Recent Blog Posts

Strip Searches - Embarrassing AND Constitutional

Navid Alband — Fri, 18 May 2012 16:30:00 GMT

Recently the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 4^th Amendment of the constitution as allowing suspicionless strip searches for all individuals entering a jail -- including minor offenders. As we've discussed before, the 4^th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, the Supreme Court decided that a strip search, for any reason, is reasonable upon entering general jail population.

Since 1979 in Bell v. Wolfish, the admissibility and guidelines for strip searches have been ever growing. This judicial decision in Florence v. County of Burlington to expand what constitutes a reasonable search is beneficial to correctional facility staff. The problem though lies with whether we believe the Supreme Court properly decided the pros of the controversial search outweigh the cons.

The focus of allowing strip searches of individuals before entering general population is that it helps maintain a safer environment within the jail. When there is a large group of individuals, all serving time for a crime, tensions run high, and safety is of vital importance to staff and prisoners alike. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy wrote that "maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to problems." He then referenced past Supreme Court decisions regarding officers' discretion to discover and deter smuggling of weapons and drugs, general bans on contact visits to stop smuggling, and recognizing that deterring possession of contraband depends partly on unpredictable searches. The safety of a correctional facility is an ongoing concern, and it is apparent through this decision that drastic measures are being accepted to ensure a safer environment.

Opposers to this 5-4 decision argue that the need for this particular search is far outweighed by the invasion of personal rights. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer focuses on his opinion that a strip search of an individual arrested for a minor offense – such as traffic – is unreasonable without reasonable suspicion. Although those confined in jail have only limited rights, the 4^th Amendment is a constitutional right they still retain. And, a strip search involving a stranger peer at the most private parts of an individual's body is a serious invasion of privacy. Further, many correctional facilities already apply the reasonable suspicion standard before conducting strip searches on individuals entering general jail population. And, the Federal Bureau of Prisons forbids suspicionless strip searches for minor offenders.

In conclusion, the Court's decision came down to whether the need to perform a strip search without suspicion overcompensates for the invasion of an individual's personal rights. The Court continues to give deference to correctional officials in order to determine ways to keep the jail safe. Inmates commit more than 10,000 assaults on correctional staff every year – not including the attacks among themselves. When it comes to keeping people safe, it now does not matter what charge brought you to the facility. What matters is that you are a prisoner, and it is up to the correctional officers to keep and maintain a safe environment – regardless of your personal privacy.

When you think about it, an innocent person charged with murder may not be as dangerous and a murder brought in on a traffic offense. Safety in our jails is paramount. So as if jail wasn't embarrassing enough, a strip search is more than okay – it’s constitutional.

Marijuana and the Government

Navid Alband — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:55:00 GMT

In honor of the recent month of April, I thought I would discuss the continuous and ever growing relationship between marijuana and the government.

Starting as early as 1913, states began passing anti-marijuana laws. Ironically, California was the first state to pioneer this path. And, now, while seventeen states possess medical marijuana statutes, Texas holds firm in its strict ban against the Schedule 1 narcotic.

So what is the history behind the current penalties against the most popular drug of choice to our nation's teenagers? In 1956, the Narcotic Control Act was responsible for imposing a minimum, mandatory sentence on a marijuana first offense. A charge of possession of marijuana would place an individual in prison for 2 to 10 years. The government was committed to putting an end to the use of marijuana. But, despite the propaganda, marijuana use increased in popularity among the youth across the nation. Marijuana was a part of pop culture.

From the 1960's to the 1970's the amount of Americans reportedly using marijuana had increased by the millions. The harsh penalties implemented over marijuana use did not seem to be effective. In response, the Controlled Substances Act abolished the mandatory minimums, yet continued to discourage and prosecute marijuana use. Marijuana was still considered a "schedule 1" drug because of the potential for abuse, alongside heroin and MDMA.

Fast forwarding to the present, an individual in possession of any amount of marijuana within the Texas borders may serve jail time. Even with the frequent rap song and casual television reference, current penalties in this state range from B misdemeanors to felonies punishable up to 99 years.

In what seems to be a growing popularity and acceptance, the use of marijuana is still a crime and very much pursued by the authorities. The penalties an individual may be subjected to are far more inconvenient than the task of abiding by law. The notorious relationship between marijuana and the government has lasted many years and the fight continues.

