contact us

Call us at 512-917-4378.

If you prefer, email chris@chrisperrilaw.com or use the contact form to the right. Consultations are free with no obligation. We look forward to providing you with the hard-working legal service you deserve.

1504 West Ave
Austin, TX 78701

512-917-4378

hris Perri Law is a criminal defense law firm located in Austin, Texas.

rs_Blog.jpg

Chris' Blog

The blog of Chris Perri Law, written by Chris Perri and Shannon Perri. Read the latest in exciting cases where justice is served.

Filtering by Category: Supreme Court

Suppression Victories Preserve Our Constitutional Rights

Chris Perri

Chris Perri Law is proud to share that we’ve won three suppression hearings so far this year.

For those who may not know, a suppression hearing is held when a defendant believes that evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right. If the court agrees with the defendant, then the evidence is “suppressed,” which bars the prosecution from using this evidence at trial.

For example, in our recent blog post, we discussed a Supreme Court case where officers seized drugs from a vehicle following a positive canine alert during a traffic stop. This issue was litigated at a suppression hearing, where the defendant won the argument that the police officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

In many cases, winning a suppression hearing directly leads to the prosecutor dismissing the case due to insufficient evidence. As a result, the public often misunderstands suppression as a legal loophole that allows criminals to avoid accountability for their actions. Chris Perri doesn’t see it that simply.

 “Suppression hearings are my favorite part of practicing law,” Perri says. “The fact that my clients were caught with incriminating evidence isn’t the whole issue. Instead, we’re focusing on whether the police followed the rules. And these aren’t just any rules – these are the foundational principles that glue our country together. If judges allowed evidence to be introduced at trials despite being illegally obtained, then what’s the point of the Constitution? It’s the real possibility of suppression that keeps the police in line when they investigate illegal activity. It’s a part of our system’s checks and balances of power.“

Chris Perri Law Suppression Win #1

Earlier this year a client faced felony cocaine distribution charges after a police officer entered his house without a warrant. According to the cop, who was at the defendant’s front door in order to investigate an anonymous tip, he witnessed our client flushing the cocaine down the toilet, and he entered in order to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence (an exception to the general requirement that a warrant be obtained prior to entering someone’s home). However, the blinds covering the windows were drawn, and the cop had to awkwardly peer up through a crack in them in order to observe the inside of the home. Chris Perri Law successfully argued that while Supreme Court precedent recognizes an implicit license for anyone to come to the front door to knock and briefly wait for an answer (example: Girl Scouts selling cookies), no one—not even a police officer—is invited to violate the homeowner’s right to privacy by bending down to peep through a crack in drawn blinds. In fact, if you saw someone on their knees under someone’s window, trying to peer in through the blinds, you’d probably call the cops. The reasonable Travis County district judge ordered that the evidence be suppressed.

Chris Perri Law Suppression Win #2

At our next suppression hearing, a client faced a DWI charge and sought to suppress the blood evidence that was obtained with a search warrant following his arrest. Because the blood analyst reported a BAC of nearly twice the legal limit, combating this evidence was critical to our case. Our goal was to demonstrate that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest our client (a Fourth Amendment violation), so any evidence derived from an unlawful arrest is subject to suppression. By cross-examining the officer with the video of the stop and presenting evidence that undermined the officer’s credibility, Chris Perri Law convinced the court to suppress the blood results. Subsequently, the prosecution dismissed the charge due to insufficient evidence.

Chris Perri Law Suppression Win #3

Finally, in a pending felony case, Chris Perri Law suppressed key evidence a police officer obtained before reading the client his Miranda rights. Details will have to wait for a future blog post so that we do not compromise the resolution of this case.

Chris Perri Law is proud to practice criminal defense in Travis County, where constitutional principles reign supreme. If you or someone you know has a potential suppression issue, along with any other criminal defense matter, contact us today at (512)917-4378.

Recent Supreme Court Decision Protects 4th Amendment Rights During Traffic Stops

Chris Perri

Last week, in Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified that police officers may not prolong a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff on a vehicle, unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupants are engaged in criminal activity.

In this case, the defendant was pulled over in Nebraska for illegally driving on the shoulder of the highway. About 20 minutes later, the police officer issued a warning ticket for the traffic infraction. However, the defendant was not yet “free to leave.” The police officer instructed the defendant to exit his vehicle and stand in front of the patrol car while they waited for another police unit to arrive. About seven more minutes elapsed before the arrival of the backup unit. At this point, the officer led a drug-detecting dog around the defendant’s vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and a subsequent search of the defendant’s vehicle revealed a large quantity of methamphetamine. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to five years in federal prison.

