Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer

Within the sad story of Idaho Senator Larry Craig trolling a public men’s room in search of a good time, there is a lesson for anyone accused of a crime.

The senator’s first mistake was selecting a toilet stall occupied by an undercover vice cop. The senator began the encounter by trading glances with the officer through a crack in the door. The officer noted the senator’s distinctive blue eyes. The senator entered the adjacent stall and took a seat. He began making foot signals which the officer interpreted as an invitation for sexual activity. The cop responded with encouraging foot signals of his own. The senator then ran his fingertips under the stall divider. This foreplay ended when the cop flashed his badge under the divider and made the arrest for peeping and disorderly conduct (offensive, obscene conduct in a public place)

But the senator’s next mistake was in negotiating with the prosecutors on his own and cutting a deal to plead guilty to the disorderly conduct. He was not represented by an attorney and signed a guilty plea saying that he really was guilty and “I make no claim that I am innocent.”

In comparing what Craig did alongside the Minnesota statutes, it appears that prosecutors would have had a tough time in getting a conviction. I have seen a jury acquit a defendant who went much further, grabbing an undercover Jefferson City cop’s crotch in a park. The jury seemed bothered by the fact that the cop had “played along” or invited the contact by his words or actions.

And it was pretty clear, in that case, that if the cop had not responded positively to the park pervert, the defendant would not have made physical contact.

• Note: I’m not criticizing the undercover cop here. It’s probably the last duty he wants. After enough telephone complaints come in, his captain is bound to select somebody to serve as “bait” for the homosexual men who haunt public restrooms. And usually the captain selects him. It’s a thankless, almost impossible assignment. People make jokes. Then they remark about how officer was the obvious choice for the job. But the jury does not laugh, they just set the suspect free.

In the case of Senator Craig, the same thing happened. The senator made what the cop says is the foot signal for men’s room sex. The cop appears to signal back that he’s willing. After that, the senator had to believe that his advances were welcome (in which case, they were legal).

The senator should have hired an experienced Minnesota criminal defense attorney to evaluate his case and represent him in court and to negotiate with the prosecutor. He might well have gotten the whole thing dismissed. He might have beaten it at trial. He couldn’t have done any worse than what he did.

Robert Guest is former prosecutor who noted in his blog, I WAS THE STATE: “Craig regrets his decision to plead guilty and is now claiming innocence. He also regrets not having an attorney at his court appearance. If Craig is innocent he would not be the first defendant to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.”

The lesson is that when you are accused of any crime, it’s your chance to prove you are smarter than a U.S. Senator. Get to a lawyer, an experienced criminal defense lawyer. And do it quickly.

Anyone who spends time on the interent will run into videos showing the use of a taser on a violent or uncooperative person.

Go to Youtube and search for tasers. You can see plenty of drunks receiving that 50,000 volt attitude adjustment.

Here are a couple to check out (Notice the guy who seems drunk takes a lot longer to get the message than the mouthy lady. It’s almost like the shock caused her brain to reconnect with her mouth):

Police Taser Drunk Driver Resisting Arrest  

WOMAN GETS TASERED

A lot of people have been critical of TASER use because somebody dies from it about once a week in this country. A Jefferson City police Captain noted that “latest scientific and medical research shows any fears about the harmful affects of Taser use are unfounded.” He pointed out that when TASERS kill, ”the primary cause is the person’s negative life choices, including, the use of illegal drugs and pre-existing medical conditions.”

It makes it sound like they deserved to die–not for resisting arrest–but for eating too many trans fats. But the deaths are only part of the equation.

It’s not only suspects who are being injured.  Many police officers claim they have been injured when they were TASERED during their own TASER training classes.

The rationale for using the TASER is to avoid injury to both police and arrested persons. No one criticizes cops for tasering a threatening person who is armed or physically fighting. Cops don’t get paid enough to get into hand-to-hand combat with drunks and brawlers every night.

The most troubling part is where you draw the line. Some police justify TASER use when a suspect is “resisting.”  But others define “resisting” to mean someone who passively refuses to stand up or non-violently disobeys an order; or if a person is mouthy with the police. This stuff happens.

• There was the Kansas City guy who got TASERED for talking out loud.
• A couple weeks ago, some woman with possible mental problems was hitting her head on the jail floor in Barry County, Mo. So the deputy gave her a ride on the TASER while five other cops watched. I wasn’t there, but you have to wonder if six cops couldn’t have restrained the lady. 
• Then there was that guy that got barbequed when the police TASERED him after he doused himself in gasoline.  
• The news today was about the guy trying to leave the hospital with his newborn child in his arms. The video didn’t show the extent of his misbehaviour, but it would have had to have been deadly to justify TASERing the guy (who promptly dropped the baby on the floor – ouch!)

We need to back up and examine TASER use. By all accounts, the pain is excruciating, apparently as bad as any torture (but usually without the permanent damage).

Use of the TASER is per se evil. If its use is to prevent a clearly greater evil, then it may be justified. But nothing justifies its use simply to secure obedience or respectfulness.

In that case the TASER’s electronic atttitude adjustment is simply torture. 

I ran across a link that mixes some legal advice along with practical advice if you are arrested. The sad truth is that few people follow these rules; and those who do probably learned the lesson the hard way: first hand experience. If I ever ran across a defendant that followed these rules completely . . . well I don’t know. I never met a man who followed them all.  Click here for a nice read:

Top Ten (10) Things NOT to Do If You Are Arrested.

The writer mentions some other cautions, but I want to emphasize that this is not the time to argue with, fight or try to match wits with the police:

• If you refuse to agree to a search, don’t try to prevent it if it happens anyway.
• If you refuse to let police enter your house, but they do anyway, DO NOTHING to stop them. Don’t resist beyond saying “no.”.
• If you don’t agree to go talk at the police station, don’t resist if they make you go.
• Even if the police are in the wrong, NEVER RESIST. You and your attorney can sort that out much better later on.

When I was the State, I lost count of the number of cases that landed on my desk where the ONLY CHARGE was assaulting a law enforcement officer or resisting arrest. Translation: If the defendant hadn’t acted like a fool, he’d have gotten away without a criminal charge at all.