(844) 815-9632

Arizona

Here’s the Latest on Trump Immigration Reform Efforts

It's not untrue to say that Donald Trump has had a 'busy' presidency -- the Twitterer-in-Chief has been as active on social media as he has been with executive orders. But many of those orders have been met with litigation and currently stand somewhere in legal limbo between lawsuits filed and Supreme Court review. One of Trump's most active areas of executive authority has been immigration. Here's the latest on Trump's immigration reform efforts, where they stand (legally speaking), and what they could mean. 1. Trump's Travel Ban Headed to Supreme Court Perhaps Trump's most infamous executive order on immigration, and certainly his most litigated one, is the attempted ban on immigrants and refugees from several majority Muslim countries. Blocked by federal circuit courts, rewritten, then blocked again, the Muslim ban is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, although many of the main legal issues may be moot by the time the Court hears oral arguments. 2. 3 Important Facts About Sanctuary Cities for Immigrants and Opponents Trump has also threatened to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions -- cities and states that decline to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. It's a legally touchy subject, since immigration is largely a federal matter and there are constitutional protections against federal departments controlling state and local law enforcement, and many of those jurisdictions have sued in response. 3. How Would a 'Merit-Based' System Change Immigration? While battling illegal immigration, Trump also wants to shift the focus of legal immigration from birthplace and family considerations to employment and education qualifications. The president-supported RAISE Act would also slash the number of refugees and visa applicants allowed into the country every year. 4. Mixed Immigration Messages? Trump Administration's Latest on DAPA, Dreamers Trump rescinded Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, last June. But the new president has yet to decide on the old president's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, leaving many apprehensive about their immigration status. 5. Can Undocumented Immigrants Attend Public School? In the meantime, immigrants must go on with their daily lives even though their legal status is uncertain. The Supreme Court has said that public schools can't bar undocumented immigrant children from K-12 education, or charge them extra to attend. If you're unsure about your immigration status or need legal help, contact an experienced immigration attorney in your area. Related Resources: Find Immigration Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Top 7 Immigration Laws for Families (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Trump's Executive Order on Immigration: What Does It Mean When a Judge Issues a 'Stay'? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) What Power Does the President Have Over Deportation Policy? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Arizona Can’t Ban Mexican American Studies in Schools

Generally speaking, courts are fairly deferential to schools on educational matters, except possibly when it comes to race. And while the Supreme Court has major rulings on school desegregation and affirmative action, this might be the first time a federal court has taken up the issue of race in a school district's curriculum. Arizona had passed legislation prohibiting courses "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," which targeted a decades-long, voluntary Mexican American Studies program for K-12 students in the Tucson Unified School District. But a federal judge ruled the ban was "enacted and enforced with a discriminatory purpose," and is therefore unconstitutional. Racial Animus Judging from local reporting on the ban, it became a personal issue. The Arizona Daily Star reports that Arizona's superintendent of public education at the time, Tom Horne, and former state senator, and Horne's successor John Huppenthal, had it out for the Mexican American Studies program for years, culminating in an alleged blog post comment by Huppenthal comparing the classes to Hitler's rise to power. In 2010, the Arizona Senate passed H.B. 2281, which prohibited a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses that: "Promote the overthrow of the United States government," "Promote resentment toward a race or class of people," "Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," or "Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." Racial Motivations In a scathing opinion, Judge A. Wallace Tashima determined officials "were motivated by racial animus" and were pushing "discriminatory ends in order to make political gains." Tashima ruled that the ban violated students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying them the "right to receive information and ideas" and discrimination against Latinos, respectively. "Having thus ruled out any pedagogical motivation," Tashima wrote, "the Court is convinced that decisions regarding the MAS program were motivated by a desire to advance a political agenda by capitalizing on race-based fears." The court will hear arguments regarding what remedies to take in the coming weeks. Related Resources: Arizona Law Outlawing Mexican-American Studies Ruled Unconstitutional (AZ Central) Teachers: How to Talk to Students About Privilege, Legally (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) MN Students Sue School District Over Gay Policy (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Banned Books Week: Can Schools Ban Books? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

