According to the Denver Post, citizen complaints against the Denver Police Department fell 21% in 2011, but there are still concerns. Namely, citizens are up in arms about cops entering residences without warrants, and are worried about the “code of silence” that keeps cops quiet when others are suspected of misconduct.

Two annual city reports, from the Office of the Independent Monitor and the Citizen Oversight Board, remarked that although complaints were down, there were issues that needed to be addressed in order to improve police-citizen relations and to improve the integrity of the department.

Denver Police Chief Robert White says his department will address some of the issues, like discourtesy among officers, through training. He admitted that the people of Denver won’t trust the police if they don’t believe they are being treated with respect. “I think they (supervisors) are in the greatest position to make sure we are being respectful, responsive and courteous. I think you will see us doing stuff differently,” said White.

Another issue, however, and possibly much more serious, is warrantless entries. The department receives much negative attention for warrantless entries into Denver residences. “Throughout 2011, the Monitor’s Office has found it necessary to continue to intervene in some case regarding the issue of warrantless entries into private residences,” the Independent Monitor’s report said.

The report recommends additional training for officers regarding warrantless entries. Chief White, however, doesn’t see it as a problem, stating that maybe the issue lies with residents not fully understanding the laws regarding law enforcement entry. He said, “We need to do a better job in educating the community on why officers are making those entries.”

Always an issue among law enforcement, and another concern brought up by the Citizen Oversight Board is the “code of silence” that exists on the DPD. In the name of loyalty and camaraderie, some officers keep their mouths shut when they know one of their own has done something wrong. The board has recommended the Department do an in depth look into the presence of such a code and do what’s necessary to remedy it.

Again, White believes this problem is being blown out of proportion.

Police and community relations are crucial in any city, but Denver has had some serious problems in recent years holding the respect of its citizens. When you are encountered by the police, whether they are serving a warrant or not, you should be able to expect professional and lawful behavior. If there is any question in your mind as to whether you will receive this kind of behavior, it seems there is a problem.

If you are accused of committing a crime and you don’t believe you are being treated fairly, contact us today. It’s the job of your attorney to help ensure your rights are protected.

The Colorado Secretary of State’s office recently announced that marijuana legalization advocates recently reached their goal in getting enough signatures to put legalization on the state’s November ballot. This means, come November, the people of Colorado will have the opportunity to decide if pot should be legal.

Called Amendment 64, the law would legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana and allow people to grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes. The laws would apply only to those ages 21 and over.

Supporters had to get 86,105 valid signatures in order to see the initiative on the ballot. They failed the first time, but were given a chance to collect additional signatures, ultimately reaching their goal.

Currently, Colorado is one of 16 states and Washington D.C. that regulate medical marijuana. If passed, this law would make Colorado the first state to legalize possession of pot. California voters struck down a similar initiative just last year, so many people will be looking to Colorado for guidance come November.

A recent survey found that over half of Americans would support legalization. This puts approval for such measures at an all-time high, but it doesn’t guarantee the legislation in Colorado will pass. Between now and November, legalization advocates will be campaigning and working on mobilizing voters.

If the measure does pass, other states may follow suit. Colorado is considered a fairly progressive state, however, and there are no guarantees that other states could experience the same success.

The federal government has taken a very active role in the enforcement of federal marijuana laws despite state-approved medical marijuana. This is in contrast to the promises made by the current administration during campaigns in 2008. It will be interesting to see how the feds react to all-out legalization if it indeed comes to pass in Colorado.

Currently, Colorado has some fairly lax marijuana laws. If you are caught with less than a single ounce, it is considered a petty offense and carries a fine of $100. But if you are found with more than one ounce, the charge and penalties are increased.

Most people who are charged with marijuana possession have less than an ounce on them at the time they are caught. This is easily resolved. But, when you have more than an ounce, you are facing potential jail time.

Denver Police Chief Robert White announced this week that there will be major changes coming about for the department. It’s all in an effort to “flatten” the department, increase accountability, and even improve public safety. According to the Denver Post, the changes are being welcome with open arms by everyone.

White made his announcement at a city council meeting this past week, saying the “reorganization will absolutely, unequivocally put us in a position to be more efficient, more effective, more responsive to the citizens in our community.”

He plans on eliminating the rank of division chief entirely and replacing two deputy chiefs. He is also planning reassignments for commanders within the city’s six districts and wants to increase the number of commanders from 7 to 11. Finally, he hopes to increase the number of available patrol officers by 70, both by rearranging and by adding new cops to the ranks.

He plans on reassigning some cops that are currently in specialized units, like the gang unit, and hiring civilians to do some jobs that are currently being performed by police officers, freeing up more for patrol.

White says the new plans will save the department money, over time. He plans on beginning the rearranging at the end of this month and following that with up to 30 new officers on the streets.

In addition to all of the restructuring, White wants to get the community involved, creating a selection board to help choose the new district commanders. He asked each City Council member to submit the name of one member of their community to serve on the board. The assembled board will choose 12 candidates from the applicant pool for district commanders, from which White will choose the 6 new commanders.

City Council members applaud the Chief for this effort at getting the community involved. White said, “I sincerely believe, wherever it is possible, the decisions we make we should have some involvement with the community.”

Community involvement can build trust and a mutual respect between the department and the people it serves.

Many of the top cops interviewed by the Post were highly supportive of the restructuring, calling it exciting and a “fresh perspective.” Such shake-ups can provide dramatically positive changes to a department that may have gone stale.

An efficient and effective police department is crucial to a safe and secure community. If the cops aren’t a part of an effective department, the consequences will be apparent in their relations with the people of the city. One can hope these changes will bring about positive change in Denver.

If you are accused of a crime, however, these changes won’t necessarily mean anything good for you. More cops on patrol means a greater likelihood that you’ll be caught when you break the law.

A proposed bill in the Colorado legislature could prevent many records of police misconduct from ever being publicized. According to The Denver Post, the bill would make disciplinary hearings and possibly video evidence closed to the public, something that’s not resting easy with many.

If the bill was already law, we might not have heard about the two Denver police officers accused of beating a man in downtown Denver, according to Steve Zansberg with the Colorado Press Association. “We wouldn’t have known what came out in their (disciplinary) hearing. It would have all been closed, and all the records used in that hearing would be closed.”

The intention of the bill, says lawmaker Representative Mark Barker (R-Colorado Springs), is to ensure officers in smaller jurisdictions are afforded the same due process rights as those in larger jurisdictions, in reference to their disciplinary hearings. He says, “Any document generated or presented in connection with the hearing shall be treated as a personnel record and is subject to the legal protections afforded to personnel records.”

The problem with this is the phrase “any document generated or presented.” The vague and broad nature of this phrase would lead one to believe that it includes any video proof of wrongdoing or other records. Barker, however, insists this wasn’t the intention.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Fraternal Order of Police proposed the language.

When it comes to the discipline of police accused of wrongdoing, the public has a right to know what’s going on and how things are being handled. Transparency fosters accountability. When there is no transparency, there is a definite level of mistrust between the public and the department.

Lawmaker Jim Kerr (R-Littleton), sponsor of HB 1036, says he is willing to listen to potential compromise on the language of the bill.

As written, anything related to a disciplinary hearing could be withheld. Even autopsy reports from the coroner’s office could be held back. Though the law seems to only apply to disciplinary hearings and civil cases, the language is too broad as written.

As a member of a community, you want to be able to trust the police within that community. But, when a cop treats you poorly or violates your rights, it’s a little hard to feel confident that you even have rights worthy of being respected.

When you are accused of a criminal offense, a defense lawyer is there to help advocate for your rights and be your voice in a system that can seem out to get you. If you’re facing drug charges or assault charges and have no one to trust, contact our offices today to discuss your case.

