Tacoma Criminal Lawyer Blog
The state and federal constitutions generally protect people from unreasonable searches, which means, in part, that absent exigent circumstances the police must have a warrant to conduct a search of a person’s body or property. If a police officer seeks a warrant to search a property based on information from an informant, their request should only be granted if they demonstrate probable cause to believe that the items in question will be found on the property. Recently, a Washington court discussed what constitutes probable cause in a case in which the defendant appealed his unlawful possession of a firearm conviction. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is in your best interest to talk to a Tacoma weapons charge defense lawyer at Smith & White, PLLC as soon as possible.
History of the Case
It is alleged that the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of firearms and other offenses after police found weapons in his apartment during a search pursuant to a warrant. The police sought the warrant after receiving information from a confidential informant indicating that the defendant was selling illicit substances and had weapons in his possession, which was unlawful because he was a convicted felon. The case proceeded to trial, and the defendant was convicted on all counts. He appealed, arguing in part that the warrant was not supported by probable cause.
Probable Cause for Issuing Warrants
The Washington and United States Constitutions dictate that search warrants will be issued upon a finding of probable cause. The appellate court explained that probable cause is present when the affidavit in support of a warrant sets forth facts and circumstances that are adequate to establish a reasonable inference that the defendant is most likely engaged in criminal activity and that evidence of their unlawful behavior may be found at a specific location. Continue reading
Para la ley del estado de Washington, un acto de violencia doméstica incluye prácticamente cualquier delito que haya sido cometido por un familiar o miembro del hogar. P
Typically, witnesses for the state must testify in person, and if the state attempts to introduce a person’s out-of-court statements instead of offering them as a witness at trial, their statements may be precluded as hearsay. If the defendant engaged in certain wrongful acts that prevented the person from testifying, though, the court may find that the defendant forfeited the right to object to the submission of out-of-court statements. This issue arose in a recent Washington domestic violence case in which the court ultimately 
Thus, if a criminal defendant is subjected to undue delays during the pendency of their trial, they may be able to successfully advocate for dismissal of the charges against them, regardless of the strength of the prosecution’s case. Recently, a Washington court discussed the evidence a defendant must produce to demonstrate their speedy trial rights have been violated in a matter in which the defendant was 
Tener un cargo criminal por conducir en estado de ebriedad (DUI por sus siglas en inglés) es una cuestión seria. Un convicto por DUI puede perder su licencia, pasar tiempo en la cárcel y pagar una costosa multa. Sin embargo, una persona acusada de DUI puede evitar estas consecuencias si prueba en la corte que el examen químico que se le administró no fue válido. Una prueba química puede alterarse de muchas maneras, y si esto sucede, el acusado puede pedir que se le quiten sus cargos criminales. ¿Cómo determinan las autoridades si alguien está ebrio?
Under Washington law, people convicted of felonies typically lose their right to possess firearms. As such, if they are found with a weapon in their possession, they may be charged with criminal offenses. The State does not actually have to catch a person holding a gun to convict them of unlawfully possessing a weapon, though, as discussed in a recent 
In Washington criminal matters, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. Specifically, the State must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the charged offense. If it cannot, the defendant should be deemed not guilty. Recently, a 
A conviction for a DUI crime may result in significant criminal and civil penalties, including fines. The courts have the discretion to decide whether to impose some fines, while others are mandatory. Generally, mandatory fines may only be suspended in limited circumstances, and if the court suspends such penalties without conducting the required analysis, they may be reinstituted, as demonstrated in a recent 