People often expect divorce will be a knock-down drag-out fight over what is left of the family. Realistically, it should be quite the opposite. When a husband, wife, or both, decide to end their marriage, the divorce process should be focused on making a clean break of the old family, so the two parts may move on with their lives. A good divorce attorney will work hard on the issues preventing the clean break, work to diffuse emotions often in the way, and educate the client on trusted methods for moving on.
In May 2011, thanks to a case in Kentucky, the Supreme Court dismantled the 4th Amendment as it pertained to drug cases. They have set precedence that police must only “hear movement” to conclude the occupant of a home is destroying evidence of a crime. This invades a citizen’s private sanctuary. No longer do you have the right, to privacy in your own home. Understand your rights and the recent changes in the law.
Here are the facts in this case. The police were looking for a suspect on a drug related crime who had fled into an apartment complex. When they arrived at the apartment building, there was one of two units, they were sure that the suspect was in. Smelling the scent of marijuana, they chose the unit that did not contain the suspect. Once the police announced they were at the door, they felt they heard “the destruction of evidence” and entered the apartment without a search warrant.
The ironic part of this case is that the original suspect, who took refuge in the apartment next door, never received any charges.
The Supreme Court ruling was 8-1 in favor of the police. Judge Ginsberg, the one judge to rule in favor of the defendant, argued in her dissent: “The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”
Law enforcement in Reno, Sparks and Washoe County has been granted funding to continue the fight against underage drinking. The efforts are to reduce the amount of alcohol related accidents, fatalities and crimes in the area. This initiative is to further educate the public about the dangers involved with selling alcohol to minors.
The way the operation works is, you will be approached by a minor in the parking lot of a convenience or grocery store. You will be asked to purchase alcoholic beverages for the minor. Once the transaction is complete, the police officers will be waiting there to issue you a citation. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a misdemeanor offense and is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or up to a $1000 fine. In this area the fines are averaging about $650 per citation.
At first blush it may seem that this is entrapment by the police officer. This is not so, in that they have not induced you to do something that you would have volitionally not done on your own free will. ie. They have not bribed you or forced you to buy alcohol for someone who seems to be a minor. Even if the individual does not say he is a minor, the legal standard is that you should have known, thus that makes you legally liable for purchasing or contributing to the delinquency of minors.
So what did we learn from this exercise by the police? We learned that you never, under any circumstance or situation, agree to do something for somebody else that could potentially lead to your legal detriment.