There are many situations in which an action could legally be considered theft. In the state of Connecticut, theft is typically referred to as larceny, and all of the laws pertaining to theft use this term. Connecticut statutes state that larceny occurs when a person takes, obtains, or withholds property from its owner with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of the property. Larceny in Connecticut includes actions such as embezzlement, extortion, theft of services, shoplifting, and even receiving stolen property. Certain actions are charged in Connecticut as misdemeanor larceny crimes, but charges can also be elevated to felony larceny charges, depending on the circumstances surrounding the situation.

Larceny in the Third Degree

The first level of felony larceny charges, larceny in the third degree, occurs when a person commits larceny and the property:

• Is a motor vehicle worth less than $10,000;
• Is worth between $2,000 and $9,999;
• Is a public record, writing, or instrument; or
• Is a sample, culture, record, or document that contains proprietary information.

Third-degree larceny is a Class D felony, which means it carries up to five years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that all citizens have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government without a warrant. This provides protection against unfair tactics by prosecutors when a person is facing criminal charges. However, in the 21st century, the increased use of digital media has resulted in a slew of complexities in criminal cases. The Fourth Amendment was written to protect the privacy of American citizens, but what happens when your private digital files are no longer private to only you? In some cases, the “private search doctrine” may apply.

What Is the Private Search Doctrine?

Using the private search doctrine, once a private party (who is not involved with the government) has already done an initial search, the government can repeat that search without infringing upon the property owner’s individual Fourth Amendment rights. Basically, the private search doctrine allows the government to perform a search that is not technically a search in the Constitutional sense.

A Recent North Carolina Case Sparks Controversy

In 2014, a North Carolina woman was looking for a photograph on her boyfriend’s USB thumb drive. While she was clicking through folders and subfolders on the drive, she came across a partially-nude photo of her nine-year-old granddaughter. Upset, she stopped her search and informed her daughter of the photo. The pair took the thumb drive to the police station, where a detective began to look through the folders to find the photo the woman was referring to. While the detective was looking, he saw other photos that he thought might be child pornography. Once he found the photo of the woman’s granddaughter, he stopped his search and obtained a warrant to search the thumb drive for photos of child pornography.

In all 50 states, it is illegal to drive while you are under the influence of alcohol. If you have a blood alcohol content of more than .08 percent, you can be charged with DUI. If you are pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, you may be asked to complete a chemical test to determine your BAC. This type of roadside breathalyzer test is used during a traffic stop to establish probable cause. After an arrest, you will be taken to the police station, where there is more accurate equipment that can establish a BAC that will hold up in court. In certain cases, however, a breath test may not always be feasible. In these cases, a urine or blood test may be used. Most of the time, a warrant must be issued before an officer can take a blood sample, though the Supreme Court recently upheld a decision which found that a warrant may not be necessary in some cases.

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 in Favor of Warrantless Blood Tests

Warrantless BAC tests have been the subject of two Supreme Court decisions in recent years. It has been established that officers can conduct warrantless BAC tests if the case has exigent circumstances and that an officer can conduct a warrantless breath test as long as there is probable cause to arrest the driver. In the most recent decision, the Supreme Court examined what to do when a driver is unconscious and cannot submit to a breath test. The supreme court ruled 5-4 that in certain specific situations, it is permissible to administer a blood test without a warrant.

Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Blood Tests Are Not a Violation of the Fourth Amendment

The Justices in favor of this ruling stated that it is not unreasonable for a police officer to administer a blood test to determine a driver’s BAC in cases where the driver is unconscious. If the driver is unconscious and unable to submit to a breath test, the only other way to enforce DUI laws is to administer a blood test. The Justices also stated that an unconscious driver is almost always taken to a hospital, where his or her blood would typically be drawn for other purposes anyways. In addition, they stated that if the unconscious person is part of an accident, the officer’s other duties would prevent him or her from going through the steps needed to obtain a warrant in a timely manner.

Under the current law in Connecticut, anyone who is convicted of a felony is required to provide a sample of his or her DNA to be cataloged in the state’s DNA database. In 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court even ruled that prison and law enforcement officials were permitted to use reasonable force to obtain the DNA sample when a convict refuses to cooperate.

While there has been debate over whether the collection of such samples constitutes a violation of privacy, the law and the Supreme Court ruling only apply to individuals who have already been convicted of a serious crime. Meanwhile, reports indicate that law enforcement officials in Connecticut are asking young men and women—including juveniles—to give DNA samples without their parents’ consent or knowledge.

A Cause for Worry

Earlier this month, lawmakers in California passed legislation that makes it illegal for police officers to obtain DNA from a minor without either permission from the minor’s parent or guardian or a court order. The law was widely regarded as a response to allegations of the police in San Diego targeting young African-Americans for DNA collection. Advocates are pushing for similar laws in other states as well.

Did you know that you could end up in jail if you cannot pay your bills? This does not even refer to court-imposed fines or court-ordered obligations like child support. You could find yourself in jail over private debts such as student loans, medical bills, and unpaid rent. Now, you may be wondering how this is possible considering that debtors’ prisons were outlawed in the United States nearly 200 years ago. The answer is that private companies have found a loophole in the laws of dozens of states that allows them to use the threat of incarceration to generate payment of outstanding debt—a practice that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says criminalizes poverty.

A Troubling Report

Technically, debtors’ prisons are illegal in the United States and have been since 1833. In recent years, however, private companies have begun “using the criminal justice system to punish debtors and terrorize them into paying, even when a debt is in dispute or when the debtor has no ability to pay,” says a new report from the ACLU. According to the report, tens of thousands of warrants are issued each year in relation to unpaid private debts, but it is impossible to determine the exact number because court records do not usually track this category of warrants.

The ACLU report indicates that the process usually works like this: