Denver Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A sexual misconduct case against an Air Force Academy cadet in Colorado was recently dismissed.  The commandant overseeing the court-martial proceeding stated that there simply was not enough evidence to pursue the matter.

This has been the third such sexual assault case dismissed at the academy since January of 2012.  However, three other cases remain to be tried against cadets, and we will have to wait and see if any of these cases results in conviction.

When a person faces a criminal charge, it is important that they understand their rights. Convictions for some crimes might result in consequences that exceed that of time spent in jail or a fine. Depending on the crime that a person is convicted of, they might face complications with their employment, have troubles maintaining child custody and if a bill that recently passed the Colorado legislature is signed into law, people convicted of domestic violence charges could lose firearm rights.

The measure has reportedly been passed by the House and Senate in Colorado, but is being referred back to the Senate before the Governor will sign it into law. If the bill is signed, the new law would make it even more important for people to understand their rights.

The alleged conduct of a Denver police officer during a traffic stop has resulted in a civil rights violation case making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It all began with a woman driver accused of driving erratically by a Denver police officer after she claims to have had to quickly changed lanes to avoid a collision with the police officer that she says cut her off.  

Though she at first allowed to drive away without receiving a ticket, the police officer then made an accusation that she ran over his foot while she drove away. The police officer recanted this allegation in court, but ten days after the stop he then tracked the woman down at work and issued her a traffic violations ticket for a supposed improper lane change. Her SUV was then impounded and later sold after she refused to pay the impound charge.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that police will in most cases need to obtain a search warrant before blood tests can be ordered for any individual charged with a drunken driving offense. Prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officers maintain that the alcohol in the bloodstream would dissipate and disappear over time, and requiring a search warrant following a DUI arrest would result in delays in having the blood drawn.

Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged that such an argument existed, but the concerns of allowing invasive blood tests to be administered without a warrant trumped any of the prosecutor's arguments. The Supreme Court thus upheld the lower court's decision that such warrantless blood tests would be considered unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the federal constitution.