Below is an outline of the possession of marijuana penalties in Texas:

Possession of:

2 oz or less = class B misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in jail and/or $2000

2 to 4 oz = class A misdemeanor punishable by 1 year in jail and/or $4000

More than 4 oz to 5 lbs = state jail felony punishable by 6 months to 2 years and/or $10,000

5 to 50 lbs = felony of the third degree punishable by 2-10 years and/or $10,000

50 to 2,000 lbs = felony of the second degree punishable by 2-20 years and/or $10,000

More than 2,000 lbs = felony of the first degree punishable by 5-99 years and/or $50,000

The Hunger Games and the Texas Penal Code

Navid Alband — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:55:00 GMT

The story of a young girl protecting her sister and defying her government has swept the nation. The audience undeniably roots for the main character to survive the grueling conditions of the game and return to her family. But, in rooting for her to survive, the audience must endure the deaths of others because in the Hunger Games, it is a fight to death.

There is no doubt that the raved about movie The Hunger Games has its fair share of gory death scenes. The plot circles around a wealthy Capitol punishing the poorer surrounding 12 Districts for past rebellion. In punishing the Districts, each District offers up a boy and a girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in the Hunger Games in which only one person comes out alive.

Violent? Disturbing? Inhumane?

Despite the movie's excellent reviews, the plot line does contradict values we tend to hold as a society. This is because the actions taken by many of the characters in The Hunger Games would be sufficient to amount to a criminal charge under our laws in Texas.

Besides the obvious charges of murder – that we will discuss later – I think we should start with the criminal responsibility of some of the characters. Under the Texas Penal Code §7.01, a person is considered a party to the offense if he commits an offense or if someone else that he is criminally responsible for commits an offense. Each party to an offense may be charged with the commission of that offense. It also states in the Penal Code §7.02 that a person is criminally responsible for someone else's actions when he acts with the intent to promote or assist the other's offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.

Having said that, it is feasable that the government officials may be criminally responsible for the deaths of the participants during the Hunger Games. The government encourages, directs, and aids in the killings of the Hunger Game participants.

The participants could be charged with murder under the Penal Code § 19.02 here in Texas. To be charged with murder a person must intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual. All of the participants are intentionally taking the lives of the other participants in order to be the winner at the end. Participants that kill multiple times could even be charged with capital murder (§ 19.03). For a murder to be considered a capital murder, a person must have committed the crime of murder plus one of the nine aggravating factors. For this circumstance, the aggravating factor that would apply to the Hunger Game participants is the murdering of more than one person pursuant to the same course of conduct – that being the Hunger Games. A charge of murder is a first degree felony and a capital murder is a capital felony punished with a death sentence of life without parole.

Although some of the participants, like Katniss, could be charged with the murder of other participants, she could use the affirmative defense of self-defense as well as defense of others. An individual is justified in defending themselves against another if the individual reasonably believes force against another is immediately necessary to protect against the use or attempted use of unlawful force (§9.31). Meaning that for self-defense to be a valid defense, the individual defending themselves must believe that their reaction is immediately necessary against unlawful force. Also, in order for an individual's belief to be presumed reasonable, the individual must have known or had reason to believe that the person they used force against was, in Katniss's situation, committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery. The individual must also not provoke the force against them or be engaged in criminal activity.

During the Hunger Games, Katniss had reason to believe that all of the other players had the intention to kill her. Without her provoking anyone, she had reason to believe that the other players had deathly intentions simply because of the terms of the game.

It may seem to go hand in hand. But self-defense doesn't always mean that an individual is justified in using deadly force. Under the Penal Code §9.32, an individual is justified to use deadly force against another if they would be justified to use force under the self-defense statute AND when the individual reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect against unlawful deadly force or to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. The difference between using force as self-defense and using deadly force as self-defense is when the individual reasonably believes that the deadly force is necessary.

In Katniss' situation, she could reasonably believe that deadly force was immediately necessary in keeping herself safe. She also could reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to keep other people safe. Such as Rue, the little girl who befriends Katniss, and Peeta, the male tribute from her District. When the two of them were in trouble, it was reasonable for Katniss to reasonably believe deadly force was necessary to protect her friends. Under our Penal Code §9.33, an individual is justified in using deadly force against another to protect a third party if that individual would be justified in using that force under the self-defense and deadly force statutes. The individual must also believe that their intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

For Katniss, it was reasonable for her to use deadly force when trying to protect Rue and herself. This is obvious because of the other participant using a bow and arrow against them and resulting in the death of Rue. It would also be reasonable for Katniss to use deadly force against Cato when he was threatening to throw Peeta to the dogs. The deadly force used against Peeta and Rue justifies Katniss using deadly force against their attackers.

