Court of Appeals Victory-Trafficking of Cocaine

On November 26, 2012, attorney Daniel Farnsworth received a final decision on a pending appeal.

The case originated in Henry County.  Client was stopped for allegedly following too closely behind the vehicle in front of her.  After a brief encounter, the officer stated he was going to issue a warning citation and finished writing the citation approximately 5 minutes into the encounter.  The officer then impermissibly extended the scope of the traffic stop by fishing for other alleged criminal activity.  The officer based his “hunch” of other criminal activity based upon nervousness of the client.  The officer was repeatedly denied permission to search the client’s vehicle (SMART MOVE! NEVER GIVE PERMISSION TO SEARCH).  More than 12 minutes into the traffic stop, the officer walked his K9 unit around the vehicle.  The K9 unit “indicated” on the vehicle which was then search.  During the search the officer uncovered over 28 grams of cocaine in the vehicle.

The trial court denied client’s motion to suppress but gave the client a certificate of immediate review.  Client next asked the Georgia Court of Appeals to grant an application for interlocutory review since the case was still pending in Superior Court.  The Court of Appeals granted the application and agreed to look at the case while the case was still on-going.  Normally, the Court of Appeals reviews a case when the case is completed.  Seizing on this rare opportunity, the client’s appeal was filed on March 27, 2012.

Mr. Farnsworth received the final decision from the court and immediately went to the end of the opinion…”Accordingly, because the officer illegally detained [client], the order of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant [client’s] motion to suppress.”

VICTORY!!!  Case dismissed.

Weems v. State

A12A1353, Georgia Court of Appeals

GA Record expungement goes away in July 2013

The passage of HB 1176 means that the current expungement laws in Georgia (O.C.G.A. 35-3-37) will disappear in July 2013.  In fact, the ability to expunge (remove, erase, strike out) an arrest off of a criminal record will be gone under the new O.C.G.A. 35-3-37 which takes effect in July 2013.

Under the new law, the Georgia Crime Information Center (“the Center”) will “restrict” the criminal history record information of an individual relating to a particular charge.  Therefore, the information will be available only to judicial officers and criminal justice agencies for law enforcement or criminal investigative purposes or to criminal justice agencies for purposes of employment in accordance with procedures established by the center and shall not be disclosed or otherwise made available to any private persons or businesses pursuant to Code Section 35-3-34.  (O.C.G.A. 35-3-37(a)(6)-effective July 1, 2013).

Under the old law, the impetus was on the individual to request expungement of eligible offenses.  A review of the new law shows that the duty is now on the Center to restrict the information.  “Access to an individual’s criminal history information…SHALL BE RESTRICTED BY THE CENTER… (O.C.G.A. 35-3-37(h)-effective July 1, 2013).  Further placing the impetus on the State agencies involved, if the case is never indicted or accused, and never referred to the prosecutor by the arresting agency, the arresting agency shall contact the center and inform the center that the record should be restricted.  If the Center does not receive notice from the arresting agency (meaning the agency does not follow its statutorily mandated duty to report to the Center) then the Center must restrict the record after 2 years on misdemeanor charges or 4 years on felony charges.  (NOTE: there are restrictions on felony offenses including serious violent felonies and felony sexual offenses).

After an indictment or accusation, the CENTER SHALL RESTRICT THE RECORD if:  the case is dismissed or nolle prossed, the offender was sentenced under 16-13-2 and successfully completed the terms and conditions, or the individual successfully completed drug court treatment or mental health court treatment program.

The new law also requires the restriction of the record if the individual was acquitted of all charges by a judge or jury.  However, the prosecuting attorney can, within 10 days of the verdict, demonstrate to the court by clear and convincing evidence that the harm otherwise resulting to the individual is clearly outweighed by the public interest in the criminal history record being publicly available because either: 1) the prosecutor was barred from introducing material evidence on legal grounds (granting of motion to suppress or motion in limine) OR 2) the individual has been formally charged with the same offense within the previous five years.