A lot can be done with technology these days. Police can track the movements of anyone with a cell phone. They can, but under what circumstances do they actually do this and are they required to get a warrant ahead of time? The answers to those questions aren’t so clear.

Law enforcement organizations across the country use this technology everyday, but the standards under which they use it differ from department to department. Even within the state of Colorado, there is no one single uniform practice.

In Denver, any cell phone access by law enforcement requires a warrant. That isn’t the case in other communities, however. Emergency circumstances, like a kidnapped child for instance, allows police in Lakewood to access phone location data without a warrant. In Arapahoe County, prosecutors use a court order that requires less than probable cause.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled just last week that tracking the location of someone via cell phone without a warrant could constitute a violation of their 4^th Amendment rights. While this “jolted the legal community,” according to the Denver Post, the ruling shouldn’t be seen as surprising.

Denver Chief Deputy District Attorney Dick Reeve points out that state laws and court precedent require probable cause to get a wiretap or a “trap and trace” device, which show calls but not the content of the conversation. This same standard could easily be applied to cell phones. The technology has changed but the motivation behind the laws is no different—to protect the civil liberties of the people.

It would seem that law enforcement agencies, in the absence of a clear law or practice, would err on the side of precaution, getting a warrant just in case. But, that’s not always the case.

At the federal level, there are two bills in front of Congress that would address this and other similar matters. They would make it abundantly clear to law enforcement agencies across the country that warrants are required for GPS tracking, cell phone tracking, or accessing historical cell phone location data.

For now, in Colorado, however, agencies are left to make their own decisions. If the police used cell phone location data in a criminal case and did not get a warrant ahead of time because the law didn’t explicitly require it, they could face some challenges if that case ever goes to trial. A good argument could be made for the suppression of that evidence because it constituted an unconstitutional search.

If you are facing criminal charges and have questions about the legality of the evidence, contact our offices today. We may be able to help you fight the charges and emerge successful in court.

In a period of seven years, there were at least 500 cases of mistaken-identity arrests in Denver, this according to a study from the ACLU and used in a lawsuit on behalf of some of those mistakenly detained in the Denver jail. Both the city and county of Denver are named in the lawsuit, which seeks compensation from people who were held for days and even weeks before the officials corrected their mistakes.

In some of these cases, the warrant was for someone of a different race, with different tattoos, and even different names. One African American male was held for nine days on a warrant for a white male, wanted in conjunction with a sex offense. It seems the deputies or officers conducting the arrests were most interested in getting someone, anyone, in jail.

Missed work and tarnished reputations abound in these victims of mistaken arrest. Imagine being arrested on a warrant for sexual assault and having to explain to a new girlfriend that they “had the wrong guy.” That’s exactly what happened to Carlos Alberto Hernandez, one of the men named in the lawsuit.

The city, not surprisingly, says that although mistakes do happen, they are the exception, and that there are safeguards in place to protect against such mistakes.

The ACLU study looked at arrests from 2002 through 2009 and searched through records and files from judges, internal affairs, jail records, and arrest warrant logs. The ACLU says they believe additional cases exist because records don’t include cases where the arrestee didn’t lodge an official complaint.

In 2008, the city began a program where the police identification bureau would be notified when a prisoner claimed to be wrongfully incarcerated. Because this is a fairly recent program, much of the results from it weren’t included in the ACLU study.

The city and county have settled with many victims of mistaken-identity arrests, though the ACLU has more lined up. In their defense, the city’s attorneys state that the mistakes haven’t amounted to a “deliberate indifference” on the part of the city officials, that is knowing that their actions would likely lead to an infringement on someone’s constitutional rights.

Many of the cases outlined in this Denver Post article, show a complete disregard for the rights of those arrested. When a warrant is issued, much more than a name shows up in the system. Police can find a description, birthdate, and often photos and fingerprints. It seems many of these mistakes could be prevented by officers simply taking the time for a little quality assurance.

