Blog Layout
NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HOTEL RECORDS
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in State v. Leonard that a hotel guest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily provide to a hotel operator.
In Leonard, the appellant, Mr. Leonard, rented a room at a hotel in Bloomington. In doing so, he provided his driver's license information to the hotel clerk. Police officers arrived at the hotel and requested a guest list from the hotel's registration records. The hotel clerk provided officers with the guest list, showing Mr. Leonard as a current guest. Officers went to Mr. Leonard's room and knocked on the door. After some interactions and observations, Mr. Leonard was placed under arrest and charged multiple counts of check forgery.
Mr. Leonard brought a motion to suppress all evidence found in his hotel room, arguing that it was recovered as part of an illegal search of his guest information. He argued that Minnesota Statute §327.12 was unconstitutional because it required hotels to comply with warrantless searches of their registration records. He also argued that he did not voluntarily supply any information, but was instead required to do so if he wanted to rent a hotel room in Minnesota.
The court of appeals disagreed with Mr. Leonard. Relying on prior case law, the court of appeals ruled here that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily turn over to others. No one forced Mr. Leonard to provide his identifying information. While acknowledging that to rent a hotel room a person must provide certain information, a choice still exists to rent or not rent a hotel room. The court held that none of Mr. Leonard's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by this warrantless search of the hotel registration records.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in State v. Leonard that a hotel guest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily provide to a hotel operator. In Leonard, the appellant, Mr. Leonard, rented a room at a hotel in Bloomington. In doing so, he provided his driver's license information to the hotel clerk. Police officers arrived at the hotel and requested a guest list from the hotel's registration records. The hotel clerk provided officers with the guest list, showing Mr. Leonard as a current guest. Officers went to Mr. Leonard's room and knocked on the door. After some interactions and observations, Mr. Leonard was placed under arrest and charged multiple counts of check forgery. Mr. Leonard brought a motion to suppress all evidence found in his hotel room, arguing that it was recovered as part of an illegal search of his guest information. He argued that Minnesota Statute §327.12 was unconstitutional because it required hotels to comply with warrantless searches of their registration records. He also argued that he did not voluntarily supply any information, but was instead required to do so if he wanted to rent a hotel room in Minnesota. The court of appeals disagreed with Mr. Leonard. Relying on prior case law, the court of appeals ruled here that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily turn over to others. No one forced Mr. Leonard to provide his identifying information. While acknowledging that to rent a hotel room a person must provide certain information, a choice still exists to rent or not rent a hotel room. The court held that none of Mr. Leonard's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by this warrantless search of the hotel registration records.
Many of our clients come to us during the scariest moments of their lives. They've never been in trouble before, and now they are charged with a felony. A common question we are asked is, "Am I going to prison?" Unfortunately, we cannot tell anyone for certain how their case will resolve, but we do inform them of the possibilities. In Minnesota, a felony case can resolve in several ways. The case could be dismissed, or it could end with an executed prison sentence. In between those two extremes are several options. We'll explain each option starting at one end of the spectrum, a dismissal, and proceeding all the way to the other end, where you become a "guest" of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Dismissal A dismissal is what it sounds like. All charges against you are dismissed and you are no longer facing legal consequences related to your felony charge. Continuance for Dismissal (CFD) A continuance for dismissal is also referred to as "suspending prosecution." The State doesn't dismiss the charges outright, but instead puts the case on hold and places you on probation without any conviction. You never enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. If you complete the probationary term successfully, all charges are dismissed. However, if you do not do well on probation, the State can resume its prosecution of you and the case starts up right where it left off. Stay of Adjudication A stay of adjudication is like a CFD in that you are placed on probation without any conviction. However, prior to being placed on probation you are required to enter a plea of guilty to the charge. Instead of entering the conviction against you, the judge instead takes that guilty plea and puts it up on a shelf. If you successfully complete probation, then, like in a continuance for dismissal, the