All in all, there was a lot of criminal activity happening in the movie The Hunger Games. If our laws were in place, many characters would be thinking twice before participating or encouraging the conduct.

Charles Manson and How He Cheats Death

Navid Alband — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:37:00 GMT

It was over 40 years ago when a jury in California returned guilty verdicts on all eight charges for the infamous Charles Manson. Seven murder charges and one conspiracy charge gave Manson a punishment of death. But, four decades later, Manson still lives.

Aprill 11, 2012 the parole board in California again, for the dozenth time since 1978, decided Manson was too great a danger to be released from prison. And in the minds of most Americans, rightly so. From numerous burglaries, robberies, and escapes from juvenile detentions, Manson was a danger at the age of thirteen.

Manson's Helter Skelter murders shocked the nation.

So why is Manson still a resident of the Corcoran State Prison after being sentenced to death? Manson was given the death penalty in 1971. It was only one year later, in 1972, that the United States Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia. With the penalty of death being unconstitutional, any inmate awaiting an execution was now given the sentence of life in prison. Manson was one of the lucky prisoners in which their death penalty was converted to life behind bars.

The Supreme Court did not declare the death penalty as violating the constitution on its face, but rather in its application. Pre 1972, the death penalty was imposed in an arbitrary manner; often indicating a bias against minority defendants. The discriminatory nature of the death penalty thus violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It was not until 1976 in Gregg v. Georgia when the Court held that the punishment of death did not violate the constitution in all circumstances. It was decided in Gregg that with a careful and judicious use of the death penalty, it may be an appropriate punishment for a defendant in extreme criminal cases.

Currently, Texas keeps the employment of the death penalty within the limits of the constitution by a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately. Once a jury finds a defendant guilty of a capital murder, they must then find the defendant worthy of the death penalty. Texas jurors are asked to answer "special issue" questions. The first question Texas jurors must answer is whether the defendant will be a future danger. The second question is whether the defendant actually killed the deceased, intended to kill the deceased, or anticipated that a human life be taken. And the third question asks whether there is anything regarding the defendant that would warrant a life sentence rather than death [mitigating factors].

Today the death penalty is carefully and individually applied in order to abide by the Constitution. Charles Manson escaped his execution with the help of the Supreme Court, but the state of California continues to keep him behind bars. Manson's next parole hearing will be in 15 years and he will be 92 years old.

Coercion in the Intoxilyzer Room

Navid Alband — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:23:00 GMT

Let's talk about a DWI breath test. The dreaded breath test. Everyone thinks of a breath test as being the end-all be-all in a DWI case. And in a way, it can be. It definitely gives the police, the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury and pretty-good indication of your blood alcohol concentration. Something a jury can hang their hat on rather than a step off the line or slur that may or may not just be a speech impediment.

The thing about a breath test is that it MUST be voluntary. But, because of the implied consent law, if you don't volunteer to give a breath sample, you can still be faced with repercussions. The statute reads that if an individual refuses to give a breath sample 1) "that refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution" and 2) "your license, permit or privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended or denied for not less than 180 days, whether or not you are subsequently prosecuted for this offense." To put that in layman's terms, if an individual refuses a breath test, his/her refusal can be used against him in court, and whether or not the DA's office files charges for a DWI, the individual can still lose their driving privileges for 180 days.

The refusal and other warnings can all be found here in this DIC 24. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/DIC-24.pdf

The statute is written and read to DWI suspects in order to inform them of the effects of refusing a breath test and to protect them from making uninformed decisions. It is because of this protection that police are only allowed to read from the statute. The courts have held that if an officer gives a DWI suspect extra-statutory information about refusing – penalties not listed in the statute – even though factually correct, it undermines the protection given by the statute.

By undermining the statute protection, the courts consider these extra-statutory warnings a type of psychological coercion on DWI suspects. A voluntary decision to give a breath sample must be free of physical and psychological coercion. Thus, if a DWI suspect is coerced through extra-statutory warnings given by the officer, relies on those warnings, and gives a breath test, that breath test is not allowed to be used as evidence against him.

