Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a state law which requires individuals convicted of falsely imprisoning or kidnapping a minor to register as a sex offender. The law has been widely criticized by many including Georgia sheriffs who say that the law takes resources away from monitoring the true sex offenders.

The appeal was brought by Jake Rainer, a Gwinnett County man, who was convicted of robbing a 17 year old girl during a drug sale. Rainer held the girl in his vehicle for a brief period of time before dropping her off. He ended up pleading guilty to robbery and false imprisonment, and as a result, had to register as a sex offender. His attorneys appealed the registration arguing that registration for a non-sex offense is cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court disagreed saying that registration is merely a “regulatory” provision and therefore not punishment. WABE legal analyst Page Pate told WABE listeners that he believes the Court got it wrong. Pate explained that, “not only do you have to notify the local sheriff of where you live and what you’re doing, but it also creates restrictions: where you can live, where you can work, with whom you can associate. So it is very much a type of punishment that is in addition to whatever sentence a person may receive.”

The registration law has drawn fire from both civil liberty groups as well as law enforcement. Sheriffs around the state have complained that there are too many registered sex offenders who never committed a sex crime. The result is that the sheriffs do not have the resources to adequately monitor offenders convicted of serious sex crimes.

Opponents must now rely on the Georgia legislature if the law is to be amended. However, as Pate told WABE, it is almost always politically unpopular to weaken criminal laws even with the support of law enforcement.

A three month child pornography investigation has resulted in 67 arrests in 35 Georgia counties. The statewide investigation involved federal, state and local law enforcement and targeted the online distribution of child porn.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The investigation, known as Operation Restore Hope, was spearheaded by the GBI’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Authorities initiated the investigation in an effort to suppress the online sharing of child porn and to protect children from online predators.

Authorities in the 35 Georgia counties obtained search warrants on January 12. Since then, police have confiscated over 300 computers in addition to the 67 arrests.

Atlanta trial attorney Page Pate of Pate & Brody recently commented in USA Today on the potential charges that Ben Roethlisberger may be facing. Roethlisberger allegedly assaulted a 20-year-old college student at a Milledgeville night club on March 5.

The USA Today article provides an update on the investigation.

Pate told USA Today that any charges will depend on the details that the alleged victim gave to police. Under Georgia law, a sexual assault can be charged in a variety of different ways depending on the nature of the conduct. For instance, sexual battery, a misdemeanor, occurs when a person intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without consent. Such conduct may consist of grabbing a breast or a private area. On the other hand, the crime of rape is a felony and carries a minimum of 25 years imprisonment.

According to Pate, defendants who are convicted or plead guilty to sexual battery often receive a 60 day jail sentence along with probation for the balance of a year. Roethlisberger’s attorney, Ed Garland, maintains that his client is innocent of any crimes and that the police investigation should conclude without any charges being filed.

A Pittsburgh television station recently reported that Roethlisberger told Milledgeville police that he did have contact with the alleged victim but that he never had sex with her. However, the details of any official police investigation are still unknown.

On Thursday, an Atlanta Municipal Court judge found that three men charged in the Atlanta Eagle case were not guilty. The men were accused of dancing naked without the necessary permits and with operating an adult establishment.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The Atlanta Eagle, an Atlanta bar on Ponce de Leon, was raided by Atlanta Police on September 10, 2009. Police conducted the raid after undercover officers claimed to have seen drug activities and sex acts inside the bar. However, the raid did not result in any arrests or charges relating to drug possession or sex acts. Instead, eight individuals were arrested for not having a business license and for providing adult entertainment without a permit.

Atlanta Municipal Court Judge Crystal Gaines found three of the eight men not guilty. Upon the judge’s ruling, prosecutors agreed to dismiss charges against the remaining five. The attorney for the defense, Alan Begner, produced eight witnesses who told the judge that no nude dancing took place on the night of the raid.

Since the raid, patrons and staff have filed a federal lawsuit against the Atlanta City Police Department. The suit alleges that officers violated constitutional rights by searching the patrons and staff without cause. Patrons who were present during the raid report that officers forced some people to lie on the ground for an hour or more while shouting gay slurs at them.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently upheld a trial court’s suppression of drugs found in a South Georgia home. The Court found that much of the information provided in the search warrant’s supporting affidavit was false, and as a result, there was not probable cause to believe that the home contained drugs.

In State v. Willis, the defendant, Willis, was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In May of 2008, the South Georgia Drug Task Force received information from a confidential informant that a man by the name of Bell possessed a large amount of drugs. Agents tracked Bell in a car being driven by Willis. When the car stopped at a convenient store, an agent approached the car and saw a bag of marijuana and a bag of cocaine in the vehicle. Both men were then arrested. One agent later testified that Bell told him during an interview that the drugs came from Wills’ home and that Willis also had scales, baggies and possibly a large amount of money in his home. Bell also allegedly told the agent that Willis had handed him the drugs to hide when the agent approached Willis’ vehicle. A different agent also claimed that he saw the two near Willis’ home prior their arrests. It was also discovered that Willis had been convicted of possessing marijuana in the past.

