‘Do Not Resist’: A chilling look at the normalization of warrior cops – The Washington Post

‘Do Not Resist’: A chilling look at the normalization of warrior cops – The Washington Post

Grossman’s classes teach officers to be less hesitant to use lethal force, urge them to be willing to do it more quickly and teach them how to adopt the mentality of a warrior. Jeronimo Yanez, the Minnesota police officer who shot and killed Philando Castille in July, had attended one of Grossman’s classescalled “The Bulletproof Warrior” (though that particular class was taught by Grossman’s business partner, Jim Glennon). In the class recorded for “Do Not Resist,” Grossman at one point tells his students that the sex they have after they kill another human being will be the best sex of their lives. The room chuckles. But he’s clearly serious. “Both partners are very invested in some very intense sex,” he says. “There’s not a whole lot of perks that come with this job. You find one, relax and enjoy it.” Source: ‘Do Not Resist’: A chilling look at the normalization of warrior cops – The Washington Post ‘Do Not Resist’: A chilling look at the normalization of warrior cops – The Washington Post was last modified: October 2nd, 2016 by Alex DeMarco

BCA completes investigation into Philando Castile death

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has completed its investigation into the officer-involved death of Philando Castile. Source: BCA completes investigation into Philando Castile death BCA completes investigation into Philando Castile death was last modified: October 13th, 2016 by Alex DeMarco

When Driving Drunk Becomes Necessary

There are two fundamental ways in which a DWI is challenged. One is a legal challenge which deals with the constitutionality of the progressive intrusion into one’s fundamental Fourth Amendment Rights. This primarily asks a court to suppress evidence in a DWI case before any sort of trial. It could raise a challenge to the basis for stopping the vehicle in a case. If the stop is legally proper, one could challenge the basis for the expansion of the the traffic stop into a DWI investigation, basically determining whether it was proper to ask a person to come out of the vehicle for standardized field sobriety testing. It could raise a challenge to whether there was probable cause to arrest the driver after such investigation.  Finally, a challenge may be raised to the Constitutionality of taking a chemical test without a warrant, which was recently litigated in a number of DWI cases in Minnesota and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in |State v. Bernard|. DWI cases are difficult to challenge, but most of the successful litigation and positive case law come from these challenges. There can also be challenges raised to the science of DWI testing. The state is advancing a scientific test as evidence of a crime, namely operating a motor vehicle while the person has an alcohol concentration above .08. The State thereby “must establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability. “Without a foundation guaranteeing the test’s reliability, the test result is not probative as a measurement and hence is irrelevant.” State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Minn.1977).  It is very difficult to do this without involving an independent expert regarding the science of alcohol testing. It is often not successful to challenge the reliability of the chemical test as a matter of law before a judge. However, there can be success in challenging it before a jury, because the fact is that precise testing for alcohol concentration is not very good science, and the police officers themselves know very little about it. However there are also what are known as “affirmative defenses” to DWI.  There are not many, but one in particular which Alex DeMarco recently advanced at trial, and with success, is that of “necessity.” What is a necessity defense? It’s actually a defense that arises from English Common law and may apply to a number of different crimes and circumstances. Essentially this defense is made in a circumstance where the driver did not want to drive the car, but felt they had to in order to escape an immediate danger. Many lawyers when faced with a case of necessity give up afte researching the case law. That is because there are numerous rulings that have significantly limited when the defense is available. Many published cases deal with circumstances where the trial court ruled the jury could not consider a necessity defense, and the court of appeals and other higher… Read more {+}

BREAKING: United States Supreme Court holds stabbing you with a needle is the only thing protected by the fourth amendment

BREAKING NOW, Bernard’s second failure (click for full opinion). In the second blow to the Fourth Amendment in a week, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that, short of stabbing you to get to you blood, the Police can pretty much search you for nearly any evidence they want, post arrest. BREAKING: United States Supreme Court holds stabbing you with a needle is the only thing protected by the fourth amendment was last modified: July 28th, 2016 by Alex DeMarco

Bernard v. State of Minnesota, killing the DWI mill and restoring basic rights

We recently discussed a victory some weeks ago in which a person was able to avoid Minnesota DWI charges by following Alex DeMarco’s instructions to the letter at the police station.  The basic key:  Never submit, never refuse, ask for a warrant, every time.  That approach is based on recent rulings in Minnesota DWI law throwing out convictions for defendants whose fourth amendment rights were violated.  Had it been any other case, murder, burglary, drugs…the law would be clear.  It’s really simple.  Warrantless searches are unreasonable.  Only very precise exceptions can justify a search without a warrant, exceptions which are basically not even remotely applicable in a DWI case, despite decades of presumption to the contrary.  Today the very heart of DWI law in Minnesota, the criminal charge of DWI test refusal, THE ONLY mechanism by which test are obtained in Minnesota, was heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.  We wanted to update you so you can read the entire Transcript from Bernard‘s oral argument.    If you or anyone you know is facing a DWI, whether it’s in Faribault, or St. Paul, or Woodbury, or Minneapolis, All of Dakota County including Lakeville, Burnsville, Hastings, Apple Valley, or anywhere in Minnesota, contact us today to set up a free consultation.   Bernard v. State of Minnesota, killing the DWI mill and restoring basic rights was last modified: July 13th, 2016 by Alex DeMarco