To give a breath sample or not to give a breath sample is a decision to be made solely on your own with guidance only from the statute. A breath test must be voluntary to be admissible. The statute gives DWI suspects the information needed to deny or consent to a breath test, and the police may not help sway a decision.

It comes down to the officers and the prosecutors just wanting to keep the roads a safe place for everyone; even if that means making sure all of their I's are dotted and their T's are crossed when charging someone with a DWI. I'm here to help you make sure they've done just that.

K-9 Sniff and Search. In short, they can.

Navid Alband — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:29:00 GMT

Ever wondered about the legality of a K-9 search?

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guards against unreasonable search and seizures. In providing individuals' protection, it also requires search warrants be supported by probable cause. This probable cause they speak of "exists when reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer on scene would lead a man of reasonable prudence to believe that the instrumentality of a crime or evidence of a crime will be found." McNairy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). To put it simply, the police officers have to have pretty solid knowledge that something strange is going on. And these restrictions on investigative searches allow for the protection of our privacy.

Big round of applause for the Fourth Amendment!

But now having that knowledge, it may come as bit of a surprise to find out that having a trained K-9 sniff the outside of a vehicle is not considered a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Mohmed v. State, 977 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref' ). Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not protect it! I know what you're thinking: How can a dog have the right to determine what is inside a vehicle if the police, at the time, don't have the right to know?

Here's how.

There are different ways in which a trained K-9 can tell the police what is inside your property without them ever having probable cause.

One way is if a trained K-9 is simply walking by, let's say at an airport while you're standing in line, an alert to your bags can allow police to then search your belongings. This is because trained K-9 searches are considered sui generis. Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S.Ct. 834 (2005). This Latin phrase means that a K-9 search is in a category all on its own because it only discloses the presence of narcotics. Because it only determines the presence of narcotics, and it is not invasive, it is allowed without a warrant or probable cause.

The second way a dog can give police permission to search inside your property deals specifically with vehicles. Timing becomes a big factor when determining whether a K-9 sniff around a vehicle violates an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. We've already established that a K-9 sniff is not considered a search violating an individual's rights. But the stopping of a vehicle constitutes a "seizure." State . Sanchez, 856 S.W.2d 166 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993). If the police keep you "seized" for an unreasonable amount of time waiting for a K-9 unit, it becomes an investigatory vehicle stop instead of a run-of-the mill traffic stop.

This makes a world of difference!

In order for the police to conduct an investigatory vehicle stop, it needs to be because the police have reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion can be established by an anonymous tip or circumstances approaching the vehicle, such as the odor of marijuana. Mohmed, 977 S.W.2d 624.

Reasonable suspicion = temporary detention and "seizure" allowed.

No reasonable suspicion = no time to allow the dogs to come in.

Another hiccup in the process is the distinction between an "alert" and an "interest" by the K-9. An alert by a trained K-9, as mentioned above, allows a police to search your property. An officer needs to be able to identify and articulate specific, reasonable examples to satisfy a trained K-9 action as a valid alert. And despite the need for the officer to confirm the alert, it can simply be the dog's change in behavior, not necessarily a bark or point.

K-9 searches are a tricky thing. Think of them as a member of the police force with an incredibly good sense of smell. The police sniffing around your car isn't unconstitutional and neither is man's best friend.

Victories in the Criminal Courtroom

Navid Alband — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:04:00 GMT

You win some, you lose some. That's the way life goes, right? Well for a defense attorney, winning doesn't always come with those famous two words. "Not Guilty." Sometimes a victory comes with simply making your client happy and listening to what they want. After all, we are advocates.

Recently I found myself caught in one of the true defense attorney dilemmas. My desired outcome differed from my client's desired outcome. I saw an opportunity for a successful trial, and she saw the looming "what if" possibilities. When faced with a criminal charge, many factors must be considered when determining the outcome. Taking a case to trial comes with enormous amounts of unpredictability, thus a huge risk. Because of that risk, plea bargains exist as a safety net for both the state and the accused.

It's true. Every trial is a gamble. You can't predict exactly how the jury will see the evidence, and this to defendants, rightfully so, can be a scary reality. But I was ready.

· Great police field sobriety test video. Check.
· Well-spoken, working woman. Check.
· Relentless defense attorney to show the jury the light. Check.

