If you feel that your rights have been violated by an unlawful vehicle search that has led to a criminal charge against you, it’s important that you obtain the services of an experienced Detroit criminal defense attorney. Drias Law Group, led by attorney Martin Drias, will review all options on your behalf and pursue the most effective defense possible in order to minimize, or, eliminate the charges and consequences you are facing.

Contact Drias Law Group today at (313) 944-0236 to schedule a free case evaluation.

Fourth Amendment Protection

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In general, a warrant issued by a magistrate judge and backed by probable cause are the requirements for lawful search and seizure. However, some exceptions to the warrant requirement exist. This is particularly true as it involves searches of automobiles. Therefore, the circumstances in which the question “can the police search my car” can be answered in the affirmative are discussed below.

Permissible Vehicle Searches Without a Warrant

Fourth Amendment protections are based on the concept of reasonableness. Not all police searches are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, only searches deemed unreasonable are. Two major considerations must be balanced by the courts in determining what defines a reasonable search: the degree to which a search infringes upon the rights of an individual, and the reason offered by the government official conducting the search.

A person’s reasonable expectation of privacy is an important concept pertaining to individual rights. Generally, protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment are effective to the degree to which the individual has a valid expectation of privacy in the particular place or item that was searched.

The Supreme Court has ruled that people have an interest of maintaining privacy in their own homes. For this reason, police are typically required to obtain a warrant in order to conduct a search in someone’s home. However, you may still ask, “can the police search my car?” Vehicles are treated differently than residential property under the law, as far as search and seizure are concerned. The Supreme Court has stated that warrants are often not required in order to search a car. In order to search a car, an officer only needs to have probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

A major reason that vehicles don’t possess a significant privacy interest like a home is that vehicles are highly mobile, making it difficult to access a warrant from the magistrate judge prior to conducting a search.

Probable Cause

The Automobile Exception

The police generally do not need to obtain a warrant in order to search a vehicle if they have probable cause for the search. This is often referred to as the motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The two factors that allow this exception under the law are: the reduced expectation of privacy inherent with an automobile, and the immediate mobility of the automobile. Probable cause works essentially the same way with an automobile as it does with obtaining a warrant for the search of the residence.

Probable cause is determined by the facts of a particular situation. There is no single rule that can cover every potential circumstance. However, police are required to have a reasonable basis upon which to believe incriminating evidence exists inside a vehicle before conducting a search. Probable cause can be obtained prior to a stop from particular information received, or after a stop through observations made while the suspect is detained.

Plain Sight

One of the most common foundations for an automobile search is the plain site exception. If a police officer approaches your vehicle and notices drugs, drug paraphernalia, or other evidence of a crime, they are permitted to search the vehicle. From there they can confiscate the drugs and use their findings as evidence against you. This is another instance in which the answer to the question “can the police search my car” is “yes.”

Consent to Search

If as the driver, you give permission to a police officer to conduct a search, the police officer has legal permission to do so. However, the consent must be offered voluntarily. The police are not permitted to coerce or threaten a driver into submitting to a search.

Marijuana Smell

Michigan has a marijuana exception search. This exception gives the police the authority to use probable cause in order to search a vehicle based on the smell of marijuana coming from the said car.

Incident to Arrest

When police arrest the driver or passenger in a vehicle, they may have authority to conduct a search of the car, however, an arrest by itself does not necessarily give the police unlimited authority to search the entire vehicle. The incident to arrest exception is only valid in order to ensure the safety of the officer connected with the person’s arrest.

An additional rule applies that restricts the areas of search to only those locations in which a vehicle could reasonably contain evidence. For example, if the police are searching for the possible presence of narcotics, then a search of the glove box would be reasonable.

Inventory Searches

When a traffic stop results in an arrest and no one is available to take control of the vehicle to drive it to a safe location, the police may move forward and have the vehicle towed to an impound lot. Generally, an impounded vehicle is legally available for the police to conduct an inventory search. However, the police are restricted by law regarding the purpose of this search. The search should only be done in order to:

• Protect police officers from possible dangers involving the contents of the vehicle
• Ensure the owner’s property is protected while the vehicle is in custody
• Ensure claims are not made for stolen, lost, or damaged items or property

If police come upon evidence of criminal activity during an inventory search, then that evidence may often be used in a court of law against the defendant.

