Defending the criminally accused against the heavy hand of the state

I am commonly asked, “isn’t it hard to defend criminals?”  One answer is that I am not defending criminals, I am defending the constitution, because if the rights of the criminally accused are not protected, then the state is, in effect, given free reign to violate the constitutional rights of all citizens.

Imagine, for example, that the police mistakenly believe that there is a large quantity of marijuana in your house.  Officers in paramilitary gear storm your  house in the middle of the night, point high powered rifles in your face, and order you and your spouse to the ground. Your children are traumatized. Your life is turned upside down, and it was all because of a mistake. It was a bad tip, wrong address maybe, and there really was no probable cause to justify this violent action by the state. If you think this sounds like an unlikely scenario, click here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091701680.html 

So, what’s the remedy for such searches conducted without probable cause?  Individual officers are granted broad immunity for conduct carried out in the performance of their duties. Civil lawsuits against the state are difficult and costly. The primary remedy for such abuses is found, not in civil law, but in the criminal system, and that remedy is suppression of  any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search.  If no evidence is found, there is usually no remedy for the bad conduct of the police.  “Sorry about that, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, looks like your clean, we’ll be on our way now.” But because the police know any evidence discovered as the result of an illegal search will usually be inadmissible (if a competent defense attorney gets a hold of the case) they are generally careful to comply with constitutional safeguards before executing a search.  If the rights of the criminally accused are not protected, then the police will have no incentive to be cautious with the rights of the rest of us. This is not because police officers are bad people or corrupt, but because they are under pressure to obtain results and will take the path of least restistance to obtain those results, as is human nature. If there were no constitutional requirement for search warrants, believe me, the state would never bother to obtain one.

But there is another answer to the question about the difficulty of defending  “criminals”, and that is that the premise is all wrong. My clients are not “criminals”. While no criminal defense attorney has the luxory of representing only the factually innocent, simply being accused of a crime does not make you a “criminal”. In most cases, even those who have violated the law do not deserve to have that stygma attached to them. Most of my clients have never been accused of a crime before and are shocked at how brutal and unforgiving the criminal justice system is. They do not identify themselves as “criminals” and are glad to have at least one person who recognizes them as just a human being who deserves to be defended against the heavy hand of the state. Representing a criminal might be hard, but helping a human being is easy.

A study in how the heavy hand of the state can tear a part the lives of good people can be found in the story of Lisa and Anthony Demaree who, after attempting to develop innocent photographs of their children, were investigated for child sex crimes.

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/19/20090919walmart0919.html

John Vigileos

Attorney at Law

(602) 443-0415