ACLU, Lambda Legal Sue Trump Over Transgender Military Ban

Over the course of three tweets last month, President Donald Trump expressed his intent to ban transgender people from serving in the military. The White House made that intent official on Friday, issuing a Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security "prohibit[ing] openly transgender individuals from accession into the United States military and authoriz[ing] the discharge of such individuals. And it didn't take long for the lawsuits to follow. Both the ACLU and Lambda Legal have sued Donald Trump and his Secretary of Defense James Mattis, claiming the ban is unconstitutional and "compromises the safety and security of our country." Animus Trump's memo reverses Obama-era guidance allowing transgender individuals to openly serve in the military and allowing defense funds to cover sex-reassignment surgery. The ban would remain in place "until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above." In the memo, Trumps says, "The Secretary of Defense ... may advise me at any time, in writing, that a change to this policy is warranted," but that recommendation for change must be something that "I find convincing." The ACLU claims there is no military basis for the ban: The Trump Administration has provided no evidence that this pronouncement was based on any analysis of the actual cost and disruption allegedly caused by allowing men and women who are transgender to serve openly. News reports indicate that the Secretary of Defense and other military officials were surprised by President Trump's announcement and that his actual motivations were purely political, reflecting a desire to accommodate legislators and advisers who bear animus and moral disapproval toward men and women who are transgender, with a goal of gaining votes for a spending bill that included money to build a border wall with Mexico. Amicus The claims may bear some truth. Mattis was reportedly caught off guard by Trump's tweets, and sources say he was "appalled." Lambda Legal's suit alleges "the Ban and the current accessions bar violate the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment," and "are unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification." This is not the first time Trump has been sued over an executive order or memo -- there are now at least three lawsuits regarding the transgender military ban alone -- and will likely not be the last. Related Resources: Find Civil Rights Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Military Transgender Ban to Begin Within 6 Months, Memo Says (The New York Times) Transgender Service Members Sue Trump Over Military Ban Tweets (FindLaw's Courtside) Trump Administration Rescinds Guidance on Bathroom Use for Transgender Students (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Social Media and Voting: Update on ‘Ballot Selfie’ Laws

Ah, the selfie. That staple of social media. Who needs a silly little "I Voted" sticker when you can share your voting status worldwide with a few taps on your smartphone? The ballot selfie has become the most popular way to prove you participated in the political process, but some states aren't too keen on the idea. Quite a few states have banned ballot selfies, and a few state courts have overturned bans. So where does the law stand now? Here's a look. In and Out Whether you can snap a selfie at your polling place can depend on where you live. Some states explicitly bar ballot selfies, some states allow them, and quite a few states have yet to clarify matters, legally. The AP published a comprehensive list of state ballot selfie laws, and here's a quick summary: Legal: Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Not Legal: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Some of these bans are prohibitions on taking photographs of ballots specifically; others are laws against taking any pictures at polling places. And keep in mind that even in states where ballot selfies are legal, there may be limits on where you can snap your selfie and what can be included. Up in the Air There are still 13 states that have yet to decide the issue of ballot selfies definitively. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia either don't address ballot selfies explicitly, have proposals pending, or have laws on the books that state officials have said may not prohibit ballot selfies. So before you start snapping photos of you and your ballot and post them to social media, you may want to consult with a local civil rights attorney to confirm the ballot selfie laws in your jurisdiction. Related Resources: Find Civil Rights Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) New Hampshire Strikes Down Ban on 'Ballot Selfies' (FindLaw's Legally Weird) Snapchat Stands up for Right to Snap Ballot Selfies (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Rules Around Polling Places (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Is Road Rage a Crime?

We've probably all been guilty of road rage at least once in our lives. However, when road rage escalates from stewing in your car to aggressive driving or vicious assaults, road rage can get you arrested. Just this week, a case of road rage was caught on camera in Yuma, Arizona. A motorcyclist, wearing a GoPro camera on his helmet, allegedly cut off another car. When both the car and motorcycle were stopped at a light, the driver got out of his vehicle, walked straight up to the motorcyclist and punched him in the face! The driver proceeds to shove a passenger on the motorcycle and try to punch the motorcyclist several more times before being taken down. The driver was taken to the hospital with an apparent broken ankle, and has been charged with endangerment, threatening, and assault. Could he also have been charged with road rage? Road Rage Laws In most cases of road rage, a driver is often charged with a slew of violations and other crimes, such as speeding, unsafe lane changing, endangerment, or assault, as happened in this case. However, some states also have laws or vehicles codes punishing road rage: Arizona -- According to Arizona's Department of Public Safety, road rage is defined as "an assault with a motor vehicle or other dangerous weapon by the operator or passenger of another motor vehicle or an assault precipitated by an incident that occurred on a roadway." California -- California's Vehicle Code section 13210 allows for a court-ordered suspension of your driver's license if you are convicted of assault with a deadly weapon caused by road rage. Massachusetts -- If you have a junior operator's license in Massachusetts and you speed up in competition with another driver, you could be convicted of drag racing and be ordered to complete a court program against road rage. If you ever find yourself getting angry while driving, take a few deep breaths and calm down. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, road rage and aggressive driving cause 66 percent of traffic fatalities. In a seven year period, 218 people were murdered and 12,610 injured because of road rage. If you are charged with road rage or any other crime in conjunction, consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney for help. Related Resources: Browse Criminal Defense Lawyers by Location (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Video: Motorcyclist Attacked in Arizona Road Rage Incident (ABC 7) 'Road Rage Lady' in Viral Video Arrested, but for What? (FindLaw's Legally Weird) Road Rage Tips: How to Not Get Shot (FindLaw's Injured)
continue reading

