Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
In the realm of criminal law, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides one of the most basic rights afforded to citizens of this country. The Fourth Amendment states that an individual’s right to security regarding his or her person, home, and belongings may not be violated by unreasonable searches and seizures. It further specifies that a warrant for a search by the government shall only be issued when probable cause exists and is supported by a sworn or affirmed statement.
While the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment sound simple enough in theory, the definition of an unreasonable search or seizure has been consistently debated for nearly two and half centuries since the amendment’s ratification. Recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court added another chapter to the discussion as it issued its ruling on a case involving a drug-sniffing dog working in the hallway of an apartment complex.
Mobile cellular technology is absolutely amazing. Evolving from battlefield radio communication devices used during World War II, the first consumer cell phone hit the global market in 1983. Produced by Motorola, the first cellular phone was bulky, expensive, and would die after just 30 minutes of talk time. In the three decades since, we have seen tremendous advances in the communications industry, with cell phones now being able to fit comfortably in a pocket and maintain a charge for days at a time. Today, however, cell phones have also become a source of danger, especially when they are used by individuals who are driving a car or truck. While using a hand-held cell phone while driving is illegal in many states, including Connecticut, many drivers cannot put their phones down, contributing to many unnecessary accidents, injuries, and deaths.
Seriously Injured Couple Settles
When you think of a victim of a crime, do you picture a person who has been physically assaulted or had something stolen from him or her? Of course, individuals can be victimized by a wide variety criminal activity, and, sometimes, a single crime can affect an entire family or more. In many criminal proceedings, the victim of a crime and his or her family play a role in the prosecution of the offender, as both witnesses and those seeking restitution from the accused.
Now, in the wake of the heroin epidemic that continues to plague the state—a major issue expected to claim the lives of more than 800 by the end of the year—United States Attorneys in Connecticut have started reaching out to the families of individuals who have suffered fatal overdoses. With the help of these secondary victims, the U.S. Attorney have been able to build stronger cases against defendants charged with selling the drugs that caused the overdose death.
Drug-Induced Homicide
Winter in the northeast United States is generally characterized by sub-freezing temperatures and seasonal snowfall best measured in feet. Travel, of course, can be become very dangerous, and weather-related auto accidents are extremely common. Slip and fall accidents usually increase during the winter months as well, with snow- and ice-covered parking lots, sidewalks, and stairs often causing serious injury. When such accidents occur, who should be held liable for the resulting injuries? The answer depends on many factors, including where the incident took place and who was involved.
Roadway Snow and Ice
According to Connecticut law, individual municipalities including cities and towns have the authority to create their own local policies regarding snow and ice removal. The state does provide recommended provisions but permits each municipality to adopt and adapt them as it sees fit. The Connecticut Department of Transportation is statutorily tasked with clearing snow from state highways to ensure safe travel, while local and city roads are the responsibility of each city or town.
If you are arrested on the suspicion that you committed a crime, part of your defense may include showing that you were not near the location of the crime when it was taking place. But, what if records from a cell phone tower suggest that you were in the area of the crime? Are cell towers reliable enough to provide evidence that could change a criminal defendant’s life? This is the question that the Connecticut Supreme Court must answer as it reviews the case of a man currently serving 20 years prison for a robbery in Wethersfield in 2012.
Constantly Changing Technology
Before the advent of cellular technology, criminal prosecutors could definitively place a suspect near the scene of a crime in one of a few ways. The suspect’s own admission, of course, was—and still is—the most certain, but a prosecutor could also utilize physical evidence such as hair, blood, or clothing fibers, as well as the testimony of eyewitnesses. Today, however, a person is likely to carry a cell phone constantly sends and receives a variety of signals, allowing the person to make phone calls, receive emails, and share messages, while creating records of each transmission along the way.
In the state of Connecticut, the law offers a measure of protection to those who—voluntarily or in the scope of their employment—provide emergency medical assistance or first aid to a person in need. Known colloquially as a Good Samaritan law, the statute specifies that teachers, lifeguards, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel may not be held liable for any injuries resulting from “acts or omissions” by the first-responder “which may constitute ordinary negligence.”
The protection offered by the Good Samaritan law in Connecticut is generally considered to be broader than that provided by similar laws in other states. A recent decision by a New Haven Superior Court judge, however, determined that while the law may protect the individuals who provide first aid, it does not apply to all for-profit companies who employ first-responders.
According to statistics compiled by the federal government, more than 90 percent of all criminal defendant plead guilty to the charges against them—or some variation of such charges in a plea deal—instead of going to trial. In some cases, pleading guilty may be the better option, as the defendant knows that he or she committed the crime of which he or she has been accused and by pleading guilty, the impact to the defendant’s future may be lessened. In other situations, however, including many drug cases, a suspect may plead guilty because he or she was led to believe that the evidence against him or her is overwhelming, even if he or she is not actually guilty. The defendant may be convinced that he or she stands no chance at trial and a plea agreement may seem like the only option.
Field Drug Testing
One example of such potentially misleading evidence is the result of a field drug test. These tests are intended to use a chemical process to detect the presence of illicit substances and lead to thousands of arrests each year. To conduct a field drug analysis, a police officer will drop a sample of a seized substance into a pouch containing several chemicals, which are meant to change color to indicate that the substance is, in fact, an illegal drug. While many studies have supported the tests as accurate enough to establish probable cause for the officer to then make an arrest, a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt—a standard that these $2 test kits may not be capable of meeting.
When a child is injured on school property, Connecticut law makes it rather difficult to hold the school administrators, faculty, or staff responsible for the child’s injuries. The law affords a great deal of protection to school officials and employees, shielding them on the basis of governmental immunity. A teacher or school official acting within the discretionary scope of his or her employment is typically granted generous considerations regarding liability. Otherwise, the floodgates could be opened for massive numbers of lawsuits each year.
But, what about a school official who does properly carry out his or her job-related assignments? Can he or she be held responsible if a student is injured as a result? A recent ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court indicates that the answer is “maybe.”
Smoking Before School
When you have been injured in an automobile accident, a slip-and-fall accident, or any other incident attributable to the actions or negligence of another person, you may need to take aggressive legal action to ensure that you receive full compensation for your injuries. Unfortunately, recovering damages in a personal injury case can be very difficult without responsible representation from a qualified legal professional. Choosing the right attorney can make a world of difference in the outcome of your case so it is important to consider your options carefully before making a decision.
If you have been hurt and are looking for an injury lawyer to assist you in filing a claim or a lawsuit, there are many factors to take into account, including:
Type of Accident and Areas of Focus
Just because an attorney practices in the realm of personal injury law, it does not mean that he or she has experience with the type of accident or situation that caused your injuries. If you have been injured in a car accident, you will need a lawyer who understands traffic laws and how to work with auto insurance carriers to resolve difficult cases. Likewise, if you slipped and fell on a hazard in a grocery store or were bitten by a dog, you will want your attorney to be experienced with such cases and the applicable laws.
When you go to work every day, you are expected to perform at a certain level. You may have productivity standards or sales quotas that must be met, and you are almost certainly required to adhere to your company’s code of conduct policies. If you make a major mistake or deliberately break the rules, you are probably subject to some sort of disciplinary process which could ultimately cost you your job. At the very least, you will likely be expected to remedy your error if possible. While such expectations apply to most people who work for a living, it seems that criminal prosecutors—for whom a major mistake or misconduct could ruin another person’s life—are often exempt. A report released earlier this year found that prosecutors who commit misconduct or make serious mistakes in their prosecution of criminal cases are very rarely held accountable for their actions.
Hundreds of Examples
50 Founders Plaza
