Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

Gay Couple From Charlotte Attacked in Asheville and Want Hate Crime Prosecution

Published on: October 13, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A gay couple from Charlotte, North Carolina claims they were victims of a brutal hate crime that left them bruised and bloodied. Mark Little and his partner Dustin Martin were vacationing in Asheville, NC when they say they were attacked by a group of three strangers, two women and one man.

The group got out of a passing car and followed the gay couple who were walking back to their hotel. The incident, which took place in late September, quickly became tense as the group began hurling homophobic slurs at the men, before the man in the group eventually physically assaulted them.

Post #3 criminal image.jpg News stations in Asheville have reported that police in the area are still investigating the assault and that no arrests have been made as of yet. If the suspects are apprehended, they could be charged with simple assault because under North Carolina law, sexual orientation is not a protected class according to the state’s hate crime law.

The two men who were attacked think this is an injustice given that they feel their attack was more than just an assault, but motivated solely based on the fact that they were gay. However, as was previously mentioned, North Carolina law does not include sexual orientation as a basis for a hate crime prosecution. Instead, North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 99D-1 says that a hate crime prosecution can occur when two or more individuals “conspire to interfere with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of a right secured by the Constitutions of the United States or North Carolina.” For this to be a hate crime, the individuals must be motivated by “race, religion, ethnicity, or gender.” Sexual orientation is not listed as a basis for prosecution.

Case Has Some BDSM Fans Worried About Criminalization of Their Lifestyle

Published on: October 9, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Chalk this one up to an odd legal battle, but advocates for those who enjoy engaging in rough but consensual sex say that a Missouri case could lead to the criminalization of their lifestyle.

One man, Ed Bagley, faces a federal trial early next year on 11 counts of abuse against a woman that law enforcement officials claim he groomed to be his personal sex slave. Bagley, of Lebanon, MO, is accused of luring a young woman into acting as his sex slave starting back in 2002, then holding her captive for years while selling images of her online and forcing her to work in strip clubs. Post #1 criminal image 10-18-12.jpg Prosecutors argue that Bagley, known as “Master Ed,” tortured her and force her to engage in similar acts with other men.

Prosecutors have said they intend to use examples of consensual, though violent, acts between Bagley and his wife as evidence that he has a history of sexually abusing women. The prosecutors say they will focus on examples of “sadistic sexual assaults” committed by Bagley on his wife. Prosecutors have said that the fact that these encounters were consensual does not change whether they amount to assault. They have pointed to Missouri law which says that consent is not a defense to assault that results in serious physical injury.

Troubling to those in North Carolina is that our state’s law says much the same thing. In a BDSM case, the causing of physical harm is, in and of itself, criminal. Effective consent is a term used by North Carolina law that allows a person who is charged with causing or threatening to cause bodily injury to another person to use as a defense the fact that the alleged victim consented to the conduct. The problem in this case is that, under North Carolina law, Model Penal Code § 2.11, the defense is allowable only when the conduct does not result in serious bodily harm.

Some groups are worried this tough line could open up others, including those into BDSM, to criminal charges for the consensual acts they are engaged in. Advocates for the BDSM community argue that even the most horrific acts detailed in the recent federal indictment of Bagley are not criminal so long as there was consent.

Supreme Court May Hear Case Regarding DNA Database

Published on: October 4, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The Supreme Court appears to be considering hearing a case this term regarding a law that allows law enforcement to take DNA samples of everyone arrested in the state before the individual has even been convicted of any crime. Something many people in North Carolina may be unaware of is that a law passed last year in the state that allows law enforcement officials to do just that, take a DNA sample once someone has been arrested. The DNA Database Act requires law enforcement to take cheek swabs (a quick method for collecting DNA) of those arrested in North Carolina for having committed certain crimes.

The law was championed as a tool to help law enforcement find and capture those who commit serious offenses in the state, but opponents of the law argue that it allows law enforcement to trample on the 4th Amendment rights of those who have been arrested but not yet convicted of anything. Post #2 criminal image 10.5.jpg These opponents of the law argue that DNA samples represent an unreasonable search and seizure of private information when the person has only been accused and not convicted of a serious offense.

Prior to the DNA Database Act being passed in 2011, police had to obtain a warrant for DNA evidence before they were legally allowed to collect it. For those who are later acquitted or have their charges dismissed, their DNA information is supposed to be removed from the statewide database. Whether this is actually happening is another story entirely.

DNA is a powerful tool that law enforcement can use to potentially tie a person to a crime or crime scene when other evidence is lacking. Adding DNA to the state and national database is expected to help close multiple cases that have gone cold, often because the existing physical evidence, without DNA, was not enough to lead investigators to the perpetrator.

Prostitution Bust by Charlotte Police Lands Five Women in Jail

Published on: October 2, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to WCNC, five women in Charlotte have been arrested in connection with prostitution.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police say they received anonymous tips from people complaining about prostitution activity near Frontenac Avenue and Eastway Drive, south of The Plaza. Robberies, as well as various other incidents of crime, have been reported in the area which led police to focus attention on the vicinity.

