Police often manufacture "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" when they believe  (but cant prove or establish) that some sort of crime may have been committed. Take Driving Under the Influence, for example. Officers routinely create reports with buzz words such as “weaving” or “straddling” lanes of the highway to justify a stop and then question the driver for DUI. Often, there is no violation at all but those words and observations are good enough to stand up in court as a legitimate stop and, ultimately, a DUI charge.

Similarly, the Arizona bill creates bogus conduct and so called "reasonable suspicion" for police who merely want to check someone’s legal status. This will be based on trivial violations such as loitering or jaywalking as a basis to stop and detain the individuals law enforcement ultimately want.

Attorneys are often unable to give detailed answers prior to discussing the facts of a case and reviewing the evidence. All too often, potential clients want answers to questions that I can’t yet answer. That said, below are common criminal law questions I receive and corresponding answers:

Q. Should I Make a Statement to the Police?

A. No!!! If you are under investigation or are arrested, do not make any statements to the police. Although you may feel like you can present your side of the story, often anything you say will be used against you. Do not volunteer information or discuss the facts of the case with anyone other than your attorney.

Q. What is a Search Warrant?

A. A search warrant is a court order authorizing the search of a specific place for certain items and to seize them if found. Your Fourth Amendment rights guarantee that a search warrant may only be issued on oath or affirmation that a crime was probably committed. Evidence obtained without the proper search warrant, may be excluded by the court upon motion and hearing filed by a defendant.

Q. What is Bail?

A. Bail refers to a defendants release from jail upon the proper deposit of money or property securing his future appearance in court. Its purpose is to ensure that the defendant appears in court and does not flee from the jurisdiction. The amount of bail required to secure a defendants release depends on the nature of the offense and is governed by various California Penal Code statutes.

Q. What is an Arraignment?

A. This generally refers to a defendant’s first appearance before a judge wherein he is informed of the charges and is afforded the opportunity to enter a plea. The time of the Arraignment often depends on the nature of the charges against a defendant and whether he is in our out of custody. The Arraignment is a crucial step because defendant’s counsel will usually only then be provided with documents, police reports and other evidence of the charges against his client.

Q. What is a Preliminary Hearing?

A. When a felony case is brought against a defendant, he is entitled a hearing with the ability to confront witnesses and conduct cross-examination. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed further with the case against the defendant. Although the prosecution’s burden to move beyond the preliminary hearing stage is quite low, the hearing serves an important function by weeding out groundless or unsubstantiated charges against the defendant. Since the preliminary hearing provides the opportunity to determine the facts and evidence, it is important to have counsel effectively question witnesses and ascertain the evidence against his client.

Q. What is a Pre-Trial Conference?

A. At a pre-trail conference your attorney has the opportunity to continue negotiations with the prosecutor in an attempt to reach a favorable disposition. It is at this stage that your attorney may be able to work out the best plea bargain for you.

Q. What is an Expungment?

A. An Expungment refers to the cleansing or removal of one’s criminal record. This often doesn’t have the results the some may think, but may be worthwhile especially for employment purposes. Many but not all misdemeanors and felonies maybe expunged.

Q. What are My Chances?

A. A case depends on many factors which require a thorough and detailed evaluation. Although an experienced and capable attorney can discuss various aspects of a case in detail, often a complete analysis cannot be achieved until the attorney has access to all relevant documents and witnesses. If an attorney guarantees you a certain result or outcome, or fails to conduct a full investigation, seek the assistance of another attorney immediately.

Charges against Dr. Conrad Murry are finally expected this  Monday in the death of Michael Jackson.  As typical in high profile cases, there may already be unfair treatment of the good doctor.

It is anticipated that Dr. Murray will be charged with involuntary manslaughter surrounding the pop stars death and his attorneys have been diligently working on a surrender deal with the L.A. County District Attorneys office. “Surrender” occurs when a defendant (usually through his attorneys) agrees to present himself to police in order to avoid arrest. Such agreements usually occur when there is a “low risk” defendant and typically (but not always) when there is a non-violent offense involved.  These surrender agreements are quite common and serve valuable functions. Among these are:

A. that it saves law enforcement valuable resources in locating and arresting an individual; and

B. providing the defendant to appear at a police station for booking and immediately arranging for bail–so as to avoid the humiliation of arrest and time in jail.

It appears that negotiations between Dr. Murray’s attorneys and the DA’s office broke down because of the DA’s belief that allowing a surrender would appear  as “special treatment.”  However, with no criminal record, no risk of flight, and the relatively minor charges anticipated, Dr. Murray squarely fits into the typical scenario where such surrender is appropriate. To say nothing of the fact that the Dr. has allegedly cooperated throughout the entire investigation.

The DA’s office apparent zeal to parade Dr. Murray in handcuffs rather than to offer a surrender option is perhaps another example of its overreaching and questionable judgment in another high profile case.

A Judge ruled today that Roman Polanski must return to Los Angeles for sentencing rather than be sentenced in absentia. This ruling will likely be appealed further. And since Mr. Polanski is comfortably resting in his vacation home in the Swiss Alps, it is doubtful that he will return anytime soon pending the appeal of this ruling and his extradition in general.

It is never wise to speak to the police about a crime.  This man took it even one step further:  Pot Grower Calls Police.

A California appellate court rejected Polanski’s bid to dismiss his case earlier this week, but suggested ways the parties can resolve the matter. The court also noted the serious misconduct by the prosecutor and the judge dating back to the 1970′s case.

It is possible, of course, that some deal between Polanski’s lawyers and the Los Angeles D.A.’s office is reached short of Polanski’s extradition to the U.S. (the appellate court in fact suggested a possible way).  However, the D.A.’s office will wait to hear from the Swiss about extradition and will likely not offer any deal unless Polanski returns.  If the Swiss deny extradition, however, then a deal with a sentence in absentia is much more likely.

Peter Berlin discusses Tiger Woods legal issues and extortion scenarios with Eonline!

Now Tiger Woods may have his share of family and PR headaches to deal with in the coming weeks, but one thing that he wont have is much of  a legal headache.

As had been reported, Tiger will not face criminal charges stemming from the accident and disturbance at his home. The reason? He kept his mouth shut, plain and simple. Woods refused to speak to police about the incident (as is his right to do) and in the process eliminated the possibility of making any incriminating statements.  No one knows what exactly happened, but the story given doesn’t quite add up. However, this is not the point. If the police want to take a statement or conduct an interview in such a situation there is usually one reason: “they don’t have enough evidence to charge a crime and/or they want to extract a confession.”  Given this, nothing that Mr. Woods  said would have helped him, only hurt.

The inclination to make any statement to police or officials is often misguided. I see this not only with clients that come to me but also in high profile cases (Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby to name a few) where individuals are already represented by counsel.

In this instance, Mr. Woods likely received some good and prompt advice… and he made the right choice.

Roman Polanski may be free on bail soon. It will be interesting to see whether he will continue to fight extradition or work out a deal with the LA District Attorneys office to resolve the matter. Apparently, Mr. Polanski’s European lawyers have differences with their US counterparts on various issues and strategy and it remains to be seen what exactly will happen.

Next time someone inquires how I can defend an “[alleged] drunk driver?” …in part, consider this recent news story of a cop manufacturing over 200 DUI arrests and making extra money as a result.  This conduct is cropping up in many places.

Fake DUI Arrests.