FindLaw Blotter - Crime Blog - Crime News - The FindLaw Crime and Criminals Blog

Anthony Allen, of Portland, Oregon, is suing the city for nearly half a million dollars as a result of a wrongful arrest that happened in May 2015. While this may seem like a big number, keep in mind that not only was this man wrongfully arrested, criminal charges were actually pursued against him. Thankfully, a jury acquitted him on those charges.

Wrongful arrest cases can be rather difficult cases to prove. Generally, a person asserting that an arrest was wrongful must prove that an officer lacked justification to make the arrest. In Mr. Allen's case, it is alleged that the arresting officer racially profiled him and lacked any probable cause.

The answer to this question, with very little exception, is a resounding: No. If the conviction is on the record, then under both federal and state laws, a person will be prohibited from owning a firearm. Many people are surprised to find out that this even applies to individuals who have been convicted on misdemeanor domestic violence charges. This can be particularly difficult for individuals who accepted no-jail plea bargains to misdemeanor charges in order to avoid more serious risks and consequences associated with fighting felony charges, or just going to trial.

For almost 50 years now, federal law has been rather clear that individuals who have convictions for domestic violence charges cannot legally possess firearms. The Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, explicitly state that individuals may not own a firearm after a conviction for domestic violence, domestic assault, or equivalent crime, as well as when a domestic violence or harassment restraining order has been awarded.

Hearsay, though technically a noun, is better understood as an adjective that gets used to describe certain pieces of evidence. Generally, hearsay evidence can be easily understood as secondhand evidence. For instance, if a person is testifying about what another person told them, or about something they read that was written by someone else, that testimony can be considered hearsay. In short, hearsay involves a person testifying about another person's statements.

A common issue surrounding hearsay is whether the secondhand statement is being presented as a true fact, or for some other reason. Lawyers refer to this issue as whether the statement is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Typically, the hearsay rules require excluding secondhand testimony presented as truth, unless it falls into one of the many exceptions.

In recent years, professional and amateur filmmakers alike have found much success in the "true crime" subgenre of reality TV, as well as just selling and profiting off crime footage. Whether it's capturing footage of a drug user using, a drug dealer dealing, a thief thieving, or the police policing, there are several important considerations for filmmakers.

Generally, a filmmaker will not be liable for filming a criminal admitting to a crime after the fact. Things can get murky however if a criminal begins talking about future crimes, or is being filmed during the actual commission of a crime.

Below, you'll find three essential legal tips for filming criminal acts in progress.

One of the primary principles of criminal investigations is that, in their quest for truth and justice, investigators must remain independent and free of interference or influence. Such meddling can take many forms, from bribery and witness intimidation, to evidence tampering and outright lying, and are generally referred to as "obstruction of justice."

In the wake of President Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey last week, many are speculating that Comey's termination was an attempt to thwart investigations into Trump's campaigns and advisor's connections with Russia, and therefore amounts to obstruction of justice. But what federal statutes would cover Trump's actions, and what, specifically, do they prohibit?

In New York's Suffolk County, Thomas Demint has agreed to settle his wrongful arrest case against the local police department. The civil lawsuit, which made headlines back in late 2015, was resolved for only $50,000.

In May 2014, the 19-year-old Demint was standing a safe distance away from officers that were arresting two other individuals. Demint began video recording the incident, which was happening in public in plain view. After some time, police demanded Demint stop recording, then police arrested Demint for allegedly interfering with their other arrests, and an officer confiscated Demint's phone. When prosecutors determined Demint did nothing illegal, the charges were dropped. Demint, justifiably angry over the whole encounter, filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming he was falsely arrested.

Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the end of a six week long, nationwide, transnational gang enforcement surge. The focus of the operation, eerily named "Project New Dawn," was to target gang members involved in drug, weapon, or human trafficking, as well as those implicated in murder and racketeering investigations.

The operation is being hailed as a success: 1,095 confirmed gang members were arrested in the sweep. Of the 1,378 people taken into custody, 933 were U.S. citizens, and 445 were foreign nationals from 21 different countries. Nearly 1,100 arrests were related to federal or state criminal charges, while just 280 were the result of violations of administrative immigration laws.

Undoing Obama era guidance advising federal prosecutors to pass on charging low-level drug offenders, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors in his Justice Department to "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense" under the law. What this shift means in practice is that federal defendants may now face "the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences," which were frowned upon during previous AG Eric Holder's tenure.

Sessions called his directive "moral and just" and advised that "[a]ny inconsistent previous policy of the Department of Justice relating to these matters is rescinded, effective today." What will the new rules mean for prosecutors and defendants?

An awful social media game seems to have originated across the pond and made its way over to the US. Schools across the country are beginning to warn parents about a Snapchat "game" linked to cyberbullying. Schools are asking parents to caution their children against engaging in the game.

The game, called Letter X, is played on smartphones using the Snapchat app. The whole focus of the game, played by school kids, is to insult other kids by sending messages which can be photos and videos that include text or audio overlaid. One bully asks another to X a person, then multiple bullies gang up on the person who was X'ed. Then, the bullies compare and brag about which insults were the "best." This game essentially crowd-sources cyberbullying.

The New Hampshire State Senate voted 17-6 to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana yesterday, following a 318-36 vote from the House in March. But the Senate version differed slightly from the House version, so there are a few more legal hoops to jump through before New Hampshire residents can safely carry weed with them.

So what regulations did the Senate sign off on, and what might a finalized decriminalization bill look like?