Dog Sniff

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it is lawful to perform police dog sniffs during a lawful traffic stop. However, an officer failing to have reasonable suspicion is not permitted to prolong a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. A stop may only occur for reasonable length as is necessary to complete the purpose of the stop. Any violation of this restriction is a violation of the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

In other words, the answer to the question, “can the police search my car by prolonging the mission of the stop” is “no.” Police must send you on your way immediately after they conduct the purpose of the stop, which may involve checking the driver’s license, proof of insurance and registration, possibly running a warrant check, and if necessary – issuing a ticket.

Contact an Experienced Michigan Search and Seizure Attorney

If you’ve been charged with a crime in Michigan after a vehicle stop you believe involved an illegal search or seizure, attorney Martin Drias of the Drias Law Group is here to help you. With extensive experience on both sides of the justice system – both as a prosecutor and defense attorney – he understands what you’re facing and can help you understand your options.

Contact Drias Law Group today at (313) 944-0236 to set up a free, no-obligation consultation.

The post When Can the Police Search My Car? appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

The landmark decision concerned a case involving a federal agent seizing evidence without a warrant or other constitutional authority that would be used in the prosecution of a defendant who was ultimately convicted based on that evidence. The defendant appealed the case to the Supreme Court and won the appeal. More than four decades later in 1961, the Supreme Court determined that the exclusionary rule is applicable to the states.

If you are in the midst of a legal issue involving a questionable search and seizure of your own person or property, it’s important for you to have intelligent legal representation to secure your rights. Don’t leave yourself without the valuable advocacy that is skilled Detroit criminal defense lawyer from our team at Drias Law Group can provide.

Call us today at (313) 944-0236 or contact through our online form to schedule a free, case evaluation.

The Exclusionary Rule Used by Courts

The courts in the United States utilize the exclusionary rule of searches and seizures to prevent law enforcement officers and other agents of the government from violating the constitutional rights of individuals. This rule calls for the suppression of evidence that the government secures through conduct that is unconstitutional – specifically, and very often an unlawful search or seizure. This means in most cases the evidence captured through these means will not be admissible in a defendant’s potential trial. With such evidence suppressed by a judge, many times the prosecution has little alternative other than to drop the charges against the defendant.

This rule is applicable to evidence that is directly secured as a result of a constitutional violation. As well, it has application when the violation in question leads the police or investigator to other incriminating evidence.Therefore, an illegal search can nullify the use of any and all evidence recovered as a result of the search even if a portion of the evidence was seized in a lawful manner.

Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendants can use the rule to challenge evidence admissibility by filing a pretrial motion for suppression of the evidence. If the case does go to trial due to a denial of the pretrial motion for suppression, and the defendant is found guilty, the defendant can challenge on appeal the appropriateness of the court’s decision to suppress. If the appeal is successful, the Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy principles do not prevent a retrial of the case against the defendant – the reason is that the error of the court did not directly address the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

As a complement to the exclusionary rule of searches and seizures, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine enables a court to exclude not only the evidence that was seized during an unlawful search, but also other evidence eventually obtained through the illegal search. For example, if a password was obtained illegally and is then excluded from the case, then any information obtained through the use of that password is the fruit of the poisonous tree and must also be excluded as evidence from the case.

Exceptions to Inadmissibility of Evidence

There are certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule in order to balance the need for justice to be served in certain situations that require such exceptions. They are as follows:

• Good Faith Exception – This allows evidence obtained by officers who uses search warrant they believe is valid.
• Independent Source Doctrine – This allows evidence obtained in an illegal manner if the same evidence was legally obtained later by an independent party.
• Attenuation Doctrine – This allows evidence illegally obtained if the connection between the illegal method of obtaining the evidence and the evidence itself is significantly remote.
• Inevitable Discovery – This allows evidence obtained improperly when it is obviously apparent the evidence would have otherwise been discovered in a legal manner.

Contact a Skilled Detroit Criminal Defense Lawyer

Have the police asked to perform a search of your home or vehicle? Or, do you feel you have been wrongly searched? Regardless of your current search and seizure issue, our team at Drias Law Group understands how to fight to protect your rights with effective and vigorous legal representation.

Set up a free consultation with a Detroit criminal defense attorney from our team. Call us today at (313) 944-0236.

