This week U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez announced the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division would be opening a broader inquiry into the Portland Police Department. The investigation is to determine whether or not there is a pattern of civil rights abuses within the city by the local police. The announcement comes after the urging by many high powered local officials.

Portland isn’t the only city undergoing such an in-depth inquiry. Both Seattle and Newark are in the same boat and Denver might not be far behind. This renewed interest in civil rights allegations has been spurred by the Obama Administration’s said-dedication to the matter following years of little action under the Bush Administration.

The former police commissioner and now city commissioner, Dan Saltzman called on the feds to launch the investigation several months ago. He was joined in supporting the inquiry by several  civil rights groups and the Mayor.

The announcement comes just days after a letter was sent to the mother of 23 year old Aaron Campbell, alerting her that the feds wouldn’t be pursuing criminal charges against the police officer who fatally shot and killed Campbell in January 2010. On that winter day, cops were called out because Campbell was suicidal after the death of his 25 year old brother. He exited the home backwards upon police request with his hands interlaced at the back of his head. He was shot with six beanbag rounds before an officer fired a lethal round from his AR-15.

No criminal charges will be brought because the feds didn’t feel they could meet the burden of proof. In a case like this, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully deprived Campbell of his rights. This means, according to the Oregonian, that “accident, mistake, fear, negligence, or bad judgment are insufficient to establish a criminal violation.”

The effects of this inquiry depend on what the DOJ finds. They could make recommendations or monitor the department if it’s found that there is a pattern of abuses.

You don’t have to be a victim of police brutality to be frightened when you are facing criminal charges. Nearly anyone would be apprehensive about the possibility for jail time or a tarnished record. If you’re up against criminal charges, contact us today.

The Oregon Supreme Court is in the midst of a case that questions the role or impact of medical marijuana use on the right to bear a firearm. Four plaintiffs are before the court, all of which receive medical marijuana via prescription and all of which are also licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

The main source of disdain is Sheriffs across the state who believe medical marijuana users should not be allowed to carry weapons like everyone else. They see the combination as a disaster waiting to happen. Others, including trial court judges in the four cases, believe the parties in question are responsible gun owners and responsible citizens, not pot heads with itchy trigger fingers.

Medical marijuana laws have been on the books in Oregon for about 13 years now and the prescription pot is used for everything from pain disorders to treating the side effects of chemotherapy. Currently, there are about 40,000 medical marijuana users in the state.

The President of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association believes the “whole medical marijuana thing is a farce,” according to the LA Times. He states the majority of the medical users spend most of their day “running around stoned” and is concerned that weapons in the hands of these high patients isn’t in the best interest of public safety.

Because federal law still bans the use of marijuana as a controlled substance and also makes it illegal for someone to possess drugs and a gun at the same time, they argue that medical marijuana users shouldn’t be afforded the same gun rights.

Carrying a concealed weapon isn’t that difficult in Oregon, where nearly anyone can get a permit unless they have convictions on their record.

Those who use medical marijuana and carry weapons argue that they are rarely, if ever, “high”. They also state they have a need for the firearms, for self protection and security. One Circuit Court judge stated the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court cases are “hardworking, honest, conscientious people who use medical marijuana as contemplated by the statue…They are similarly responsible in their use and possession of weapons.”

Law enforcement officials seem to have visions of Reefer Madness on their minds, with wild marijuana users running the streets armed. On the contrary, the plaintiffs in this case are so ill and in pain, the likelihood they would make any sudden movements, even to draw a weapon, seem pretty rare.

However, law enforcement officials are tasked with enforcing laws, and you can bet if they find that you are violating one, they will do something about it. Whether you are facing marijuana charges or weapons charges, you need someone on your side. Contact my offices today for a free consultation on your case.

Measure 11, a bill passed in 1994, sought to bring harsher punishments to criminals in an attempt to keep the public safe and appear tough on crime. It did that, increasing incarceration rates across the state. But a new report questions if the effects of Measure 11 are as intended or if it has done more harm than good.

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission’s report, released last week, says the mandatory minimums prescribed by Measure 11 have largely done away with judicial power and instead shifted the power of the justice system to the prosecutors in the state. The report was commissioned by the state as they examine potential changes to Oregon sentencing laws to minimize the damage of the state budget crisis.

The Commission Chairman, a former judge, states “There is a reason the Founding Fathers created an independent judiciary” going on to state Measure 11 has done away with the role of the judge and transferred that power to the prosecutor. Opponents of the report state it is politically motivated and is “anti-incarceration, anti-law enforcement, and anti-victims.”

The report found that without Measure 11 in place, the state prison system would need 2,900 fewer beds. The number of those incarcerated by the measure has been increased largely because prosecutors use the threat of mandatory minimums in convincing defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, resulting in incarceration even when, perhaps, the case would have resulted in acquittal had it gone to trial.

