Apr 17, 2013 | Assault and Battery, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Wrongful Death
Tuesday night was grim for one individual in particular when a Charlotte man was shot and left for dead at the scene of the crime.
According to police reports, the man was found dead in his home off of Marlowe Avenue in West Charlotte a little after 11:30 p.m.
A neighbor was responsible for contacting the police, when she heard a group of men yelling at one another, shortly followed by gun shots.
The police have stated that this home in particular had been subject to numerous investigations in its possible interlinking to drug distribution and trafficking.
The police are currently canvassing the entire neighborhood in hopes of finding a witness who knows more details to to incident at hand.
Sadly, all that is known as of now is that a man is dead, and no one is stepping forward to admit or deny anything.
The police have been unable to identify any suspects in this shooting but strongly encourage anyone who had any information to contact the .
Being involved in any sort of altercation can be scary. What is even scarier is when the argument escalates and weapons become involved. If you or someone you know has been involved in a serious accident or even a death, contact the personal injury attorneys at Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP. We are equipped to handle cases ranged from personal injuries and wrongful deaths, all the way to criminal defense. Contact us today toll-free at 877-374-5999 for a free consultation. Let us help take the burden off your shoulders during these trying times.
Apr 11, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Homicide Defense, Uncategorized
A woman, who Gastonia officials say set a fire to a home that killed her mother and stepfather, has still not been located by police officials. The fire was initially ruled an accident; however, this idea has changed due to the suspicious activity of the 37-year-old suspect.
As the fire burst into a full-blown conflagration, the suspect ran out of the house, and banged on the door of the couple’s neighbors stating that her mother and stepfather were in the engulfed house. The neighbor attempted to help, but his rescue efforts were futile, as were the efforts of the Gastonia fire department. It is reported that it took 20 firefighters to get the flames under control.
The investigators have not been able to locate the daughter, who is sus
pected of causing the fire. When the woman is located, she will be charged with first-degree homicide by the Gastonia Police Department.
If you or someone close to you has committed a felony in North Carolina, and the felony is inherently dangerous (such as rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and kidnapping), and a person is killed during the commission of such felony, that felon can still be charged with first-degree murder.
In North Carolina, the felony murder rule has been implemented; so, in this case for example, the woman set a house on fire. Even if she didn’t know people were in the house, she could still be charged with first-degree homicide. The fact that she was committing an inherently dangerous felony (Arson), and people died as a result, she will likely be implicated under the felony murder rule.
So, if you have been charged with homicide, or any other criminal charge, call the law offices o Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP for a consultation of your rights. You can reach our Charlotte, North Carolina office at 704-499-9000, and we will be pleased to assist you.
Apr 4, 2013 | Burglary/Robbery/Larceny, Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
Five men are accused of burglarizing a Rock Hill home Friday night and holding its residents at gunpoint, according to Rock Hill police.
Officers were called to the Cedar Grove Lane home after the burglars fled the scene around 9:44 p.m., said police spokesman.
The burglarized home is near Oakwood Acres Park, close to the intersection of Cherry Road and Mt. Gallant Road. The residents told police that five people entered their home and demanded money and other valuable items from the victims. The defendants then finished ransacking the home, and fled from the scene of the crime.
Rock Hill’s K-9 unit was able to track the intruders and subsequently arrested the five suspects for the home invasion.
Luckily, no one was injured during the incident.
Any criminal charge is a serious matter for anyone. If you or someone you know has criminal charges being brought against them, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP to consult with one of our criminal attorneys. Our criminal attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina and want to help you or someone you know with his/her criminal charges. We are licensed in both North Carolina and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Apr 3, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Uncategorized
A recent United States Supreme Court ruling, Florida v. Jardines, has decided that an officer conducts a Fourth Amendment search 
when he brings a drug dog onto the porch of a house to sniff the front door. In this case, a Miami officer received a tip that marijuana was being grown in a residence. The officers went to the front door of the house, and the dog acted as though he detected drugs in the house. Thereafter, the officers left, allegedly obtaining probable cause for a search warrant, and when they entered the residence, they found numerous marijuana plants. The defendant was then charged with drug trafficking.
The defendant argued that the use of the dog was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court agreed with this, the appellate courts were split, and Jardines found himself in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in favor of the defendant. His reasoning was based on the “physical intrusion theory” that he advanced in United States v. Jones. He stated that the officers entered the curtilage (area so intimately connected with the home as to have extra privacy provisions) of the defendants home with the purpose of gaining information.