The post What is the Exclusionary Rule of Searches and Seizures? appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

If you’re facing a criminal charge, or you suspect you may be charged with a crime soon, our defense attorneys at Drias Law Group can help. We are able to provide you with intelligent and aggressive representation to defend your constitutional rights and fight for your freedom.

Call us today at (313) 944-0236, or use our contact form to schedule a free consultation.

What You Must Tell the Police

Prior to your arrest, you will likely be asked several questions by the police. You don’t have to answer any questions regarding a potential crime. Additionally, you do no thave to consent to a search if asked. However, you do have to give the police basic information, such as:

• Your photo identification
• Your car registration and proof of insurance, if you were driving

All other information may be withheld until you speak with an attorney. Ask for an attorney if the police ask you anything about a crime in which you may be involved.

What the Police Must Inform You of After Your Arrest

The police are not required to inform you of your rights until after your arrest – and even then they only need to do so if they intend to question you. At the time of your arrest, whether it was done with or without a warrant, the police are required to inform you as to the reason for your arrest. Upon your arrest, the police are to inform you of your constitutional rights, i.e. Miranda rights. As well, you are to be taken promptly to the police station.

Before the police question you, they should inform you that:

• The offense for which you are being arrested
• You have no obligation to say anything
• Anything you say may be used against you
• You have a right to speak to a lawyer, and that a lawyer will be provided to you if you cannot afford one
• You won’t be questioned unless you wish to be
• You may speak to an attorney before being questioned
• You may have a lawyer present with you during any questioning by law enforcement
• You may consult with a lawyer at any time during questioning by law enforcement
• You may stop the questioning by law enforcement at any time, and it will stop

You may be given a form that explains your rights and asked to sign it. By signing the form, you will be acknowledging that your rights have been explained to you and you understand them. If you are promised something in return for signing a document, or if you are forced or threatened into signing anything, inform your Detroit criminal defense lawyer immediately.

Questioning by the Police After Your Arrest

After your arrest, you have a right to remain silent. This is a very important Constitutional right for which you may not be punished in any way for exercising. You can waive, or give up, this right. However, before you say anything or sign any piece of paper, you should know what you are doing and what right you are relinquishing, if any. You may speak with your Detroit criminal defense lawyer before making any decision.

If you do answer any question posed to you by law enforcement, you are free to stop answering any time and free to refuse to answer any additional questions.

If you attempt to cooperate with the police by answering their questions after your arrest and while in custody, you can potentially create problems for your lawyer in defending you properly.

Know your Miranda rights, and always ask to speak with a lawyer first.

Contact an Experienced Detroit Criminal Defense Lawyer

A criminal charge is serious, but a criminal conviction can have potential long-lasting consequences for your life. If you’re facing a criminal charge right now, get the experienced representation you need through our team at Drias Law Group. We can build a defense on your behalf that is designed to fight for your rights and freedom.

Contact us today at (313) 944-0236 to set up a free case evaluation.

The post What Should I Say to the Police If I’m Arrested? appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

Attorney Martin Drias is a Detroit criminal defense lawyer with years of experience helping clients. He knows the complexities of Michigan’s statute of limitations for criminal charges and can help you navigate the intricacies of your case, so call (313) 944-0236 for a free and confidential consultation.

The Statute of Limitations for Criminal Charges in Michigan

Section 767.24 of Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL 767.24) defines the time limit by which a prosecutor must bring criminal charges against you. While there is no time limit for charges of murder, conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder, first-degree sexual criminal conduct, and crimes involving bombs, explosives, and acts of terrorism, MCL 767.24 is very specific about when you can be pressed with other charges. For example, charges related to:

• Child sexual abuse, criminal sexual conduct (second-, third-, and fourth-degree), and assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct must be filed either within 10 years of the offense or by the alleged victim’s 21st birthday, whichever is later.
• Kidnapping, extortion, assault with the intent to commit murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and first-degree home invasion must be filed within 10 years of the offense.
• Identity theft or attempted identity theft must be filed within either six years of the offense or six years within determining the individual who committed it.
• False pretenses concerning real property, forgery, or uttering and publishing of an instrument that affects an interest in real property or mortgage fraud must be filed either within 10 years of the offense or within 10 years after the instrument affecting the real property was recorded, whichever comes later.

