constitutional rights

Is the Textalyzer coming to Oregon?

Texting while driving is unlawful in Oregon under ORS 811.507. According to the Wall Street Journal, at least 46 states have laws barring texting while driving and 14 ban all hand-held devices. Some states may be looking at adopting a "Textalyzer" in order to determine if people have been "texting" (sending or receiving text messages) prior to being stopped, or prior to crashing. Cellebrite's Textalyzer An Israel-based tech company named Cellebrite is purportedly the first to develop a plug-in device which can examine a driver's cell phone to detect texting activity. Legislation in New York-- called "Evan’s Law"-- has been introduced in the New York Legislature over the winter of 2016-2107. It would give police officers the authority to use a Textalyzer when distracted driving is suspected. Similar legislation is being considered in Tennessee, New Jersey and the city of Chicago. Cellebrite claims that it's technology does not raise privacy concerns because it's designed only to determine usage, not to actually access the messages for viewing. In theory, if the police determined that a mobile device was used by the driver, they could confirm it using the Textalyzer and then determine whether they should get a warrant for more detailed information. Currently, Oregon does not have any pending legislation mandating or even allowing use of a device such as the Cellebrite Textalyzer.

By | 2017-05-15T16:08:59+00:00 May 15th, 2017|Categories: Criminal Defense, DUI|Tags: , , , , |Comments Off on Is the Textalyzer coming to Oregon?

Miranda v. Arizona: Fifty Years of Silence

In 2016, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona and the resulting right to remain silent. How has the Miranda verdict served to shape our justice system over the last fifty years?  Some would say that the decision interferes with the ability of the police to obtain confessions, however, others believe that high-pressure police interrogations have led to many false confessions.  Over the last half-century, studies have shown that the Miranda warning has done no damage to law enforcement, and is in full accordance with the United States Bill of Rights and Constitution.  In this article, the case of Miranda v. Arizona will be examined, along with the cultural and legal effects on our current society. The Crime On March 3, 1963, while returning home from her late night job at a theater in Phoenix, AZ, 18-year old Lois Ann Jameson was attacked. Her assailant forced her into a car while threatening her with a knife, drove to the Arizona desert, sexually assaulted her, took her money, and dropped her off a few blocks from her home.  Later, she described her attacker and his vehicle to detectives. The following week, Jameson’s bother saw the car believed to have been used in the attack, and recorded the license plate number.  The aged green car in the driveway of Twila Hoffman’s house was further investigated and found to be a match from Jameson’s description of the crime.  Ernesto Miranda shared this home with Hoffman, his common-law wife. Ernesto Arturo Miranda, 22, was then accused and arrested by Officer Carrol Cooley for the kidnapping and rape of Lois Ann Jameson. Who Was Mr. Miranda? Ernesto Arturo Miranda, (March 9, 1941- [...]

By | 2016-12-28T18:39:44+00:00 December 28th, 2016|Categories: Criminal Defense|Tags: , , , |Comments Off on Miranda v. Arizona: Fifty Years of Silence