charges against you are dismissed. But if you fail to complete probation, rather than the State having to restart the case against you like in a CFD, the judge already has your guilty plea and can simply enter conviction against you should that be appropriate. Stay of Imposition Like a stay of adjudication, a stay of imposition requires you to plead guilty to the offense. Unlike a stay of adjudication where the judge does not accept your guilty plea, here the judge does accept your guilty plea and enters a conviction against you. However, the judge does not impose a sentence. Instead, the judge places you on probation. If you successfully complete probation, your felony conviction drops down to a misdemeanor. It is important to note that while you are on probation, you are convicted of a felony. It's only after probation is over that your conviction is reduced to a misdemeanor. Stay of Execution Like the last two, a stay of execution requires you to plead guilty to the offense. Like the last one, the judge enters the conviction against you and places you on probation. Unlike the last one, the judge does impose a sentence. If you plead guilty to a felony, it will always be a felony. There is no reduction to a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation. A stay of execution is your last stop before executing a jail or prison sentence. Executed Sentence An executed sentence is what it sounds like. You are committed to the Commissioner of Corrections (prison) for the length of your sentence. Though confusing, you can see how with each step towards one extreme, incremental, but critical changes happen. You start out with no charge, then move to a charge with no plea, then to a plea with no conviction, then to a conviction but no sentence, then to a sentence but no execution, then to execution of a sentence. Whatever your case, how it resolves can have an impact on the rest of your life. It could affect employment, housing, licensures, even the ability to serve on your kid's school board. With stakes this high, it's important that you make informed decisions. If you are facing felony charges, give us a call.
For many people, the thought of appearing in court for criminal charges is terrifying. What will happen? What will the judge say? What should I say? Am I going to jail? At your first appearance in court on a criminal charge, generally four things happen. First, the judge will ask if you are the person named in the complaint. Second, the judge will make sure that you have been advised of and understand your constitutional rights. Third, the judge will ask if you understand the charges against you. Last, the judge will set release conditions. Release conditions are what the court will require of you to remain out of custody while your case is pending. Release conditions vary with each individual case. They can include: No use of mood altering chemicals, including alcohol No possession of mood altering chemicals, including alcohol Submit to random testing No contact with a party or property Remain law abiding Complete booking Do not leave the state Make all future court appearances Post some amount of bail or bond If you aren't released on your promise to return, the court will give you the option of posting either unconditional bail or conditional bail. In setting this bail, the court considers two factors: 1) the likelihood that you will reappear for court, and 2) whether you are a threat to public safety. Unconditional bail is always a higher amount. If you post unconditional bail, your release conditions generally will be that you simply keep in contact with your attorney and show up for your next court appearance. Conditional bail is typically a lower amount than unconditional bail. If you post conditional bail, then you will be subject to any conditions the court imposes upon you. See above for examples of conditions. It is advisable to have an attorney represent you at your first appearance. At your first appearance, the court is meeting you for the first time on these charges. It may not know any details of who you are and what your situation is. Your attorney can make arguments that address the concerns of the court and inform the judge as to why you are not a flight risk, nor are you a threat to public safety. If you are scheduled to appear in court for your first appearance or any appearance, give Migala Law Office a call for a free consultation.
With colder weather upon us, many Minnesotans will be taking to the ice in search of a bucket of a fresh fish to fry up for dinner. Some have had better luck than others. For those who were hoping to find Crappie City but instead only caught Bottle Bass, the question of, "Can I get a DWI out here on the ice?" might have crossed their mind. The short answer to that question is yes. Minnesota Statute § 169A.20 states, "It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle... except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state," when under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. This means that if you operate a motor vehicle anywhere in Minnesota, by either land, air, or sea, you can be charged with driving under the influence. If your Uber coverage didn't extend past the shoreline and you have found yourself charged with a DWI this winter, give the attorneys at Migala Law Office a call at 320.229.7451 .