Whether you’ve been arrested and you think they have the wrong person, or if you are wanted on a warrant, a defense attorney may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss the details of your case.

Police Chief Gerald Whitman may not be the head of Denver’s police department for much longer, but he is making waves on his way out. He has proposed a change in procedures for when officers or other local criminal justice employee or public officials are pulled over for drunk driving.

Independent Monitor Richard Rosenthal suggested Denver police don’t arrest their own for drunk driving. Chief Whitman decided even the possibility of this was too alarming to not do something about.

The suggested change would require officers to call a supervisor whenever they pulled over such an official on suspicion of drunk driving. This would then leave them more accountable if they chose to not make an arrest.

According to the Denver Post, five Denver officers have been arrested for driving drunk following an accident since 2005. None have been arrested for DUI without an accident being involved. On the other hand, data shows that for every three people arrested for DUI, one involves a collision. Assuming police officers function at the same rate as regular folks, this means it would make far more sense for there to have been around 15 DUI arrests of police officers over the same period.

Not everyone is happy with the recommendation, stating that they should not be held to a higher standard. But why shouldn’t they be? If they are tasked with enforcing the laws, shouldn’t they be expected to follow them even more closely?

Whitman made the recommendation knowing another Chief and incoming safety manager Justice Alex Martinez would ultimately make the final decision on its implementation.

Police spokesperson Matt Murray says in defense of his officers “We are not tolerant of DUI; we are pretty committed in that area. No public officials, in fact nobody, should be driving drunk. We believe there is a standard and everybody should meet it.”

Cronyism in policing is nothing new. In certain cities, officers would be given card to pass out to friends and family members, cards that when shown to another officers would indicate this person to be a friend of a cop and therefore worthy of special treatment.

It’s not surprising that cops would let each other off the hook, most people would be shocked to find out police officers weren’t practicing this unequal enforcement.

Unfortunately, if you are a regular citizen and suspected of drunk driving, you won’t have this benefit. If you are facing charges of DUI, contact us today to discuss what can be done.

In 2002 Charles Farrar was convicted of several counts of sexual assault on a minor. The victim, his daughter, Sacha, accused him and her mother of “forcing her into sexual encounters from the age of eleven until she was fifteen,” according to Westword. Now nine years into his sentence, Farrar is appealing on the basis of inadequate representation and prosecutorial misconduct.

There was no physical evidence in this case and it was instead built off the testimony of the young victim. A few months after testifying against Farrar refused to testify against her mother and ultimately recanted her entire story, saying she made the whole thing up to go live with her grandparents. This recantation wasn’t enough to get Farrar off the hook, however, as a judge ruled it was no more reliable than the initial accusations that Sacha levied.

Since that time, Sacha has stood by her recantation. She is now an adult and maintains that the sexual abuse never happened. But Farrar was not granted a new trial and the conviction was upheld by a narrowly divided state Supreme Court in 2009.

Farrar is trying again, this time alleging his defense team didn’t do enough to investigate the child’s claims at the time, even failing to contact key witnesses. He also alleges prosecutors failed to disclose information that could have resulted in a different outcome at trial, violating his rights.

Once convicted, someone can go through the appeals process, typically claiming their rights have in some way been violated and asking for a new trial or a dismissal of the case. As they raise the issues and the appeals courts strike them down, they are unable to revisit that particular issue but can continue to appeal on the basis of other issues. Once there are no longer any issues to raise, no other legal objections on how the case was handled, their appeals are said to be “exhausted”.

This latest request filed by Farrar was submitted via a handwritten request. It seems Farrar is working on his own now and has no attorney to handle his appeals.

Hindsight is 20/20 and although Farrar may have seen the alleged injustices taking place while his case was in the trial stage, many people convicted of criminal offenses don’t see the problems until long after they have passed and they are serving their sentence.

