Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A 47-year-old Virginia man is facing federal conspiracy charges in the death of a young man to whom he had sold drugs and who later died of an overdose.

Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand that this kind of case is cropping up more frequently throughout the U.S.

It's worth noting that in D.C., council members recently approved the so-called "Good Samaritan Law," which decriminalizes certain legal offenses for people who are suffering from an overdose or those who call for emergency medical help for someone else who is suffering from one.

Both the Leesburg case and the D.C. law reflect two very different approaches to the failed War on Drugs.

In the Leesburg case, federal prosecutors are alleging that the defendant dealt oxycodone to teenagers in Loudoun County from 2006 through 2012 and that this "conspiracy" ultimately led to the death of a 20-year-old regular customer, who was found dead by his parents in their home three summers ago. The deceased was determined to have suffered from an overdose from injecting oxycodone, which officials say was provided by the defendant. The deceased had been released from a rehabilitation center a day earlier.

The federal conspiracy charge is not a minor one. It carries a minimum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison without the possibility of parole - the same as murder.

The defendant, who owns a local limousine business, was reported to have for years arrived on high school campuses in one of his limousines and sell to high school students and recent graduates. Customers were reportedly lined up four deep.

The defendant's supply reportedly came from D.C.

However, with this particular instance, the defendant didn't even sell directly to the victim. He sold to two others, who later left five pills for the victim in his parents' mailbox, as a "gift" for returning from rehab.

Four hours later, the victim was dead, a used syringe found at his side.

One of those individuals has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone.

Other similar cases abound. In Minnesota, prosecutors in Minneapolis vowed last month to begin filing third-degree murder charges against heroin dealers whose customers suffer a fatal overdose. Heroin overdose deaths in Minneapolis are at an all-time high.

In Tampa, Florida, a suspected drug dealer was recently arrested for third-degree murder in the death of a 21-year-old man following his overdose on oxycodone.

And in Orange County, California, a man suspected of supplying heroin to a 21-year-old woman who later died of an overdose has been charged with murder by local authorities there.

Historically, prosecutors had been reluctant to pursue such charges against dealers because there was always the difficulty of proving how the drugs got to the deceased.

As more of these cases are successful, however, more are being filed - both at the local and the federal level.

In D.C., the recent passage of the Good Samaritan Law is intended to encourage those who witness a person overdosing to call for medical or law enforcement assistance.

The allows that:

• Police who observe "small amounts" of illegal paraphernalia or drugs at the scene of an overdose should not consider these to be crimes either for the person experiencing the overdose or for witnesses who sought help;


• A minor should be provided a limited amount of protection from criminal charges for underage possession of alcohol if he or she experiences an overdose or seeks help for a peer;


• An adult 25 or younger is provided limited protection from criminal charges for supplying a minor with drugs or alcohol if he or she seeks medical assistance for a minor in need of it;


• The possession of naloxone, which is a medication that rapidly reverses the effects of an opiate overdose, and its use by laypersons on individuals who are experiencing an overdose, are from now on decriminalized in D.C.

Continue reading "D.C. Drug Overdoses Prompt Mix of Murder Charges, Mercy" »

Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers have been watching closely the developments out of California, Colorado and Washington State, as medical marijuana dispensaries in D.C. were gearing up for an opening following many months of legal wrangling.

Now, the very first one - Capital City Care - is set to open its doors this month, according to The Washington Post.

Dispensary operators say they have invested a great deal of funding on security cameras and other protections to minimize the chances of a robbery or other problems that might be associated with a storefront provider of medical marijuana.

Of course, the biggest problem is the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, which makes no distinction or exception for medicinal purposes. The Department of Justice has been ruthless in its pursuit of charges against dispensaries in California. It's hard to imagine officials will go easy on facilities here on their own turf.

But more than simply the concern for the operators of the facility are potential issues for patients and recreational users. While federal authorities haven't historically gone after patients with any great vigor, it's certainly not unheard of. In addition to arrests for possession or cultivation, patients have faced hurdles with child custody and even their jobs as a result of their use.

