Joseph P. Welch

Detective Bobby Garrett was as crooked as they come, and now he’s getting his. This corrupt police officer put one of my clients in jail for 2 months and almost sent him to prison for 11 years - luckily, though, it only took our jury 25 minutes to find my guy NOT GUILTY.

The St. Louis American reports:

On Friday (August 28), former St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department detective Bobby Garrett plead guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud, making false statements and theft of government funds, according to Acting United States Attorney Michael W. Reap.

Though Reap described it as an “isolated incident,” the investigation revealed several City undercover detectives under the leadership of then Police Chief Mokwa committing crimes together on multiple occasions while in the line of duty.

Federal investigators describe a network of on-duty police officers stealing money from purported drug dealers and lying in official documents to conceal their crimes.

Federal agents also described false arrests made as part of the cover-up and obstruction of justice when their crimes were investigated.

Garrett, Leo Liston and Vincent Carr were police detectives employed by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, assigned to the Crime Suppression Unit.

Their duties included investigations involving auto theft, burglary, illegal narcotics sales and firearms offenses and were usually carried out while working in plain clothes and unmarked cars.

According to statements made in court by Assistant United States Attorney Hal Goldsmith at the time of the guilty plea, Garrett aided and abetted other officers acting with him in stealing money from a purported drug courier they stopped on September 18, 2007, and failed to properly report the stop and seizure in order to conceal their actions.

Further, Goldsmith said, in a June 6, 2008 drug raid, Garrett stole money, lied on police reports about the drug raid, and took other actions to conceal the theft, including falsely arresting and charging an individual relative to the drug raid.

Garrett later lied to a representative of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI agents investigating the incident in order to conceal his criminal conduct, Goldsmith said.

In an unrelated June 11, 2008 drug raid, Garrett and other officers working with him seized approximately $12,000 in cash, but only reported approximately $4,000 of the seized cash to the police department. The remaining approximately $8,000 was misapplied by Garrett and the other officers, and a false police report was prepared in order to conceal their criminal conduct, Goldsmith said in connection to the guilty plea.

Garrett, 49, of St. Louis County, plead guilty to one felony count of embezzlement of government property, one felony count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one felony count of wire fraud, two felony counts of making false statements and one felony count of misapplication of government funds.

Read the whole story from the St. Louis American online: Former City detective pleads guilty to multiple crimes committed on duty

joe :: Aug.30.2009 :: Missouri, St. Louis, Criminal Defense, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri has released
a scathing report outlining ongoing violations of the civil liberties of inmates in the City of St. Louis Medium Security Institution (the City Workhouse) on Hall Street.

The ACLU report details several disturbing things:

· Inmate assaults by corrections officers
· Systemic cover ups and false reporting of the incidents
· Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct
· Medical neglect
· Negligence resulting in death

For more information and to read the report visit the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri:

Suffering In Silence - the ACLU of Eastern Missouri’s report on the St. Louis City Jail

joe :: Mar.29.2009 :: Missouri, St. Louis, Criminal Defense, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

Flex Your Rights.org reports on an Eight Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which an innocent man had his life savings stolen from him through our unfair system of civil forfeiture laws. From Flex Your Rights.org:

The blogoshere is buzzing about the fate of Emiliano Gonzolez, an immigrant who consented to a police search only to have his life savings confiscated. The Eighth Circuit upheld the seizure even though Gonzolez was never even charged with a crime

The problem here is that forfeiture laws target the money directly, without addressing the guilt or innocence of the suspect. This case, for example, is bizarrely titled United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency. Forfeiture cases require a mere “preponderance of the evidence”, which means that the court only has to be 51% sure you did something wrong in order to take everything you own.

Yet even this government-friendly standard appears unmet here. Gonzolez’s evasive answers during the traffic stop are easily attributable to his difficulty with English and his obviously valid concern that police might confiscate his money if they knew about it. The fact that a drug dog alerted on the money is insignificant since 80% of U.S. currency contains drug traces. He had a one-way ticket because he intended to drive home in a truck, and he had someone else rent the car because he couldn’t rent without a credit card.

A policy that ignores reason condemns itself to the inevitability of injustice against the innocent. Even if the Eighth Circuit truly disbelieves Gonzolez, these judges must surely recognize the ease with which law-abiding citizens could be rendered helpless under this doctrine.

This callous ruling underscores the importance of knowing your rights in the first place. Had Gonzolez known to refuse the search and remain silent instead of lying, he may have been able to avoid this mess entirely. At the very least, a 4th Amendment challenge would have given him an additional legal option to pursue.

Read the rest of the story here at Flex Your Rights.org.

joe :: Sep.28.2006 :: Drug Laws, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

A police officer will often request that you get out of your vehicle after pulling you over, and most people comply without giving it a second thought. What, exactly, are your rights when a cop asks you to get out of your car?

Anyways, in Missouri a police officer has the right to order you out of your car after pulling you over for almost any violation at all. If that little light above your license plate is burnt out, you can be pulled over and be forced to get out of your vehicle. You do not have a right to refuse to get out of your vehicle, and the officer can then proceed to ask you a few specific questions regardless of whether they have any reason to believe that you’re breaking the law.

Once you have exited the vehicle, the officer may do the following:

1. License and registration

It’s a good idea to always have your license and registration in a safe and convenient location. If you fumble for your paperwork or can’t find it, officers are trained to assume that you’re intoxicated, and can use this to detain you longer, ask you more questions, and possibly search your vehicle or arrest you.