On appeal, the Government argued that waiting a mere seven minutes for the drug dog to sniff the outside of defendant’s vehicle constituted a de minimus (minimal) intrusion on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, meaning that the intrusion was so minor that it was constitutionally permissible. Fortunately, our Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Court noted that certain intrusions, such as asking a person to step outside the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop, are “negligibly burdensome precautions” that allow an officer to complete the traffic stop “mission” safely. “On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that mission,” wrote Justice Ginsburg, who authored the majority opinion.

An officer may not prolong a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff unless facts are developed during the traffic stop that support reasonable suspicion of drug activity. For example, if an officer smells drugs during the stop or notes a contradiction between the driver’s and passenger’s statements regarding their travel itinerary, the officer might have reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop in order to investigate drug activity. However, an officer can’t conduct a dog sniff on a car based on a mere hunch that’s not supported by actual observations of suspicious activity.

Even if the officer had conducted the dog sniff prior to issuing the warning ticket, the result would be the same: “The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’ – i.e., adds time to – ‘the stop.’”

This recent case enhances Chris Perri Law’s arsenal for attacking unlawful searches at suppression hearings. We’ve begun 2015 with three victories on suppression issues, and we’ll continue to fight to protect our clients’ constitutional rights.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Gives Cops Even More Leeway, But Chris Perri Law Will Strike Back

Chris Perri

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued a surprising opinion that’s created waves of concern in the criminal defense circle. In Heien v. North Carolina, a North Carolina police officer noticed that one of the brake lights on the defendant’s vehicle was not working, so the officer pulled the defendant over believing that having a broken brake light was a violation of North Carolina law. A subsequent search of the defendant’s vehicle revealed cocaine, resulting in his arrest. The defendant attempted to suppress the evidence on the basis that he didn’t commit a traffic violation. The North Carolina courts reviewed the relevant traffic statute, and they determined that as long as one brake light is working, no crime has occurred.

Since the defendant didn’t commit a traffic violation, the stop was illegal, and the evidence of the cocaine should be suppressed. Seems simple, right? According to an 8-1 majority of the Supreme Court, that doesn’t end the inquiry, as courts must examine whether the officer’s mistaken belief about the law was reasonable. Here, the North Carolina law was somewhat ambiguous because another statute mandated that all “rear lamps” be functioning, and it’s not unreasonable to interpret a brake light as a type of rear lamp. Thus, even though the officer’s interpretation of the law was incorrect, this interpretation was reasonable at the time of the stop.

The Supreme Court’s analysis is problematic. Aren’t police officers supposed to know the law? And if they don’t know the law, how can anyone deem this lack of knowledge reasonable when the officers are trained experts on what’s illegal? If a medical doctor performing an appendectomy mistakenly removes your spleen instead of your appendix, we call that malpractice, and there’s no wiggle room for the doctor to argue that the mistake was reasonable. Apparently, cops get much more leeway.

Many defense attorneys are concerned that Heien might be a slippery slope. Will prosecutors now defend all unlawful stops on the basis that the officer’s mistaken belief about the law was reasonable at the time of the stop?

I say bring it on. I plan to argue that Heien applies to only a tiny set of scenarios: those in which the law is ambiguous and there’s no case precedent that clarifies this ambiguity. In Texas, most of the traffic laws are pretty clear cut. For example, it’s not a crime to swerve within your own lane as long as your car doesn’t cross into another lane. If an officer stops someone for swerving but the defense proves that the car never crossed into another lane, the prosecution won’t be able to argue that the officer reasonably believed that swerving within one’s own lane is against the law. That’s because, unlike the North Carolina law at issue in Heien, there’s no ambiguity in the law in my hypothetical example.

Still, I anticipate that prosecutors will attempt to use Heien as a tool to validate otherwise unlawful stops. As a result, it’s important to retain an experienced, knowledgeable defense attorney to persuade the courts that Heien doesn’t apply.

Court of Appeals Grants Chris Perri Law Oral Argument on Felony Case

Chris Perri

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has granted me the opportunity to present formal Oral Arguments on a felony DWI case in which my client was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. At trial, during which I was not yet his lawyer, the main evidence of my client’s intoxication came from a warrantless blood draw, revealing that his BAC was over the legal limit. Just a few months after my client’s trial, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for an individual’s blood to be drawn during a DWI arrest without a warrant—even if it was the individual’s third DWI. At the time of my client’s arrest, however, Texas law allowed the police to draw a person’s blood without a warrant if that person had two or more prior DWI convictions. However, due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s ruling occurred while my client’s case was pending appeal, I’m arguing that this ruling should apply to his case so that his conviction is overturned and he can be retried without the tainted evidence. The interesting issue on appeal is that because the trial attorneys did not object to the admission of the blood evidence, no error was preserved. Usually, objections are necessary to present an appellate issue because appellate courts require that the trial judge had an opportunity to make a ruling. I plan to fiercely argue that even though the error was not preserved, it represents such a fundamental miscarriage of justice that the appellate court should still reverse the conviction. 