The police say the department sent uniformed and undercover officers to saturate the area to help lead to the arrest of the prostitutes. Post #2 criminal image 10.4.jpg The operation was successful from the police’s point of view, as five women were arrested earlier this week and charged with various prostitution-related crimes.

Prostitution and related offenses are outlawed in the state of North Carolina. In a rather brief section of the law, North Carolina General Statutes § 14-204 defines prostitution and other related offenses including pimping and brothel ownership. Loitering is considered an offense on its own, and multiple convictions of all related offenses result in more severe penalties.

North Carolina law defines prostitution as the receiving of or the offering of the body for sexual intercourse for hire. Penalties for prostitution and patronization of a prostitute are Class 1 misdemeanor charges and result in sentences of up to 45 days in jail or a fine. Defendants may receive probation in lieu of imprisonment. Individuals with more than two convictions within a year may be convicted of a crime in the first-degree, resulting in a more severe penalty. Sentencing for first-degree crimes includes imprisonment for 1 to 3 years and a fine.

Stolen Laptop Photographs NC Thief and Leads to Arrest

Published on: September 29, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

One North Carolina thief didn’t know what he was in for when he decided to break into Jonathan Moss’ house in Raleigh, NC and take his brand new MacBook Air. Unbeknown to the burglar, Moss was an IT specialist who had, just days prior, downloaded a GPS tracking software to his laptop.

Moss had just been given the laptop by his wife as a wedding present and the two left for their honeymoon in Aruba when Moss’ landlord emailed him saying there had been a robbery. Moss then accessed his Prey software from his villa in Aruba which allowed him to use wireless networks near the stolen laptop to send location information and even take pictures with the computer’s camera.

Moss went to police in Aruba who contacted Raleigh police with the information he had gathered. Post #1 criminal image 10.5.jpg Moss was able to collect not only the location of the laptop, but a photograph of the man who stole it and the email address of the new user.

Given the overwhelming amount of information stacked against him, it did not take long for police to arrest Johnny Howard Fogg Jr., 29. Fogg has since been charged with felony possession of stolen property in connection with the case. His bail has been set at $3,000.

Under North Carolina law (North Carolina General Statutes § 14-72), people who possess stolen property face Class H felony charges when the value of the property exceeds $1,000 and they know or have reasonable grounds to know that the property was obtained through theft. The value of the property can make a significant difference to an accused person, as the state treats possession of goods valued below $1,000 as a less-serious Class 1 misdemeanor.

Supreme Court to Hear Case About Warrantless Blood Testing

Published on: September 27, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The Supreme Court gave word earlier this week that it would hear a case that concerned the power of police officers to give involuntary blood tests to those arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. The case could be an important one given that it will impact the reading of the Fourth Amendment protections regarding search and seizures and their relationship to forced blood tests.

The case name is Missouri v. McNeely and began as a traffic stop back in 2010. The officer pulled the man, Tyler McNeely, over early in the morning for a routine speeding violation when the officer began to suspect that McNeely was intoxicated. The officer requested that McNeely perform several field sobriety tests which he failed. McNeely then refused to submit to a blood alcohol test after being asked by the officer. Post #1 criminal image 10.4.jpg After refusing, McNeely was taken to a clinic where the officer ordered a medical technician to draw his blood without his consent. The test results showed that he was indeed intoxicated.

Before trial McNeely’s lawyer attempted to suppress the involuntarily taken blood sample, saying that the arresting officer never received a search warrant authorizing the seizure. The prosecution vehemently disagreed, and said that the officer was authorized to take the test immediately because had he failed to do so the alcohol in McNeely’s system would have diminished as quickly as it was metabolized.

The lower court judge sided with the defense attorney and ordered the suppression of the blood test. This decision was reversed by a state appeals court and then reversed again by the Missouri Supreme Court which affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Missouri Supreme Court said that the officer was within his right to order the blood test given the exigent circumstances of the rapidly diminishing alcohol.

Mecklenburg County Sees Thousands of Arrests During “Booze It & Loose It” Campaign

Published on: September 24, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

News out of the North Carolina Department of Transportation indicates that the state’s two most populous counties placed first and second in terms of arrests and citations during the state’s massive “Booze It & Loose It” campaign which took place over the Labor Day holiday.

The state’s Transportation Secretary, Gene Conti, announced that a whopping 2,745 DWI arrests were made during the campaign, which ran from August 17, 2012 through September 3, 2012. Beyond just DWI arrests, more than 94,000 traffic and criminal citations were issued during the same period of increased enforcement.

Wake County saw the most DWI arrests of anywhere else in the state, with 209. Mecklenburg County came in at number two, with 182 DWI-related arrests. Post #1 criminal image 9.21.jpg There was a big drop to the third place county, Guilford, which had 106 arrests during the campaign. The results indicate that many drivers were choosing to drink and drive while at or near the beach, as three of the top 10 counties for DWI arrests are located on the coast of the state: Carteret, New Hanover, and Brunswick.

Wake County also recorded the most total traffic and criminal citations, with 9,316. Mecklenburg County again came in second place with 7,545. Wake County also led the list for speeding violations with 1,925 and Mecklenburg came in second with 1,520.

