This week in Episode 45, Pete and Caroline discuss changes to probation in Pennsylvania via the Probation Reform Act of 2023. What does probation entail? What happens when you violate probation? Listen and learn on platforms like Spotify, Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Podcasts
Subject to Review – Your Monthly Dose of Real Criminal Law: April 2024 Edition
Did You Know? Did you know that there are increased penalties if a person charged with DUI refuses to submit to Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) testing? If the police arrest a person for DUI and take them to get a breath test, refusing to participate results in a mandatory minimum 72 hour sentence in jail. Essentially, if a person refuses to give a breath sample, the law treats the DUI as if they had the highest level BAC (0.16%+).
However, if a person is taken to the hospital for a blood test, rather than a breath test, there is no mandatory minimum jail sentence unless police have a valid search warrant.
The reason there is no mandatory 72 hour sentence for a blood test refusal is because the Supreme Court found blood tests to be so intrusive that police would need a warrant before adding a criminal penalty (i.e. more jail time) for refusing a blood test. If police have a warrant and the driver still refuses, then they are subject to the 72 hour mandatory minimum.
Criminal penalties aside, a refusal of either breath or blood results in a 12 month driving suspension through PennDOT. Penalties through PennDOT are not considered criminal penalties, but rather civil penalties. The rationale is that driving is a privilege, not a right. If a driver disputes that they refused testing, they can file a license suspension appeal through the civil court.
Case Law Update: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided 5 criminal appeals in February and March, and the Superior Court kept up the pace with 22 criminal appeals. Here is what I think is most important to know:
- Refusing to hand over your license in a traffic stop for more than 25 minutes is a traffic offense, and a person who refuses to cooperate does not get to use the exception created for people who merely forget their license at home.
- Police do not need a warrant to access GPS location data for a person who agreed to wear a GPS ankle monitor as an alternative to incarceration.
- A person on parole and residing at a community corrections center is still technically an “inmate” and any drugs possessed by them is considered “contraband.”
National News: Police can no longer request Ring camera footage from individuals through the Neighbors app after Ring announced it would be taking away the Request for Assistance tool. The Request for Assistance tool allowed police to request doorbell camera footage from people directly through the app regardless of its purpose and without a warrant.
Now police can either request Ring footage contacting individuals outside of the Neighbors app or by getting a warrant based on probable cause. This change followed a 5.8 million dollar settlement to the FTC related to allegations that Ring failed to implement safeguards to protect employees and third-party contractors from accessing customer videos.
Removing this feature adds a layer of protection to personal privacy, and if the police need footage and you do not want to offer it to them, they can apply for a search warrant.
What We’re Listening To: Caroline and Pete have been busy in the podcast studio! Four new episodes of the podcast Subject to Cross were released since the last Subject to Review update:
- Episode 42: The Full Force of the 2nd Amendment discusses the United States Supreme Court decision which ruled that in order to uphold any restriction related to firearms, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is consistent with historical traditions that restrict a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Caroline and Pete review how this decision has impacted our practice, and some of the practical and political issues that have come up as a result.
- Episode 43: Confirmation Bias in American Nightmare unpacks the Netflix series American Nightmare covering a 2015 home invasion and kidnapping in Vallejo, California. The Netflix series covers an area of true crime deserving of more attention: wrongful accusations and the traumatizing impact of police investigations.
- Episode 44: Mental Health and Criminal Justice Caroline and Pete discuss a recent news article revealing that Dauphin County inmates in solitary confinement spent two weeks in November with no electricity.
- Episode 45: “Free Meek” Pete and Caroline review upcoming changes to probation in Pennsylvania where courts are required to take an individualized approach to determining probation conditions, creating a presumption against confinement for minor technical violations, and requiring mandatory review conferences to allow for early termination of probation.
What’s Next? If you have a topic that you want to see covered on Subject to Review, email Criminal Defense Attorney Mary Lawrence at [email protected].
New to Subject to Review and want to learn more about what it is and how it started? Check out the First Edition of Subject to Review.
Subject to Cross Episode 44: Mental Health and Criminal Justice
This week in Episode 44, Caroline and Pete touch upon the issue of the treatment of mental health in the criminal justice system. Their discussion is triggered by recent news in Dauphin County of inmates facing “two weeks of darkness” in solitary confinement.
Subject to Cross Episode 43: Confirmation Bias in American Nightmare
This week in Episode 43, Pete and Caroline analyze the popular Netflix series, American Nightmare, covering the 2015 home invasion and kidnapping in Vallejo, California. *Spoiler alert warning* The duo discuss the case in detail from the handling of evidence, interrogation of key witnesses, and management of the case by the Vallejo police force. If you have watched the series, this episode is not one to miss.
