Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs

Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs General Criminal and Civil Litigation Services for individuals and businesses. Arizona Trial Servic

10/25/2023

Vamanos Serpientes!

06/27/2022

In Dobbs v. JWHO the court overturned 50 years of precedent holding that women have a federally protected, Constitutional right to privacy in health care, which includes the right to obtain medical services to terminate a pregnancy if they so choose. In Dobbs, the court ruled that the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade (and it's lesser known companion case Casey) improperly derived this fundamental right from the implied "privacy clause" of the Fourth Amendment and effectively revoked that right, leaving the matter to the individual states to decide form themselves.

The decision in Dobbs is hundreds of pages long, and I have not read it all. Suffice to say however that I regard this as a reckless and imprudent decision overturning 50 years of precedent that afforded women a 4A protection against what will now certainly be demonstrated to be arbitrary and capricious, religious based laws seeking to force women to carry a pregnancy to term. The fallout from this decision will be decades long as our current laws make it unlikely that a Constitutional Amendment will be passed so long as LAND continues to vote as effectively as PEOPLE where States of significantly lesser population get a vote in the Senate on the issues on par with States like New York, California and Massachusetts.

Arizona is a "trigger law" State, which means its medieval, anti-choice laws are already in effect. Local jurisdictions are already taking sides and chaos has already settled in as Arizona Planned Parenthood has discontinued abortion services and effectively shut its doors until they figure out how the SCOTUS taking away 50 years of a woman's right to privacy and choice in family planning will affect their role in women's health.

Arizona law also provides that a woman may file a paternity suit against a man who fathers a child with her from moment of conception, and he is liable for damages/support from day 1, including medical services, lost wages due to leave or illness related to pregnancy or doctor's orders, as well as prenatal supplies, transportation for medical services and a myriad of other expenses traditionally borne by women.

Anyone seeking to enforce such rights should consult with this office (free of charge) or the Arizona Attorney General Child Support Enforcement Division. In theory, if a woman who lives in Arizona declares that she would abort a pregnancy but for the law, the State of Arizona may potentially be liable for forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term for up to 18 years of support if the father of the child fails to support the child (including health insurance and education). Think about it.

There were over 900,000 abortions in the United States in 2021. There were 135,000 adoptions.

06/27/2022

In Vega v. Tekoh the court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For those unfamiliar with civil rights law, this provision of the Civil Rights Act provides an avenue for citizens deprived of a Federal right (life, liberty or property) by someone acting "under color of state law" to sue for damages and equitable relief, including (in some cases) punitive damages against the individual causing the harm.

As most are aware, Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark decision that established a minimum set of rights applicable to police questioning of a suspect under arrest, and derived from the Fifth Amendment. While most believe that the so-called Miranda Warnings were created by the SCOTUS, they were in fact a creation of law enforcement intended to address the concerns and requirements of the Court's decision in that case. Before a suspect in a criminal investigation may be questioned while under arrest, the court held, they must be advised of a right to remain silent. Furthermore, the person must be made aware that anything they say will be held against them. Finally, police must advise that the suspect has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for them. It is essential that, before proceeding with questioning the arrestee, police must ensure that the person is aware of their rights and has knowingly and intelligently chosen to waive those rights. Otherwise any statement made cannot be used by the State in any prosecution. While there are some technical exceptions, that has been the basic rule for the past 60 years.

In Vega v. Tekoh the issue was whether failure to provide Miranda Warnings constitutes a cognizable deprivation of Constitutional rights (life, liberty or property) such that this would be actionable under the Civil Rights Act. The court simply held it was not. Note that this decision is narrow, and generally addresses a rights violation which does not directly lead to damages. While the plaintiff obviously believed that a resulting conviction for a criminal offense constitutes "damages" arising from the violation, the Court disagreed. This decision does not really affect application of Miranda, violation of which still invokes the "exclusionary rule" providing for exclusion of evidence obtained from violation of Constitutional rights, as well as any evidence derived from that evidence.