Transportation Secretary Conti said that the push by local law enforcement agencies did more than sweep up drunk drivers, it also led to the capture of some 2,000+ individuals across the state with outstanding warrants and resulted in the recovery of 135 stolen vehicles. This category of crime – stolen vehicles – was one where Mecklenburg County placed first in terms of arrests, with 41 such vehicles recovered during the campaign.

NC Court of Appeals Reverses Decision to Release Criminal After Crime Lab Mishaps

Published on: September 20, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

North Carolina’s Court of Appeals made a big announcement this week when it decided to overturn a Durham judge’s decision to throw out child murder charges against a man who spent the past 12 years in prison. The Durham judge previously ruled that prosecutors and the state crime lab both hid critical evidence and thus the man ought to be set free.

A unanimous three-judge Appeals Court panel said it did not agree with Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson’s reasoning for dismissing the charges against Derrick Allen. Instead of dismissing the charges, the Appeals Court ordered a new trial in the case.

Judge Hudson previously dismissed murder and assault charges against Allen in December 2010. The man had been serving a prison sentence for the 1998 death of his girlfriend’s 2-year-old daughter. Post #2 criminal image 9.25.jpg Judge Hudson believed that Durham County prosecutors hid evidence and the State Bureau of Investigation’s crime lab intentionally omitted evidence about blood tests in Allen’s case.

The problems in the case came to light only after another man was found innocent of murder after having spent some 17 years behind bars. The case of Greg Taylor resulted in a total review of the state’s crime lab and the resulting report flagged Allen’s case as one of more than 200 that had been handled improperly. This got the ball rolling by a defense attorney who uncovered other misdeeds in the original prosecution.

The Court of Appeals said that while they share the lower court’s displeasure regarding the manner in which the blood testing was done and disclosed and the manner in which the prosecution handled the case, they could not agree that dismissing all charges was appropriate. The judges on the Court of Appeals said they could find no “legal basis” for the lower court’s action.

This recent decision means that Allen will likely face charges related to the 1998 death of the young girl, but he will remain free until a final decision by prosecutors is made regarding how they want to proceed. Allen has always maintained his innocence, though in 1999, he entered an Alford plea which allowed him to avoid the death penalty. Under an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him or her of the charged crime.

North Carolina Meth Making Mom and Son Behind Bars

Published on: September 18, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A North Carolina mother and son were recently arrested for possessing chemicals and equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine, according to a report by WBTV.

Lisa Woodie Sanders, 47, and her son Thomas Jason Triplett, 28, were arrested by the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office this past week according to police spokesmen. Officers were alerted thanks to anonymous tips that the two were involved in cooking meth. Post #2 criminal image 9-16.jpg The officers then searched both the mother and son’s property and found the necessary chemicals for making the drug hidden in a cooler.

The two individuals have been interviewed by police and more arrests could follow in the coming days. The son was placed in the Caldwell County Detention Center on a $7,500 bond while the mom was placed in jail under a $2,500 bond.

This case illustrates a couple of points that are worth noting. The first is that serious criminal charges can be brought against an individual if he or she is accused of having committed a drug crime. The second is that any resulting drug crime conviction can lead to severe penalties that can follow an individual for years to come.

As other street drugs become harder to get, homemade small meth labs are springing up across North Carolina and across the country. As a result, police are anticipating increased meth raids in the future. If Sanders and Triplett have no yet retained an experienced criminal defense attorney, both need to do so immediately. The charges against the two are very serious and the penalties they will now be facing are severe. Their defense should not be left in the hands of inexperienced attorneys, but instead the capable hands of skilled criminal defense professionals.

Masked Charlotte Man Accused of Gas Station Robberies

Published on: September 17, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A recent report on WBTV.com sited a recent series of robberies perpetrated by a man wearing a Frankenstein mask. The alleged burglar wore the mask as he robbed four Charlotte, NC area gas stations. Police believe the same man is responsible for at least three other convenience store robberies in the last two weeks.

Eric Christopher Orr is accused of robbing all four gas station in less than two hours on his birthday. Police say an armed man entered four stores with a Frankenstein mask and demanded money from the cashiers. The gunman apparently followed a path down the Harris Boulevard corridor, as he struck about 3:20 a.m. at a convenience store on The Plaza near Harris Boulevard. Post #1 criminal image 9-14.jpg About 20 minutes later, he robbed a Kangaroo Express in the 7300 block of Albemarle Road, not far from Harris Boulevard again. The final robbery happened about 4:20 a.m., in the 7000 block of East W.T. Harris Boulevard. That is a short distance north of Hickory Grove Road.

He is also believed to be associated with the robbery on August 29, 2012 at the Kangaroo Express on West Sugar Creek Road, the Circle K robbery on September 4, 2012 at 7214 The Plaza and the robbery at the BP Station on September 5, 2012 at 8111 Bellhaven. Thankfully for everyone involved there were no injuries reported during any of the recent four robberies.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police spokesmen say that Orr is now behind bars after a search was conducted where the police publicized security camera footage of the robberies. Officers happened upon Orr accidentally, arresting him at first for driving a stolen car. Only later did they realize that he matched the description of the man accused of robbing the gas stations.