Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Law digest: 4/2/12


Criminal Procedure, Interrogation after invocation of Miranda rights: The conversation that ensued after defendant’s invocation of his right to an attorney constituted an impermissible custodial interrogation and, therefore, defendant’s inculpatory statements should have been suppressed. Phillips v. State, No. 58, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0316-20, 18 pages. Page

Professional Responsibility, Disbarment: Disbarment was the appropriate sanction when, in response to an inquiry from an agency regulating the practice of law in another jurisdiction, attorney deliberately submitted altered and misleading documents concerning the her compliance with a rule governing the practice of law in that jurisdiction. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Smith, No. 10, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0319-20, 9 pages. Page


Constitutional Law, Qualified immunity: Defendant employees of county sheriff’s department were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for violation of anti-abortion organization’s First Amendment rights by requesting protesting organization to remove graphic anti-abortion signs, because it was not objectively unreasonable for defendants to believe that they could allow organization to continue its protest but nevertheless remove the signs, so as to protect the public from potential traffic hazards based on the signs’ proximity to the road. Lefemine v. Wideman, No. 10-1905. RecordFax No. 12-0305-60, 19 pages. Page

Criminal Law, Armed Criminal Career Act: Defendant’s previous convictions of Florida’s “fleeing or eluding” statute, which punishes one willfully seeking to flee or elude a marked law enforcement patrol vehicle with lights and siren activated, were properly classified as “violent felonies” and, therefore, qualified as predicate crimes for purposes of Armed Criminal Career Act. United States v. Hudson, No. 07-4948. RecordFax No. 12-0307-60, 10 pages. Page

Criminal Law, Possession of firearm while subject to a protective order: Defendant’s conviction for possession of firearm while subject to a protective order did not violate defendant’s Second Amendment rights, but it was plain error for district court to convict defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition. United States v. Mahin, No. 10-5292. RecordFax No. 12-0203-61, 17 pages. Page