In some cases, they have been arrested for DUI after the drug was found in their system, despite having a prescription and despite ample proof that unlike alcohol, presence of marijuana in the system is not a positive indicator of intoxication, due to the amount of time the drug takes to cycle through the bloodstream.

The drug-related activities of recreational users, of course, are not protected under D.C. law.

D.C. Code 48-904-01 holds that simple possession of marijuana in D.C. is a misdemeanor, carrying a first-time conviction penalty of 180 days behind bars and a $1,000 fine. Second or subsequent convictions will result in doubled penalties.

One of the better case scenarios for a first-time conviction is a withholding of adjudication in exchange for successful completion of a year-long probation stint.

But if you are consuming marijuana as a patient, you have every right to transport your medicine from your provider to your home and to consume it as directed by your physician. Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers are ready to aggressively defend your rights, should authorities attempt to circumvent them.

D.C. legalized the drug in 2010, but no dispensaries were eager to dive head-first into anything, even though there are currently 17 states that have approved the plant for medicinal consumption. We can attribute that in no small part due to the fact that more than 100 dispensaries were shuttered by federal officials last year, either through raids or forfeiture threats.

District rules will grant allowances to patients with certain conditions, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and HIV/AIDS to purchase up to 2 ounces of the drug monthly. Prices haven't yet been set, but it's expected half an ounce will cost anywhere from $200 to $240.

In addition to marijuana, the store will also sell grams of hash, and accessories such as vaporizers, grinders and pipes. Eventually, the dispensary operator is hoping to offer marijuana-laced baked goods, such as muffins and cookies.

Continue reading "First D.C. Medical Marijuana Clinic to Open This Month" »

A proposed bill would have D.C. join the ranks of some 40 states that have banned so-called synthetic marijuana and bath salts, which exploded onto the market just two years ago.

D.C. criminal defense attorneys believe the measure is somewhat redundant, as the federal government banned the substances back in July, kicking off a massive federal crackdown on importers and distributors. About 90 retailers, importers and middlemen were arrested.

The federal measure, signed by President Barack Obama, made it illegal to sell 31 specific synthetic stimulant, hallucinogenic and cannabinoid compounds. Prior to the passage of that measure, the Drug Enforcement Administration had placed them under an emergency ban. They have been historically marketed under names like Spice, K2 or Ivory Wave. These substances have been around a while, but they have only recently become popular.

They have gained notoriety with the increasing wave of emergency room visits and poison control center calls that have been attributed to their use. They can be either sniffed, snorted or smoked, and have been reported to prompt rapid heart beat, delusions and paranoia that has resulted in violent acts and even sudden suicide. Some acts have been increasingly bizarre, such as a suspected user discovered wandering in the woods of West Virginia in female underwear after stabbing a goat.

The federal law was hailed as a measure that would close loopholes that allowed manufacturers to bypass local and state measures to legally buy and sell these products.

So as of right now, anyone can be charged federally for selling the substances, but issues of individual use have been left primarily up to the states. The problem has been that these substances tend to defy the traditional classifications that we give drugs in the U.S.

For example, it's easy to say that cocaine is banned. It is a very specific substance, and even its derivatives, such as crack, tend to be comprised of the same basic ingredients or active organic/chemical compounds that make it effective. But synthetic drugs are different. That's because they are manufactured, not grown or harvested. So if the government bans one formula, manufacturers can easily go out, tweak the ingredients and come up with a new product that is street legal.

The DEA has attempted to close this loophole by, for example, defining synthetic marijuana as any substance in which a mix of spices or herbs are sprayed with a synthetic form of THC.

The D.C. proposal would restrict the use of drugs in the district. The measure was proposed by D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who chairs the Committee on the Judiciary. He said the district has been grappling with ways to cope with the problem over the last handful of years. But this is the beginning of a formal attempt to outlaw possession of the drugs in D.C.

Our D.C. defense lawyers will be closely following the developments of this measure as it progresses.

Continue reading "D.C. Synthetic Drugs Target of Proposed Local Ban" »

From the outside, it appeared to be nothing more than a popular, fish filet carry-out restaurant.

