constitution

HCCLA 12th Annual Reading: Declaration of Independence

July 1, 2021 Leave a Comment

Houston, Texas – July 1, 2021 – In celebration of Independence Day, the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) is holding its 12th Annual Reading of the Declaration of Independence on Friday, July 2 at 12:00 pm outside the courthouse in person at 1115 Congress Street, Houston, Texas.

Members of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA) will also be holding readings in front of courtrooms across the state. “We are proud to emphasize the patriotism associated with Independence Day,” said TCDLA President Grant Scheiner of Houston. “TCDLA recognizes the Declaration of Independence as a bedrock document that not only liberated the colonies but eventually led to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the American rule of law—concepts criminal defense lawyers use every day to protect individual liberties in courthouses across the land.”

HCCLA President Joe Vinas said, “HCCLA is honored to continue, for the 12^th consecutive year, its annual reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Harris County courthouse. It serves as a reminder to all about the sacred rights our founders fought and died for when establishing this great nation. Because of HCCLA leaders like Robb Fickman, this honored tradition has spread to all 254 counties in Texas, across the nation, and in some foreign countries around the world.”

The Reading of the Declaration of Independence by criminal defense lawyers is an annual tradition started by past president Robert Fickman. “We read the Declaration annually as a reminder that the fight against tyranny is a never-ending battle. We must always fight those who would rob us of our liberty,” said Fickman.

The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the United States, and contains within its text the fundamental truths and unalienable rights that typify and embody the American way of life: …that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Please join us in honoring our nation’s most sacred document in the spirit of independence:

When: Friday, July 2, 2021
Where: Harris County Family Law Center
1115 Congress Street, Houston, Texas 77002
(southwest lawn of the courthouse)
Time: 12:00 PM

The Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association is the largest local criminal defense bar in the United States with more than 700 active members.

Click here for more information about the history of the Readings and photos

###

Right to Resist an Illegal Arrest? Nope!

July 29, 2016 3 Comments

Guest Blog by Millie Thompson, HCCLA member and Defender of the Constitution

The Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted—indeed, for every suspect released.

Libertarian-bent people repeatedly ask me the following leading question, expecting me to confirm their conclusion: We have a Constitutional right to resist an illegal arrest, right?

No, you don’t. There was a common law right to resist, set forth in the Supreme Court case Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900). That right was destroyed by the courts during the backlash against the Civil Rights Movement.

The courts stripped citizens of the right to resist an unlawful arrest, explaining that people should seek redress in court and sue civilly for an unlawful seizure. Qualified Immunity, however, destroys your ability to sue for an unlawful arrest based on mistaken identity.

On the one hand, you can’t resist them. On the other, you have no right to complain later if they were merely mistaken about arresting you.

Compare 1 with 2:

1 – United States v. Danehy, 680 F.2d 1311 (11^th Cir. 1982):

Speaking for the court in United States v. Johnson, 542 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 1976), Judge Morgan evaluated the current vitality 1316*1316 of the common law right to forcibly resist unlawful arrest. He concluded that old Fifth Circuit case law on the subject had been “sapped of its precedential value” by the persuasive authority of decisions from the other courts of appeals. Those decisions recognize that the common law right to resist an arrest that is not based upon probable cause, suited though it may have been to a past era, has no significant role to play in our own society where ready access to the courts is available to redress such police misconduct. See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 509 F.2d 961, 963 (D.C. Cir. 1975); United States v. Martinez, 465 F.2d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Simon, 409 F.2d 474, 477 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 829, 90 S.Ct. 79, 24 L.Ed.2d 79 (1969). Cf. United States v. Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381, 389-90 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1008, 91 S.Ct. 2188, 29 L.Ed.2d 430 (1971) (no right to resist search pursuant to invalid search warrant). But see United States v. Moore, 483 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1973) (dictum). Although there may be some residual role for the common law right where it appears that the arresting officer is engaged in a “frolic of his own,” see United States v. Martinez, 465 F.2d at 82, there was no such situation here.

2 – Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979):

Respondent’s innocence of the charge contained in the warrant, while relevant to a tort claim of false imprisonment in most if not all jurisdictions, is largely irrelevant to his claim of deprivation of liberty without due process of law.[4] The Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted—indeed, for every suspect released. Nor are the manifold procedural protections afforded criminal defendants under the Bill of Rights “without limits.” Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 208 (1977). “Due process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person.” Ibid.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect against all deprivations of liberty. It protects only against deprivations of liberty accomplished “without due process of law.”

