The Oregon legislature has passed a bill that will toughen the state’s drunk driving (DUII) laws, requiring a breathalyzer (ignition interlock) device to be installed in the vehicle of every convicted DUII offender.

HB 3075 which passed both the Senate and the House unanimously, and goes to Governor Kitzhaber for signature.

Under existing law, a first offense DUII commonly results in a DUII diversion program. The diversion program allows participants to attend alcohol education and addiction programs, and if successfully completed, would be afforded a chance to have the DUII charge dismissed.

According to OregonLive.com, Oregon’s MADD representatives suggest that this is a major loophole, and that this law is so lax that program attendees routinely show up drunk at their education and treatment program sessions. But one would presume this clearly invalidates the terms of their diversion program, and results in more significant penalties, including driver’s license suspension.

On the other hand, representatives from restaurant trade groups note that data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that the average BAC level for a fatal DUI incident is .19, and 70% of fatal incidents are from a .15% BAC or higher, nearly twice the legal limit of .08% BAC. And yet we are talking about punishing first time offenders barely over the limit with a costly and potentially job destroying requirement.

Though first time offender interlock requirements are a growing trend nationwide, most other states have interlock requirements only for either multiple convicted drunk driving offenders, or so-called “high BAC” offenders, who registered blood alcohol levels of .15% or higher at the time of arrest. These offenders are considered the most dangerous, and the most likely to re-offend, likely due to severe alcohol addition problems.

Despite the beverage industry call for the Governor to veto this bill, there has been no suggestion that he is not inclined to go along with the clear will of the legislature.

We will follow the passage, implementation, and results of this bill as it likely becomes law.

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.

A new bill before the Oregon legislature would require an ignition interlock device be installed in the car of anyone arrested for a 1st offense drunk driving charge (DUII), even before they are convicted.According to KEZI, the bill before the Oregon house would punish those who are able to avoid conviction by entering a DUII diversion program. The diversion program typically involved an alcohol education program, a victims impact program, and probation. If the program is successfully completed, the charge is dismissed as a diversion instead of a criminal conviction. Although, if a second DUII offense is ever charged, it will still count the diversion as a prior conviction.

An ignition interlock device is a rolling breath test machine installed in the car, which requires a clean (alcohol free) breath sample for the ignition to start. The problem with requiring an IID for any 1st offense DUII is that it unfairly punishes people based on what could easily be a one time, marginal incident, and it doesn’t truly target serious alcoholics and chronic drunk drivers.

Not to mention that the punishment kicks in before any proclamation of guilt. This is true in virtually all drunk driving cases, where at a minimum, a person’s driver’s license is immediately suspended before any hearing takes place. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply, in what Lawrence Taylor calls “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

There are alternative ignition interlock bills that could also be passed, so the details remain hard to pin down on exactly how this may play out.

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.

Oregon ballot initiative Measure 73, which passed in November, goes into effect on Dec 2.  It will result in significantly increased penalties for 3rd offense DUII (drunk driving) charges as well as repeat sex offenders.Third offense DUII charges will result in a mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days in jail if convicted, and will be classified as a Class C Felony charge if both prior convictions happened within the previous 10 years. Before this law, the minimum penalty was 2-15 days in jail as for a second offense.

The second part of Measure 73 concerns mandatory minimums for felony sex offenses. If you have a previous felony sex offense, you will face a minimum of 25 years in prison. Felony sex offenses include rape, and child pornography.

Prior to this initiative, the minimum for a second sex offense was 70 months, or under 6 years.

There is some controversy as to whether this statute could cover acts known as “sexting”, specifically among teens. The laws against child pornography, in statute terms described as “using child in sexually explicit display”, could very possibly include teens sending consensual pictures of themselves. The Oregon Daily Emerald cited this reason as one to oppose the measure, although the measures backers dismiss this claim.

How this law is actually interpreted by judges will be clarified as soon as these sentences are issued.