However, investigators caught wind of a different kind of scheme cooking up there. D.C. criminal defense lawyers have learned that the owner of that restaurant has now pleaded guilty to using his restaurant as a front for cocaine distribution.

He was convicted in federal court where he pleaded guilty after a week-long trial, immediately after he testified in his own defense.

The timing of this plea deal would suggest that his testimony was particularly damning, which illustrates why it can be incredibly risky to put a defendant on the stand in his or her own criminal case.

Why? Shouldn't a person be allowed to make the case for their innocence?

Sure, and you do have that right. But many defense attorneys will use it as a last resort during a jury trial because then the burden of proof almost shifts from, "Did the state prove its case?" to "Do I believe the defendant?" That can be a fatal move for some defense teams, particularly when you have a defendant who may be unlikable. Although criminal cases are not popularity contests and should never be decided that way, juries are comprised of fallible human beings who can be susceptible to such influences.

Plus, when a defendant is placed on the stand, he or she is subjected to cross-examination. This is where the prosecuting attorney can directly ask you questions while you are under oath, on the witness stand and you do not have the benefit of your attorney answering or speaking for you. Prosecutors are often skilled interrogators, and are very good at turning your own honest words against you.

Generally, an attorney will only put a defendant on the stand when the state's evidence is overwhelming and there is no other choice.

In this case, the defendant all but proved the prosecution's case when he got on the stand and testified that he had entered into an arrangement with two younger men, which allowed them to conduct cocaine deals inside his restaurant so that they would not be seen by police. In exchange, he received a cut of the proceeds.

These deals reportedly took place anywhere from 10 to 15 times daily, every single day.

Officers received tips regarding the operation, but didn't get a major break until a successful undercover operation when two officers made separate cocaine purchases inside the store. In both instances, the restaurant owner reportedly facilitated the transactions and then took a cut.

The other two men in the case had already pleaded guilty to cocaine charges, with one now serving an 18-month sentence and the other still awaiting sentencing.

A conviction on a federal charge of distribution of cocaine carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

D.C. Code 48-904.01 prohibits the sale or distribution of any restricted narcotic. Penalties vary depending on the type of substance. Cocaine, for example, is a Schedule II drug that is considered narcotic or abusive, the sale of which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years, same as for a Schedule I drug offense. For Schedule I or II non-abusive drugs or Schedule III substances, the penalty is up to 5 years with a maximum fine of $50,000.

Continue reading "D.C. Restaurant Owner Pleads Guilty to Drug Carry-Out Scheme" »

For the first time ever, an appellate court in D.C. will consider challenges to the federal government's position that marijuana has no legitimate medical benefit.

D.C. marijuana defense lawyers know that it is upon this stance that the federal government has waged crackdowns not only on the black market trade of the drug, but on state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivations as well.

The case, set to be heard later this month by a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals by the District of Columbia, could have widespread implications not only for future D.C. dispensaries and medical marijuana users, but for those currently operating across the country.

Medical marijuana use and sale in D.C. has been a long, tough road. Voters actually approved legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes back in 1998, just two years after California became the first state to do so. However, Congress held the measure back for more than 10 years before the local D.C. Council finally passed a measure to authorize the program back in 2010. Since then, it's been a painstaking process of establishing rules and regulations as the city fights to steer clear of the legal pitfalls that have loomed large over medical marijuana operations in other states, particularly California.

The council has already set limits on the number of medical marijuana centers that may operate in each ward, and outward signage of facilities is discouraged. Although the council earlier this year gave 10 companies approval to start growing medical marijuana and selling it to patients who qualify, none of them have yet obtained the regulatory documents that are required to begin. (They have to obtain building permits, business licenses and certificates of occupancy from the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.)

But perhaps this reticence has been because of the federal crackdowns faced by other cultivators and dispensaries in other states, where operators have lost millions of dollars and sometimes face criminal charges for their role in distributing marijuana. Under federal law, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning there is no legitimate medical purpose for it and the sale or distribution of it constitutes a serious crime.

However, this is what is at issue in the upcoming case set to be heard in the appellate court. While there have been plenty of challenges to the federal government's classification of the drug, those efforts were crippled by the suppression of evidence showing the medicinal benefits of cannabis.