Experts will tell you that the fight-or-flight instinct kicks in whenever someone is in a high stress situation, like, for example, when a police officer puts you in a choke hold. You get tunnel vision. Your body shuts down the processes associated with digestion and rational thought, and your body ramps up the systems that will help you outrun the lion or fight the home invader.

At rest, you can process messages like “put your hands behind your back.” When you’re experiencing the fight-or-flight response, your brain isn’t working in a way that allows proper computation of that message.

The law on resisting arrest is illogical on two fronts: First, the whole reason courts have gotten rid of it – you can sue – is false. No, you can’t sue. Those officers have immunity from suit. Courts also point to the right to a speedy trial. That right is meaningless. There are people sitting in county jails everywhere who can’t make bail, were arrested a year, or even two years, or even three years ago, and still haven’t gone to trial. Second, it is not a cognitive rational decision to resist. It isn’t a choice. It is instinct.

We have a Constitutional right to resist arrest, right? Nope.

Miranda: 50 Years

June 12, 2016 Leave a Comment

Monday, June 13th 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court Decision Miranda v. Arizona.

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, in Phoenix for multiple felonies based on circumstantial evidence. Officers took him into custody and after two hours of interrogation, Miranda signed a confession to the offenses.

Miranda was not able to speak to a lawyer before or during any of the police interrogation and he was never even made aware that he had the right to have an attorney present. He was convicted at trial based on his signed confession and his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court was affirmed.

The United States Supreme Court reversed the convictions and issued one of the most important opinions in the history of our criminal justice system to date. Miranda insures every person the right to counsel during interrogations by police. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion in Miranda v. Arizona. The decision was in favor of Miranda. It stated that:

The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

The opinion was released on June 13, 1966. Because of the ruling, police departments around the country started to issue Miranda warning cards to their officers to recite. They read:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?

Miranda was retried and ultimately convicted based on other witness statements concerning his guilt. After Miranda was released from prison in 1972 he made a modest living autographing Miranda warning cards used by police officers.

We have Ernesto Miranda to thank today for our right to have the advice of an attorney prior to answering ANY questions by police officers. Its a valuable right and one that people should exercise more often when being investigated by law enforcement.

HCCLA files Southlawn Amicus

February 29, 2016 Leave a Comment

HCCLA, together with TCDLA and the Harris County Public Defender’s Office, has filed its amicus (friend of the court) brief in the Southlawn Gang Injunction case.

The Harris County County Attorney and District Attorney have sought to banish members of the Southlawn community from entering the area under the theory that they are protecting this area from gang activity. In short, the County has identified many individuals whom they seek to explicitly and permanently ban from entering, remaining, appearing, sitting, walking, driving, bicycling, or being physically present within the “Southlawn Safety Zone.” This zone is just over 2 square miles.

While we recognize the County’s attempt to curb criminal activity within a particular area, this approach is offensive to the Constitution and effectively expels the named defendants from ever entering the area – whether for school, church, or to visit family.

Banishment, while used in medieval times, has never been authorized under Texas law. Banishment is the greatest form of punishment and should not be used as a civil remedy.

The full text of our amicus can be viewed and downloaded here:

Download (PDF, 210KB)

Thanks to the lawyers involved in this litigation for bringing this issue to our attention. And special thanks to Nicolas Hughes for his work in researching and writing on this issue.

For more information on the civil injunction case, Drew Wiley provides an overview.

DON’T TAKE YOUR GUNS TO TOWN

February 1, 2016 Leave a Comment

Don’t Take Your Guns to Town, by Robert Pelton (past president)

If Wild Bill Hickok was walking down the streets of Houston or Abilene or any other place in Texas with his guns, he would probably be approached by the police and arrested. Wild Bill has a concealed handgun license but Wild Bill doesn’t carry his pistols in a holster, he carries them stuck in a sash wrapped a gun totin round his waist. Too bad he didn’t understand the nuances of the new open carry law, but then, who does?

Several months have passed since the law was signed giving law enforcement time to study and prepare for a freedom not allowed in Texas since after the War Between the States. But there is significant controversy about the new open carry law.

Growing up in Abilene we all watched John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Lash Larue and other war and cowboy movies, where the good guys fought for noble causes and always won the day. And once again we are returning to the days of wearing a holster on our hip. But it turns out carrying a gun is more dangerous than “The Duke” may have led us to believe. When real bullets fly real lives are impacted in ways not illustrated on the silver screen.

