Jul 5, 2024 | Know Your Rights, Michigan News, News, Your Rights
How Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests
Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the potential pitfalls of this technology and its impact on individuals’ rights.
The Robert Williams Case in Detroit
In 2020, Robert Williams, a Detroit resident, experienced firsthand the flaws of facial recognition technology. Falsely identified as a theft suspect, Williams was wrongfully arrested by the Detroit Police Department. His case marked the first publicized instance in the United States where facial recognition led to an erroneous arrest
The city of Detroit has agreed to compensate him $300,000 for being falsely accused of shoplifting and has committed to revising the use of facial recognition technology by the police to enhance crime-solving efforts.
As per a lawsuit settlement with Robert Williams, his driver's license photo was mistakenly identified as a potential match to an individual captured on security footage at a Shinola watch store in 2018.
The agreement mandates that Detroit police will evaluate cases involving facial recognition technology from 2017 to 2023. Authorities will promptly notify a prosecutor if an arrest occurs without verifiable evidence.
Policy Changes and Safeguards
The fallout from Williams’s arrest prompted significant policy changes within the Detroit Police Department:
No Arrests Based Solely on Facial Recognition: Detroit police can no longer make arrests or conduct photo lineups based solely on facial recognition results. Instead, they must combine facial recognition leads with traditional investigative methods to verify suspects’ involvement in a crime.
Enhanced Training: Officers now undergo additional facial recognition training to improve accuracy and responsible use of the technology.
Transparency: The department must disclose when facial recognition technology was used to make an arrest. Additionally, they must acknowledge the technology’s limitations and potential for misidentification.
Civil Liberties: These changes aim to prevent future misidentifications and protect civil liberties. Deputy Chief Franklin Hayes emphasized that facial recognition remains a valuable tool for both solving cases and exonerating innocent individual.
A Concerning Trend
Since then, several other cases of wrongful arrests stemming from facial recognition technology have been uncovered, shedding light on a concerning trend.
Some cities have banned the technology altogether, while others lack comprehensive policies.
In the ever-changing landscape of technological advancements, finding the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights is paramount. The recent Robert Williams case serves as a poignant reminder that safeguarding civil liberties should always be the top priority in the realm of law enforcement technology.
And now for something completely different....
Michigan Law: False Report of Crime
According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.
For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate
Jul 3, 2024 | Blog, Know Your Rights, Your Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 368736
Decided: June 27, 2024
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ.
Introduction
In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an important issue related to search and seizure rights.
Background
Javarian Chandler found himself in legal trouble when he was on probation. As a condition of his probation, he had to comply with certain requirements, including submitting to searches of his person, property, and computer without the need for a search warrant. “Defendant's Acknowledgment” section found on the SCAO, Form MC 243 (Sept 2022), p. 3:
But was this constitutional?
What Happened?
On May 17, 2023, Chandler was among the probationers and parolees on Officer Thomas' compliance check list. This marked the first encounter between Officer Thomas and Chandler.
Officer Thomas and three Detroit Police officers visited the house listed on Chandler's paperwork, owned by Chandler's cousin. When Chandler's cousin and mother answered the door, they initially denied Chandler's presence. However, after Officer Thomas explained that a search was required due to Chandler's parole, Chandler's cousin allowed entry.
In Chandler's room, officers discovered a loaded handgun. Despite being prohibited from owning weapons, Chandler was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony, as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Chandler unsuccessfully sought to suppress the weapon found during the search, leading to an interlocutory appeal following the trial court's denial of his motion.
The Search and Legal Question
The search in question took place in Chandler’s bedroom, conducted by Detroit police officers and a probation agent as part of Chandler’s conditions of probation. The critical issue was whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Did such a search require reasonable suspicion or an express waiver by the probationer?
Chandler’s cousin, who lived in the same house, granted consent for the search. However, defense counsel argued that Chandler’s cousin lacked the authority to authorize the search of Chandler’s bedroom. Additionally, they contended that Chandler’s cousin did not consent freely or voluntarily.
Court’s Ruling
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s property without reasonable suspicion or an express waiver is unconstitutional. In essence, probationers retain Fourth Amendment rights, even while under specific conditions during their probation.
