The most common constitutional issue in DC gun cases is when there a stop and/or search results in law enforcement finding a firearm. Unless the police have a valid search warrant, they must establish that they had a lawful reason to stop and/or search an individual. Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, people are to be free from unreasonable stops and searches by law enforcement.
Awareness of your rights can be necessary to creating a strong defense. Speaking with an experienced gun lawyer who can help you better understand the constitutional issues in DC gun cases can be invaluable to your case.
In almost every DC gun case, the police do not initially see a firearm and have that as the basis of why they stopped or searched somebody. It could be that the police pulled a car over for a traffic infraction and might see a gun in the back seat in plain view. In that case, they must show that they had a lawful reason to pull that person over for the stop to not be considered a constitutional issue during the gun case trial. When the gun is not in plain view and the police find it through a search of the vehicle, they must establish why they searched the vehicle.
An individual cannot be arrested for having a tail light out. When someone is pulled over for having a taillight out, the police officer may ask to search the vehicle. If the person does not give consent to the officer to search the vehicle but the police search the vehicle anyway, the person has a valid challenge to the search of the vehicle if they did not have probable cause.
When an individual successfully challenges an illegal search in a DC gun case, any evidence obtained based on the unconstitutional search is excluded or suppressed. It cannot be presented at trial. That is the number one constitutional issue with regard to any gun case in DC. Another constitutional issue in a DC gun case is the use of any alleged statements or confessions by a person under the Miranda vs. Arizona doctrine.
In DC, if the police put an individual in custody to interrogate them and do not read them their Miranda rights, the individual could successfully argue that their constitutional rights under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment were violated by the police.
Constitutional issues can have dramatic impacts on the gun case in DC. When a person can have the gun excluded from the case, the government has an almost impossible task of establishing that the individual possessed the gun because they cannot mention that there is a gun.
When the government’s case relies on a person’s statements and admissions about a gun and those are excluded because of a violation of the Fifth Amendment within the Constitution; that has a major impact on the case. The government can no longer present those statements as evidence in the case. If that is an important part of their prosecution, they have a much more difficult time of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whenever a new firearm statute is enacted, an individual can expect the constitutionality of that statute to be challenged. Any time additional limits are placed on an individual’s right to possess and/or carry a firearm in the criminal world; it is challenged through the prosecutions of a defendant.
If a new firearm statute is challenged and goes to an appellate court where it is analyzed and found to be constitutional, there is a precedent that the statute in question does not violate the Second Amendment. Unless there is a new firearms criminal statute that has not been challenged in the court, the Second Amendment of the Constitution is not going to be a successful defense because the courts have held that the Constitution’s Second Amendment is not limitless. The government can place reasonable restrictions on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, to possess and carry a firearm.
The police are not allowed to use incriminating statements given by someone when they are in custody being questioned and are not given their Miranda rights or the opportunity to waive them. Those include the right to remain silent and the right to have the presence of an attorney to advise them or be present for any questioning. Constitutional issues can poke holes in the prosecution’s case and be vital to your defense. If you are interested in discussing the constitutional issues in your DC gun case, a gun lawyer can assist you and help begin creating your defense.
It is critical that someone facing gun charges obtains the advice and counsel of an experienced criminal defense attorney who practices primarily in the jurisdiction in which the case is brought and has success defending cases involving the specific charges against the person.
David Benowitz and his firm are the best strategic and compassionate teams you will work with. Mr. Benowitz and his team are diligent and proactive, which is further enhanced by David’s methodic and strategic approach to law. My case was a very complicated and emotionally charged case involving classified information, where I was facing three indictments, two carrying life sentences and one carrying 20 years. Mr. Benowitz utilized a network of lawyers coupled with his own strategy to navigate the case to success! I sincerely recommend David Benowitz quite literally with my life.
I found David to be very dedicated to fighting for your loved one’s rights. I also highly appreciated the fact that David kept us informed and empowered throughout the whole process.
Mr. Benowitz is an incredibly knowledgeable and dedicated professional. His commitments to social justice and community outreach are exemplary. I wholeheartedly recommend him for any matter.