The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual against unreasonable searches and seizure of his or her person or property. A search may involve an inspection of a person or his or her surroundings or property. Government authorities may seize individuals by stopping them or otherwise restricting their movements. Property is seized when the government takes control of it. Usually, but not always, if a seizure of property is invalid, it is because the seizure was preceded by an invalid search.
When can a defendant win an acquittal on grounds of insanity?
The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.
[07/03]
Tablada v. Thomas In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.
[07/03]
US v. Morriss Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.
[07/03]
US v. Dodds Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
"You can talk to one of our lawyers for free."
Se Habla Espaņol
The Houston, Texas, criminal defense law firm of Stradley, Chernoff & Alford, L.L.P., represents people who have been accused of drunk driving (DWI/DUI) anywhere in Texas, including in communities such as League City, Angleton, Pearland, Alvin, Clear Lake, Sugar Land, The Woodlands, Baytown, Pasadena, Memorial, Spring Branch, River Oaks, West University, and Bellaire.
Houston County • Galveston County • Fort Bend County • Montgomery County • Brazoria County • Harris County • Liberty County