Ultimately, the punishment for a suspected crime is now determined by a prosecutor in their choosing of an appropriate charge and the negotiation of a plea agreement. Justice is being carried out in hallways rather than courtrooms as attorneys bargain their way to a compromise, a compromise that often favors the state more than the defendant.

The report doesn’t make any recommendations for change but supporters of Measure 11 are worried that it will be a platform to eventually do away with or change the current sentencing laws.

The vast majority of criminal cases are resolved in plea agreements. This is true across the country. Ideally a plea agreement is favorable for both parties involved, though for the defendant it’s often a matter of the lesser of two evils.

If you are facing criminal charges and wondering about your options and the likelihood of a favorable plea agreement, contact me today.

An article in this week’s Oregonian takes a hard look at the fear of crime versus the reality of crime and begs an important question—how can people statewide fear crime more than ever despite actual crime numbers falling?

A survey from PSU’s Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute asked Oregon residents across the state about their perception of crime. Only 10% said they thought crime had fallen during the past year and only 38% thought it remained static. The remaining all thought crime had increased.

When it came to their neighborhoods, they were slightly more conservative, with only 25% reporting they believed crime had climbed on a local level.

Interestingly, though, crime has actually fallen again this year and is at the lowest levels since the 1960s in Oregon. This strange disconnect between fear of crime and reality is nothing new, politicians and the media have been playing off of it and likely increasing it for years.

The Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at PSU, Brian Renauser states that this disparity can affect “everything from public policy to law enforcement’s ability to keep the public safe—even simple livability and peace of mind.”

The citizens of Oregon aren’t alone in their exaggerated fear of crime; the same sort of fear exists across the country, as does the reality of a falling crime rate. But the good news rarely makes it onto the evening news. Instead we are bombarded with more and more tales of high crime and horrendous acts by a select few.

One study, from the University of Nebraska recently showed what crime shows people watch tends to affect their fear of crime. Those who prefer the reality-documentary based shows are more likely to feel that crime is around every corner. They are also most likely to have little faith in the criminal justice system in general.

News stories and coverage of positive impact by law enforcement and decreased crime rates simply don’t get the ratings that the juicy, scary stuff does. Similarly, a politician who promises to be “tough on crime” plays right into this irrational fear, as do some overly restrictive laws and practices by police.

The survey from PSU indicates those people most likely to believe crime is at all-time highs consider themselves to be conservative and make less than $50,000. Interestingly, this income bracket is also the more likely to distrust police.

Mistrust of the criminal justice system is often characteristic of those people who have had first-hand experiences with the system. They don’t trust it because they may have been treated unfairly or feel like they got an exceptionally harsh sentence.

Having a local criminal defense attorney on their side may have prevented them from facing the more serious penalties. Consulting with such an attorney can give you insight into the realities of your charges and the potential consequences it may carry. Contact our offices today if you are facing criminal charges in Oregon.

There aren’t many community treatment options available when it comes to the relatively poor and mentally ill in Oregon. Often, they end up seeing prison as one of the few options available to them, prison or the state mental hospital where more than 65% of patients are there after being found guilty except for insanity, according to this Oregonian article.

When mental hospitals were abandoned several decades ago in favor of more humane treatment for the mentally ill, no one could have foreseen the problems it would cause today. That’s not to say the old approach should have stuck around, merely that locking them up in prison isn’t any better.

Mental illness spans from major depressive disorder and schizophrenia to bipolar disorder and anxiety. And while many of these issues are best treated with therapy and medication, many people can’t afford such options. For them, life is a daily battle with their mind.

Sometimes the mentally ill lack the self control that you and I have to keep them from committing crimes. Other times they may make a conscious decision to get help through the courts. Regardless of the motivation, it’s a shame when someone has to go to prison to receive assistance for illness they can’t get on the “outside”.

While mounting an insanity defense in criminal court can be an uphill battle, there are other options. For one man, pleading guilty except for insanity seemed the best route. Now, locked behind doors for the majority of his days he says “It’s not worth it; not worth it at all.”

When you are facing charges of a crime and you have mental health issues, it can be difficult to get sympathy from the courts. It often seems as if people are judging you, like you may be trying to “work the system” by claiming mental illness. The truth is that mental illness can play a role in the motivations behind criminal behavior and mental health treatment (or lack thereof) can have a major impact on your life in general.

Though hospitalization or mental health programming in prison might not be a first choice, there are mental health programs available to people who have been put on probation as well. If you are facing criminal charges and in need of help for your mental health problems, your defense attorney can help you weigh all of your options and discuss the possibility of getting you some treatment.

Whether you struggle with mild depression or severe schizophrenia, you need an advocate in court when you are up against criminal charges in Oregon. Contact our offices today for a consultation on your case.