Now, they will be allowed to bring that evidence forward. The case pits Americans for Safe Access against the presidents' Justice Department.

Although the case is just now going before the appellate court, it actually began 10 years ago with a military veteran who began taking medical marijuana for chronic and acute conditions suffered after an on-duty vehicle crash. Once the Department of Veterans Affairs learned he was using marijuana, they denied him further medical and other benefits.

A number of recent national surveys indicate that nearly 17 million Americans use marijuana, many of those for medical purposes such as glaucoma, chronic pain or cancer.

Even if the court does not directly alter the restrictive Schedule I status, the court could order the Drug Enforcement Administration to look more closely at the available evidence in its classification determination.

Continue reading "D.C. Appellate Court to Examine Marijuana Schedule Classification" »

The issue of whether police will be allowed to use K-9's at people's homes in the course of investigating Washington D.C. drug charges will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington D.C. drug defense attorneys will be watching the developments of this case with interest, as it could have major implications on future cases across the country.

The highest court in the land decided to take on the issue, stemming from Jardines v. Florida, a drug case that has had attorneys in Florida wrangling for the last several years.

At the core of this case is whether a drug-sniffing dog amounts to a formal search of property. If this is the case, as several lower courts have determined, then it is subject to all of the other laws governing proper search and seizure of evidence.

Jardines was a Miami resident, and police there received a tip that he was cultivating cannabis. Detectives placed the home under 24-7 surveillance, hoping to turn up some solid evidence. But they found nothing that would indicate there was any criminal activity happening at the home.

Then one day, a detective decided to approach the door. This is not illegal. However, at his side was a K-9 drug sniffing dog. The dog, upon approaching the residence, gave his law enforcement handler a signal indicating he smelled drugs at the residence. The detective knocked, but no one answered the door. The detective noted that he, too, smelled marijuana.

Using this scant bit of evidence - particularly the dog's alert - the detective sought a warrant from a local magistrate, which was approved. With that warrant, detectives searched the home, and found what they were looking for - a lot of pot.

It might have seemed an open-and-shut case, were it not for Jardines' defense attorney bringing up a 2004 case in a federal appeals court. There, the judges ruled that not only does a drug dog's sniff count as a formal search, but that when the place being searched is a person's private residence, using a drug dog amounts amounts to an unlawful search. At trial, the judge agreed with the defense attorney's reasoning. All of the evidence uncovered at the house was tossed.

The case might have ended there, were it not for a ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeals. There, judges determined that the simple act of a dog sniffing around at someone's door step doesn't equal a search. Therefore, according to the judges, no warrant was required. In its reasoning, the appeals court relied on another determination made by the U.S. Supreme Court, stemming from an Illinois case. In that ruling, the justices found that nobody has any right to privacy when it comes to contraband. So, according to them, a sniffing dog does not amount to a search. The justices took it a step further in saying that dogs aren't like surveillance video or wiretapping in that the dog's only job is to hunt for illegal drugs. The other devices, it was decided, were more invasive in that they captured inane, as well as criminal, activity, and therefore, they required a warrant. The dog, however, did not.

The case may have ended there, were it not for the Florida Supreme Court weighing in on the decision. Judges there overturned the appeals' court ruling, saying that not only are using drug dogs to sniff test a private residence a government intrusion, but they are an "unreasonable" and "substantial" intrusion, and further a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

All of this lays the groundwork for what promises to be an interesting debate with far-reaching implications in D.C. drug crime cases.

Continue reading "D.C. Drug Crimes Defense To Be Impacted By SCOTUS Ruling In Jardines v. Florida" »

Police detectives will do anything to try to get a person to confess to a crime, even if the suspect isn't responsible for what is being alleged.

Luckily, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows for silence. This means no person is required to talk to police -- ever. Whether it's a Washington D.C. drug crime or an assault charge, no person has to speak to detectives.

Perhaps most important to remember is that going at this alone is a bad idea. A defendant should always, without exception, be represented by a Washington D.C. criminal defense attorney when police are questioning him or her regarding a crime. These detectives will try many tactics to try to get a confession, but the key is to resist. Never speak to the police without a lawyer by your side.