Women Criminal Defense Attorneys: Lori Voepel Wins Appeal for Woman Who Spent 22 Years on Death Row on Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct

Attorney Lori Voepel, from Phoenix, Arizona, won a stunning appeal last week for Debra Jean Milke, who spent 22 years on death row for the alleged murder of her 4 year old son. The Arizona Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of murder charges against Milke and agreed with Voepel that to conduct a retrial would amount to double jeopardy. The Court was extremely critical of the prosecutors’ failure to turn over evidence during Milke’s trial about Detective Saldate who had a long history of misconduct and lying. The case was largely built on the detective’s testimony that Milke had confessed to him in spite of the fact that it was not preserved by recording or in writing. The Court called the prosecutors’ actions “a severe stain on the Arizona justice system” and stated that the failure to turn over the evidence “calls into question the integrity of the system and was highly prejudicial to Milke.” The Huffington Post detailed the appellate twists and turns starting from the federal habeas to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that resulted in the conviction being reversed in March of 2013. Listen here to Voepel discussing the 9th Circuit’s ruling last year. The 9th Circuit cited numerous instances of now-retired Detective Saldate committing misconduct in previous cases, lying under oath, and violating suspects’ rights. The federal appeals court went as far as asking the Justice Department to investigate whether he had committed civil rights violations. Thereafter when the prosecutors were preparing for a retrial the detective refused to testify and asserted his Fifth Amendment right, which the trial judge accepted. When the State appealed, the court’s ruling was reversed after both State and Federal authorities said they would not prosecute him. Finally, the last appeal resulted in the Arizona Court of Appeals agreeing that a retrial would amount to double jeopardy. Some news reports have indicated that the County Attorney plans to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. In September of last year Milke posted bond and was released from prison after spending close to 25 years in prison to await her retrial and the appeals the followed. This case is yet another example of the insidious nature of Brady violations. Here the prosecutors had evidence that went directly to the credibility of the main witness against the defendant and rather than follow the law, they chose to break the law. Thankfully in this instance Lori Voepel was able to demonstrate that Brady evidence existed but wasn’t turned over. This kind of case is a prime example as to why we, as trial attorneys, need to remain vigilant about Brady and continue to shine a bright light on the damaging effects of Brady violations. Congrats to Lori Voepel and her tireless fight for justice for her client. Bravo!
continue reading

When Can Kids Legally Own, Shoot Guns?