Guns sales are at an all time high. The murder rate has escalated in Texas and many other places. There were 283 murders in Houston in 2015; the last one was in a hotel on the north side of town. Today, citizens are fearful about where our communities are headed. We all want to feel safe in our homes and when out in public. As a result, many law abiding citizens are choosing to carry guns for protection.

Every gun owner should know the power they have to do either good or harm with the weapon they carry, and the risk they take by carrying. Unless a person has been in the military or worked in law enforcement, they may not be properly trained on how to defend themselves or use a firearm. And they likely have not truly grasped the potential consequences of that act. We all want to protect our families, friends, other citizens and ourselves from the bad guys, but before this happens you need to be prepared. Buying that new shiny pistol is exciting but before you carry or shoot it, remember that pistol is a tool – a dangerous tool. Get the right kind of pistol. Study it, examine it, read the instructions, and practice safely with it before you start toting it around.

For your own safety, as well as others, you should understand how to care for your pistol. One of my gun toting friends who usually carries a couple of pistols was bragging about being prepared. I asked him to let me examine the pistol he carried in his boot. It would not even work because it was so dirty. He was embarrassed. A retired Texas Ranger friend of mine who gave me his hideout gun showed me the one he now carried. He, too, was embarrassed as I pointed out to him it might shoot one time and no more because the slide was dirty. Recently in Abilene, a group of my friends were showing off their barbeque guns, those shiny big guns they wear when having a cook out. One of them was fooling with his pistol and it accidentally went off. Luckily it did not kill one of them.

Today, the new law allows a person with a concealed hand gun license to openly carry if it is in a holster. The Old West may have risen again, but the “basics” of carrying a gun will never be the same. With more freedom comes a greater responsibility to be well trained on handling and operating a weapon. It also comes with some legal risk to the carrier. The district attorney has graciously provided HCCLA an interpretation of what the law means. JoAnne Musick, as president of HCCLA, has provided us with the position of the defense bar. While they are similar in many ways, there is still some polite disagreement about what the new law means. Can a police stop you and ask to see your license? Yes! Should you show it to them? Yes! But what happens if you don’t? Well….it is a little unclear. This lack of legal clarifications as to the application of this law is a problem, and it will be for your future clients. We will only know the answers when someone is arrested and judged on the facts of their situation. Be aware that someone will be the guinea pig on which this law is tried and those yet-to-be-determined answers are defined. That person may be your client.

As lawyers, what do we advise our gun toting clients? Make sure you have a good reason for openly carrying your shiny new pistol and that you have a concealed hand gun license if you intend to carry one. Be aware that you may, and probably will be, a target for law enforcement to stop and ask you questions. When the police may ask you if you have a permit be polite and tell them the correct answer. This is the moment where potential problems arise. Also be aware that if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time an outlaw may try to shoot you first because you are openly carrying a pistol.

We do know that Penal Code 46.02 still remains the law and allows gun rights to those individuals who do not have a concealed handgun license. The revisions that took effect January 1, 2016 now state that a person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned or controlled by that person at any time if (1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster, or (2) the person is engaged in criminal activity, or (3) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, or (4) a member of a criminal street gang.

Also note that even with a license a gun owners can’t waltz into just anywhere without taking notice of the posted signs. Gun owners and business owners alike should be aware of Texas Penal Code 30.06 which details the requirements for signs a business may display to prohibit guns on their premises. According to a “reliable and credible” law enforce source who shall remain nameless for his own protection, many of the signs posted by business owners are not even effective as they do not comply with the code. This may save your gun-slinging client but not your gun-shy business owner. Makes sure you have crossed all your “T”s and dotted all your “I”s before posting your sign and expecting it to be enforced.