Some people believe they can outsmart the police. It's highly unlikely because investigators will typically gang up on a suspect, with two officers in one interrogation room. One will be asking questions and the other will be taking notes or observing the suspect. They are trained to tell when a person is lying and they are able to check with their notes facts that the suspect tells them and determine whether that meshes with other information they've gathered.

The most popular tactic that police officers use with suspects is lying. Seems simple, but they are legally allowed to lie to suspects to try to get them to confess. They can do this in a variety of ways. They could tell the suspect that someone gave the officers facts putting them at the scene or committing the crime. The suspect then wants to explain their side of the story.

Metropolitan police often will lie to suspects, promising they could be put into some type of witness protection program, though it's highly unlikely that department or other local law enforcement agencies has a budget to put people into a home for protection. These officers get yearly training on how best to lie and exploit suspects.

But if an experienced Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyer is sitting in the interrogation room next to the suspect, the police know they aren't going to be successful. The attorney likely has heard all the lies before and knows how these detectives operate. Alone, a suspect is susceptible. Armed with a lawyer, the whole atmosphere changes.

Police are required to provide what are called Miranda warnings to people they are placing under arrest. Most people are familiar with these rights from television police shows, where officers state, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."

Some people breeze through these and instantly waive their rights. But re-read the words. Every person has a right to remain silent. You don't have to speak. No one can force you to speak. Any officer who says "You have to tell us your side," or "This is your only chance to talk -- I can't help you if you don't talk to me," is lying.

And the second part of that is true, as well. Anything you say is going to be recorded. The officer is taking notes and he or she will testify against you at trial. No matter what a suspect says, police will twist it to fit the set of facts they believe they have. It's rarely going to work out for the suspect.

The two things to take away from this is to always be represented by a lawyer during questioning. Being in the interrogation room alone is never going to be beneficial to a suspect. Second, don't make a statement alone. There may be times when talking to police is advantageous, but only after consulting with a Washington D.C. criminal defense attorney.

Continue reading "Fifth Amendment Allows For Silence, But D.C. Police Lie To Get People to Talk" »

The Washington Times reports that a yearlong police operation has ended in 70 arrests, the confiscation of more than 160 guns and more than $7 million in drugs, officials announced to the news media recently.

Our Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers are sometimes skeptical of long-term police stings where officers make many arrests. In many cases, that's because these operations often rely on many witnesses to ensure officers have sufficient evidence.

Washington D.C. gun charges can result in long prison terms, especially when coupled with drug charges. When officers conduct these operations, there are inevitably people who aren't guilty who get caught up with others who may be more culpable.

Prosecutors nearly always require some of these defendants to become witnesses for the state. This opens up obvious issues related to the credibility of these witnesses. Once charged with a serious crime and looking at possible prison time, they may suddenly warm up to investigators and become friendly.

In many cases, these people are required to provide a statement of their involvement and that of co-defendants. Once they testify, they are expected to say nearly the same exact thing as that statement, regardless of whether it's 100 percent accurate. The more details they can prove, the better the deal they'll get.

In this case, police said that "Operation Manic Enterprises" helped to solve more than a dozen open crimes and halt a drug ring that sought to push meth onto Washington, D.C., streets.

Police say one man in particular allegedly offered weapons to undercover officers -- nearly 10 a month for six months -- before he was arrested. Police said they learned he planned to rob them during the next transaction, so they arrested him.

Police set up a fake music recording studio and used the space to entice alleged gun and drug dealers to sell their wares. More than 80 pounds of methamphetamines, 21 pounds of cocaine, 23.5 pounds of heroin, ecstasy and marijuana and 1.25 gallons of PCP were seized as part of the yearlong sting.

The newspaper reports that several people have already entered guilty pleas from arrests made earlier this year. One man, who was arrested in July, took in more than $21,000 for guns and drugs he sold to officers. He has pleaded guilty to a charges related to gun possession and drug distribution. Nine members of a Mexican drug cartel were arrested late last year and another man faces charges that he offered up hand grenades and a rocket launcher.