It is also important to note that any offense that involves DNA, e.g., child sexual abuse and acts of criminal sexual conduct, do not carry a statute of limitations if the accused is unidentified. If the accused is ultimately identified, then the statute of limitations for filing a criminal charge is 10 years.

All other charges must be brought within six years of the offense. Furthermore, the countdown to the expiry of time within which charges must be filed for any crime does not include any period during which the offender resided out of state. Leaving Michigan simply extends the time during which charges may be filed.

Contact Drias Law Group for Help

You need the right lawyer when your future is on the line because of criminal charges. Even if you think the past is the past, the law may allow what you consider ancient history to be brought against you in a court of law. This is why you need a criminal defense attorney who understands the Michigan criminal court process. Drias Law Group can help when you, so contact us at (313) 944-0236to schedule a free consultation.

The post Is There a Statute of Limitations for Criminal Charges? appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian or Alaska native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Both the ACLU and the Michigan State Police agree that this new policy will help ensure that people of color and minorities are not unfairly targeted by the enforcement of traffic laws. In light of the recent epidemic of police shootings, which often result from traffic stops involving people of color, this policy shift is an essential move towards more equitable policing.

The Michigan American Civil Liberties Union Takes a Stand on Racial Profiling

This August, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan sent a letter to the Michigan State Police outlining two related concerns about the law enforcement agency’s practices:

• Individual Michigan State Troopers are expected to make a minimum number of traffic stops each month, which is equivalent to 70 percent of the average traffic stops made by troopers from the same post. This may give troopers an incentive to make unjustified traffic stops when they’re falling behind their quota.
• Owing to the perception that people of color are less likely to challenge the arresting officer when they get pulled over for no reason, Michigan troopers are more likely to pull over minorities. Essentially, state troopers are pushed to racially profile drivers when seeking to raise their traffic stop numbers.

To avoid the issue of Michigan State Police officers pulling over people of color just to be able to meet their traffic stops quotas, the ACLU suggested that the agency do a better job of recording the race of subjects. That way, supervisors could spot patterns of improper traffic stops that target people of color, and put in place policies for addressing these patterns.

In response to the ACLU’s concerns, the Michigan State Police changed its policies. Troopers who previously recorded race in only 68 percent of Michigan traffic stops will now be required to do so in all cases. The Michigan State Police also stressed that their troopers are not held to strict traffic stop quotas. Instead, there is a comparison of an individual trooper’s number of traffic stops with that of their colleagues. This is only one metric among many by which performance is assessed.

Will the New Policy Make Michigan Law Enforcement Racially Equitable?

Law enforcement agencies across the nation are grappling with the problem that their enforcement activities – and use of force – disproportionately affect people of color. Michigan is no exception. They must continue to provide for the people’s safety while maintaining the trust of the communities they police.

Under the new policy for recording race, the Michigan State Police will be able to detect whether any of its members are disproportionately enforcing traffic laws against people of color. When this situation arises, the trooper’s supervisors can take action. And, if you are a person of color who is facing a criminal charge after a traffic stop, your criminal defense lawyer may be able to point to the arresting officer’s record on racial profiling in defending your case.

A Detroit Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help

At Drias Law Group, we are able to better serve our clients by staying abreast of developments in law enforcement policy, state law, and legal precedents. This enables us to defend our clients’ interests to the fullest extent as they pass through the criminal justice system.

If you’ve been charged with a crime or want to talk with a Detroit traffic lawyer, call us today at (313) 944-0236 for a free and confidential consultation of your case.

The post Recording Race at a Michigan Traffic Stop appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

This means that having difficulties in online dating is now among the many collateral consequences of having a criminal offense on your record. When criminal defense lawyers talk about the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction, they are usually referring to:

• The ex-offender’s ineligibility to obtain certain professional licenses
• Felons not being able to own a firearm or hold specific jobs
• Higher insurance rates for people convicted of DUI
• Trouble finding housing or employment because of background checks
• Disciplinary action from the offender’s college

Stud or Dud Attempts to Add a Layer of Safety to Online Dating

When someone meets a person on Tinder or OkCupid, he or she may request the potential suitor’s full name or email address. This is all Stud or Dud needs to conduct an exhaustive background check. While it’s always been the case that ex-offenders’ records have been public information, this new app makes it much easier and faster for people to find these records.

According to Stud or Dud’s founder, the “goal was to provide a free and fun app that made dating in the 21st century safe and transparent … Stud or Dud preserves the butterflies and excitement of the dating experience while helping users protect themselves from a potential dud.”