The key is to avoid a conviction in the first place and though that’s not always possible, having a local defense attorney on your side may improve your chances.

If you are charged with a sex crime or other criminal offense in Colorado and in need of advice, contact our attorneys today for a free consultation on your case.

An Aurora Colorado man got a lot more than a pizza last week when he called Papa John’s. He got a visit from the police, who were there to check on the welfare of the man’s 9 year old daughter. The welfare-check was done because the pizza delivery man who came to drop off dinner smelled marijuana and was concerned the man had been smoking in front of the child.

Frederick Smith actually has a medical marijuana card. He was in the comfort of his own home, exercising his right under Colorado’s medical marijuana law, to relieve pain with the use of pot. According to Smith, he never smokes in front of his child and wasn’t smoking with her in the room that night either.

Smith uses marijuana to cope with residual pain from a bike accident and he represents many in the state who are allowed, under state law at least, to smoke the plant in their home.

Currently, there aren’t any laws specifically attributed to the use of medical marijuana around children, though an ambitious prosecutor might be able to make a case that exposure to the “drug” puts a child in harm’s way regardless of the legal nature of it. This hasn’t happened yet, however, and Smith was left alone that night after the police determined his daughter was okay.

Smith complained to the pizza company and has heard nothing in response. In response to this story from 9News, however, the company said it stands behind the driver’s call to police. “He was acting as a concerned citizen and for what he believes was the best interests of our community.”

Though there were no criminal charges brought in this case, it represents the fine line that medical marijuana users must walk when engaging in their legalized use of pot. Because marijuana is still considered a drug and because federal law does not necessarily recognize state laws allowing it for certain patients, the medical marijuana user is likely on edge a good deal of the time.

Many are hoping the state, and others, will eventually move to legalizing the substance altogether. And while support for such a measure may be higher than ever, it will likely take several years to see such a major shift in the majority and then in the mindset of the feds who still see marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most dangerous substance out there.

Until that time, people will be charged with marijuana possession and those accused of bringing the drug into the state could face much more serious charges. If you are accused of a marijuana crime, contact our Colorado criminal defense attorneys today to discuss your case.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado announced its support for full marijuana legalization in Colorado this past week. The ACLY says that it cannot support marijuana prohibition at a time when there are scarce public resources, among other things. They said this should be a civil rights issue as well as a financial issue.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol is the program that the ACLU has formally endorsed. The ACLU statement said, among other things:

“The war on drugs has failed. Prohibition is not a sensible way to deal with marijuana.”

“…we are wasting scarce public resources in our criminal justice system by having police, prosecutors and the courts treat marijuana users like violent criminals. It is unconscionable for our state to spend tax dollars to arrest, prosecute and crowd the courts, and jail people for possession of a small amount of marijuana, especially when those being arrested and jailed are disproportionately people of color.”

“Current drug laws contribute to the mass incarceration of people of color, especially young people of color.”

The ACLU says that supporting the legalization of marijuana is in line with their mission of defending civil rights and individual freedoms. A big named organization like this can only bring further attention to the marijuana legalization movement in Colorado.

Right now, if you are caught with less than a single ounce of marijuana, you receive a fine. It has been decriminalized. However, if you have more than one ounce, you will face criminal charges, up to 18 months in jail for an amount less than 8 ounces.

As states look for ways to save money, marijuana legalization is just one hot button issue that’s being brought to the table, both at the state and national levels. And Colorado isn’t the only state looking at marijuana legalization. California’s race to be the first state to legalize pot fell short last year, but that doesn’t seem to have discouraged activists.

Though public opinion seems to be more relaxed now than ever in regards to marijuana use, it’s still against the law. And even in states where there are medical marijuana programs in place, there is much controversy on whether or not legalization is the right way to go.

Until the day pot is completely legal, however, you will run the risk of being criminally charged any time you grow, smoke, possess, or sell marijuana. If you are currently facing marijuana charges, contact us today to discuss your case.