While police like to look good in the news media by flaunting arrest numbers, the real test is how many of these arrests turn into meaningful convictions. In many cases, officers rush to judgment as they get into the throws of their operation.

In others, police rely on innuendo and rumor in making arrests of some peripheral members of a criminal operation. When the case comes down to a trial, the real facts come out and show that officers simply ruined people's reputations rather than made meaningful arrests. Thankfully, every criminal defendant has the right to a fair trial and that's where the true facts come out.

Continue reading "70 Arrested in Washington, D.C., Gun, Drug Sting Operation" »

As you can see every day, technology continues to become more and more advanced and sophisticated. Cell phones are almost a necessity for many, the Internet is accessible anywhere at anytime, and traveling has been made easier with global positioning satellite services.

GPS is found in many devices, including cell phones and gadgets that provide maps for people on the go. The recent case of a Washington, D.C., man who was tracked by the FBI in a Washington, D.C., drug case has gone to the United States Supreme Court because of alleged police misconduct. Washington, D.C., criminal defense lawyers have seen instances where overzealous police work leads to a violation of rights. In many cases like that, the charges get dropped when the evidence is suppressed.

In the United States vs. Antoine Jones case, the FBI tracked the man through a GPS device for four weeks without a warrant. A Washington, D.C., appeals court ruled that his drug conviction, and subsequent life sentence, should be overturned because of a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Every person has a right to avoid unlawful search and seizure. Under the Fourth Amendment, a person can't be subjected to the police barreling in without a warrant or a reason to enter. This applies to vehicles and businesses, too. This important protection ensures that police don't overstep their bounds when conducting an investigation.

In this case, Jones was monitored with a GPS device for a month by agents who didn't have a warrant to do so. They also didn't have permission to install a GPS device on his car in the first place. The tracking and later arrest led to a 2008 conviction on a charge of possession and distribution of more than 50 kilograms of cocaine.

In arguing before the Supreme Court, attorneys for the government relied on old cases that dealt with the right to privacy. Justices argued, though, that technology has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. GPS devices allow police to track people much more easily today.

Justices also were concerned that ruling against Jones in this case could open up every citizen in the United States to monitoring without a warrant. Jones' lawyer argued that private information was seized by authorities while they used the GPS device. The government doesn't have the right to steal information from citizens, he argued.

This isn't just an issue with the FBI, however. Local law enforcement agencies use the devices during investigations as well. This should be concerning for all citizens. If police have the right to attach GPS devices to your vehicle without reason, that's essentially the same concept as them being able to knock down your door for no reason and start rummaging through the house.

This would be a major hit to everyone's Fourth Amendment rights and a continued assault on the privacy of citizens throughout the country. For people charged with a crime, it would allow police more access to your personal affairs and potentially create more evidence in a criminal case. Stay tuned.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Hears Argument on Warrantless GPS Monitoring in U.S. v. Antoine Jones" »

According to a recent story in the Huffington Post, the Metropolitan Police raided Capitol Hemp stores in the Adams Morgan and Chinatown neighborhoods of Washington, DC. The store sells high quality hemp clothing and accessories and glassware made by local artists including glass tobacco pipes and vaporizers according to the company website. As a Washington, DC criminal defense attorney who handles drug cases, I should point out that the police will charge an individual with paraphernalia charges if these "tobacco pipes" are found in the vicinity of marijuana or other illegal drugs.

Getting back to the story, store co-owner Adam Eidinger told reports that police "ransacked the stores" and seized "hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise." It has also been reported that two employees were found with less than a gram of marijuana. Eidinger said this was in violation of store policy. A total of six employees and one customer were arrested on drug charges. Eidinger told the Huffington Post that he feels these raids were politically motivated since he has been a vocal critic of a luxury hotel project in Adams Morgan that netted the developer a $46 million tax benefit.

In Washington, DC, simple possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 180 days in jail. Possession with intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana is also a misdemeanor, unlike PWID Cocaine or PWID heroin. However, if you have gun when you are arrested on PWID marijuana, it becomes PWID while armed, which is a major felony. It also means that that you can be charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent or dangerous crime. For reasons unknown to me, the DC City Counsel considers the sale of marijuana a dangerous crime. If you have been arrested on DC drug charges, you should contact an attorney as soon as possible.

