fbpx

Will My Child Be Charged As An Adult?

The Arizona Criminal Justice system, as in every state, distinguishes between the consequences offered for juvenile offenders and those imposed on adults.  In general, the consequences for those who face charges in adult court are dramatically more severe.

For instance, in juvenile court, the judge always retains discretion to customize the consequences for each juvenile in their court, regardless of the circumstances.  Judges may impose a wide array of consequences, ranging from apology letters and essays to intensive treatment programs and incarceration.

Judges presiding over adult cases, on the other hand, are significantly constrained in what consequences are available.  For most first-time felony offenses, a judge may offer probation, including community service and treatment.  For any felony offense beyond the first and those involving drug sales and dangerous acts, a judge’s MUST send the offender to prison after a trial loss.  Their only discretion lies in picking the length of the prison sentence sometime between the minimum and maximum prescribed by the legislature.

Beyond the results imposed by the Court, adult felons are also marked with a conviction that can have permanent and catastrophic effects on their ability to pursue certain careers, get housing, or exercise certain constitutional rights (but see options for clearing a criminal record in Arizona).  These consequences are not true of those found delinquent in juvenile court, whose records can be sealed when the child turns 18 and exits the juvenile court system (there are some caveats when the offense is of a sexual nature).

There is more than age, however, that goes into the decision whether to charge someone as a juvenile or adult.  Many times a juvenile may be charged as an adult if the offense they are accused of is particularly serious.  The same is true if the juvenile has been in the court system a long time and continues to re-offend.  Where the juvenile system has been ineffective at curbing delinquent behavior, the prosecution may opt to file in adult court, where the child then becomes subject to the sobering and harsh consequences of adult criminal court.

A particularly troubling, but the all-too-common reason for filing in adult court, however, is that the time at which charges are pursued simply happens to be too close to the child’s 18th birthday.  In these common situations, it may be perfectly appropriate that the matter is handled in juvenile court, but there isn’t enough time to apply resources of the juvenile system to rehabilitate the child.

Regardless of how serious the crime, or whether it’s first or fifth offense when a minor is charged as an adult, they face the same mandatory penalties their adult counterparts do.

For this reason, a recent law proposed by the Arizona legislature has huge ramifications for minors who commit delinquent acts.  Both the Arizona House of Representatives and State Senate have passed HB2356 in April 2018.  If signed by the Governor, this bill would allow Juvenile Courts to retain jurisdictions over a juvenile case until the juvenile’s 19th birthday.

Should this law pass, the juvenile court would be able to extend efforts to help those whose minds are not fully developed prove their ability to learn from their mistakes without a permanent mark on their record that usually does more harm than good.  As of the time of this writing, the bill is sitting on the Governor’s desk.  It’s about time.

If you have questions about your child in the court system, don’t hesitate to call Tait & Hall for a free consultation at (480) 405-6767.

Sealing and Destroying a Criminal Record

For those who were charged, but never convicted, Arizona law allows the possibility that all records of the allegations be sealed and destroyed. This means that any public record of the charges is destroyed. Courts are no longer allowed to maintain a public record of the case charges or history and the police department may no longer disseminate any information regarding the investigation.

Having records sealed and destroyed is only available to those people who are wrongfully accused of a crime and who are not convicted of any crime. That also means that they cannot have accepted a plea to a lower charge.

Until an innocent person succeeds in having their record sealed and destroyed, police are free to disseminate the report to anyone who makes a request for it through the proper process. Courts may still have the record on public websites, which makes it easy for a potential employer or anyone else to find.

To find out about how to have your record sealed and destroyed call Tait & Hall for a free consultation at: (480) 405-6767.  

Arizona Court Deals a Blow to Government Abuse

Few people have ever heard the term “civil forfeiture,” but if you’ve ever been affected by it, it’s something you never forget. This law, which has its roots in pre-colonial England essentially allows the government to seize and keep any property that was used in or received from the commission of a crime.  The law is designed to be a deterrent for crime by removing one strong incentive to commit a crime.  Under these laws, federal and state governments have seized billions of dollars from drug cartels.

While the law’s origins may make sense, scrutiny to the way it has evolved over the years has led to shocking findings of government abuse. A Michigan man was traveling through Nevada on his way to begin a new life in California.  He was carrying $2400 he had borrowed from his dad for rent.  A patrolman pulled him over for a minor traffic violation, then seized the cash because the officer suspected he was going to California to buy drugs.

His evidence?  Based on his “training and experience” it is common for people to travel through Nevada to buy drugs with cash.  Apparently, the absurdity of traveling across the country to buy $2400 worth of drugs that could be found in virtually every city in America never occurred to the officer.

Or consider the case of Gerardo Serrano, who was traveling across the border to visit family members in Mexico.  When Customs agents saw him taking pictures near the border, they demanded the passcode to his phone.  When Serrano requested that they provide a warrant, they pulled him from the truck, searched it and found a .380 pistol and five bullets.  Accusing him of “smuggling arms or munitions of war,” the feds then seized his truck.

Unfortunately, the deeper one looks into civil forfeiture laws, the more examples of abuse they find.  To make matters even worse, there is virtually no oversight into where money obtained from civil forfeiture is spent.

Surely it goes to bolster the needs of the police force and increase public safety, right?  Wishful thinking.  The Milwaukee sheriff’s Department used seized funds to fly 50 Deputies to Disneyland.  The Montgomery County District Attorney in Texas bought a margarita machine.  In Worcester County, MA, the District Attorney thought a good use of the funds was a Zamboni machine: yes, the boxy vehicle that refreshes the ice in hockey rinks before games and between periods.

How did civil forfeiture take such an ugly turn, and how could so many abuses occur?  Surely there must be some sort of judicial oversight of this process, right?  Sort of.

The law does allow for someone to challenge the taking of their property in court.  However, the process for doing so is so confusing and difficult that most people lose their chance to challenge the seizure on legal technicalities.  In Maricopa County, judges routinely reject requests for a hearing, merely because the claimant didn’t sign the hearing request document or if it is submitted a day late.

Judges’ rigid adherence to technical rules means that if someone wants to make sure the process is done correctly, they usually have to hire an attorney, which is oftentimes more expensive than the seized property is even worth.

Even worse, many people never even find out that the property is going to be kept by the government and are never told they have a right to challenge the seizure.  Historically in Arizona, the law merely required that a notice is sent to the last known address.  Even if the mail is returned “undelivered,” the government could keep the property without any scrutiny whatsoever from a judge.

Fortunately, that changed in February of 2018, when an Arizona Appeals Court ruled that when the State has good reason to know that the person whose property was seized didn’t get notice, they cannot move forward in permanently depriving the person of their property.  There’s still a long way to go to make these laws just, but this case was certainly a step in the right direction.

Do you have questions about property that was recently seized?  Contact us to discuss the facts of your case and see if we can help.

New Office Location

We Have Moved to a New Office!

We are excited to announce that our team has moved to a new location in the Dana Park area of Mesa. We spent the previous three years in a building about a mile away from our new location — our old office served us well, and we made great memories there, but we couldn’t be more excited about our new space.

The new office is located above the turn style consignment store just east of Dana Park, putting us right on the street and looking out onto Dana Park’s impressive architecture. We’re excited about the hustle and bustle happening outside our windows and all of the great restaurants within an easy walking distance of the new location.

While we were happy with our space, there were several motivating factors to make a move:

Our Office