Firearm enthusiasts who may also be parents or grandparents should be aware that the laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of guns by kids are often different from the laws for adults. These rules are also facing increased scrutiny following a fatal accident at an Arizona gun range in which a nine-year-old girl shot an instructor in the head when she lost control of a fully automatic Uzi submachine gun, reports the Las Vegas Review-Journal. What are the rules for when kids can legally own or shoot a gun? Is it Legal for Kids to Have a Gun? Both federal and state gun laws typically distinguish between long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, and handguns. Under federal firearms law, licensed firearm dealers may not sell a handgun to anyone under age 21, or sell a long gun to anyone under age 18. Unlicensed individuals may not sell, deliver, or permanently transfer (such as giving a gun as a gift) a handgun to anyone they have reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, but there is no minimum age for selling, delivering, or transferring a shotgun or a rifle for individuals not licensed as a firearm dealer under federal law. Know someone who has been arrested or charged with a crime? Get in touch with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney in your area today. There is also no minimum age for possession of a long gun under federal law. However, those under 18 are prohibited from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition, except if doing so in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related activities, for target practice, hunting, or during the course of instruction in the "safe and lawful use of a handgun." In addition to federal laws, individual states each have their own laws regulating the possession and use of firearms, which may affect the legality of a minor's ability to own or possess a firearm. Is it Legal for Children to Fire Guns at Gun Ranges? Many states choose not to further restrict the temporary transfer of firearms to minors for use in target practice or firearm safety training allowed by federal firearms law. These exceptions to the general rules for firearm possession by minors have led to something of a cottage industry in some states. One Texas gun range even opened up two rooms for hosting children's birthday parties. In Arizona, the state in which the nine-year-old girl inadvertently killed her shooting instructor with an Uzi, state law allows for the temporary transfer of firearms to minors by firearms safety instructors or by another adult accompanying a minor in hunting or target shooting activities -- so long as the child's parents give consent. And though the incident in Arizona was tragic, the Mohave County Sheriff's office told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that no citations or charges will be filed in the incident Related Resources: 9-year-old girl accidentally kills gun instructor with Uzi (San Jose Mercury News) Legal to Bring Your Gun to Work? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) 5 BB Gun Laws You Need to Know (FindLaw's Blotter) Does Ga.'s New Gun Law Expand 'Stand Your Ground'? (FindLaw's Blotter)
continue reading

Ariz. Gun Range Death: Who’s Liable?

Law enforcement authorities have stated that no one will be charged criminally in the fatal shooting of an Arizona gun range instructor killed when a nine-year-old girl lost control of the fully automatic Uzi submachine gun she was firing, reports ABC News. But accidents that cause death, even ones that don't involve criminal conduct, often result in wrongful death lawsuits or other civil litigation. Who, if anyone, might be liable for this tragic accident? Wrongful Death Actions Wrongful death actions are typically brought by family members of a deceased person when another person's intentional or negligent conduct caused their family member's death. Injured? Exercise your legal rights. Get in touch with a knowledgeable personal injury attorney in your area today. In this case, video footage filmed by the girl's parents shows that the girl did not intend to shoot the instructor, but rather lost control of the gun she was firing. But was the accident the result of negligence on the part of the girl or her parents? Was the Child Negligent? Negligence requires a person, who had a duty to act reasonably given the circumstances, failed to act reasonably and this failure caused another to be injured. It is possible to bring a lawsuit against a child for negligence; however, it may be more difficult than suing an adult. Children are generally not expected to act as a reasonable adult would act. In some jurisdictions, however, children can be held to an adult standard of reasonableness when they are engaged in what are known as "adult activities." In some states, parents may also be held vicariously liable for the negligence of their children, or be found liable for negligent supervision of their children. It may be difficult, however, even if held to the adult standard of reasonableness, to prove that the child, who was firing a fully automatic weapon for the first time acted negligently when she lost control of the gun. Negligence of Shooting Range? It may also be possible to bring suit against the shooting range itself for negligence. Although it appears that no laws were broken in allowing the girl to fire the weapon, many are questioning the safety of the range's policies allowing minor children to fire fully automatic weapons. The gun range's owner told The Associated Press that the range's policy of allowing children eight and older to fire guns under adult supervision is standard practice in the industry, adding that in 14 years of operation, the accident was the first injury or death that has occurred. Related Resources: A 9-Year-Old at a Shooting Range, a Spraying Uzi and Outrage (The New York Times) After a Tragic Shooting, Wrongful Death Suits Follow (FindLaw's Injured) Can A School Be Sued for a Shooting? (FindLaw's Injured) Burglary Suspect Sues Homeowner for Shooting Back (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
continue reading