Implications
This decision underscores the delicate balance between law enforcement’s need to monitor probationers and an individual’s right to privacy. By upholding Fourth Amendment protections, the court ensures justice while respecting individual liberties.
Contact Komorn Law
If you have legal questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our experienced attorneys at Komorn Law. You can call us at (248) 357-2550 or visit our website at KomornLaw.com for personalized legal guidance.
And now for something completely different....
Michigan Law: False Report of Crime
According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.
For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate
Jul 3, 2024 | Educational, Your Rights
Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona 1.
Here’s the backstory: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a 24-year-old with a police record, was accused of kidnapping, raping, and robbing an 18-year-old woman in Phoenix, Arizona. During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, his lawyers argued that he hadn’t been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination.
The court agreed, and the Miranda Rights were born. Now, when law enforcement detains suspects, they must recite these rights to ensure awareness of the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination. It forever changed U.S. criminal procedure, emphasizing fairness and protecting individuals’ rights.
At what point do the police have to read me my miranda rights?
Police must read you your Miranda rights as soon as they plan to interrogate you while you are in custody. Being in custody means that you are not free to leave at any point that you wish.
If you are free to leave or not in custody, police do not need to read you your rights before asking you questions. Remember, these rights protect your right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.
One notable case involving Miranda Rights is Missouri v. Seibert. Here’s what happened:
Background: Respondent Seibert was arrested after her son, afflicted with cerebral palsy, died in a fire. She was present when her sons and friends discussed burning their mobile home to conceal the circumstances of her son’s death.
An unrelated mentally ill 18-year-old named Donald was left to die in the fire. The police arrested Seibert but did not read her Miranda rights initially.
The Interrogation: At the police station, Officer Hanrahan questioned Seibert for 30 to 40 minutes without providing Miranda warnings. He obtained a confession related to the plan for Donald to die in the fire. After a 20-minute break, Hanrahan returned, gave her the Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver. He then resumed questioning, confronting Seibert with her pre-warning statements.
Legal Outcome: Seibert moved to suppress both her pre-warning and post-warning statements. The District Court admitted the post-warning statement but suppressed the pre-warning one. Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
Supreme Court Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision. Justice Souter concluded that Seibert’s post-warning statements were inadmissible because the midstream recitation of warnings after interrogation and an unwarned confession couldn’t comply with Miranda’s constitutional warning requirement.
What the Miranda Rule means in one long sentence: This rule states before you are interrogated or you're questioned by police, they have to read you your miranda rights only if you are not free to leave.
At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decisions illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.
Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.
And now for something completely different....
Michigan Law: False Report of Crime
According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.
For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate
Feb 10, 2021 | Blog
Summary of this paper
Our Machine-Learning algorithms scan the text for the most important phrases or passages. These highlights, alongside their respective section titles, are shown below.
Introduction
Saito et al. reported a validated gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method with a LOQ of 0.4 ng THC/patch and found concentrations of 0.9 to 3.1 ng THC/patch in several 24-hour sweat patches from one cannabis user [20]. The expected disposition of THC in sweat from chronic cannabis users has not been reported.Go To Passage
Subjects And Study Design
Exact times of dosing were recorded, but target times each day were 0800, 1300 and 1730 h. After five consecutive dosing days, there was a 10-day washout period prior to the next dosing condition. Subjects had five dosing conditions involving placebo, low-dose liquid hemp oil (9 μg/g or a daily dose of 0.39 mg THC), low-dose hemp oil in capsules (92 μg/g or a daily dose of 0.47 mg THC), high-dose hemp oil (347 μg/g or a daily dose of 14.8 mg THC) and dronabinol (2.5 mg/capsule or a daily dose of 7.5 mg THC). Sweat patches were stored at −20°C until THC analysis.Go To Passage
Gc/Ms Analysis
Percent recovery from patches was 44-46%, LOQ was 0.4 ng THC/patch and coefficients of variation were < 10%. All weekly patches were tested. Some daily patches were not tested if no THC was found in the corresponding weekly patch.Go To Passage
Results
During this washout phase, the first weekly sweat patch from two of seven subjects had THC above the assay LOQ. One weekly patch contained 0.93 ng THC/patch, with none of the seven daily sweat patches worn this week positive for THC. The other weekly sweat patch contained 0.82 ng THC/patch, with only the first daily patch positive for THC at 0.44 ng of THC/patch.Go To Passage
Discussion
The manufacturer recommends that the patches be worn for one week. In the present study, sweat patches worn by daily cannabis users the first week of monitored abstinence had THC concentrations averaging 3.85 ng/patch. There are no other published studies reporting sweat patch THC concentrations after cessation of use for comparison.Go To Passage
Conclusions
Results of our clinical study indicate that daily cannabis users will excrete THC into sweat in concentrations above the SAMHSA cutoff of 1 ng/patch. During abstinence, negative patches are expected after one week, but some may have a longer washout period of four weeks or more. The sensitivity of sweat patches to detect new drug use following cannabis smoking is not known and requires an independent controlled smoked cannabis administration study.