We Need to Stop Stigmatizing Ex-Offenders

What Stud or Dud also does is reinforces the stigma of having a conviction on a criminal record. The app encourages people to consider a potential suitor as a “dud,” just because he or she had a run-in with the law. Life is full of tough choices and people change over time. Stud or Dud robs people of their ability to explain or qualify mistakes they may have made in the past.

The situation is similar to when employers ban hiring ex-offenders. They may be afraid that ex-offenders may be untrustworthy, immoral, or violent. But evidence suggests that when ex-offenders are given a second chance, they are loyal and productive employees.

As our society becomes more digitized and connected, it will only get easier for strangers to learn about each other’s lives. This is yet another reason to fight hard to avoid a criminal conviction, even for a relatively minor offense. People are judgmental, and you may find your future dating prospects severely restricted by your criminal record.

Drias Law Group is Here to Help

As an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney, Martin Drias knows that a criminal conviction can seriously limit an individual’s professional and personal opportunities. If you are facing criminal charges, call Drias Law Group today at (313) 944-0236 to receive a free and confidential consultation about how we can help.

The post App Lets Dates See Your Criminal Record appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

Notably, the authorities can keep confiscated property even if the suspect is never convicted of a crime. Property owners must post a bond before challenging the seizure of their property in court. But according to the Court of Appeals, this practice is unconstitutional when the owner does not have enough money to pay the bond.

In Some Cases, Civil Forfeiture May Be Unconstitutional

The case arose after the arrest of Michigan resident Shantrese Kinnon on drug charges. The police seized vehicles, electronics, and cash when executing her arrest warrant. To challenge the seizure of her property in court, Mrs. Kinnon would have needed to post a bond of $2,005. Having only $1,000 on hand, she had no opportunity to recover her property.

Under Michigan Code section 333.7523, people whose property was seized must post a band worth 10% of the property’s value before going to court to challenge the civil forfeiture. The bond may be anywhere between $250 and $5,000, and when owners fail to pay it within 20 days of the seizure, they lose all rights to the property. Under this rule, the authorities can easily confiscate property from suspected criminals who don’t have enough money to post a bond.

In practice, this means that only some suspects can afford to challenge the seizure of their property. The court ruled that such a scheme is unconstitutional in some cases because it puts the poor at a significant disadvantage when facing the criminal justice system. In other words, Michigan’s civil forfeiture law is still constitutional—it is only problematic in specific cases such as that of Mrs. Kinnon.

Are We Seeing the Last Days of Civil Forfeiture?

Civil forfeiture doesn’t just deny fundamental rights to criminal suspects—it also provides a financial motive for law enforcement to seize as much property as possible. This is because the law enforcement agency effecting the seizure gets to keep the property once it’s forfeited. Thus, the police have an incentive to confiscate as much property as possible. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Michigan law enforcement agencies have confiscated over $244 million from criminal suspects.

For these reasons, civil forfeiture is under attack from both sides of the political aisle. For example, Republican State Representative Peter Lucido has introduced a bill that would repeal the requirement for drug crime suspects to post a bond to challenge the confiscation of their property. The proposed legislation is gaining momentum, with the House of Representatives approving it by a 100-7 vote last March.

Being charged with a drug crime is a harrowing experience. On top of that, many drug crime suspects need to fight to retain their rights to confiscated property. In such situations, a skilled Detroit criminal defense lawyer can make a world of difference. If you’re facing drug charges and the confiscation of your property, call Drias Law Group today at (313) 944-0236 for a free and confidential consultation of your case.

The post Michigan Court Strikes Down Part of Civil Asset Forfeiture Law appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

If you or a young loved one is facing their first criminal offense, contact the Michigan criminal defense lawyers of Drias Law Group at (313) 944-0236 for more information on avoiding a criminal record.

New Law Seeks to Help Young Offenders Avoid a Criminal Record

Sen. John Proos led the charge in getting a bill that softens how juvenile offenders are treated in Michigan made into law. The purpose of the bill was to ensure adolescents are given fair and “age-appropriate penalties” for their crimes. By going through this alternative system known as the consent calendar, juvenile offenders may be able to keep an offense off their record or avoid a permanent criminal record altogether. A juvenile record for adolescents can make it difficult for them to go to college or grad school, obtain technical training or professional licenses, be approved for affordable housing and much more. It can lead to discrimination in a number of ways, negatively affecting a young person’s life for years to come.