ASU Back-to-School Alcohol Crackdown Nets 392 Arrests

Police in Tempe, Arizona arrested 392 people as part of an alcohol-crime-focused task force last weekend, which not coincidentally kicked off the first weekend of the fall semester for Arizona State University. The "Safe and Sober" campaign, according to the Tempe Police Department, is a collaborative effort between 18 law-enforcement agencies and is scheduled to last until September 6. The Phoenix New Times reports that of the hundreds arrested, approximately one in three were arrested for DUI. What can we learn from this ASU alcohol crackdown? Some 'Arresting' Statistics While the number of arrests may lead one to believe that this program is something new and unexpected, this is actually the second year of the "Safe and Sober" enforcement campaign. Last year's inaugural instance of the program netted 309 DUI arrests and 1367 arrests in total, spanning three weekends at the beginning of ASU's Fall 2013 semester. This is far more than the 392 total arrested thus far in this year's "Safe and Sober" campaign, but we remind readers that the 2014 run still has two weekends to go. The New Times reported that comparing this past weekend with that same weekend in 2013, there were actually 21 more arrests in 2014. It's unclear that this suggests that alcohol-related arrests are increasing, and more may become clear once the campaign is concluded. Arizona's Governor's Office of Highway Safety actually reported fewer DUIs in 2013 than in 2012, suggesting that drivers may be wising up. Know someone who has been arrested or charged with a drunken driving offense? Get in touch with a knowledgeable DUI attorney in your area today. Whatever the trend, the arrests last weekend included: 146 DUI arrests, 112 arrests for minors consuming alcohol, 35 arrests for minors possessing alcohol, and 99 arrests for "other offenses." Hopefully any increase in alcohol-related arrests also corresponds to increased safety for Arizona's drivers and minors. Back-to-College Booze Tips Since ASU's students seem largely clueless to the legal ramification of underage drinking and DUI, despite a combined 18 law-enforcement agencies watching them like hawks, here are some easy-to-remember back-to-college alcohol tips: Even if your campus has a lax alcohol policy, know that it is illegal for minors to consume alcohol (unless it's with their parents); States like Arizona have extreme and aggravated DUI penalties for drunken driving offenses with minors in the vehicle; and Most college campuses have free shuttles or "safe ride" services, so use them. Try to start this semester without having to call a DUI lawyer. Related Resources: Tempe apartment residents throw beer bottles at police (The Arizona Republic) MIP: 3 Things to do After a Minor in Possession (FindLaw's Blotter (FindLaw's Blotter) 5 Ways Hazing Can Get You Arrested (FindLaw's Blotter) 5 Things a DUI Lawyer Can Do (That You Probably Can't) (FindLaw's Blotter)
continue reading

What Is a Retrial? When Can You Get One?

What is a retrial, and who is entitled to one? Retrials are in the news this week. Convicted Arizona murderer Jodi Arias will be retried, but only to determine her punishment for killing her boyfriend in 2008; jury selection is set to begin September 8, The Associated Press reports. And in another high-profile case, Michael Dunn, the Florida man who allegedly shot and killed unarmed teenager Jordan Davis over loud music, will be retried for murder beginning May 5, the AP reports. So how do retrials work in our criminal justice system? What Is a Retrial? A retrial is quite literally a second (or third) trial on an issue that has already been tried. In Jodi Arias' case, jurors were unable to reach a verdict on how she should be punished, so an entirely new jury will need to hear the facts of the case in order to make the same determination. In most cases, a retrial is ordered because a judge has declared a mistrial, or a reason why the current trial must be considered invalid. A mistrial can occur because of something as innocent as a hung jury or something more malicious like juror misconduct. Sometimes a case will be appealed and then overturned by an appellate court, which will then order a retrial in order to have the facts heard in accordance with its ruling. In every other way, a retrial is just like a normal trial. And assuming there is no reason to challenge the trial court's findings, the conclusion of a retrial will be the final word on the case. Who Gets a Retrial? In order for there to be a retrial, there must be a legitimate reason for the original trial to be declared invalid. Like with Jodi Arias, a hung jury is a very common reason to declare a mistrial, but the retrial will only need to cover issues of fact where the jury was not unanimous. Since the Arias jury already unanimously voted to convict her of murder, the retrial will only cover the issue of punishment -- not guilt or innocence. That's different from the case of Michael Dunn, who will be retried on the charge of first degree murder. Dunn has already been convicted of attempted murder and weapons charges, but a new jury will hear evidence that Dunn should be convicted of murder for Jordan Davis' killing. In many cases, like Dunn's, the decision to seek a retrial is up to the prosecution, who can decide whether or not to drop the case. To learn more about criminal procedure and the justice system, check out FindLaw's comprehensive section on Criminal Law. Related Resources: Arizona jury to consider again death penalty for Jodi Arias in September (Reuters) When Can You Get a New Trial? (FindLaw's Blotter) Lies in Jury Selection May Lead to New Trial (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Kennedy Cousin Michael Skakel to Get New Trial (FindLaw's Blotter)
continue reading
12