06/27/2022

In NYSRPA v. Bruen the court held New York’s "proper-cause" requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Second Amendment advocates rightly hail this as a victory for gun owners, as the decision expanded prior rulings addressing the right to keep and bear arms at one's home (See D.C. v. Heller) by ruling that the State may not unreasonably restrict the right to carry a gun (concealed or not) outside of one's home. The court held that the NYS provision requiring a showing of "proper cause" was unduly restrictive of the 2A right.

While this decision does not touch in any way on the issue of right to purchase or possess a firearm based on criminal history, civil mental health findings or other "red flag law" matters, it does appeal to significantly limit the Government's ability to prevent citizens from carrying guns in public places.

In an odd twist, Justice Thomas's Opinion (for the court) elevates 2A rights above other Constitutional rights. In all other cases addressing Constitutional rights, the court first asks if the right exists, then asks if there is an appropriate reason to abrogate the right based on a compelling or important government need. In gun cases, Thomas wrote, the only inquiry is whether there is a historical analogy to the current regulation deriving from the moments the Second Amendment was passed or the 14th amendment made applicable to the states.

Legal scholars and pundits will be trying to decipher this language for decades to come. My best take on it is that the SCOTUS wants gun control advocates to show that there is a historical precedent for the gun restriction that can be traced back to the 1790's or late 1860's, when the 2A and 14A were created. Certainly by the late 1860's there were a myriad of gun restrictions, mostly in cities or more violent western townships such as Dodge City and Tombstone (both had "no guns in town" laws due to the high number of violent incidents). One might argue, however, that the laws of the 1860's were irrelevant since the 2A existed for decades before, and the 14A, inter alia, made the 2A binding on the States without changing its language or meaning.

Concurring Justices made sure to remark that the decision is not intended to affect "red flag law" situations, but I doubt that there are any laws from the 1790's that restricted the mentally ill from owning guns, for which William H. Bonney. aka Henry McCarty aka Billy the Kid was no doubt grateful.

06/27/2022

Well it has certainly been a tough season for SCOTUS opinions. The new "conservative" court has really been eager to be on the side of law enforcement, as expected. Add to that three Trump-appointed Justices who vowed under oath that they would not reverse Roe v. Wade seem to have changed their minds (lied) about that, and now we are set back about 50 years for women's rights.

The three most prominent decisions on "hot button" issues are New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (20-843), Vegas v. Tekoh (142 S.Ct. 858) and of course Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. (19-13392).

In NYSRPA v. Bruen the court held New York’s "proper-cause" requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

In Vega v. Tekoh the court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In Dobbs v. JWHO the court overturned 50 years of precedent holding that women have a federally protected, Constitutional right to privacy in health care, which includes the right to obtain medical services to terminate a pregnancy if they so choose. In Dobbs, the court ruled that the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade (and it's lesser known companion case Casey) improperly derived this fundamental right from the implied "privacy clause" of the Fourth Amendment and effectively revoked that right, leaving the matter to the individual states to decide form themselves.

To avoid an excessively lengthy comment, I will address each case in a separate post.

11/08/2021

This is a very good summary of recent legislation actually passed by our Legislature, signed into law by the Governor and struck down by the Arizona Supreme Court basically because the laws blatantly violated the Arizona Constitution. This is what your Legislature is up to, and it certainly reflects on the quality of folks being elected to office in this State. Not good.

