Criminal defense lawyers instruct anyone who will listen to do two things upon being stopped by a police officer: Invoke your right to remain silent and say the magic words, “I want to speak with my lawyer.” Great advice, but it backfired on Daniel Sanders of Columbia, Missouri.
From Crime Scene KC,
Apparently, Sanders was stopped by rookie cop Jessica McNabb, for whom the invocation of rights appeared to be a reason to search and question rather than a reason not to do so. She may have missed that day at police school.
While the basic advice remains as accurate as before, there are a few secondary points that bear stating. First, if you’ve got your dead mother in the trunk, try to obey normal traffic rules. It tends to draw less attention. Second, don’t murder your mom. It’s just wrong.
Cases like this present a truly interesting conundrum for courts and observers. Clearly, nobody is going to feel all that terrible about Sanders’ situation, being that there is no doubt as to mom being in the trunk and all. On the other hand, there is no question but that his invocation of rights cannot serve to create probable cause to search, and precludes further questioning. While the law must ultimately prevail, nobody is losing sleep over Sanders’ situation. Except maybe his lawyer.
Justice, eh?
From Crime Scene KC,
Sanders was pulled over several months ago for running a red light and failing to use his headlights — so it must have been surprising when he asked for an attorney almost immediately. The officer searched his car and found the body of [his mother] Helen Sanders beneath a tire, next to a brand-new shovel, the Columbia Missourian reports.Sanders’ lawyer has filed “several” motions, not the least of which is that the invocation of a constitutional right cannot serve to give rise to probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, nor can the defendant be questioned after invoking right to counsel. These would seem, well, kinda obvious. But then there’s that nasty dead mom in the trunk.
Apparently, Sanders was stopped by rookie cop Jessica McNabb, for whom the invocation of rights appeared to be a reason to search and question rather than a reason not to do so. She may have missed that day at police school.
While the basic advice remains as accurate as before, there are a few secondary points that bear stating. First, if you’ve got your dead mother in the trunk, try to obey normal traffic rules. It tends to draw less attention. Second, don’t murder your mom. It’s just wrong.
Cases like this present a truly interesting conundrum for courts and observers. Clearly, nobody is going to feel all that terrible about Sanders’ situation, being that there is no doubt as to mom being in the trunk and all. On the other hand, there is no question but that his invocation of rights cannot serve to create probable cause to search, and precludes further questioning. While the law must ultimately prevail, nobody is losing sleep over Sanders’ situation. Except maybe his lawyer.
Justice, eh?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s another move toward social simplicity. You’re either a lemming, a LEO or a perp. Why make the world any more complicated than that?
In some encouraging news that seems somewhat related, I saw a blurb on the front page of the new york law journal which indicated an appellate division panel overturned a conviction where the prosecutor sought to impeach the defendants testimony by asking him about previous not guilty pleas which he later changed to guilty pleas. So I guess you’re still allowed to plead not guilty even if you can’t ask for a lawyer.
I once had an appellate case where I was challenging a warrantless, suspicionless entry into my client’s home. The police claimed it was a welfare check, but my client, a resident, came to the door and told them everyone was fine. The police had no reason to suspect otherwise, but pushed past him into the house anyway. In an almost identical case decided the week after mine, the state supreme court granted suppression. But, alas, in my case, suppression would have meant suppressing discovery of the body, the murder weapon, and the crime scene. (They were not all fine.)
I was gratified after that oral argument that a stranger in the courtroom approached me and thanked me for my argument. She believed I should absolutely win. If only she had been on the court.
It’s one of the reasons why it’s worthwhile for blawgs to note cases like this. If people are watching, it’s a whole lot harder for courts to sweep these flagrant constitutional violations under the carpet. When no one watches, it’s just a quick “affirmed”.
I’m always amazed that “the public” seems to think that by asking for rights to be protected, a person-of-interest MUST “have something to hide.”
How about letting me into your bedroom while you and your partner(s) engage in sexual activity? No? Well, why not? Something to hide? A desire for privacy must mean your guilty of something.
Having dated a lawyer a few years back, she taught me the same magic words: “I want a lawyer.” Sovles most problems.