I like getting the best outcomes for my clients. So when I see opportunity for acquittal, I want to take it. Other times, it's about making deals and knowing the reality of the situation at hand. Here, I knew we could take this to trial and be successful. I was ready to come in guns blazing and have justice in the courtroom. My client on the other hand let the looming "what if" possibilities get the best of her. It was no longer about justice and acquittals; it was about ensuring the minimum effects on her life outside of the courtroom.

Sometimes your client isn't on board to gamble with the risks a trial has to offer, and we as defense attorneys have to respect that. I could have had those famous two words, but a win in my client's eyes is a win for me. We walked away the morning of trial taking a plea in front of the judge. Like Kenny Rogers always says, "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run." My client decided to put down the playing cards early. It was what she was comfortable with and it was what she wanted. It may not have been a "not guilty," but it was victory nonetheless.

Tarrant County SWIFT Program - Taking a Page out of the Parenting Book

Navid Alband — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:41:00 GMT

Here's the deal, if someone is on a felony probation and they commit a new crime, stop reporting, or otherwise have continued serious violations, they will go to prison. On the other hand, Tarrant County's current system of progressive sanctions allows relatively minor infractions to be treated with the proverbial slap on the hand. Well, there's a new program in town. Supervision With Intensive enForcemenT or SWIFT will seek to bridge the gap between the extremes of no punishment and the ultimate consequence of prison time.

Here's the theory:

John Doe is on a felony probation for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He and his lawyer decided that they would accept a plea bargain offer of 5 years deferred adjudication probation. This means that if John makes it through probation, his case will be dismissed. If his probation is revoked, he stands to go to prison for up to 20 years. Mary Jane is given the task of supervising John as his probation officer. She has a huge caseload and barely has time to attend to all of the issues surrounding her duties. She tells John about his standard conditions of probation: no drugs, report on time when scheduled, do your community service at a rate of 10 hours a month, take an anger management course. Well, John for one reason or another is not quite living up to his part of the bargain. He's three months into his probation and hasn't done any community service, he's only had one session of his anger management course and just tested positive for marijuana. Under the old system, Mary may call John up on the phone and talk to him about his violations and tell him that because he's in violation, he needs to report twice a month instead of once a month. Big deal! John doesn't get the point and he trucks along for another six months without completing any community service and classes, and what's worse, he gets arrested for possession of marijuana. Mary has no choice. She files a motion to revoke community supervision and eventually, John is given a seven year penitentiary sentence. SWIFT seeks to intervene before John gets to this point.

Here's how:

Dirty UA? Short jail stay. Didn't report? Short jail stay. No community service? Short jail stay. Before long John is tired of going to jail. He has to keep his eye on the ball. If he hasn't done what he was supposed to do in the last month…you guessed it, jail. With this system of holding a probationer accountable with even minor violations, Tarrant County courts are seeking to prevent the major violations, the ones that send you to the big house. No more walking in five minutes late after curfew and expecting to get away with it.

Will it work? Well actually, the program began in Hawaii and by all accounts was a success. In Tarrant County? Under the new program, only 4 of 13 probationers have remained out of jail and free from arrest warrants since the program was started. Seven folks have been put in jail and two have warrants for their arrest. These numbers, though grim, may highlight why SWIFT is necessary. But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and we'll only know with time if Tarrant County will graduate more probationers and send less to prison.

Everybody Get Footloose

Navid Alband — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:00 GMT

Watch the Clip Here.

Footloose is a classic movie with a very catchy song. Under Texas Law, it also has a few criminal actions.

Standing between two moving cars on a highway is undoubtedly unsafe and probably constitutes reckless driving. A person commits the offense of reckless driving if they drive a vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property under TRC § 545.401. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $200 and/or confinement in jail for not more than 30 days.

There appears to be a fight going on between the boys. While we did not see any actual punches thrown it could be assault if there were. Assault is where a person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another.

In the alternative to assault, we do see them restraining Kevin Bacon during this clip. Unlawful restraint under Texas Penal Code § 20.02 occurs when a person intentionally or knowingly restrains another person. This crime would be a felony of the third degree when the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.

The very iconic scene of Kevin Bacon dancing through the warehouse is most likely an act of trespass. One has committed the offense of criminal trespass when he enters or remains on the property of another without consent and he had notice that the entry was forbidden under Texas Penal Code § 30.05.

