This means if you are carrying an Iphone or blackberry and get arrested for any reason, the police officer can go through ALL THE CONTENTS of you phone with out a warrant. Pictures, apps, websites visited, phone calls made, voice-mails and any other thing that can be accessed on your phone are all within the purview of this search.  It takes a warrant to come in to my house. There are just as intimate details about my life in my phone.

My office has changed locations. I am now sharing space with Richard West.

The new contact information is as follows:

86 Military Road

Marion, Arkansas 72364

phone — 870-739-1810

fax — 870-739-6269

My email address will remain the same: shaunhair@sbcglobal.net.

The question it seems “John” is asking is “Am I on the wrong side by defending people who are often guilty?”

It confuses what we do to think of it in terms of sides. Good and bad. Right and wrong. Me and the police play a role in a constitutional system of checks and balances. If there were no defense lawyers, police would be completely unchecked. Unaccountable law enforcement produced corruption and injustice in every civilization since the dawn of time. On the other hand, if there were no police, who knows the evil that would run amuck without fear of penalty.

Police keep people accountable. Defense lawyers keep police accountable. That system protects more people than just the guy being arrested. Twenty years from now, when a corrupt or ignorant officer decides to arrest my son on bogus charges, I want there to be a system in place that provides for fairness and accountability. Both functions are vital.

But it’s a strange irony that defense lawyers are considered the sneakier of the two. I do the majority of my work in a court room with a judge and prosecutor watching, listening and analyzing every word. Twelve jurors have to watch decide I am right. Police do the majority of their work in the dark street with no immediate oversight except the loyal opinion of a comrade and the often untrusted word of the accused who must give up his rights to even speak up.

Constitutional safeguards exist to check law enforcement, not check me. The founding fathers feared badges and uniforms, not thugs and blunts.

I’m glad police do what they do. And I’m glad I am there to stop them when they break the rules — either on purpose or when they mistakenly think it is for the greater good. It never is, by the way.

But more important than all this is an underlying spiritual reality. God tell us WE ALL ARE GUILTY. None are good. No, not one. Yet Jesus stands before God the Judge as our mediator. Despite knowing the full extent of our guilt, Jesus pleads to God on our behalf. Jesus is my defense lawyer. And God pardons sin and forgives transgression and delights to show mercy.

I am not Jesus, but I plead to the Judge on behalf of those that need it. I do not apologize for that. I am proud of it.

While there is little doubt that Bagdasarian was an angry, misguided racist, I applaud the 9th Circuit Court for this decision.  There is an important Constitutional and historical lesson that especially political speech is protected — regardless of how ignorant it is.

Locally, the police officer in Earle, Arkansas are citing its citizens for “terroristic threatening” if they use the F word in their conversation.  If they use the F word more than once, the officer may cite them for “inciting a riot.”   An officer told me with a straight face that he did not see how saying “F— you” was not a threat.

That kind of ignorance of the law is a tragedy.  It robs citizens of freedom and puts the reputation of law enforcement officers in the same class as baboons. No offense to actual baboons.

I am under the impression that the local judge in Earle is educating the police force about this kind of oppression.  It should be embarrassing to anyone who wears a badge.

I bring up Earle because it was similar ignorance of the law that led to the arrest of Bagdasarian in the above court case.  Perhaps it was another law enforcement officer who hears something and decides to take matters into his own hands without regard for the law or the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.

Shame on the ignorant officers who decided to arrest Bagdasarian. Shame on the ignorant officers in Earle who have never dared read the laws they so oppressively attempt to enforce. And credit due to the Ninth Circuit and any other court that stops the ignorance and says yes to freedom.

(And credit to the defense for a great Burden Of Proof chart.)

After the not guilty verdict game down in the Casey Anthony trial, the hashtag #notguilty” began trending.  Shortly thereafter, the firm handling social media for Entemann’s tweeted the following:

“Who’s #notguilty about eating all the tasty treats they want?!”

The backlash was immediate.  Entemann’s put in to fire their social media team, issued and apology and claimed that at the time of the tweet, they had no knowledge of what the hashtag related to.

Read the whole story here.

Myth 1: You Can’t Be Tried More Than Once For The Same Crime
Myth 2: The Government Can’t Punish You For A Crime Without First Convicting You
Myth 3: Ignorance Of The Law Is No Defense
Myth 4: We have appeals courts to check and verify jury verdicts.
Myth 5: Due to their position, law enforcement officials are held to a higher standard of conduct than regular citizens.
Myth 6: Dangerous criminals frequently escape punishment by “getting off on a technicality.”
Myth 7: No one confesses to a crime he didn’t commit.

I found this excerpt from Myth 5 particularly interesting:

Many states have also passed a “police officer’s bill of rights,” a special set of protections for officers accused of serious misconduct, including acts that could result in criminal charges. In many jurisdictions, police officers get a “cooling off period” after a shooting or allegation of excessive force. During this period, which can range from 48 hours to 10 days, the officers under investigation cannot be asked any questions about the incident. In most states, police officers also can’t be questioned about misconduct without a union representative or attorney present.

Arkansas does in fact have a Police Officers’ Bill of Rights. It can be located at A.C.A. 14-52-301 et seq. I read that statutory language and was surprised to learn that under this section police officers are afforded greater protection than the citizens who are facing jail time. For example:

A. Interrogations of police officers must be recorded in full — interrogations of private citizens do not have to be.

B. Questions must be asked by one person — police can do the good cop/ bad cop or bad cop/ bad cop routine on private citizens.

C. Officers can make their own independent recording — a private citizen can get arrested for recording an interrogation.

D.  Officers can have a witness of their choosing present during an interrogation — a private citizen can only ask for a lawyer at which time the interrogation ceases.

It would be nice to see more equity between private citizens facing prison and the treatment of police officer who are likely only facing the loss of a job.

Prosecutors said Tuesday they do not plan to try Gary Dunn for a third time in the slaying of a Russellville beauty queen who was killed in 2005.

The decision was revealed during a hearing in Pope County Circuit Court. Dunn, who had been in custody since his arrest, was released after the proceeding.

Read the story here.

Look at this excerpt:

According to a police recording entered into evidence during trial, the action stemmed from an incident on June 29, 2005 where officers William Hoyt and Craig Blank with at least five other uniformed officers responded to an unverified claim of abuse, entered the home of a San Jose family on a child welfare check, then removed two children without a warrant and later seized a third child as well.

The jury heard testimony during the week-long trial that officers in the department have never sought warrants or court orders for removing children – in violation of federal law – and then falsified their claims of an emergency to justify taking all of the children.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/04/prweb8269009.DTL#ixzz1Ig3JYY21