Based on my experience as a former police officer, my team of attorneys has a unique understanding of what you have experienced if you have been arrested for driving after imbibing alcohol or utilizing drugs in Pennsylvania (which is more commonly known as driving under the influence, or simply DUI). We realize that for many people arrested for DUI, this is their first and only encounter with the criminal justice system. If you are reading this, you probably realize that this is not a very pleasant encounter.
http://www.gbmlawpittsburgh.com/criminal-defense/dui/defending-your-case
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Court weighs warrantless blood tests in DUI cases
The Supreme Court is considering whether police must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.
The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.
The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.
In siding with defendant Tyler McNeely, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence.
The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.
The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.
In siding with defendant Tyler McNeely, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Court allows hearings in Nevada abortion case
The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a judge's hearings into the health risks of a mentally impaired woman's pregnancy.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Maine high court upholds hypnotist sex charge
Maine's high court has upheld the conviction of a Jay man who sexually assaulted a girl he hypnotized.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the defense arguments of 39-year-old Aaron Patton, who was sentenced to six years in prison last year after being found guilty of charges including gross sexual assault.
Authorities say the victim began hypnotism treatments with Patton when she was 8 to help her break a fingernail-biting habit. The girl testified Patton began touching her inappropriately when she was 12 and had sex with her starting when she was 14.
After each sexual encounter, she said he hypnotized her so she would keep the relationship secret.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the defense arguments of 39-year-old Aaron Patton, who was sentenced to six years in prison last year after being found guilty of charges including gross sexual assault.
Authorities say the victim began hypnotism treatments with Patton when she was 8 to help her break a fingernail-biting habit. The girl testified Patton began touching her inappropriately when she was 12 and had sex with her starting when she was 14.
After each sexual encounter, she said he hypnotized her so she would keep the relationship secret.
Monday, June 18, 2012
New York Foster Care Lawyers - Rosin Steinhagen Mendel
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is a law firm dedicated to serving our clients in New York City, and the surrounding counties in southern New York State and in New Jersey.
We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights, permanency hearings, custody hearings, guardianship, administrative proceedings, and adoption. Our goal is to provide each of our clients with the best possible representation in all aspects of their cases, and clients appreciate our careful analysis of individual cases, through preparation and attention to detail.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is here to provide their clients with the highest level of representation in family matters. Visit us on the web at http://www.lawrsm.com/ for more information regarding your adoption and foster care concerns.
We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights, permanency hearings, custody hearings, guardianship, administrative proceedings, and adoption. Our goal is to provide each of our clients with the best possible representation in all aspects of their cases, and clients appreciate our careful analysis of individual cases, through preparation and attention to detail.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is here to provide their clients with the highest level of representation in family matters. Visit us on the web at http://www.lawrsm.com/ for more information regarding your adoption and foster care concerns.
Dangerous Dog Lawyers
More dangerous dog cases have occurred over the years and Dangerous Dog Declarations and Dog Attack prosecutions can have a devastating effect on dog owners and their beloved pets. For over a decade, our lawyers have experience in dealing with dangerous dog attack cases and have developed techniques that have proven successful in defences to these prosecutions. We can refer you to the most respected 'temperamant assessors' in NSW; including assessors who train Council Rangers. We can draft the
'letter of objection' and 'undertakings' on your behalf; which can include a promise to always keep your dog on a leash when in public, to ensure your backyard is secure and to only allow adults to walk your dog.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, we understand how devastating it is for owners to have to turn in their dogs for a dangerous dog notice. Our experience in the field has given us extensive experience to persuade Councils to withdraw prosecutions and to influence councils not to issue dangerous dog declarations to owners. Our team is able to revoke dangerous dog declarations and can issue a nuisance dog order instead. Call us today if your family is in need of protecting your beloved pet at (02) 9261 8881 or visit us on the
web for more http://www.criminallaw.com.au/dangerous-dog-lawyers
'letter of objection' and 'undertakings' on your behalf; which can include a promise to always keep your dog on a leash when in public, to ensure your backyard is secure and to only allow adults to walk your dog.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, we understand how devastating it is for owners to have to turn in their dogs for a dangerous dog notice. Our experience in the field has given us extensive experience to persuade Councils to withdraw prosecutions and to influence councils not to issue dangerous dog declarations to owners. Our team is able to revoke dangerous dog declarations and can issue a nuisance dog order instead. Call us today if your family is in need of protecting your beloved pet at (02) 9261 8881 or visit us on the
web for more http://www.criminallaw.com.au/dangerous-dog-lawyers
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court says judges can't decide draft complaint
The Supreme Court says federal employees cannot go to trial judges to complain about their firing for not signing up for the U.S. draft.
The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims.
Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims.
Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)