Grab bag of laws voided by Supreme Court
By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services November 3, 2021

When the Arizona Supreme Court slapped down how lawmakers approve “budget reconciliation” bills on November 2, they quashed more than the ban on schools requiring masks of faculty and students.
With its three-sentence order, the justices also removed a similar prohibition against cities and counties imposing mask mandates on those in public and charter schools.
Also gone is the threat of school teachers being sued by the attorney general on claims that they used public resources, ranging from email or work time, to “organize, plan or execute any activity that impedes or prevents a public school from operating for any period of time.” That was aimed at efforts to get teachers to stay home during Covid outbreaks at districts that don’t mandate face coverings.
Because of the Supreme Court ruling, universities are not precluded from requiring those on campus to be vaccinated against Covid or get tested regularly, as lawmakers had voted.
But there’s so much more that went up in a legal puff of smoke, from how elections are run to what happens when the next governor declares a state of emergency.
And it’s all because the court declared that lawmakers – and Gov. Doug Ducey who signed the bills – played fast and loose with the Arizona Constitution.
The justices, without comment, upheld a lower court ruling that four separate reconciliation bills violated constitutional requirements that they have a title that adequately informs lawmakers and the public of what changes in statute were being proposed. That resulted in a dozen or so challenged provisions being voided.
But the justices also found that one of the bills – labeled simply “relating to state budget procedures” – was so chock full of unrelated items that it also ran afoul of another constitutional requirement that all measures be limited to a single subject and related matters. So they declared the entire act nullified.
For example, there were several provisions on elections, like allowing the state Game and Fish Department to register voters and mandating that there be specific kinds of paper and fraud countermeasures on future ballots.
Yet the same measure, SB1819, also sought to preclude the kind of ongoing emergency declaration that Ducey declared on March 11, 2020, and still exists. It would have limited declarations to 30 days, with a maximum of three extensions and a requirement to get legislative OK for anything beyond 120 days.
But in a nod to the governor, who had to sign the legislation, that provision would not have taken effect until 2023 after Ducey leaves office.
Also stuffed into SB1819 was a task force to study “unreported in-kind contributions,” setting aside $500,000 based on questions raised by some GOP lawmakers who wanted to see if social media platforms were influencing elections.
There also was establishment of a “major events fund” to help underwrite the costs of the 2023 Super Bowl and other sports events, setting up a panel to study whether there should be a Southern Arizona Regional Sports Authority and even a provision removing the legal definition of what constitutes a “newspaper,” a maneuver that could allow free publications to accept and run legal ads.
There’s more.
Among the not-to-be laws was what some legislators referred to as a ban on teaching “critical race theory.”
That phrase was not in the legislation. And, in fact, what is critical race theory actually goes to the issue of whether there is inherent racism that effectively is baked into society and continues to have an effect.
But that didn’t stop proponents from seeking to declare it illegal to bar teaching that an individual, by virtue of race, ethnicity or s*x, bears responsibility for actions committed by others of the same race, ethnicity or s*x, or from teaching that any individual should feel “discomfort, guilt, anguish or other form of psychological distress because of their race, ethnicity or s*x.”
But there’s so much more in the bills that the Supreme Court voided:
Precluding the state or local governments from establishing a Covid “vaccine passport” or requiring any business to obtain proof of vaccination status of patrons.
Exempting the Department of Public Safety from certain oversight requirements when it purchases body cameras for officers.
Stripping the secretary of state of the ability to defend election laws – but only through 2022, the time that Democrat Katie Hobbs leaves office.
Moving oversight of the State Museum from the secretary of state to the Legislative Council.
Allowing a condominium to be sold only if all the owners agree.
Setting up an “election integrity fund” to finance election security, cybersecurity measures and any post-election hand counts.
Prohibiting the Arizona Lottery from advertising at a professional sporting event.
Permitting the auditor general, an arm of the Legislature, to review the process used to maintain early voter lists – but only in Maricopa County;
Petitioning the federal Election Assistance Commission to allow the state to require proof of citizenship on registration forms that allow people to vote only in federal elections.
Reimbursing liabilities of the Department of Forestry and Fire Management in excess of $250,000.
Converting the permits for dog racing, which was banned years ago, into permits for harness racing, something that does not now exist in Arizona.
Setting up a special Senate committee to review the findings of the audit of the 2020 election.
Establishing a “state permitting dashboard” to track authorization for public projects.
Changing the duties and responsibilities of the Study Committee on Missing and Murdered Indigenous People.

