Articles Posted in Illegal Search

Recently, our client was caught with a loaded handgun and 52 grams of crack cocaine … while he was on parole. He was charged with Possession of Schedule II drugs, Felon in Possession of a Handgun, and Introduction of Controlled Substance into a Penal Institution. Our client was looking at 22-38 years in prison. After hiring us, we got all the evidence thrown-out and the case dismissed! We even got the charges expunged from our client’s record! How did we do it? We worked very hard and proved the police violated his rights.

This isn’t just a job for us. We take our client’s situations very seriously. At Himmelberg and Associates, we understand that we are dealing with people’s lives. For over 25 years, Attorney Don Himmelberg has helped people through the difficult and confusing process of the criminal justice system. For us, we know that criminal charges affect your family, job, and increase the stress on every other part of your life.

Don’t wait until it is too late. When you’re arrested, call us immediately. Contact our office so we can help you with your criminal charges and get your life back to normal. Call our office at (615) 353-0930 or call Don on his cell phone at (615) 308-5405.

weed.jpgEarlier this month a client of this law firm was arrested for possession of 42 pounds of marijuana that was found in the trunk of his car while traveling down the interstate. Facing a felony conviction, a substantial fine amount and court costs and other fees, he didn’t know what to do. That’s when he gave M. DON HIMMELBERG & ASSOCIATES a call to set up a free consultation. We made a step by step game plan tailored to his case and went on the offensive.

During the preliminary hearing and after cross examination of the Officer who made the traffic stop which found the 42 pounds of marijuana, the judge presiding ruled in our favor claiming the stop was illegal. Case Dismissed. No Felony Record! No Fine! No Court Cost! No Probation!

Give us a call today at 615-353-0930 or 615-308-5405 to see what we can do for you!

th.jpg

The Supreme Court in the case of Riley v. California held that police must obtain a warrant before going through people’s cellphones. In a unanimous decision, this ruling is at the soul of privacy rights and marks a win for more American privacy in the ever changing technology era.

This ruling arose from two different cases Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. In both cases police seized the defendant’s cell phone, incident to arrest, looked through it for information and that incriminating information found was used against the defendants in court.

The Police argued that searching through data on cellphones was no different from asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cellphone holds the most personal and intimate details of someone’s life and falls squarely within the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections.

The Supreme Court went on to say, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the unanimous opinion. “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant.”

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) went even further to say law enforcement cannot check a cellphone’s call log because it could contain more information than phone numbers, and examining the call log is a violation of privacy that can be justified only with a court-issued warrant.

If a warrantless search was conducted on you or a family member leading to a criminal charge please contact MDH & Associates for a free consultation 615-308-5405. It’s good to know your rights!
Continue reading

Suppression of Evidence for a criminal defense attorney is pivotal in some major cases. Evidence that the District Attorney has obtained such as a search warrant, wiretap, video, and photos all can be challenged for its admissibility. Evidence is suppressed when a judge decides that the evidence in question was illegally obtained. This is known as the “exclusionary rule.”

Tennessee Code 50-4-108; states the following for suppression of evidence,

(a) Any person aggrieved by an unlawful inspection of premises named in an administrative inspection warrant may in any judicial or administrative proceeding move to suppress any evidence or information received, or moves for the return of any item seized, by the agency pursuant to the inspection.

This week marks the ninth annual Bonnaroo festival in Manchester, Tennessee. It seems each year this festival keeps getting bigger and draws thousands of fans to the otherwise sleepy town of Manchester in Coffee County, Tennessee. The lineup this year includes acts such as Dave Matthews, Jay Z, Stevie Wonder, Kings of Leon, and many, many others. We certainly hope everyone who is planning on attending the show has a great time and is both safe and hassle free. Please note, law enforcement officers throughout the State of Tennessee will be out in full force as you make your way to the show in Manchester this weekend.

bonnaroo-2010-banner.jpg
Continue reading

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Illinois v. Caballes that when a trained drug dog sniffs a persons automobile, there is no search. As a result, no constitutional violation occurs. This is the case even if the police have absolutely no reason to suspect you may be carrying illegal contraband whatsoever.

617050_police_dogs.jpg

The majority reasoned that a dog’s sniffing is not really a “search” because it detects only contraband, and therefore does not compromise the privacy of someone who has nothing to hide. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both dissented strongly, warning that this decision could lead to “suspicionless and indiscriminate sweeps of cars in parking garages and pedestrians on sidewalks.”

The decision was not shocking, it was merely an extension of an earlier case decided by the Supreme Court in 1982 which held that the use of drug sniffing dogs to search luggage in an airport was in fact not a search either. (United States v. Place).
Continue reading