Scalia rejected the argument that there was an “implicit license” for the officers to approach the home with the dog. He stated that custom allows a visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, and then leave. However, this does not allow a visitor to engage in investigative activity such as bringing a trained dog to sniff the porch. Therefore, the scope of this type of search is limited.
Justice Scalia distinguished this from Illinois v. Caballes, where it was held that the use of a drug dog during a traffic stop does not violate the motorist’s reasonable expectation of privacy because the dog cannot impinge on the reasonable expectation of privacy, it may constitute a physical intrusion.
Justice Kagan concurred, arguing that the case could also be decided for the defendant under the reasonable expectation of privacy theory, comparing the use of a drug dog to a situation in which “a stranger comes to the front door of your home carrying super-high-powered binoculars” and uses them to peer into the recesses of your dwelling, thereby exposing what is reasonably expected to be private.
However, Justice Alito dissented reasoning that visitors, welcome or not, have an implied “license to use a walkway to approach the front door of a house and to remain there for a brief time,” regardless of their purpose. He also rejected Kagan’s reasonable expectation of privacy theory.
Therefore, the justices that combined to form the ruling for this case shows something very interesting. This illustrates how split the justices can be when making a ruling on a Fourth Amendment issue. If you or a loved one has been involved in a search that you believe is arguable whether there was probable cause, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. For a consultation, visit us at our Baxter Village office located in Fort Mill, South Carolina, or call us at 803-548-4444, or toll-free at 877-374-5999.
Apr 3, 2013 | Car Accidents, Criminal Defense, Pedestrian Accidents, Uncategorized
A Rock Hill policeman has been hit by a car driven by fleeing felons last Tuesday evening in an attempt to capture the two shoplifters.
According to the reports, the officer was called onto the scene around 5:30 Tuesday evening, where there was a report of two young women trying to steal clothing from the local Kohl’s on Meeting Boulevard.
When the policeman arrived, he was met by the store’s loss prevention manager, who restated the following in regards to the event: ” while watching them on camera, the Kohl’s employee noticed that the two women carried in large, yet empty purses.
The employee continued to watch the 20 and 21 year old women as they loaded their arms up with clothing and took it into the dressing rooms, the report states.
Curious and suspicious of this activity, the Kohl’s employee walked into the adjacent dressing room to investigate. She stated that she heard the two women ripping the price tags off as they were both frantically shoving differnet items into their purses.
The ladies waited about 10 minutes, then walked out of the dressing roomswith their purses filled to the brim. The employee contacted the loss prevention manager, who then went into the dressing room to investigate for herself. There she found price tags on the floor and a room full of empty hangers.
It was at that point the manager made the decision to contact the police officer. The officer was nearby and arrived on the scene before the women had a chance to escape. He walked out of the store, identified himself, and asked the women to stop. They refused and jumped into 2009 Toyota Corolla in an attempt to make off with the stolen merchandise.
The officer then approached the driver’s side door and ordered the driver and her passenger to exit the vehicle. Meanwhile, he was holding onto the door handle, the report states. This physical contact did not hault the driver one bit, and she began to driver away with the officer still holding onto the door handle. In fact, his grasp was so tight that the handle broke off of the vehicle as the friction caused the officer to spin around to where the back of the women’s car struck the officer.
The driver drove through the parking lot with total disregard for safety of other drivers and pedestrains alike. The officer did suffer minor injuries, but has since been released and in fine to continue his duty on the workforce.
The two women were discovered at the Stone Haven Pointe apartment complex when the police found their vehicle parked at the complex. The women were subsequently arrested.
The driver has since been charged with shoplifting, failure to identify [herself] and reckless driving. The co-conspirator/passenger was charged with shoplifting and failure to identify.
Luckily, the officer’s injuires were considered minor, and the stolen merchandise has been returned to the Kohl’s it was taken from.
Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are accidental. In the event you, or someone you know is being charged with a crime, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to speak to an expirenced criminal defense attorney today. With our former prosecutor, J. Tyler Burns on your side, he will use his knowledge and skill learned from the other side to diligently argue your case for you. We can be reached at 803-548-4444 or toll-free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 24, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
Hypothetical: Crazy Larry lives in Bates Residence Hall at the University of South Carolina in Lancaster. He is 19 years old and has lived in that single room for two years. On one particular night, the residence hall adviser, Norman, is walking by Larry’s room and catches a whiff of a strong odor that he believes to be marijuana. Pursuant to university regulations, Norman knocked on the door and then used his master key to enter Crazy Larry’s room. Upon entering the room, Norman left the door wide open and observed Johnny smoking away at a marijuana cigarette.