We also see some potential attempts to flee the officers in this clip. A person commits the offense of evading arrest when he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him. Tex. Pen. Code § 38.04.

Bashing someone's headlights in can also be considered a crime. The crime of criminal mischief occurs when a person intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner without the owner's consent.

Never is an Awfully Long Time

Navid Alband — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:52:00 GMT

Watch the clip here.

While "Peter Pan" may be a staple children's movie, there is quite a lot of illegal activity taking place throughout the movie.

We will start with the "Lost Boys". Assuming they did not all just leave like Wendy did, they may have been abandoned. Abandoning a child under the Texas Penal Code§ 22.041 means to leave a child in any place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances in which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability. A person, who is the child's guardian or care taker, commits this offense when they leave a child under the age of 15 in circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm. The Lost Children's parents may be guilty of this offense depending on how they became "lost".

There is a substantial amount of assault going on in this clip with all of the sword fighting. A person has committed assault when they intentionally or knowingly cause physical contact with another when the person should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. This would be a Class C misdemeanor. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 22.01.

It also appears that Captain Hook kidnaps several of the children and holds them against their will. A person commits an offense of kidnapping when he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person. The offense will be considered aggravated if they abducted another person with the intent to inflict bodily injury. This aggravated offense is a felony of the second degree. V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 20.04.

Captain Hook really seems to have it out for Peter Pan. Hook's constant attempts to find Pan and harm him could be considered stalking. A person commits the offense of stalking when, if the person on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conducts that the actor reasonably knows the other person will regard as threatening to his person or his property. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 42.072.

The pirates may also be charged with organized crime and criminal conspiracy. A person commits the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity when a person, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination, he commits or conspires to commit murder, capital murder, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, deadly conduct, assault (among other crimes). V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 71.01. "Conspires to commit" means that a person agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense and that person and one or more of them perform an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. An agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the parties. As the pirates all live together and work together to assist in Hook in his ventures, an agreement could be inferred.

Walking The Line

Navid Alband — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:04:00 GMT

Watch the Clip Here.

While we all know Johnny Cash had a few crimes under his belt, this movie clip from Walk the Line only shows a couple of criminal actions. What would rock and roll be without the drugs and alcohol? Oh- and a criminal record.

There is an insinuation of Johnny's rough childhood in this clip. A person commits an offense of injury to a child if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence by act or omission, causes to a child bodily injury or mental injury. We are probably to assume that Johnny's father would be guilty of this offense.

We see Johnny handed an open beer while he is in the back of a vehicle about to pull away. That action violates Texas Penal Code § 49.031, which states that a person commits the offense of possessing an alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle when they knowingly possess an open container in the passenger area of the vehicle that is located on a public street regardless of whether the vehicle is in motion or not. The passenger area of the vehicle does not include the glove compartment or similarly locked storage area, the trunk of the vehicle, or behind the last upright seat of the vehicle if there is no trunk.

Johnny could also receive a public intoxication citation under Texas Penal Code § 49.02. A person is publicly intoxicated if they appear in public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another. Because Johnny cannot even stay in his chair, he probably could be considered publicly intoxicated. This offense is generally considered a Class C misdemeanor.

A person commits the offense of possession of a substance when they knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance unless the person obtained the substance from a valid prescription. This offense is a state jail felony where the degree depends upon the amount of the drug found.

There are a few scenes in this clip where Johnny is smashing things or throwing things around. Under Texas Penal Code § 28.03 a person commits the offense of criminal mischief when they intentionally or knowingly damage or destroy tangible property or tampers with property as to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The range for this type of offense varies from a Class C misdemeanor to a State Jail felony depending on the amount of damage done in dollar amounts and the type of property damaged.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHH

Navid Alband — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:23:00 GMT

Watch the Clip Here.

Home Alone is an iconic American Christmas movie with an abundance of illegal activity.

Kevin's parents may be guilty of abandoning their child. Abandoning a child under the Texas Penal Code§ 22.041 means to leave a child in any place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances in which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability. A person, who is the child's guardian or care taker, commits this offense when they leave a child under the age of 15 in circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm. As most reasonable adults would not leave their child for a second time, they are probably guilty of this charge. The parents' best defense would be that the abandonment was unintentional and unknowing and they attempted to resolve the problem immediately upon discovering it.