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in Megan Ashley Olson, et al., v. One 1999 Lexus MN License Plate No. 851LDV VIN: JT6HF10U6X0079461 that the DWI forfeiture statute, as applied to Ms. Olson, is unconstitutional. Minnesota Statute § 169A.63 governs when a vehicle may be forfeited. In Minnesota, when someone is arrested for a "designated offense"-First Degree DWI, Second Degree DWI, getting a DWI while your driver's license is canceled as inimical to public safety, or getting a DWI while driving with an alcohol-restricted license-the vehicle they are driving at the time of the offense is subject to forfeiture. When this happens, the driver can contest the validity of the forfeiture by filing a demand for judicial determination. The timing of the judicial determination was the issue in the Olson case. Subdivision 9(d) of § 169A.63 establishes the timing for when a judicial determination must be made. Subdivision 9(d) states that a judicial determination "must be held at the earliest practicable date, and in any event no later than 180 days following the filing of the demand..." However, the subdivision goes on to state that if there is a related criminal proceeding pending, then the hearing shall not be held until the criminal matter is concluded. This means that until your criminal "designated offense" is resolved, you cannot get a hearing to challenge the forfeiture of your vehicle. In Olson, the owner of the vehicle, Ms. Olson, did not get her hearing until after her DWI was resolved, which was eighteen months after the vehicle was seized. Ms. Olson argued that this lack of a prompt hearing to address the validity of the seizure of her vehicle violated her right to due process, which in turn made subdivision 9(d) of the forfeiture statute unconstitutional The Court of Appeals declined to rule that subdivision 9(d) was unconstitutional in every case because there are circumstances where a party could be provided with a prompt hearing to review the forfeiture of their vehicle (i.e. pleading guilty or demanding a speedy trial). However, the court did rule that subdivision 9(d) was unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Olson. In other words, they upheld the law, but decided that in this particular case, with this particular set of circumstances, the law was unconstitutional. Why is this case important? Because it set a precedent that could be used in your particular case, with your particular set of circumstances to get your vehicle returned to you. Developments like this show how the legal landscape is constantly changing. When facing charges, and the possible loss of property, call the experienced attorneys at Migala Law Office to make sure that your rights and property are protected.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled recently in State v. Prigge that a person under the influence of alcohol who is driving a vehicle with a pistol within arm's reach can be charged with a crime. In Prigge, the defendant was arrested for DWI. Law enforcement performed an inventory search of the vehicle after the arrest. During the search, law enforcement found a loaded pistol in the center console. The defendant was charged with violating Minnesota Statute § 624.7142, subd. 1(4). Minnesota Statute § 624.7142, subd. 1(4) makes it a crime for a person to carry a pistol on or about the person's clothes or person when the person is under the influence of alcohol. The defendant argued that his pistol was not being carried "on or about" his clothes or person because his pistol was in the center console. The State disagreed, arguing that the "or about" language suggests that the proper question is not whether the person was actively wearing or carrying the pistol, but whether the pistol was "readily accessible." The court interpreted the "or about" language in the statute to mean that the statute was intended to cover conduct that went beyond carrying a pistol "on" one's person or clothing. The court concluded that a pistol is carried "on or about" one's person or clothing if there is either a physical nexus between the person and the pistol (i.e. holding the pistol, carrying it on your hip, etc.) or if the pistol is carried within arm's reach (i.e. in the center console of a vehicle). This ruling raises questions as to what exactly does "within arm's reach" mean? Does it mean a person's arm span while they are sitting up straight? Or does it mean how far someone could possibly reach from their current location? What if the pistol is in the glovebox, requiring the person to lean over to reach it? What if that glove box is locked? Does the pistol have to be immediately accessible or just within range? The court did not provide guidance on the above questions. Instead, it stated that the meaning of "within arm's reach" is a question for a jury to decide, meaning it would be advisable to hire a compelling and persuasive attorney to argue your case. Luckily, Migala Law Office is just a phone call away.