Idaho Falls, Pocatello and the rest of East Idaho, while conservative, follow similar approaches to the court system as anywhere else. If you are charged with a crime in any of these areas, the first thing to note is you have an arraignment date. This is the court date at which you plead not guilty. (I wouldn't recommend pleading guilty unless you have talked to an attorney first). The nice thing in Eastern Idaho, specifically Idaho Falls and Pocatello, is the courts will allow an attorney to file a notice of appearance for you which will re-schedule your court date. This makes it so you don't have to show up at the arraignment and you will automatically plead not guilty.
After you plead not guilty you will be set for a pre-trial date. If you have an attorney this is where negotiation will take place with the State regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the case. If you do not have an attorney, you can discuss with the prosecutor yourself. Depending on how discussions go, you can plan a plea deal, continue for more discovery, or set the case for trial.
While this doesn't fully exhaust everything that happens, hopefully this gives you a good idea on where the process will go. Being charged with a crime is stressful and not fun. Having an idea of what will happen should make the process a little smoother.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
When can a police officer stop your car?
As a criminal defense lawyer in Idaho Falls and Pocatello, people will ask me when can a police officer stop my car? The truth is while it may not take much, a police officer can not stop you for just any reason.
The general rule is that if a police officer must have at least a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. This rule is derived from a United States Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio. Consequently, this type of stop has come to be known as a Terry Stop.
A police officer is not allowed to rely solely on an unjutified suspicion. The United States Supreme Court has said exactly that; a law enforcement officer cannot rely solely on a gut feeling, or mere suspicion. A police officer is not allowed to do what you and I do every day. In order to be justified in stopping a vehicle, and detaining the person in that vehicle, he must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion.
A common example of this is weaving within a lane. Many times officers use this as a basis for stopping a vehicle. However, there are many times where the weaving within a lane is not significant enough to amount to a reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver was drunk or inattentive. Slight deviations within a lane are to be expected, and so the weaving would have to be substantial enough to amount to reasonable articulable suspicion that the person was drunk or was inattentive in his driving, since the activity of weaving itself is not illegal. Sometimes the specific facts are not instances of illegal conduct themselves, however they may lead an officer to infer that criminal activity has occurred, or is about to occur.
If an officer stops you and it is found he does not have an atriculable suspicion to do so, evidence from his stop will be supressed in court. The only time this will come up is if you have been charged with some wrongdoing and have evidence that needs to be suppressed. If you have questions about a situation you have been in, feel free to give us a call. http://www.eastidahoattorney.com/
The general rule is that if a police officer must have at least a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. This rule is derived from a United States Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio. Consequently, this type of stop has come to be known as a Terry Stop.
A police officer is not allowed to rely solely on an unjutified suspicion. The United States Supreme Court has said exactly that; a law enforcement officer cannot rely solely on a gut feeling, or mere suspicion. A police officer is not allowed to do what you and I do every day. In order to be justified in stopping a vehicle, and detaining the person in that vehicle, he must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion.
A common example of this is weaving within a lane. Many times officers use this as a basis for stopping a vehicle. However, there are many times where the weaving within a lane is not significant enough to amount to a reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver was drunk or inattentive. Slight deviations within a lane are to be expected, and so the weaving would have to be substantial enough to amount to reasonable articulable suspicion that the person was drunk or was inattentive in his driving, since the activity of weaving itself is not illegal. Sometimes the specific facts are not instances of illegal conduct themselves, however they may lead an officer to infer that criminal activity has occurred, or is about to occur.
If an officer stops you and it is found he does not have an atriculable suspicion to do so, evidence from his stop will be supressed in court. The only time this will come up is if you have been charged with some wrongdoing and have evidence that needs to be suppressed. If you have questions about a situation you have been in, feel free to give us a call. http://www.eastidahoattorney.com/
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Injured at work? Someone else's fault?
Often times while working on the clock, someone is injured by another party. This situation can arise in an automobile accident, construction accident, product liability accident, premises accident, or medical malpratice claim for instance. In these situations, while you may be eligible for worker's compensation benefits, you may be entitled to even more compensation if the third party is liable for your accident or injuries. Claims in these circumstances can be confusing.
Deciding who is responsible for paying what is always a big concern. Furthermore, worker's compensation can claim subrogation rights to and file liens on any third party recovery. Under Idaho law these employer's rights can be affected by the employers own liability. While this article may not provide many answers if you have been invovled in this type of situation, hopefully it will give you an idea of what you may need to think about and an understanding that you do have rights. In later articles I will address specific concerns in more detail. In the meantime, feel free to contact for a free consultation to discuss any of these issues.
Deciding who is responsible for paying what is always a big concern. Furthermore, worker's compensation can claim subrogation rights to and file liens on any third party recovery. Under Idaho law these employer's rights can be affected by the employers own liability. While this article may not provide many answers if you have been invovled in this type of situation, hopefully it will give you an idea of what you may need to think about and an understanding that you do have rights. In later articles I will address specific concerns in more detail. In the meantime, feel free to contact for a free consultation to discuss any of these issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)