Chris Perri Argues to the 5th Circuit why Colton Pitonyak Deserves a New Trial

Chris Perri

Last Tuesday, August 27th 2013, Chris Perri argued to a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on why his client Colton Pitonyak deserves a new trial. This notorious case has received expansive media attention, and for good reason.

For the past four years, Chris Perri fought for the case to be reexamined due to an alleged Brady violation. For further background on the case, please view one of our older, informative blog posts here.

Intrigue and mystery have laced this case from the inception. Many have speculated who actually murdered and mutilated Jennifer Cave’s body. Though Colton Pitonyak was convicted of her murder, evidence withheld by the prosecution team points to Laura Hall as the actual killer.

Capturing the attention of the 5th Circuit, Chris stated that while in the Travis County Jail, Laura Hall confessed to two other inmates that she committed the murder. These inmates then told a counselor, who recorded the information in Hall’s electronic jail file. Chris argued that had this information been made available to the defense, Pitonyak’s trial strategy would have been entirely different and most likely led to a not guilty verdict.

The learned judges grilled Chris about whether any prior Supreme Court case had established a duty on the part of a mental-health counselor to disclose such exculpatory evidence to the prosecution team (and, thus, ultimately the defense attorneys).  While conceding that there was no such case, Chris persuasively argued that based on the Supreme Court’s Kyles v. Whitley case, the actual prosecutors had a duty to search Hall’s jail file due to the reasonable foreseeability of exculpatory evidence within that file.  After all, the prosecutors knew that Hall was talking to other inmates, including a cell mate who ended up being the prosecution’s star witness at Hall’s trial on Tampering with Evidence.  By turning a blind eye to the contents of Hall’s jail file, the prosecutors committed a Brady violation. 

Furthermore, even if the prosecutors had been blocked from accessing medical information within Hall’s jail file, they had a duty to obtain a court order or subpoena because the right to a fair trial trumps medical privacy laws. The State’s attorney countered that a subpoena for this information had been quashed, but Chris pointed out that this argument was disingenuous because it was Pitonyak who filed the subpoena while investigating the Brady claim in 2009.  The State, with the prosecutors’ blessing, actually quashed the subpoena in order to hinder Pitonyak’s ability to develop the claim.

The 5th Circuit should issue a ruling in the next month or two, though they have no official deadline.

See below to read a few noteworthy news articles and videos with Chris Perri featured:

Articles: 

Austin Chronicle article

Statesman article

The Daily Texan article

Videos: 

KXAN video 

My Fox Austin video

Keye TV video (1)

Keye TV video (2) 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really have the right to remain silent?

Chris Perri

fifth.gif

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Salinas vs. Texas, Chris Perri Law fears that the high court has whittled away the right to remain silent.

In Salinas, the Court ruled that the prosecution can use your pre-arrest silence against you at trial, thus watering down the essence of the Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination. In Salinas’ case, prior to being arrested, he voluntarily provided the police with information regarding a murder. However, when authorities asked if Salinas’ gun would match the murder weapon, Salinas refused to answer, under the assumption that he was exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. However, at his trial, the prosecution used his choice to remain silent as damning evidence of his guilt.

The Supreme Court reviewed this ruling, and although it was a close call, the Court ruled that the conviction should be upheld, stating that if individuals want to invoke the Fifth Amendment’s protection, they “must claim it”.  Although the Fifth Amendment clearly states that no one can be forced to be a witness against him or herself in a criminal matter, the Court’s ruling means that the prosecution is free to use the defendant’s pre-arrest silence as evidence of guilt.

Chris Perri Law fears that in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination has been vastly diluted.  Basically, to claim the rights of this fundamental law, individuals must explicitly inform the authorities that they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence upon being questioned by law enforcement. Chris Perri worries that this requirement especially hurts less educated individuals, who may not be aware of this new ruling. “It creates a further class divide in our system,” Chris Perri says.

In order to maintain your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Chris Perri Law advises you to explicitly state that you’re invoking your Fifth Amendment right when the situation calls for it.  Otherwise, your silence could come back to bite you.