The consent calendar previously existed, but now it will be used consistently across Michigan counties and is open to all youth offenders, not those charged with certain offenses.

The Consent Calendar Instead of Court

When a juvenile is charged with an offense, they can be put on the consent calendar if the prosecutor, judge, and defendant’s attorney agree that it is in the best interest of both the defendant and the public. This is instead of the adolescent going through a formal court proceeding and being punished if they accept a plea bargain or are found guilty.

When the defendant is placed on this calendar, he or she doesn’t have to enter a formal plea. During this time, the defendant is placed on a probation of sorts. He or she needs to complete certain conditions like community service, drug and alcohol education or treatment, counseling, anger management, or compensating any victims of his or her crime. The defendant is monitored during this time.

The consent calendar isn’t public, which affords juveniles privacy while they complete their penalties. Plus, when the terms of the calendar are completed or when they turn 17, the consent calendar records are destroyed. This gives young offenders a clean record moving forward.

Setting Aside a Juvenile Record

If someone received a criminal record while they were under 17, they may be able to have that record expunged later in life. You must wait until you turn 18 or at least 1 year after you finished your sentence.
You may be eligible for expungement if:

• You weren’t convicted of more than one offense that could have been a felony if committed as an adult, but the maximum punishment was less than life in prison.
• You have fewer than 3 misdemeanors on your juvenile record.
• Was a traffic offense that was not a felony or misdemeanor, and
• Your case was not transferred to an adult court and had a conviction there.

For more information on potentially sealing your juvenile record, contact an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney.

Call the Drias Law Group Today

Teenagers make mistakes for a number of reasons. They may act out because of what’s going on at home or peer pressure. They may have simply made a mistake because they weren’t aware of the law or what to do in a certain situation. Young first-time offenders deserve to be treated fairly and in a way that helps them move forward with their life. A trial and a criminal record for initial non-violent offenses can be detrimental to their futures, when what they really need is support and treatment.

For more information on how to fight a criminal charge as an adolescent or Michigan’s new law, contact Drias Law Group at (313) 944-0236 or online.

The post New Ideas to Help Young Offenders Avoid a Criminal Record appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

Advocates of prison privatization touted the movement as a way of cutting costs and reducing prison overcrowding all while providing comparable, if not, improved services. In reality, those promises have not materialized. Private prison companies continue to receive criticism for providing low-quality services, compromising safety in prisons, negatively impacting criminal justice policy, and failing to save taxpayers money.

History of Prison Privatization in the United States

The first for-profit prison in the United States was created in 1852, but the modern push for prison privatization began in the 1970s and 80s. Privatization emerged during this time period as a response to the rapidly expanding prison population in the United States as a result of The War on Drugs and other criminal justice policies. The for-profit prison industry extended their reach even further in the 1980s when they contracted with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to detain undocumented immigrants.

Prison privatization accelerated under President Clinton in the 1990s after cuts in the federal workforce led the Justice Department to contract with private prison companies. The two largest for-profit prison companies., Corrections Corporations of America (CCA) and Geo Group, Inc. (formerly Wackenhut Corrections Corporation) were established in the 1980s and controlled 75 percent of the private prison market by the mid-1990s. Today, the two manage more than half of the private prison contracts in the U.S. and are both publicly traded companies.

Growing Concerns About Private Prison Companies

While most people think prison privatization is limited to the actual housing of inmates, the overall industry encompasses every service from the point someone is suspected of a crime until the meeting with a parole officer following release from custody. Aside from housing prisoners, private prison companies make profits by performing services such as the transportation of inmates, operating prison bank accounts, inmate food service, prison communication, and health care management.

In order for private prison companies to meet their bids, they cut operational costs below what the state would otherwise spend. Because the most expensive aspects of incarceration tend to be personnel and programs, cost-cutting often leads to a drop in the quality of prison conditions along with under-staffing, reductions in wages, and inadequate employee training.

There are countless examples of the consequences of cost-cutting by private prison companies. An Idaho Correctional Facility run by CCA was found to be understaffed by 26,000 hours in 2012 and officers were provided with empty cans of pepper spray and instructed to pretend they were properly equipped.