In Washington, DC, there is no shortage of people being charged with a crime. The fact is that criminal justice can't handle the huge volume. Years ago a law school professor described the criminal court process like trying to pour the liquid in a 55 gallon drum into a coffee cup. Most of it will spill out. And that spilling out means dismissed cases, plea bargains and diversions. It's good for the government and it's good for the court, but all I care about is if it's good for the client.

Let's look at a DC drug charge first. You are in a car with a friend and get pulled over for having an expired registration. The DC Metropolitan Police officer comes up to your car and tells you that your registration is expired and asks for your license. He goes back to his cruiser, runs your info through the warrant management system, finds nothing, and comes back to the car. "Is there anything in the car I should know about?" he asks. At this point, I would like to remind you of my earlier posts on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (a.k.a. the right to remain silent or "taking the nickel" as I like to call it). You don't need to tell the officer anything. Simply say "no." If the officer asks if he can search the car, say "no, I am not giving you consent to search me or my car." If he asks why, simple tell him that it is your right to say no and leave it at that. Do not get tricked into letting him do a consent search of you or your car when he had no probable cause. Many people admit to having drugs or guns and end up in the Central Cell Block (CCB) and eventually the DC Superior Court on a gun charge like carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) or possession with intent to distribute (PWID) drugs.

If this is your first offense, the government will probably make a plea offer where they will not oppose probation. This seems good that you are basically guaranteeing you will not serve time in jail or prison. That may be appealing, and since a trial is always a risk, you take the deal. The problem is that while you didn't serve time, you are now a convicted felon. That has a lot of consequences. You may lose a job, be denied a security clearance, or lose public benefits such as EBT or welfare. You may be evicted from public housing. You may lose the right to vote. These are all collateral consequences of being a convicted felon, but the trouble doesn't end there.

In the next part of this post, I will discuss one of the most common collateral consequences to taking a guilty plea.

According to a Washington Times story, David Pocasangre Vaquiz, entered a US Customs station at Dulles airport with a black plastic bag stuffed into his luggage. When officers opened the bag, they discovered 80 clams. It has been reported that 15 of the clams had been opened, stuffed with baggies of cocaine and then glued closed. Customs officials have stated that the clams contained 5.36 ounces of powder cocaine.

As a Washington, DC criminal defense lawyer who handles drug charges, I have represented clients charged with all types of drug offenses, including simple possession, possession with intent to distribute (PWID), and possession with intent to distribute while armed. I have handled cases where ecstasy was allegedly hidden in a teddy bear, cocaine in a glove compartment and marijuana in someone's underwear, but I have never had a case where the drugs were stuffed in a clam. Despite the use of clams, the case is similar to any other, and fighting the charges often involves a motion to suppress evidence.

A motion to suppress evidence can be used to challenge the way in which the police discovered the evidence. If your lawyer can show that the cops violated the fourth, fifth or sixth amendments to the constitution, the judge can exclude the evidence. This means that the government won't be allowed to introduce it at trial. If they can't mention drugs to a jury, they will likely be forced to dismiss the charges after the defense wins a motion to suppress. This type of motion is often based on whether the police had probable cause to conduct a search. During a hearing, the government will have the officer basically read the police report to the judge, and then the defense attorney gets a chance to cross-examine the officer. I recently handled a case where the officer testified that he smelled "fresh" marijuana in the vehicle and that gave him probable cause to search the entire car. I asked him to define fresh marijuana and he said it means "unburned" marijuana. So when I asked the following question: "your testimony is that, while you were standing outside of the driver's window, you could smell unburned marijuana in the glove compartment on the passenger side of the car, correct?" When he responded that this was correct, I could hear laughter coming from the audience.

Another way to suppress evidence may deal with the documentation provided by the government and the chain of custody. If the police tested any of the evidence themselves or sent it to the FBI, ATF, or DEA labs for testing, they are required to provide full documentation of all tests done and who handled and safeguarded the evidence. They are not always able to provide this documentation because there are sometimes problems that occur. In a previous post to this blog, I discussed how a trash can said to hold the body of a murder victim was being used to throw trash away by the police rather than being secured in the blood room at evidence control.