06/15/2021

Good news! It's official: you can request expungement of misdemeanor or felony ma*****na convictions involving smaller amounts of ma*****na or paraphernalia! See below and give us a call if you need help!

Ma*****na Expungement Forms
Proposition 207 includes a new statute (A.R.S. § 36-2862) that authorizes some people to petition a court for an order that will seal their ma*****na-related criminal records. Eligible petitioners are those who were arrested, charged, convicted or acquitted of any of the following offenses:

Possessing, consuming, or transporting two and one-half ounces or less of ma*****na, of which not more than twelve and one-half grams was in the form of ma*****na concentrate;
Possessing, transporting, cultivating, or processing not more than six ma*****na plants at your primary residence for personal use; or
Possessing, using, or transporting paraphernalia related to the cultivation, manufacture, processing, or consumption of ma*****na.

The Arizona Supreme Court has adopted petition forms and instructions for people to use for this purpose. These forms should not be filed before the July 12, 2021 effective date.

04/29/2021

So what happens to those accused of a crime, but found not competent to stand trial? An initial determination is made whether the defendant may be restored to competency with treatment. But what happens if he/she IS restorable? In the following case the defendant was found incompetent, but restorable, and requested treatment at an OUT PATIENT facility i.e. not remaining locked up in pretrial custody of the U.S. Marshal. The discussion that follows makes it clear that this is an OPTION, but not a REQUIREMENT. Read on.....

US v. Quintero, No. 19-10300 (4-29-21)(Bybee w/Tallman & Bade). The 9th holds that if a court finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial, the court must be committed to the AG for inpatient assessment for possible restoration to competency. The statute, 18 USC 4241(d) mandates this. Defense counsel, representing a defendant facing drug charges, raised competency. The court determined the defendant to be incompetent. Defense counsel argues before the court, and on appeal, that the district court had authority to order evaluation and treatment at an outpatient facility; she did not have to be incarcerated. Such incarceration, she argued, violated statutory and constitutional rights. The 9th rejected these arguments. It found that the statute clearly mandated commitment; that her due process and equal protection rights were respected under the statutory framework; and there was no sixth amendment conflict between counsel and defendant’s rights.

The silver lining is that the 9th recognizes “no impediment in the statute” to the AG choosing outpatient treatment as a “suitable facility.” The discretion rests with the AG. The 9th acknowledges that scientific and medical evidence may support the effectiveness of outpatient treatment, but precedent compels the result. See US v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2007)(17). However, Congress or the AG could address such an avenue.

04/26/2021

A little Las Vegas nostalgia.

For those who are fans of the movie Casino" (1995 - Sharon Stone, Joe Pesci, Robert DeNiro), this case represents a slice of the facts featured in that film, while at the same time presenting a good ruling on the elements of search warrant detail required by the 4th Amendment.

Pesci character, Nikki Santino, was closely modeled after high-profile La Costa Nostra mob enforcer Anthony "Tony the Ant" Spilotro, who met his end at the hands of his fellow mobsters in the film. Pesci also bore an eerie resemblance to Spilotro. As represented in the movie, Spilotro and his brother Michael were bludgeoned to death and buried in a cornfield, reputedly for mishandling mob business in Las Vegas.

02/15/2021

Of interest is the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Woodbury, 2/11/21, Docket 20-30225, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2021), surprisingly holding that ma*****na is inherently a product that may be assumed to affect interstate commerce (thus permitting federal jurisdiction for robbery of a ma*****na dispensary under the Hobbe's Act), and unsurprisingly holding that possession of a prohibited/restricted weapon (in this case a short barrel rifle - or SBR) does not require proof that the person who possessed the firearm knew it had a barrel shorter than 16".

