Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyers Blog

Criminal defense: Can the police enter your home unannounced if they have probable cause and a warrant? That is the issue being debated by legislators in Georgia. New legislation allows police officers to use a no-knock warrant only if they have probable cause and a judge signed their warrant. 

A no-knock warrant gives the police permission to enter a suspect’s home without any notification. This legislation has led to a serious debate by legislators and the public. Questions surround the legislation, including if a no-knock warrant violates a suspect’s privacy, and if the police should be allowed to enter someone’s home without any notification.

The Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed a bill that would prevent police officers from using no-knock warrants. In addition to this bill, legislators in the state have proposed several bills to limit or restrict the use of these warrants.

Terrorism is a serious threat to the safety and security of people around the world. There is no denying the fact that there are those who would go to virtually any lengths to cause death and destruction, which has led lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to approach threats to public safety in a very serious manner. That said, there are cases in which the effort to ensure safety infringes on the rights of Georgia residents to live normal lives. An example is found in a University student who may be in need of a criminal defense strategy following a college art project.

The case centers on a suspicious device observed on an Atlanta bridge. The device was constructed from an aluminum Pepsi can covered in duct tape. There were two small steel pipes mounted on the can, and four electrical wires were visible on the top of the unit. The device also had a note attached, which identified the unit as a slow motion camera, and asked observers to please refrain from moving the device. The Atlanta bomb squad was called to the scene, and determined that the device was not a pipe bomb.

At some point it became clear that the device was part of an art project assigned to students at Georgia State. Participants were told to mount the homemade cameras in areas that received a high level of bright sunlight. According to the University, several students selected public locations, although efforts have been made to remove those devices. A statement has been released to suggest that the art student who placed the camera on the bridge could face criminal charges of reckless conduct.

Readers may be aware of recently proposed legislation that has sparked debate concerning the use of police license plate readers. These devices are able to scan and record images of license plates, giving law enforcement the chance to locate individuals who have active arrest warrants or are otherwise being sought for questioning. The use of these scanners has become common in Georgia and across the nation, and has led some lawmakers to question the limits that might be placed on the use of the devices. The matter also leads to interesting questions about the criminal defense tactics that might be used in cases that involve these readers.

The recently proposed bill would require police departments to delete captured images 30 days after they were gathered. Those behind the bill assert that, while the devices offer a powerful tool for law enforcement, there is a balance that must be sought between combating crime and protecting the rights of citizens. An additional provision is expected to be added that would prevent police from sharing captured images with federal authorities.

Many people are unaware of how advanced this technology has become in a very short period of time. Readers can be mounted on police vehicles, traffic signals and even road signs. The data that is gathered is not just used to make traffic stops when a “hit” is recorded, it is also being compiled by the Justice Department into a federal database that can track the movement of vehicles across the nation. This, for many, is a violation of an individual’s right to privacy.

Criminal Defense: 

Alan Caruba, a member of the National Book Critics Circle, has included “Arrested, Battling America’s Criminal Justice System ($19.95 Bascom Hill Publishing Group, softcover) by Dan Conaway in his Picks of the Month post for January on his blog, Bookviews. You can find the post here.

Arrested: Battling America’s Criminal Justice System is for you if you are a good, decent, law-abiding citizen who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time–or know someone who was–or you just want to know more about the American criminal justice system, this book is definitely for you. 

Criminal Defense:   U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain sentenced Bernie Madoff’s assistant, Annette Bongiorno, 67, to six years in prison – a lenient sentence far less than recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines.  During sentencing, Judge Taylor told Ms. Bongiorno that she had “willfully blinded herself,” and “chose Madoff’s blessing” over “her own moral compass.”

             The term willful blindness is the key issue in many white-collar criminal cases involving phony investment schemes like Madoff’s and other types of fraud schemes. The practical legal purpose of thewillful blindness doctrine is to allow prosecutors a way of proving that someone involved in implementing an investment scheme, regardless of their role in the scheme, should have known it was illegal but willfully chose to turn a blind eye to the illegality, because they were making good money.

  So, as an employee, if your boss tells you he is selling ownership shares in Santa Claus’ workshop at the North Pole and someone who invests $100,000 will receive a one percent ownership of Santa Claus’ workshop and reap guaranteed returns on their investment of $10,000,000; and you participate in selling this “investment opportunity” to the public, a judge or a jury can find you guilty under the willful blindness doctrine of participating in an investment fraud scheme. Your defense at trial will be, of course, “hey, who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus?  My boss told me he personally knew Saint Nick, so I figured it was a good investment.”  Under the willful blindness doctrine you can be found guilty anyway, unless, of course, your lawyer is able to actually subpoena Santa from the North Pole to come testify on your behalf.