Read the Full PDF Here
Marilyn A. Huestis1,*
, Karl B. Scheidweiler1, Takeshi Saito1,2, Neil Fortner3, Tsadik
Abraham1, Richard A. Gustafson4, and Michael L. Smith5
1 Chemistry and Drug Metabolism, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
2 Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
3 ChoicePoint, Inc., Alpharetta, GA
4 Lieutenant Commander, U S Navy, Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, Jacksonville, FL USA
5 Division of Forensic Toxicology, Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Rockville, MD, USA
Source: Academia
Komorn Law Social Media
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
BMMR
cannabis
corruption. prosecutors
dispensary
Driving
DUI
educational
FAQs
forfeiture
gun rights
hemp
komornlaw
lara
law enforcement abuse
laws
Legalization
marijuana
Medical Marijuana
Michigan
Michigan Court of Appeals
michigan laws
michigan news
michigan supreme court
MMFLA
news
politics
science
usa news
us supreme court
Your Rights
DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
May 14, 2015 | Komorn Law Blog
When is a Search Warrant Required?
Fourth Amendent
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches by the government. That means that absent an emergency situation or other legal exception, a police officer must have a search warrant before conducting a search of your person or property.
How a Search Warrant is Obtained
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be specific and reasonable. That means that a judge will only approve a search warrant if law enforcement is specific as to the items and location it wishes to search. Law enforcement must also prove that probable cause exists that a specific item is located in a specific place.
Whether the warrant gets issued or not is up to the judge’s review. If a judge finds that law enforcement has met its burden of probable cause and has included enough specificity in the request for the warrant, then the judge will issue the search warrant.
The suspect is not present during this proceeding and is not given an opportunity to present his or her argument against the issuance of a warrant. However, in later proceedings the suspect may argue that a search warrant was improperly granted.
When a Search Warrant is Not Necessary
There are a few situations when law enforcement is exempt from obtaining a search warrant. Those situations include:
Consent: Law enforcement can request to enter a person’s home or search a person’s belongings. If the person consents to the search and gives law enforcement permission to conduct the search then a warrant is unnecessary.
Plain View Doctrine: Law enforcement does not need a search warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight. For example, if an officer is walking down the street and sees a person with drugs in the park then the officer may arrest that person and keep the drugs as evidence even though a search warrant was not obtained. This exception exists because individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in plain view.
Emergency Situation: If the police are in pursuit of a felon and follow that alleged felon into a home or other private area – then they do not need a warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight when they enter the building.
For example, a police officer may witness a robbery or a crime and begin to pursue the criminal to make an arrest. If the criminal flees and takes refuge in a private residence then the police may follow him and they do not need a search warrant to enter the home nor to collect evidence that is in plain sight or within the reach of the alleged criminal.
Police may also enter a residence without a warrant if they hear a person screaming for help or have reason to believe that a person or property is in imminent danger and that harm would result in the time it would take to obtain a search warrant.
Search Incident to Arrest: Police officers may search the body and immediate surroundings of a person whom they take into custody. The courts have allowed this exception to the search warrant rule in order to protect police officers from people who may have concealed weapons.
Search warrants are the government’s way of balancing an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights with the societal interest in limiting crime and protecting the public. Therefore, the general rule is that a search warrant must be obtained before the police conduct a search but exceptions to that rule exist to protect police officers and society from harm.