Last year there were six police shootings—four of them resulted in civilian deaths. So far in 2011, there have been two police shootings. In the final weeks of 2010 and the first days in January, there was a record set for the most officer involved shootings in a short amount of time (5 in 40 days). Not a record to be proud of, for sure.

Portland Police Chief and other officials are looking at each case and what can be done to bring these numbers down. To be certain, cuts in mental health programming throughout the community has led to a division of the population being more agitated and more prone to criminality. But mental illness can’t possibly be to blame entirely.

One group is in their ninth month of studying police encounters with the mentally ill. Made up of public health professionals and law enforcement officials alike, the group is analyzing 40 nonfatal encounters that have occurred since March 2009. According to the Oregonian, the city is ready to award a contract to another study group—the Office of Independent Review who will look at all police shootings from 2004 to the present.

The Chief of Police states they are investigating all options to reduce police uses of deadly force to include other tools including shotgun propelled tasers and ionized air, to name a few. He states he is confident that his officers are trained well and acting appropriately, though he is also concerned about all of the shootings. “there’s too many. I consider one too many. We’re going to do everything we can to prevent officers from aging to use their firearms” he says.

Within law enforcement, officers are required to act within what’s often called a “use of force continuum”. This means that for the level of resistance offered by a suspect, the officer is allowed to offer force which is one step elevated to gain control. This prevents officers from  going too far and ensures they are using the minimal amount of force necessary to gain control of the situation.

By potentially adding tools or non lethal weapons to the officer’s arsenal, the administration is essentially giving them additional options within the continuum—things to try before resorting to the final choice, deadly force.

As Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch states, however, the police received a good deal of crisis intervention training to its officers in the wake of one civilian death and the further police shootings seem to indicate this training is not being used to “its full extent.”

The use of deadly force in Portland is definitely disproportionate for a city of this size and something that must be addressed. Whether that comes from increased training, improved mental health resources, or additional equipment the community deserves to feel safe.

Police encounters can be scary even when no force is used. This is especially true if the encounter ends with your arrest. If you’ve been arrested and are facing criminal charges in Oregon, contact our attorneys for a consultation on your case today.

With the recent arrest by the FBI of terror suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud the nation has been abuzz with talks of “entrapment”. Did the FBI push the Somali born man to take terrorist action or were they simply doing their job?

Interestingly, claims of entrapment aren’t just for high profile cases like this. Nearly anytime the police set up a “sting” operation, they must be cautious that their actions can’t be perceived as entrapment. It’s true in prostitution stings and drug stings alike—there is a fine line between uncovering a suspect’s true intent and leading them into criminal behavior.

The FBI claims Mr. Mohamud’s intent was to detonate a car bomb at a crowded Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland. Critics state the 19 year old man would have had no such ideas if the undercover FBI agents hadn’t planted the seed in his head.

According to various media sources, the FBI helped the suspect find the materials needed for the bomb and even told him how to set the bomb off. Does this amount to entrapment?

Legally, entrapment is defined as being persuaded or induced by law enforcement to commit a crime when the original intention wasn’t there. In other words, it’s being “talked into” committing a crime that you would otherwise not commit. The law goes on to say that entrapment is not when someone is willing to break the law and the government agents simply give them the opportunity to commit it.

Attorney General Eric Holder states he is confident there was no entrapment in the FBI’s investigation of the Portland terror suspect and the Mayor of Portland is thankful for their investigation and subsequent arrest.

Entrapment is a term that’s thrown around a lot though rarely legally applicable. In some instances, however, sting operations can entrap people who would otherwise not ever commit such crimes. Many who get caught up in such prostitution or drug stings often claim they were “tricked” into committing an offense.

In order for you to convince a judge or jury that you are the victim of entrapment, a consultation with a defense attorney is necessary. It can be difficult to prove entrapment, though an honest consultation will help determine if it’s possible with your particular case.

Contact our offices today to discuss the particulars of your case with a criminal defense attorney.

Portland City Auditor LaVonne Griffin-Valade ordered a review of the city police’s taser use and the finding suggest officers should practice more restraint. According to OregonLive.com, policy should be changed to reflect such restraint and the necessity of officers to use a minimum number of cycles when the tasers are employed.

The audit covered 50 random Taster uses in 2009. In 1/5 of the cases officers fired more than one cycle to gain control of the situation. A cycle lasts 5 seconds and although compliance is said to increase with each successive cycle, the risk for injury certainly does as well.

The report suggested that four or more cycles were used in an estimated 20% of cases. That is more than 20 seconds of continuous high voltage electricity. And while the circumstances surrounding each case are not known, it seems pretty excessive.

Part of the audit’s goal was to compare Portland procedures and practices to other departments across the country. It found that in most cities the Taser is only authorized for use when a suspect actively resists, providing aggressive physical action in response to police. In Portland, Taser use is authorized when mere intent to resist is shown.