Based on Bell’s alleged statements and the fact that agents saw the two near Willis’ home, agents prepared an affidavit in support of a search warrant to search Willis’ home. Part of the affidavit claimed that Bell’s statements were against his own penal interests. A magistrate signed the warrant and a search revealed large amounts of marijuana and cocaine in Willis’ home. At the hearing for the motion to suppress, it was revealed that the agent who interviewed Bell didn’t understand the concept of “against penal interest.” It was also revealed that only one interview of Bell was conducted, and that it was recorded on tape. On the tape, Bell never stated that Wills handed him drugs to hide or that Willis’ home contained drugs, scales, baggies or currency. As a result, the trial court suppressed the drugs found in Willis’ home.

The appellate court upheld the suppression finding that there was no probable cause to support the search warrant. Probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Without the alleged statements by Bell, the Court found that nothing linked drugs to Willis’ home other than the fact that the two were seen near Willis’ residence. The Court determined that such a fact does not establish probable cause that Willis’ home contained drugs.

Our criminal defense lawyers have won numerous drug cases involving the illegal search of a client’s home. In our experience, there is almost always an issue as to whether a search was lawfully conducted any time police discover drugs or contraband. To show that officers had no grounds to search a home, a good criminal defense lawyer will examine any search warrants and affidavits for possible defects or discrepancies as well as any police investigations that may have led to the warrant being issued. In many case, a judge will be forced to suppress any evidence that was illegally obtained.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the convictions of two men who were found guilty of murdering a DeKalb man at his home recording studio. The DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office must now decide whether it will retry the men.

WABE News and the Atlanta Journal Constitution have the story.

Prosecutors say that Steven Manley and Robert Allen planned to rob the home of Emmett Whatley in February of 2007, because they knew he stored large sum of cash there. However, the state claims that their robbery plans went askew when Whatley was shot and killed in his front yard. After a jury trial, Allen and Manley were convicted and received life sentences for Whatley’s death.

Allen and Manley’s criminal defense attorney won a reversal of the murder convictions on appeal, since the trial judge failed to allow defense attorneys to fully cross-examine state witnesses. WABE legal analyst Page Pate told WABE listeners that, “The Supreme Court is trying to send a message to trial judges in this state that you need to let defense attorneys probe about special deals.” Specifically, Pate explained, “Any sort of benefit that may accrue to the witness by testifying for the state needs to be explored at trial.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that a statement given by Manley should have been suppressed, since the statement came after Manley had asked for an attorney. In the statement, Manley admitted to being in Whatley’s neighborhood on the night of the murder.

Atlanta police are investigating a sexting incident involving students at The Lovett School. One eighth grade student has already been suspended and another has withdrawn.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The Child Exploitation Unit of the Atlanta Police Department has launched an investigation into the matter after learning that more Lovett School students may have sent or received inappropriate photos. Police have not yet said whether charges will be filed against those involved.

The term “sexting” most commonly refers to the sending and receiving of sexual images via cell phone. When the picture is of a person under the age of 18, the sender and receiver can be charged with a felony. This is true even when the photo in question is of the person sending the text message.

Individuals arrested for sexting are commonly charged with the crime of sexual exploitation of a child. If convicted, a person aged 17 years or older could face between five and 20 years in prison and would be forced to register as a sex offender. Those under 17 could also face tough penalties.

In cases where the underage person made the image, or was the person transmitting or receiving it, there may be constitutional protections that apply. This is a new area of law and our firm is working hard to make sure that kids are not prosecuted under unduly harsh sex offender laws for communications that occur exclusively between minors. There is a big difference between a 40 year old sexual predator who molests young children, and a teenage girl sending naked pictures of herself to her boyfriend.

Athens-Clarke County police claim that fake reports of crime are reaching epidemic levels. In response, authorities have announced that they will begin prosecuting anyone they believe to have invented a crime.

The Athens Banner-Herald has the story.

In one recent case, a UGA law student told police that she had been mugged on College Station Road after walking home from work one night. Police say that the story was false and that the student was only trying to gain sympathy from her husband. Several other high profile cases have also turned out to be nothing more than made-up stories.

The crackdown on false reporting is due largely to the fact that police claim to spend a great deal of resources investigating fake crimes. This includes interviewing witnesses, interrogating suspects and collecting evidence. Authorities are also worried that the fake crimes will give Athens an inflated crime rate and make some parts of the city appear to be more crime ridden than they actually are.

Under Georgia law, the false reporting of a crime is a misdemeanor and is punishable by one year in jail. Prosecutors in Athens have pledged to make sure that offenders actually serve jail time if they are convicted of the offense.

Unfortunately, false reports of crimes do happen. Many times, it will take an experienced defense lawyer to investigate the charges and convince the prosecutor that the alleged "victim" simply made the whole thing up. In many cases, a false arrest can lead to the loss of a job, the expense of significant attorney's fees, public humiliation, and possible jail time.

We hope that the police in Athens, and elsewhere in Georgia, remain diligent for false reports of crimes. If they do a thorough job of investigating these claims, some wrongful arrests could be avoided.