Kevin lies his way into getting into the hotel room, which could be considered a crime. The crime of making a false statement to obtain property or credit occurs when receiving property or service on credit. A person commits this offense when they intentionally or knowingly make a materially false or misleading statement to obtain property or credit. Kevin has clearly made statement he knew to be false to get a hotel room, which is considered receiving a service on credit. TPC § 32.32.

There are many accounts of assault throughout this clip- committed mostly by Kevin. A person has committed assault when they intentionally or knowingly cause physical contact with another when the person should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. This would be a Class C misdemeanor. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 22.01. Kevin's obvious defense in this situation is self defense. However, one may only use like force in self defense. As the two men do not have weapons, using deadly force (such as heavy weights and fire) is likely exceeding the allowed amount of force in self defense.

We see the trio enter a seemingly abandoned building in this clip. Obviously none of them own it and is therefore criminal trespass. One has committed the offense of criminal trespass when he enters or remains on the property of another without consent and he had notice that the entry was forbidden under Texas Penal Code § 30.05.

Kevin does not have any of his own money and must have stolen most of the items he uses against the two men that are after him. A person commits the offense of theft when they unlawfully appropriate property with the intent to deprive the owner of the property. TPC § 31.01.

The two criminals after Kevin could also be charged with stalking. A person commits the offense of stalking when, if the person on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conducts that the actor reasonably knows the other person will regard as threatening to his person or his property. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 42.072. As we have seen these particular criminals have already harassed Kevin in a prior movie- their current actions and persistent attempts could be found as stalking.

Harry Potter and the Judge's Chamber

Navid Alband — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:20:00 GMT

Watch the Clip Here.

As the new Harry Potter movie comes out this week, analyzing a past Harry Potter movie seems fitting. This clip, taken from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, shows many potential crimes. We will assume they were all committed in Texas in the normal "muggle" realm.

Uncle Vernon or Harry may be guilty of the crime of cruelty to animals. Under V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 821.021, "cruelly treated" includes [animals that are] tortured, seriously overworked, unreasonably abandoned, unreasonably deprived of necessary food, care, or shelter, cruelly confined, or caused to fight with another animal." Hedwig being confined to his cage for long periods may constitute cruelty. However, because Harry is in a form of confinement himself Uncle Vernon would most likely be the perpetrator here.

One has committed the offense of criminal trespass when he enters or remains on or in property of another without consent and he had notice that the entry was forbidden under Texas Penal Code § 30.05. Dobby could certainly be charged with this crime as a house with a fence and closed doors is notice enough that you are not allowed to be on that property without permission.

Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1701 it is a federal crime to obstruct the delivery of mail. Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs the passage of mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Dobby is certainly guilty of this crime as he has been withholding all of Harry's letters.

Must people would say that dumping a cake onto a person's head is offensive conduct. Therefore, it may be assault. A person has committed assault when they intentionally or knowingly cause physical contact with another when the person should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. This would be a Class C misdemeanor. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 22.01. Harry could be charged with this offense as it seems that he was the one committing the crime. His defense is that he was attempting to stop the imminent assault that Dobby was committing. Dobby could certainly be charged and found guilty of this crime.

Dobby may even be stalking Harry Potter. A person commits the offense of stalking when if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conducts that the actor reasonably knows the other person will regard as threatening to his person or his property. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 42.072. As Dobby has consistently taken Harry's property and seems to be willing to do anything to keep Harry from school, this would be a reasonable charge against Dobby. The defense in this situation would be that Dobby was attempting to keep Harry from imminent bodily injury.

Y’all Think You Can Catch Me Now?

Navid Alband — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:40:00 GMT

Watch the Clip Here.

Where am I to begin when it comes to the Dukes?

First of all, there is no seat belt wearing in this clip. And for one of the more minor crimes they are guilty of, they are certainly guilty of not wearing a safety belt under Texas Penal Code § 545.413. A person has committed a misdemeanor punishable by a $25 to $50 fine when a person that is (1) at least 15 years of age is (2) riding in the front seat of a passenger vehicle (3) while the vehicle is being operated and is (4) not secured by a seat belt (5) where the car is equipped with a seat belt.

And we cannot get to any more crimes without addressing the abundance of reckless driving. A person commits the offense of reckless driving if they drive a vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property under TRC § 545.401. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $200 and/or confinement in jail for not more than 30 days.