OSHA has also cited Geo Group, Inc. for failing to properly maintain prisons, which led to prisoners and guards being exposed to mold. Another Geo Group-run facility in Mississippi had defective cell doors in which the locks could only be opened by prisoners instead of guards.

Michigan Vows to Closely Monitor Contracts with Private Prison Companies

In 2013, Michigan awarded a $145 million contract with Aramark to provide food preparation services. The company began by cutting personnel salaries by 50 percent and had to ban 74 employees for misconduct compared to only 5 employees being banned during the previous five years.

Under Aramark’s management, kitchens in Michigan prisons became infested and was cited for 2,945 food quality and sanitation violations during a 7-months period in 2014. Michigan ended the contract in 2015 over a disagreement on billing and switched to Trinity Services Group out of Florida.

In response to a recent controversy over Michigan’s three-year contract with Aramark Correctional Services, the Michigan Department of Corrections announced that it is setting up a 30-person unit to monitor the department’s 184 private contracts to supply a number of services including food preparation, medical treatment, and various health services. The unit is said to be the first of its kind in the nation and will also be taking over the department’s auditing process to ensure state compliance with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Critics argue that switching to a new contractor or close monitoring will not resolve the kinds of problems that arose with Aramark. Those critics believe that such issues are driven by prison companies’ incentive to cut corners in order to maximize profits, which ignore the security aspect of supervising inmate kitchens.

Contact Michigan’s Drias Law Group For Experienced Legal Counsel

The Michigan criminal defense attorneys at Drias Law Group have the knowledge, skill, and experience you can rely on when your freedom and reputation are on the line. We understand how devastating a criminal charge can be, which is why we will fight to get you the best possible outcome in your case. We will aggressively protect your rights throughout the legal process and take the time to thoroughly explain your legal options.

If you need a Detroit criminal defense lawyer, call us today at (313) 944-0236 for a free and confidential consultation of your case.

The post The Real Costs of the Private Prison Industry appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.

The problem is, it’s been illegal to sell fetuses or fetal tissue in Michigan since 1978. According to Michigan Health Code section 333.2690, it’s illegal for any person to “knowingly sell, transfer, distribute, or give away an embryo, fetus, or neonate” for uses prohibited in other sections of the health code.

The proposed bills, sponsored by Republican Senator Phil Pavlov, would amend the existing law with the following passage:

“A person shall not knowingly financially benefit from or receive any type of compensation for the distribution of transfer of any portion of an embryo, fetus, or neonate including any organs, tissues, or cells that were obtained as the result of elective abortion.”

Are Michigan Republicans Over-legislating?

Liberal commentators have been dismissive of the efforts of Michigan republicans to strengthen the already-existing controls on the transfer of fetal materials. They view these bills as a means of publicizing their pro-life stance in the wake of a scandal involving undercover videos of Planned Parenthood employees callously selling fetal parts.

The videos have been shown to be misleading—the result of clever editing. Nonetheless, the republican voting base is upset, and their representatives in the Michigan government want to show that their concerns are being heard. As Senator Pavlov stated to the press, the bills send a strong message that “baby parts are not for sale in Michigan.

Unfortunately, there is a chance that Pavlov’s bills could hamper stem cell research by making it illegal to pay workers who transport fetal tissue to research labs. Stem cell research—despite its controversies—has been crucial in the search for cures to deadly diseases such as Alzheimer’s that have so far eluded traditional research.

Michigan Legislators Should Focus on Saving Michigan from Collapse

Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with legislators making laws that represent the views of their constituents—that’s the basic mechanism of democracy. But when time and money is spent on writing legislation that already exists, it puts into question these legislators’ judgment in using limited state resources.

Many parts of Michigan have been abandoned and the people are suffering under a repressive criminal justice system. Infrastructure is crumbling. The residents of Flint have been drinking contaminated water. What measures is the legislature taking to address these pressing issues?

Why Trust the Michican Criminal Defense Attorneys with Drias Law Group

At Drias Law Group, we take seriously our role in upholding the rights of Michigan’s citizens in these troubled times. If you are facing criminal charges, we will help you confront the criminal justice system. Call our Michigan criminal defense attorneys today at (313) 944-0236 for a free and confidential consultation of your case.

The post Selling and Transferring Fetuses and Fetal Tissue in Michigan May Become Illegal appeared first on Drias Law Group, PLLC.