Almost everyone keeps their registration and proof of insurance in their glove compartment, but screwing around with your glove compartment with a police officer outside your door is a good way to get shot, because the glove compartment is also a convenient place to store a handgun, and this is one thing that every officer is concerned with, and rightfully so. Keep your registration and proof of insurance easily accessible in your glove compartment so you can have it out and ready before the officer walks up to your car. And sometimes it’s a good idea to leave your glove compartment open after you remove your paperwork so the officer can see that you’re not trying to hide anything in it.

2. Sitting in the police car.

A police officer in Missouri may also require you to sit in his or her police car after stopping you for a minor offense. In most cases they only do this if they suspect that you’re up to something illegal, but legally they don’t need a reason. The justification for their right to hold you in their car is to ensure the safety of the officer, an important reason, even though its legitimacy is questionable and the power it grants officers is ripe for abuse. As I said before, the officer doesn’t need a reason to make you sit in the patrol car, and they often use this power when they suspect you’re up to something and want to intimidate you into allowing them to search your vehicle or confessing to something.

It’s often a good idea to lock your car in these situations- the officer must obtain a search warrant to search your locked car, and it’s more difficult for the officer to lie and say you consented to the search. By having your license, insurance, and registration ready before the officer walks up to your car you’re all set if the officer requests you to get out of the car, and neither you nor the officer should have any reason to get back into it unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that something illegal is going on (I mean, aside from the illegal traffic stop and violation of your constitutional rights, of course).

3. Where are you going and what are you doing?

The officer also has the right to ask where you’re going and what you’re going to do there. In most cases the “where” part is easy because you’re going home, or to work, or a friend’s house, or whatever. A short, simple, and truthful “home”, “work”, or “my friend Jack’s house” (if that is his real name, of course) is often a safe answer. If you’re going somewhere that you’d rather not mention to the officer (like, a bar, or club, or a subversive political meeting), then the negative answer “nowhere unlawful” might be good. If you’re going somewhere illegal, like if you’re going to be tresspassing or vandalizing a church or something, then… well, you’re a bad, bad person and should probably atone for your life of crime.

As for what you should say when the officer asks you what you’re going to do at your destination, the best answer is usually “nothing unlawful”.

And as always, nothing in this post is intended to be specific legal advice in Missouri or anywhere else. Every traffic stop and case is unique, and if you have a question about your rights or get pulled over contact an attorney in your area.

joe :: Sep.25.2006 :: DWI, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

As discussed in the previous installment of this article, Missouri courts have adopted fairly liberal rules regarding the disclosure of evidence before a criminal trial. We’ve already discussed some of the specific items that Missouri Supreme Court Rule 25.03 requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense (you, right?) before trial, so now we should discuss how and when the request should be made, and what happens when the prosecution fails to comply with the law of disclosure.

Again, these rules only apply to felony and misdemeanor cases in Missouri, and the information presented here isn’t intended to be legal advice, so if you’ve been charged with a criminal offense be sure to contact a lawyer in your area, or contact me here.

Supreme Court Rule 25.03, in addition to specifically telling us what kind of evidence the prosecution must hand over, also tells us how our request must be filed. A copy of the request should be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and the original should be filed with the court. Of course, any attorney will get an extra copy file-stamped at the court house to show that it was actually filed with the court on time, and a really good attorney will provide their client with a file-stamped copy also.

The deadlines for filing the request are mandated by Supreme Court Rule 25.02. This rule requires that all requests for disclosure must be filed no later than 20 days after arraignment. One problem that I often face is the case where someone doesn’t retain my services as an attorney until right before their first court date after arraignment, which is usually past the 20 day deadline. However, Rule 25.02 also allows the court to exercise discretion in expanding the 20 day deadline, so in these cases I file a request for disclosure as soon as I enter my appearance of record, and also file a motion with the court for permission to file a late request for disclosure. In this sort of situation I’ve never had a court deny my motion to file late, but ultimately it is up to the court, so you better have a good reason if you’re asking the court to file your request late. Another reason to hire an attorney as soon as possible, and not after you’ve already gone to court, am I right?

Rule 25.02 also requires that the prosecution respond to our request for disclosure within 10 days of receiving it. To be certain, in my request for disclosure I specifically demand a response within 10 days, and if no response is received in that time, I follow it up with a polite letter inquiring why the prosecution isn’t complying with my request. I also file a copy of this ‘polite letter’ with the court.

If at this point the prosecution still fails to comply with the request for disclosure, you can request that the court order their compliance. If the other side fails to obey the court order they may be in contempt of court. At this time the court may grant you additional time to prepare your case and find the evidence you need, or the court may even throw out the evidence the prosecutor failed to turn over. In extreme circumstances the court could fine or even jail an attorney for willfully failing to turn over evidence.

So you see, that’s why we don’t see ‘Law & Order’ style surprise evidence or witnesses very often in the real world, because lawyers have the power to ask for all the evidence, and if the other side fails to turn it over the court can just throw the evidence out. The only time surprise evidence appears at trial is when the defense fails to properly request disclosure and thoroughly investigate the case, which does happen from time to time. Just make sure it doesn’t happen to you.

You can find Rule 25 and a bunch of other rules governing Missouri criminal, civil, and traffic courts online at the Missouri Supreme Court’s website.

joe :: Sep.11.2006 :: Criminal Law :: No Comments »