Email [email protected] with comments and suggestions for future episodes.
Subject to Cross Episode 42: The Full Force of the 2nd Amendment
This week, Caroline and Pete discuss the Second Amendment in the post-Bruen era. Did the Supreme Court go too far? Will Pete and Caroline ever see eye-to-eye on this one? Caroline has permission to discuss a case she is currently working on, and explains how she is arguing this constitutional right in court.
Listen to Episode 42 wherever you listen to podcasts, and email [email protected] with any questions or suggestions for next episodes.
Subject to Review – Your Monthly Dose of Real Criminal Law: Fourth Edition
What it is: Welcome to Subject to Review, your monthly dose of all things criminal defense! Subject to Review brings you real case updates, trending news, and answers questions you submit about the criminal justice system.
How it started: Subject to Review is the spinoff of Subject to Cross, the criminal defense podcast hosted by criminal defense attorneys and my fellow colleagues, Caroline G. Donato and Peter E. Kratsa.
So who am I? I’m Mary E. Lawrence, the newest associate attorney to join MacElree Harvey’s Criminal Defense Practice Group. You might have heard me as a guest on Subject to Cross Episodes 25, 27, and 28 or seen me in action in the courtroom. Either way, I am here to round out the content produced by our practice group and give an option to scroll through if listening to the podcast is not doable (like while waiting in court!)
Why a monthly update: Criminal law is constantly evolving. Staying on top of news, case updates, and information can be time consuming. Subject to Review will keep you informed, answer your questions, and explain complicated issues in uncomplicated terms efficiently. Stay tuned for more and see below for the next edition.
February 2024 Edition
Did You Know? Did you know that a judge can issue a temporary Protection from Abuse order even when the person accused of abuse is not present to defend themselves? This Did You Know topic was inspired by Episode 39 of Subject to Cross where Pete and Caroline discuss Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) orders and the due process concerns they present for the accused.
Temporary PFA orders can last up to 10 days and have serious consequences including: eviction from the home, taking away child custody, ordering the surrender of any firearms, and sometimes even paying the accuser for their alleged financial losses.
So, what is abuse under the law? There are 5 definitions for what is considered abuse under the PFA statute, but at its broadest definition abuse includes repeated actions which places a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.
Who can get a PFA? PFAs are limited to “family or household members” which include people who are spouses, former spouses, parents, relatives, current or former intimate partners, or people who share biological children. While a PFA itself is a civil order, allegations of violating a PFA are criminal allegations and can result in a minimum fine of $300 and imprisonment up to six months.
PFA’s were created as a shield to protect people from physical and sexual abuse, however in many circumstances, they are used as a weapon to manipulate divorce and child custody proceedings.
Case Law Update: The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided 14 criminal appeals in December and January. Here is what I think is most important to know:
- A person who advertises on an “adult” website and arranges to meet an anonymous stranger in a hotel room does not have an expectation of privacy if they invite the stranger into their room.
- Harassment requires a “course of conduct” which is more than one act. In a harassment trial, the conduct of driving by a neighbor, and then turning around and driving by the neighbor again and yelling “you should sell your F’ing house and move, this is only going to get worse for you and your family” is technically more than one act because the driver turned around and came back to communicate threats.
- A court cannot suspend a driver’s license as part of a sentence, only the Department of Transportation has the authority to issue suspensions.
National News: The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children in a wrongful death suit where couples sued their IVF clinic after an intruder gained access to a fertility clinic, picked up the frozen embryos from a tank of liquid nitrogen and dropped them on the floor destroying them. Reproductive medicine scientists call this ruling “medically and scientifically unfounded” as the opinion treats fertilized frozen eggs as a legal equivalent to a fetus. The implications of this decision may limit access to IVF if fertility clinics run the risk of being brought up on civil or criminal charges.
What We’re Listening To: Caroline and Pete have been busy in the podcast studio! Four new episodes of the podcast Subject to Cross were released since January:
- Episode 38: Murder on the Mind covers the different kinds of murder allegations, and the value of plea negotiations.
- Episode 39: PFAs Nowadays sparked this month’s Did You Know topic as Pete presents an interesting alternative to satisfy due process.
- Episode 40: Criminal Cases in the News Pete and Caroline discuss Alec Baldwin’s re-indictment for manslaughter charges and charges of sexual assault in Canada against multiple National Hockey League players.
- Episode 41: The Real Deal with Child Abuse Appeals unpacks the administrative process following a report to ChildLine. I covered the basics back in the September Edition of S2R, and this episode ties in some real-life examples of this complicated process.
What’s Next? If you have a topic that you want to see covered on Subject to Review, email me at [email protected].