The federal government is permitted to enact laws that affect citizens of the several states. However that power is limited by the "Commerce Clause," which limits such laws to matters which affect interstate commerce. During the Great Depression, the federal New Deal programs came under fire for over-reaching federal authority. After some political maneuvering by President Roosevelt, the Supreme Court eventually held in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) that even farmer Filburn's meager local wheat crop affected interstate commerce even though it was only bound for local markets. Ever since that landmark case, federal power has been ever-expanding.

For those of you who have doubts about your fi****ms, I suggest your buy a tape measure and use it!

02/01/2021

Today we ask ourselves what the definition of "is" really is as the Ninth Circuit weighs in on whether the term "relating to" is unconstitutionally vague in a criminal statute.

US v. Hudson, No. 19-10227 (1-29-21)(Hawkins w/N. Smith & Nelson). This is a possession of child po*******hy appeal. The issue is whether the 10 year mandatory minimum for a prior agg s*x abuse, s*x abuse, or abusive s*xual conduct with a minor or ward is unconstitutionally vague. The defendant has a prior conviction for engaging in a lewd and lascivious act with a minor under the age of 14. Does this conviction “relate to” abuse s*xual conduct of a minor, and is it too vague. The 9th determines it “relates to,” is not vague, and affirms the sentence. The 9th takes a categorical approach, shies away from using the federal definitions for s*x abuse, and uses an ordinary meaning of the phrase. See US v Farmer, 627 F.3d 416 (9th Cir. 2010)(Cal Penal Code 288(a) relates to abusive s*xual conduct with a minor). The 9th agrees that the phrase “relating to” such a prior conviction broadens the reach. This is not fatal if its core substantive element stands in “some relation, bears upon, or is associated” the generic offense. (11). The 9th various interpretations look at the “relates to” to see if it sweeps too arbitrarily to take in the state prior conviction. The 9th finds it does not here. The federal statute gives notice to ordinary individuals nor poses an arbitrary risk.

01/21/2021

I try to post about cases that will help ordinary citizens in understanding their rights. This is a good one. We often ask when is a "chat" with police a "custodial" interrogation? Read on to find out!

US v. Mora-Alcaraz, No. 19-10323 (1-21-21)(Schroeder w/Berzon & Mendoza). After the district court suppressed statements for a Miranda violation, the government appealed. The 9th affirmed the finding of a Miranda violation, but sent it back to the trial court to determine whether the consent to search the car, and thus find the firearm (alien in possession) was consensual.

The Miranda violation arose when the police accosted the defendant at a mall. The police were looking because of domestic disturbance allegation the previous night.

The police called the defendant, who was at a mall, with his 7 year old child, and agreed to meet to “discuss” what happened. Instead of just one officer, 4 show up, in two cars, separated the defendant from his son, and questioned him. The defendant admitted being her illegally and having a gun in his truck. The police then drove him to his truck, where he consented to a search.

The 9th affirmed suppression because of the police dominated environment, and the separation of his child. The 9th used the factors in US v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2002), as to public interrogations (or non-police stations). The various, not exclusive, factors are: (1) the language used to summon; (2) confrontation of guilt; (3) physical surroundings; (4) duration; and (5) pressure. Using these factors, the 9th agreed with the district court that the defendant would not have felt free to end the questioning and leave the mall. This was a custodial interrogation, therefore, but without Miranda warnings given. The statements are suppressed.

The question then becomes whether the gun can be suppressed too. The court suppressed as poisoned fruit of the Miranda violation. This was error. Physical evidence – here, the gun -- can be admissible, even after a Miranda violation. US v. Patane, 543 US 630 (2004). The inquiry thus focuses on whether the defendant’s consent to search the trunk was voluntary. The 9th remanded to the district court to determine.

Address

271 N Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ
85701

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 5pm
Tuesday 8:30am - 5pm
Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm
Thursday 8:30am - 5pm
Friday 8:30am - 5pm

Telephone

+15206281622

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs:

Share