Avoiding Confrontations with Law Enforcement -- Dos and Don'ts

The issue of confrontations with police officers -- whether physical in nature or involving weapons -- has been a major topic in the news lately.  The Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO is far from the only issue police have had involving violent confrontations, but it certainly was a major rallying point for the public.  There are a lot of questions being asked about how to avoid these terrible situations.  Nobody wants to see continued incidents of violence involving police officers that end in injury or death to citizens.  Police don't want this.  Attorney's don't want this.  The courts don't want this.  But, most of all, the citizens that continue to be the victims in these situations don't want this.  So, what can be done to eliminate these situations?  What can you do, personally, to ensure that you are the next victim of police violence?

In order to figure out what has to be done to fix the problem, we must first understand what is causing the problem.  This is a much more complicated issue than a lot of people realize.  I'm not talking about incidents of violence that are clearly initiated by civilians.  When someone brandishes a weapon at a police officer, they're doing so with the knowledge that they might not come out of this encounter alive.  The incidents I'm referring to are the ones in which unarmed citizens are killed by law enforcement.  People who claim that the issue is overzealous police officers who are too quick to use their service weapons are ignoring that there are always two parties involved in these confrontations.  People who claim that the issue is citizens not respecting the police and acting inappropriately towards them aren't taking into consideration that the penalty for being insubordinate should not be death.  There is no easy answer to this issue, but there are some things that I believe the average citizen can keep in mind when dealing with police officers that can help to diffuse these situations before they explode into violence.  I'm going to give the same advice here that I give to my paying clients.  The following are three general things to remember when confronted by a police officer, and three actions that you can take (or not take) when confronted by a police officer to ensure that the situation doesn't end in tragedy.

THREE THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN CONFRONTED BY POLICE OFFICERS

1.  Police officers are trained to treat every confrontation with a suspect as a potential life or death situation.  This might be something that seems crazy to the average person, but it's a completely reasonable stance to take for officers.  While the VAST majority of people who have encounters with law enforcement pose no threat to the officer's safety whatsoever, all it takes is for an officer to let his guard down at the wrong time to fall victim to someone who does pose a threat.  Mendota Heights, MN police offer Scott Patrick learned was shot and killed in August of 2014 during what probably seemed like an innocuous enough traffic stop.  Officer Patrick was unfortunate to just happen to stop a motorist who had numerous outstanding warrants for his arrest and was driving a car that was not yet registered to him, making it impossible for Officer Patrick to know who he was about to happen upon.  This is a very real concern for officers, and they often act accordingly in situations that seem routine to the average person.

2.  Police officers don't know you.  We, as citizens, expect to be given the benefit out the doubt when dealing with police, but it's important to remember that the officer (probably) doesn't know you.  Eventually, when they ask for your license and look up your criminal history on their computer, they'll know a little bit about you, but when they first confront you, they have no idea who you are or what you are capable of.  It's important to remember this when first encountering an officer who clearly thinks he/she has business with you.

3.  The majority of police officers are good people.  We tend to hear about the ones who do bad things.  This guy from Minneapolis, or these guys from Saint Paul.  What we don't hear about are all the times officers do amazing things.  Just like I try to remind people that the good lawyers vastly outweigh the slimy ones, the same can be said for police officers.

THREE ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE (OR NOT TAKE) TO ENSURE YOUR SAFETY

1.  Keep your hands where the officer can see them.  This can be tougher to do than it seems.  Something as benign as putting your hands in your jacket pocket or reaching for your wallet can seem like an aggressive move to an on-edge officer.  Keep your hands out of your pockets, don't reach inside your jacket, don't put them behind your back if you're facing the officer, and don't reach under your shirt or into the waistband of your pants.  If the officer can see your hands, they don't have to worry about what they might be doing, and they'll be much less likely to act rashly due to feeling threatened.

2.  Don't use profanity or call the officer names.  Confrontations with police officers can certainly get heated, but it's important to remember that the language you use can ratchet up the intensity unnecessarily.  By using profanity or using slurs towards the officer, you're telling them that you don't respect their position.  Once an officer doesn't believe you care whether or not he's a police officer, they're going to assume that you'll treat them like you'd treat any regular citizen.  This can cause them to be more short-tempered and have a quicker trigger (no pun intended).  By watching your language and addressing the officer in at least a somewhat respectful manner, you will greatly increase your chances of exiting the situation without a violent confrontation.

3.  Do not go out into public under the influence of mood-altering substances.  This is a really important point that is completely under your control 100% of the time.  I know that people like to go out to bars and have a few with friends, but it's important to keep yourself under control.  A high percentage of violent encounters involving police also involve intoxicated citizens.  By controlling your alcohol intake or not doing any drugs (even marijuana) before heading out into public, you're going to A) improve your decision-making, which will limit the chance that police will have any business with you, and B) decrease the chance that you act inappropriately if you are confronted with the stress that accompanies dealing with law enforcement.  Remaining clear-headed could be the difference between walking away unscathed or getting into a fight with law enforcement that you are not going to win.


My point in writing this advice to everyone is not an effort to deflect blame belonging to police officers for these unfortunate situations that seem to be happening more an more.  In situations where unarmed citizens are killed by law enforcement, the officer absolutely should not escape culpability for the death.  However, we as citizens have to take responsibility for our actions.  If you follow these recommendations, you will decrease the chances of you finding yourself in a violent encounter with a police officer exponentially.