There are numerous other grounds for suppressing evidence in a Washington, DC criminal case. Your lawyer should conduct a thorough investigation and discuss with you how these issues may apply to your case.

According to a recent story in the Washington City Paper, Marion Christopher Barry, son of former Washington, DC mayor Marion Barry, was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute (PWID) PCP, and PWID marijuana. It has been reported that police responded to Barry's apartment in response to what sounded like a fight. When DC Metropolitan Police (MPD) officers knocked on the door, someone answered but would not open the door. The police called the DC fire department to open the door. Once in the apartment, Barry allegedly jumped out a window and fled. Police say they found a vial of liquid PCP and five sandwich bags almost completely full of marijuana. Barry later returned to the apartment on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue in SW, Washington, DC seeking medical treatment for his bleeding foot. Barry had been previously arrested for assault on a police officer in 2005 but those charges were dismissed.

As a Washington, DC drug charges lawyer who handles cases involving marijuana, PCP, and other controlled substances, I would like to discuss one of the most important parts of a good defense: a motion to suppress evidence. One of the common things about most Washington, DC drug cases is that the defendant was arrested with drugs on their person or in their general area. This means that unless you can show that the drugs belonged to somebody else, the most effective way to defend the case is challenge the way in which the police discovered, collected, and tested the evidence. If your criminal defense attorney is able to show that the police were in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the judge may rule the evidence inadmissible. At this point, the prosecution will probably dismiss the charges because they can't win at trial if they can't mention the drugs. I have talked about motions to suppress evidence in Washington, DC criminal cases on previous posts of this blog.

According to a recent story in the Washington Times, the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police (MPD) have arrested seven people on drug charges in connection with an alleged cocaine trafficking operation. According to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, of the seven defendants arrested, Sean De Angelo Crawford, Shawn Anthony Lucas, Roscoe Edd Minds, and Joseph Tolbert III, have been charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The additional defendants are scheduled to be arraigned on felony charges at which point their names will be released. In addition to the approximately 65 pounds of cocaine, police also discovered marijuana and weapons, in including pistols and an assault rifle. It is likely that gun charges will also be filed.

As a Washington, DC criminal defense attorney who handles gun and drug charges, I would like to discuss how the involvement of a weapon can be used to increase the maximum penalty for drug offenses. In DC, possession with intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana is a misdemeanor. If you add a gun to the mix, you can be charged with carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL), unregistered firearm, unregistered ammunition, and your drug crime could be charged as carrying a weapon during the commission of a violent crime (PWID marijuana). You could also be charged with PWID while armed. These are major felonies and provide for a mandatory minimum of five years in prison if convicted.

Continue reading "MPD Officers Arrest Seven People in Connection with Alleged Cocaine Ring: On Washington, DC Drug and Gun Charges" »

According to a recent Washington Times story, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) lost its accreditation from the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME). The reason NAME pulled its accreditation was because Washington, DC Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Marie Pierre-Louis is not a board-certified pathologist. It has been reported that Pierre-Louis has been out of training long enough to make her ineligible to obtain board certification.

As a Washington, DC criminal defense lawyer, I am also interested to explore ways in which these discoveries can be used as a part of defense strategy. The government is generally at a major advantage before the case even begins. It is the government who has access to the DEA crime law in drug cases, the Mid Atlantic FBI lab for gun cases and every other scientific testing you can imagine. One of the things about the so-called scientific testing done by these agencies is that the general public generally believes their findings to be true and accurate. This is not always so. There have been many cases in which it has been discovered that the police were not following proper protocol. Sometimes, your criminal defense attorney will be able to show that the evidence was not only collected, handled or processed incorrectly, but also that the police did not even follow their own internal procedures. This can lead to having charges dismissed or not guilty verdicts at trial.

This is certainly true in DC DUI cases involving breathalyzers and urine samples, where the lack of confidence in police procedures has led to numerous charged being dropped and even convictions are possibly going to be overturned.