—

Penal Code 30.06

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) “Written communication” means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

—

AS WE ENTER THE NEW YEAR with the open carry law, there are several things to remember: safety first. A firearm is designed to kill. Yes, there are some people who skeet shoot or go to a gun range but a firearm is designed to kill. If you have ever been in law enforcement as a licensed peace officer or in the military, you will know the consequences of weaponry ignorance. Firearms are not games. They are designed to cause destruction of a target. And secondly, this new law could dramatically affect the status quo. Our clients need to understand they must make sensible decisions when choosing to carry. We know many of them will not. That is what keeps us in business. Still, we as lawyers are also in the law enforcement business. Our job is to make sure our clients are legally arrested and searched. This job is made more difficult now because no one knows for sure the details to this new law. Johnny cash sang a song, DONT TAKE YOUR GUNS TO TOWN. I RECOMMEND YOU READ THE LYRICS OR LISTEN TO THE SONG before you take your guns to town. Think long and hard about the consequences. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMMp_llzBT4)

Do you want to go away peacefully in the night or “Die with your Boots On??” Do you want to be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

“I have a very strict gun control policy. If there is a gun around, I want to be in control of it.” – Clint Eastwood

“There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men.” – Robert Heinlein

“A man’s rights rest in 3 boxes. The ballot box, the jury box .and the cartridge box.” – Frederick Douglas

This is all very serious business and when a shooting happens, many people may “beat the rap but not the ride.”

“Open Carry” NOT “Papers Please”

December 30, 2015 Leave a Comment

Having been made aware of District Attorney Devon Anderson’s advisory opinion to law enforcement officers [below], it appears the debate is alive and well. Whether or not a police officer may stop a citizen engaged in open carry to check for a license is a very real question.

First and foremost, nothing in the open carry statute authorizes an officer to detain a citizen to determine if they have a license. The ability of a law-abiding citizen to lawfully open carry a handgun does not forego the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

While Ms. Anderson is correct that an officer may approach any individual in a consensual encounter, citizens are generally free to decline the encounter and walk away. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a person’s refusal to cooperate with a police request during a consensual encounter cannot, by itself, provide the basis for a detention.[i]

Her position that anything short of voluntary compliance with the officer’s inquiry should be reasonable suspicion to believe the person is illegally possessing the gun is perhaps too broad. Anderson cites Chiarini v. State for the proposition that courts have routinely permitted law enforcement officers to approach and detain those individuals observed to be in possession of a handgun. Recognizing that Chiarini was decided prior to the open carry law, we note that observation of a handgun may no longer carry the same connotation of illegal conduct.

There are three types of police-citizen inter-actions: (1) consensual encounters that do not implicate the Fourth Amendment; (2) investigative detentions that are Fourth Amendment seizures of limited scope and duration that must be supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) arrests, the most intrusive of Fourth Amendment seizures, that are reasonable only if supported by probable cause. Police officers are as free as any other citizen to approach citizens to ask for information or cooperation. Such consensual encounters may be uncomfortable for a citizen, but they are not Fourth Amendment seizures. However, investigative detentions go beyond the consensual encounter and impact the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens.

Ms. Anderson’s position that declining the officer’s inquiry should be reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention discounts the necessity for reasonable suspicion. If declining an officer’s inquiry amounts to reasonable suspicion, then a citizen could never resist an officer’s inquiry. Consistent with Supreme Court opinions, an officer may only detain (stop) someone when the officer has specific, articulable, and individualized facts to make it reasonable to suspect that the person may be committing a crime.

In any event, if an officer does detain a citizen solely for engaging in open carry, that detention must be brief and limited to determining whether or not the citizen has a license to carry.

HCCLA will encourage lawyers to challenge the validity of any detention that fails to comply with the long established constitutional requirements governing the seizure of citizens. Though an officer may engage in a consensual encounter with any person regardless of their choice to open carry, nothing in the statute divests an otherwise law-abiding citizen of his or her constitutional rights. Generally, citizens may decline the consensual encounter and expect law enforcement to meet reasonable suspicion standards prior to their detention.

Much like a drivers license is required to legally operate a motor vehicle on our Texas roadways, a license is required to carry a handgun both openly and concealed. Law enforcement does not stop every vehicle operator to present his or her license. Why would they stop every open carry citizen?

Instead, it sounds as though Devon Anderson doesn’t support the Republican platform for open carry. While the Governor preaches liberty, Ms. Anderson wants to usher in an era of “papers please.” This is not what one expects in a free society. Ms. Anderson must accept that elections have consequences and the peoples elected legislature has spoken and approved open carry throughout Texas and Harris County.

____________________

[i] Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661, 664-665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991) (“[A] refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.”); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) (plurality op.) (a suspect’s refusal to listen or answer a police officer’s questions in a non-seizure circumstance “does not, without more, furnish” the officers with reasonable suspicion for a seizure.).

View and Download Devon Anderson’s Advisory Opinion Here

Download (PDF, 941KB)