There is also a good deal of evading arrest in this movie. A person commits this offense when he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him. Tex. Pen. Code § 38.04.

Assault is also a common theme throughout this clip, from the bar fight to Uncle Jesse knocking out Boss Hogg. Assault is where a person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. Even pretty Miss Daisy Duke would be guilty of this one.

The crooked Commissioner of Hazzard county, Boss Hogg, may be guilty of abuse of office in three capacities under Texas Penal Code § 39.

One of the offenses he could be guilty of his Abuse of Official Capacity; which is where a public servant, with the intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody by virtue of the public servant's office. He would be guilty under this section because of his actions towards the Dukes.

The second offense would be Official Oppression. A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful is guilty of Official Oppression.

Finally, he may be Misusing Official information. A public servant commits this crime when, in reliance on information to which he has access to because of his office that has not been made public, he acquires or aids another to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information. Boss Hogg would be guilty of either the second offense or this offense due to his actions in attempting to turn Hazzard into a strip coal mine.

A person commits the offense of theft when they unlawfully appropriate property with the intent to deprive the owner of the property. It does not appear to me that the Duke boys could get the safe back in one piece even if they wanted to, which they clearly do not. TPC § 31.01

Let us look at the scene where Luke and Uncle Jessie are lighting moonshine and throwing it back at the police cars. Under the Texas Health and Safety Code § 365.012 Luke and Uncle Jessie may be guilty of Illegal Dumping. One is guilty of this offense when they dispose or permit the disposal of litter or other solid waste at a place that is not an approved waste site. But more likely they will be guilty of capital murder and attempted capital murder. One commits capital murder when they intentionally or knowingly cause the death of another human being and that person is a peace officer. However, they would be guilty of attempted capital murder for those that were not killed.

Looks like the Duke boys are in a lot more trouble than they bargained for.

One Hit Could Ruin Your Whole Day

Navid Alband — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:55:00 GMT

Watch the Clip Here.

The movie, Pineapple Express, is centered around and full of illegal activities. Let us look at those crimes under Texas law.

Since this movie is so named for marijuana, let us address that first. Under the Texas Health and Safety Code§ 481.121 a person has committed the offense of possession of marijuana when they knowingly or intentionally possess a usable quantity of marijuana. An offense under this section can range from a Class B misdemeanor to a second degree felony depending on the amount of marijuana found. Dale could clearly be found guilty of this offense.

Secondly, one commits the offense of delivering marijuana when they knowingly or intentionally deliver marijuana under H&SC § 481.120. This offense can range from a Class B misdemeanor to a first degree felony. Saul, the drug dealer, would fall under this category.

Dale would also likely be guilty of driving while intoxicated. A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated while operating a vehicle in a public place. The intoxicant can include drugs. V.T.C.A. P.C. § 49.04. A crime under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Dale happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time while attempting to serve a warrant and witnesses a murder. One has committed criminal homicide when he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.02. Ted Jones, the shooter, would be guilty of this crime.

As a party to the offense, the officer that is there at the time of the shooting is likely an accomplice that could be held criminally responsible for the offense of criminal homicide. A person is criminally responsible under Texas Penal Code § 7.01 and §7.02 for an offense committed by another if he acts with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense: he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the person to commit the offense.

Dale may also be guilty of reckless driving in his attempt to get away and striking two cars. A person commits the offense of reckless driving if they drive a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property under TRC § 545.401. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor.

We also see Dale and Saul selling marijuana to minors behind a school. Under H&SC § 481.122 a person commits the offense of delivering a controlled substance of marijuana to a child when they knowingly deliver marijuana to a person who is a child under the age of 18 and who is enrolled or primary or secondary schooling.

Dale and Saul evade many an officer's arrest in this clip. A person commits the offense of evading arrest when he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 38.04. The defense in this matter is that the officers are not attempting to lawfully detain him, as they are the ones acting illegally for most of this clip. However, the officer that witnessed Dale and Saul selling drugs to minors would have a lawful reason to arrest. Therefore, Saul taking the officer's patrol car would probably be committing the crime of evading.

There are quite a few instances of assault occurring toward the end of the clip. A person has committed assault when they intentionally or knowingly cause physical contact with another when the person should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. This would be a Class C misdemeanor. V.T.C.A., Pen. Code § 22.01. Everyone we see in the end of this clip could likely be charged of this offense.