independence Day celebrations last week, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) prepared to implement a new law aimed at standardizing administrative penalties for driving under the influence (DUI) and related offenses. Taking effect on July 1, the new measure addresses both the DMV’s administrative suspension of drivers’ licenses and the subsequent installation of ignition interlock devices, or IIDs. Criminal conviction on DUI charges may result in additional penalties, as the new law focuses on the efforts of the DMV rather than criminal courts.
Administrative Per Se Suspensions
Under Connecticut law, any driver operating a motor vehicle is assumed to have given consent to chemical testing for blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Based on such implied consent, the DMV is empowered by the state to issue administrative penalties in several scenarios. An individual’s driver’s license will be suspended for:
One of Governor Dannel Malloy’s pet projects stalled without a vote in the Connecticut House earlier this month after passing with bipartisan support in the state Senate. The Democratic governor has spent much of the last few months advocating for the passage of his “Second Chance Society” initiative aimed at helping non-violent offenders overcome their mistakes and avoid becoming trapped in a cycle of crime and punishment.
The measure was on the verge of being approved, according to several news outlets, when a filibuster by the Black and Puerto Rican Caucuses and other procedural issues led to the legislative session ending before a vote was taken. The House, however, did approve a resolution calling for a special session to address the bill, along with several others awaiting consideration.
Typically, in Connecticut, personal injury cases are resolved one of two ways: by trial or by settlement. Certainly, those two options remain viable and are the most popular methods of disposition. However, in smaller personal injury claims, experienced lawyers may readily resolve cases by binding arbitration or mediation. Trials can become expensive and choosing one of these two options can save money when it comes to court costs and attorney's fees.
What Is Arbitration?
Arbitration can be more complicated than mediation. In arbitration, each party chooses an arbitrator, who act as a judge in the case. When those two arbitrators are chosen, the arbitrator duo then chooses a third to also hear the case. The parties can also agree to one arbitrator from the outset of the arbitration instead of using three arbitrators.
In Baltimore, Ferguson, MO and elsewhere, police shootings of civilians have attorneys and the general public calling for cops to be required to wear body cameras at all times. Body cameras should be implemented in order to record the actual events of confrontations with those they are bound to protect and serve. In Connecticut, there is a bill pending that would establish a body camera pilot program in three police departments of varying sizes.
This program is of particular interest to Connecticut DUI defense attorneys for several reasons. In virtually every DUI arrest, the accused is asked to submit to a series of “field sobriety tests,” that is, to do things the police have been taught are indicators of whether someone is or is not under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. In many cases, the officer testifies in court that the accused either failed the field sobriety tests or performed them in such a manner to give him probable cause to believe that he was intoxicated.
Allegations of sexual assault on college campuses are sadly not new phenomena, but sex crime defense attorneys across Connecticut are very concerned. Attention to the subject was heightened by the Rolling Stone magazine piece entitled, “A Rape on Campus,” wherein the author described an existent rape culture at The University of Virginia. The substance of the article was subsequently proven false, and the article was included in a Columbia Journalism Review piece on The Worst Journalism of 2014. Whether the allegations were true or false, the article thrust the issue into the national political limelight. As politicians are prone to do, the response may have gone too far.
50 Founders Plaza