In other words, if the police think you appear like you might resist their actions, they can use a Taser. Also, Portland doesn’t require medical attention be given after each Taser deployment, another difference from other major cities.

In addition to these points of interest, the audit uncovered police supervisors neglecting to fill out “after-action” reports, required after a use of force. Officer’s use of force reports were also often missing supervisor signatures and officers didn’t document their warnings towards suspects given before firing their Taser.

While Taser incidents have dropped in the city, falling to 320 in 2009, the ACLU and various others are calling on the Department to tighten their Taser standards to at least measure up to similar cities across the country.

One community, Ashland, is the only Oregon department to adapt the strictest policy recommended, one which calls on officers to use a Taser only in incidences where “there’s a likelihood the situation will escalate to a need for deadly force.” This should leave out typical arrest for disorderly conduct.

When looked at in light of the number of arrests per day in Portland, Taser use is relatively minimal, as it should be. Most arrests are rather uneventful. However, when force is used or when the police do act out of line, it should be taken very seriously.

Whether you were a victim of Taser use or you are simply facing criminal charges for which you don’t believe there’s any justification—contact me today. I can give you a free consultation on your criminal case and we can discuss your options.

Measure 73 was up for debate this past week in the Legislature. The measure would stiffen penalties for both sex offenders and drunk drivers. Support for the measure is low, however, given the cost and the current financial climate.

According to the Statesman-Journal the initiative is sponsored by Kevin Mannix, a Republican candidate for governor and a former legislator himself. The item will be on the November ballot.

In regards to sexual offenses, the measure would increase the minimum penalty to 25 years for four specific sex crimes—first degree rape, first degree unlawful sexual penetration, first degree sodomy, and using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.

It would also increase the penalty for a third offense of DUI. If adopted, measure 73 would create a mandatory 90 jail sentence. Currently, there is no such mandatory sentence for DUII.

Critics of the measure point to the cost of the added incarceration as reason enough for it not to pass. Supporters state it’s a matter of public safety—worth the expense.

The Statesman article points to a drop in violent crime between 1995 and 2005 and points to Measure 11 which imposed a series of mandatory minimums for violent crime as responsible. However, this connection certainly can’t be credited with all of the crime reduction.

Most cities experienced such a drop within the 1995-2005 decade and the drop could be attributed to any number of things. It is likely the sentencing laws impacted crime, though not probably they were wholly responsible for the nose dive.

Alternatives to incarceration should be considered long before stiffer prison sentences are mandated. In the prison system, inmates are far less likely to be given the treatment and education they need to live a reformed life. Probation and other community alternatives, however, help them maintain a job and standing within their family and community while paying a debt to society.

Probation is often a favorable outcome for all parties in a criminal case. The state wins because the taxpayers don’t have to carry the burden of another inmate. The defendant wins because they aren’t locked up away from their family and their life.

Although probation is often the outcome in DUII and assault cases, it isn’t always an option. Knowing if you’re eligible for probation or other community alternatives can ease your mind when up against criminal charges and a potential jail sentence.

If you are facing criminal charges, contact our offices today for a free consultation.

Although state law in Oregon now allows for the use of marijuana, when approved by a physician, in many medical conditions, the state’s high court ruled last week that employers do not have to cater to those people with medical marijuana authorization if their use violates a workplace policy.

The ruling overturns a decision by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and a following affirmation by the Oregon Court of Appeals. What affect this has on employees and states across the country remains to be seen.

The case involved a man who was authorized to use medical marijuana after a doctor determined he has a medical condition that could be managed by smoking pot. The condition caused the man to have severe anxiety, panic attacks, nausea, and vomiting. According to the Oregonian, he was using marijuana 1-3 times a day though not using it at work.

He was employed by a large industry with many large machines and “dangerous pieces of equipment”. When the man admitted to his employer that he was a medical marijuana user he was soon fired. The Bureau of Labor sided with the man, awarding him lost wages and additional funds for emotional suffering.

The state’s high court determined that the state must divert to federal law, however, when considering employment. They state that employers can keep zero-tolerance drug policies in place, potentially displacing medical marijuana users.

This story is just one example of how the enactment of medical marijuana laws does not mean the substance will be without tight regulation. It also provokes many questions about what type of restrictions would be faced if the substance was legalized across the board.

Until that time, however, we will have to deal with the marijuana laws as they stand. Currently, Oregon has some of the more lax marijuana laws in the country. If you are caught in possession of less than one ounce, you will typically only face a fine.

However, if you cross that one ounce threshold, you will face a felony charge.

When facing charges of marijuana possession or even possession with intent to distribute, you need a defense lawyer who knows their way around the sometimes confusing marijuana laws. Contact our attorneys to discuss the details of your case.