Campus Policeman Wiggum happened to be walking down the hall to respond to a noise complaint a few seconds after Norman opened Larry’s door. As he passed the dorm room, he is hit with a whiff of marijuana while also observing smoke pouring out of the room. He enters the room, and observes Larry with the “joint” in his hand. Norman tells the officer that he was getting ready to call the police at that moment.
While taking Larry into custody, Officer Wiggum notices a laptop computer, which is closed, sitting on Larry’s desk. The officer can see that the laptop has a label on it that says “property of Ashton Acres.” Officer Wiggum remembers reading a report at the police station the day before in which Ashton Acres had reported her laptop as being stolen. Officer Wiggum then seizes the laptop as well as the joint and arrests Larry.
- Was the original entry by Norman, the resident adviser, lawful?
Yes, the entry by Norman was most likely lawful. The issue is whether a university residence advisor can enter into a dormitory room without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and seizures by government agents. This usually means that searches by government agents must be pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause to believe that seizable evidence can be found at the place searched. Before reaching the meat of the Fourth Amendment claim, we must first decide whether there was a search by a government agent.
A search will be found only when a government agent intrudes into an area in which the complainant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The US Supreme Court has held that the owner of a home has a protectable privacy interest, and so does an overnight guest in a home. Surely a student living in a dorm room would have no less expectation of privacy. Thus Larry will probably be found to have a protectable privacy interest in a dorm room.
A court would also likely find that Norman, the RA, is a government agent because he works for a public university, which is part of the government. Further, his goal here was to investigate the smell coming from Crazy Larry’s room that he thought was marijuana. While smoking marijuana might violate school rules, it is also a criminal offense. Thus, Norman was a government agent investigating possible criminal conduct. As such, he probably needed a warrant to enter the room.
Norman had no warrant, and no exception to the warrant requirement would seem to apply here. Perhaps the closest is the exception for the exercise of the police community caretaker function which allows police to enter onto premises without a warrant when they believe that someone is in physical danger. However, there was no reason for Norman to believe that Larry was in physical danger merely because he smelled marijuana.
The only other possible exception is consent. A warrant is not needed when there is valid consent. Consent must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Whether consent is voluntary when it is a condition to getting a dorm room is questionable. In any case, we do not have facts to support this argument. Therefore, absent more facts, we must assume that the warrantless entry was a violation of Larry’s Fourth Amendment Rights.
- Was the seizure of the marijuana cigarette by Officer Wiggum lawful?
No, the seizure by the officer was unlawful.
As discussed above, generally, a warrant is required to enter a private room unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. The state will probably argue that Officer Wiggum could enter the room because he had probable cause based on the smell in the hall and the smoke pouring out of the room, or because he had consent to enter based on the door being open. However, there is no exception to the warrant requirement merely because the police have probable cause to believe that criminal activity is being conducted on the premises. Moreover, while it might be argued that having the door open was an invitation to enter, here the door was open only because the RA had opened it (unlawfully). The police would not be allowed to take advantage of another government agent’s unlawful activity. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence derived from an unlawful search must be suppressed.
- Was the seizure of the laptop lawful?
No, the seizure of the laptop was unlawful.
The seizure of the laptop was unlawful. Again, the question turns on the lawfulness of the entry. If Officer Wiggum had been in the room lawfully, the plain view exception would apply. When an officer is in a place in which he is privileged to be, and he inadvertently discovers evidence in plain view, he may seize the evidence. Here, Officer Wiggum was not legitimately in the room. If he had been, the other requirements for the plain view exception would apply. During the arrest of Larry, the officer observed the laptop on the desk. It had a label attached to it that read: “property of Ashton Acres,” and the officer had earlier viewed a police report that informed him that Ashton Acres had reported her laptop stolen. Given this prior knowledge regarding the theft of Acre’s laptop, the officer immediately suspected that the laptop that sat on Johnny’s desk was evidence of a crime. As a result, had he legitimately been in the room, he would have been justified in seizing the laptop as evidence of a crime.
It is easy to see that if a crime has been committed, there are various ways to navigate through the legal system. Here, after the initial entry, Larry was able to get off the hook for most of the charges. It is so important that when an officer is exercising a search, he is doing so in accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. If you or a loved one has been involved in a search of your home or automobile by a government agent, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP for a consultation. You can reach our Baxter Village office located in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll-free at 877-374-5999. Don’t stand idly by as your rights are abused. Ensure that you and your house is protected from government intrusion.
