Natty Shafer Law

Utah lawyer for criminal and immigration cases

Monthly Archives: August 2012


by Leave a comment

Demystifying Miranda

There are many misconception about the Miranda warnings police officers are supposed to give suspects after an arrest. Television and movies have done a pretty good job of educating the public about what they say, but a pretty poor job of educating the public about when they are required and what happens if an officer doesn’t give a Miranda warning. Unfortunately, this means that the average person thinks they know exactly what the warnings require, but in all likelihood, they do not. Let’s take a look at each item, one at a time.

You’ve almost certainly heard the Miranda warnings at some point in your life. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court laid out the information that a warning needs to contain: 1) a suspect has a right to remain silent; 2) that anything a suspect says can and will be used against them in court; 3) a suspect has the right to an attorney during questioning; and 4) if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. Police departments and individual officers can vary the wording a little, but that basic information must be conveyed, and the suspect has to understand the information. That’s simple enough and your average person knows this already.

It a bit more complicated to determine when they are required. Some people I’ve encountered believe they are required whenever someone is arrested and others believe the police have to give them whenever they want to question a suspect. Neither of those things are true. The truth is that the police must give Miranda warnings when they want to question a suspect they have already arrested. If no one is under arrest or the police have no intention of questioning anyone, then the warnings aren’t required.

Just to be clear, Miranda warnings are only required when a suspect has been arrested and the police want to question them.

The thorny issue is when someone is actually under arrest. Obviously, if the police handcuff you and tell you that you’re under arrest, then you’re under arrest. But sometimes courts will find that someone was under arrest even though the police had not formally arrested the suspect at the time. This is done to keep officers honest so they can’t interrogate a suspect they were going to arrest anyway. To determine this, the courts will look at many factors, such as whether a reasonable person would feel they could leave. That’s why it’s a good idea whenever a police officer is questioning you to ask if you are free to leave.

Finally, let’s discuss the remedy. Many people are also under the mistaken notion that if someone wasn’t read the Miranda rights, then the case will be dismissed. This almost never happens. Instead, statements made to the police after arrest but before a Miranda warning are inadmissible in court. Often a prosecutor will build a case without using the incriminating statements, or the prosecutor will move forward with a lesser charge.


by 1 Comment

What We Know about Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

USCIS has given us a few details about the Obama administration’s policy of deportation relief, or what is now being called “deferred action for childhood arrivals.” On August 15, USCIS should have the forms and instructions available and will start accepting applications for deferred action.

To be eligible, applicants must meet all of these requirements: 1) They must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; 2) moved to the United States before their 16th birthday; 3) lived in the United States, uninterrupted, since June 15, 2007; 4) been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and on the date of their request for deferred action; 5) either entered without a visa before June 15, 2012 or had their visa expire before June 15, 2012; 6) be currently in school, have graduated from high school, received a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and 7) not have been convicted of specified criminal offenses and not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

That last point is important because it means that USCIS will have discretion to deny deferred actions for many reasons, and it does not appear that an applicant can appeal a decision. The criminal offenses for which an applicant will be denied are any felonies, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors of any type. Significant misdemeanors are those involving burglary, domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation, unlawful possession of firearms, driving under the influence, drug distribution, or any other misdemeanor for which an applicant was sentenced to more than 90 days in jail.

As part of the application fee, an applicant will pay for “biometrics” so that USCIS can conduct a background check. The total of the filling fee and the Employment Authorization Document fee will be $465. People approved for the Employment Authorization Document will be able to work in the United State for two years. With any luck, the deferred action will continue beyond that point, or, better yet, Congress will create a path for DREAMERS to get permanent residency.


by Leave a comment

More on the Dubious Science of Bite Mark Analysis

A few weeks ago, I discussed some problems with bite mark analysis. It seems at least one forensic dentist agrees with me. Michael West, a Mississippi dentist, testified 81 times that bite marks on people’s bodies matched the teeth of suspects, but he no longer believes in his own specialty.

In a deposition obtained by The Clarion-Ledger, Mr. West said, “I no longer believe in bite-mark analysis. I don’t think it should be used in court. I think you should use DNA.” Previously in court he had emphasized how reliable bite mark evidence was and said that each mark was unique. Unfortunately, he was both wrong and successful at helping prosecutors get convictions. Cases he testified on are now being reviewed:

Two of those convicted in a 2001 aggravated assault case in which West testified, Leigh Stubbs and Tami Vance, are now receiving a new trial. They are both out on bond and will be arraigned today in Brookhaven.

Here’s to hoping that every state will soon prohibit this type of testimony.