Our office continues to operate during our regular business hours, which are 8:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday, but you can call the office 24 hours a day. We continue to follow all recommendations and requirements of the State of Emergency Stay at Home Order. Consultations are available via telephone or by video conference. The safety of our clients and employees is of the utmost importance and, therefore, in-person meetings are not available at this time except for emergencies or absolutely essential legal services.
Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: “What am I obligated to do if I’ve been pulled for Drinking and Driving?”
In today’s society, it is not uncommon to turn on the news or open any social media platform and see a video of someone’s interaction with the police. The ever-present fear of police misconduct can create the sense of need to record police interactions. These types of recordings can be helpful in determining what happened between police and a suspect or individual. With a recording, no one can lie about what was said or misconstrue the actions of another because there is video evidence present. Of course, a video cannot show everything, and legally resolving any issues can take more evidence than a minute long video of one aspect of an altercation. Nevertheless, videos hold police accountable for their actions, as well as the individuals interacting with the police. Is recording a police officer legal, though? Do you have to inform the officers that you are recording them? The answer is: It depends.
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can the police search my car without a warrant?”
It’s been two months since a North Carolina Judge declared a mistrial for the police officer who killed Jonathan Ferrell. After four days of debates, the jury was deadlocked, 7-5 on an initial vote and 8-4 on the succeeding three votes. And when Judge Robert C Ervin asked the jury foreman if further discussions would resolve the dead end, the response was no. Ervin then declared a mistrial.
J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC responds to “The person that called the police doesn’t want to press charges, can I still be prosecuted?”
The political world has been aflutter with outrage at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a personal email account while employed as the Secretary of the United States Government’s Department of State.
In a press conference last week, Clinton said she decided which emails were a part of the public record and which emails were private. The latter, she suggested, had been deleted.
Now an American state—Massachusetts—is giving police officers the same power, only not over email. According to the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Secretary of State has refused the newspaper’s request for “the names of five police officers caught drunken driving,” for a “report on an officer who was arrested,” for “booking photos of a state trooper,” and for an “entire log of people incarcerated in the state prison system.”
It seems—both at the state and federal levels—secrecy is all the rage.
In Massachusetts, that state’s supervisor of public records told the Globe that public departments have “the discretion to withhold records determined to be covered by CORI.” CORI stands for “Criminal Offender Record Information. The Massachusetts Secretary of State contends that law-enforcement officials have sweeping powers to decide what criminal records are made public, according to the Globe.