Similar to the old law, the new law does not allow for restriction of the record if the charges were dismissed or nolle prossed because of a plea agreement, the granting of a motion to suppress or motion in limine, the conduct was part of a pattern of conduct which led to prosecution by another state, or the individual had immunity from prosecution.  Furthermore, if the individual was tried and acquitted of some, but not all of the charges.

Another twist in the new law allows for restriction of the record where an individual had felony charges dismissed or was acquitted of the felony charges BUT was convicted of misdemeanor charges arising out of the same conduct.  NOTE, in this instance the impetus is back on the individual and they must petition the Superior Court of the county where the arrest occurred to restrict access to the felony charges within four years of the arrest.  Additionally, if  an individual’s case has been on the dead docket for more than 12 months, the individual may petition the Superior Court of the county where the case is pending to restrict access to criminal history record information for such offense.

As with any dramatic change in the law, the implementation of the new “record restriction” will face challenges as individuals attempt to restrict access to their criminal history.  The attorneys at W. Scott Smith, P.C. are well versed in the new law and will be able to assist you navigate the hurdles of the new law.  Please do not hesitate to contact W. Scott Smith, P.C. with questions about the current expungement law or with questions about the new record restriction law.

 

Fulton County Backlog for Judge Susan Forsling

Fulton County State Court Judge Susan Forsling recently discovered she has a HUGE backlog of cases.  In early May, Judge Forsling discovered hundreds of misdemeanor criminal files in the office her case manager Joel Schaffer.  To date, the missing case files have led to 55 dismissals of criminal cases.

Fox Five Atlanta investigative reporter Dale Russell recently reported on the story.  Mr. Russell’s report focused on an individual whose pending charges have languished due to the hidden or lost files.  The story included a written statement from Judge Forsling.  While the story is certainly news worthy and the backlog is a concern, Mr. Russell’s report sensationalized the severity of the crimes and the likely outcomes of the forgotten cases.  As former Fulton County prosecutors, Peach State Lawyers W. Scott Smith and Daniel Farnsworth realize that many of those hidden cases would have resulted in dismissals when alleged victims failed to appear in court.  The serious drug offenses which Mr. Russell focused are simply possession of marijuana less than one ounce.  While there are certainly cases that languished which would be cause for concern, all of the cases have been deemed by our State Legislature to be misdemeanor offenses and not the more serious felony offenses which Mr. Russell seemed to want to make these charges.

Judge for yourself at: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19325510/criminal-cases

Yesterday, the Fulton County Daily Report ran a similar story which included comments from Judge Forsling as well as Fulton County State Court Chief Judge Patsy Y. Porter.  Judge Forsling called Schaffer’s actions “gross neglect” and outlined a plan to get her criminal docket moving again.  Judge Porter outlined the new computer system that will be implemented in 2013.  Peach State Lawyer Daniel Farnsworth applauds a new court case tracking system as working with the old system, Banner, was counter intuitive, confusing, and frustrating.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleDRO.jsp?id=1202569178034&slreturn=20120729110401

 

Legal News update

The legal news from around the country:

U.S. Supreme Court throws out fine for Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/us/scotus-cbs-fines/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/holder-contempt/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

DNA found on lip balm leads to burglary arrest in New Hampshire: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/28/dna-on-lip-balm-leads-to-burglary-arrests-in-nh/?hpt=ju_bn4

Former Atlanta Falcon Jamal Anderson arrested for DUI: http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/police-tried-repeatedly-to-1469028.html

State of Georgia greatly expands the number of people in the jury pool: http://www.ajc.com/news/state-expands-jury-duty-1468744.html

Ten laws you should know BEFORE July 1, 2012 (okay, so we’re a little late sending this out!): http://www.examiner.com/article/10-new-state-laws-you-should-know-before-july-1-2012

DON’T FORGET TO FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: @PeachStateLaw

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!