My heart goes out to all those who have lost loved ones in encounters like this.  There are a lot of people in the country who are using this opportunity to demonize law enforcement.  The truth is that we as a society have to play a role in ensuring that no more families have to know the pain of losing a member to violent encounters with police.  The best way for you to do your part is to be respectful and use discretion when dealing with police offers.  Remember that they have a tough job to do, and you being a sullen jerk after being pulled over isn't going to make it any easier.  Police officers aren't perfect, but the majority are out there doing their best.  Keep that in mind, treat them accordingly, and these kinds of preventable incidents will become a thing of the past.


As always, the information presented in this blog is to be used for entertainment purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.  If you or a loved one are in need of such advice, please contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for personalized information.

Brooklyn Park Daycare Shooting -- Murder in the 2nd Degree?

So, as most of you have probably heard, there is a suspect in custody for the April 9th shooting of three people at a Brooklyn Park, MN day care.  A few emails have been trickling in wondering why the charge was for 2nd degree murder and not 1st degree.  I'll go over some of the specifics of the case (they get a bit gruesome, so be forewarned), and then say how I would charge the case if I were the Hennepin County attorney.

This whole incident stems from an accusation of felony sexual assault against the suspect, Eddie Mosley of St. Louis, MO.  Mosley allegedly drove to Brooklyn Park from St. Louis with a friend with the intent to seek out his teenage accuser and kill her in an effort to silence her claims.  (Editorial note:  When your plan for clearing your name from one criminal accusation involves committing another more heinous crime, it's time to reconsider this strategy.  Take a few breaths and regroup.)  Mosley apparently thought that the girl would be at DeLois Brown's day care center before school, so he went there in search of her.  When he arrived, the girl was not at the house.  What happened next is still something of a mystery, but Brown and her parents, James and Clover Bolden, were found murdered in an execution-style manner by a neighbor.  The three were found dead laying on a bed.  Mosley was gone by the time authorities showed up at the scene.

With those essential elements, we can look at how this crime could be charged.  In Minnesota, 2nd degree murder is intentional murder without the element of premeditation.  The maximum sentence for 2nd degree murder is 40 years, and even though there are three counts against the defendant, the sentence would run concurrent to each other.  1st degree murder in Minnesota is intentional murder with the element of premeditation and carries with it a life sentence.  The premeditation is the only element that separates these two crimes.  (Note:  There is an unintentional murder in the 2nd degree statute in Minnesota as well which has the same punishments, but it doesn't apply to this situation, so let's ignore that for the time being.)

An interesting aspect of the premeditation requirement of 1st degree murder is that it's not necessary for you to have intended to kill the person you actually killed.  Minnesota statute 609.185(a)(1) reads:

"(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life: (1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;"


In the case of the day care killings, if the police are correct in their assertion that Mosley went to the home with the intent to murder his accuser in another case, that would seem to be sufficient premeditation to warrant a murder 1 charge as opposed to the murder 2 charges currently against him.  Mosley may not have intended to kill the people he ended up killing, but if he indeed did intend to kill someone, than he would be guilty of 1st degree murder.


My hunch is that prosecutors in Hennepin County have made the decision that an initial charge of murder in the 2nd degree is more likely to hold up in court while they continue their investigation of the murders.  It's entirely possible that Mosley will end up being charged with 3 counts of murder in the 1st (I'd even go so far as to call it likely), but perhaps prosecutors were afraid that an initial charge of the harsher crime would result in the suspect being released for lack of evidence.  Since they don't have to include the element of premeditation in their murder 2 charges, it makes it a little easier to charge.  As the investigation continues, if the prosecution comes across more evidence that lends itself to premeditation of murder on the part of the defendant, they can bring the harsher charges at that time.


So, while some people may be upset right now that the man who allegedly murdered three innocent people in cold blood is being charged with "only" murder 2, the case is far from over.  I'll keep an eye on this case as it goes on and give updates from time to time, especially if any changes in the charges occurs.


If you or a love one have been charged with a crime (any crime, not just murder!) or are the subject of a criminal investigation, you need the assistance of a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney.  Don't wait for the police to come to your door with handcuffs to call a lawyer.  Speak with one today in order to increase your chances of success in defending your innocence.


As always, none of the material on Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader.  If you are in need of criminal defense advice, stop surfing the internet and speak to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Details on the Amy Senser Criminal Case

If you're a Minnesotan who occasionally watches the news or reads a newspaper, you've probably seen at least a little something about the hit-and-run allegations against Amy Senser, wife of former Minnesota Vikings tight end and restaurateur Joe Senser.  Amy Senser is alleged to have struck a man near the Riverside exit ramp off westbound I-94 while the man was pouring fuel into his vehicle.  There has been a lot of conjecture and curiosity surrounding this case, as is common with situations like this in the homey state of Minnesota.  I've had a number of people asking me for my opinion on the proceedings recently, so I figured I would touch on a few things in this space regarding the impending criminal case against Mrs. Senser (I'll leave the juicy civil proceedings to someone  more versed in that area of law).  Now, keep in mind, I am not in any way involved in this case, so the facts that I will be using will be what has been reported to the media.  There are usually facts withheld from the media until the time the case goes to trial, so it is likely that we are not aware of every little detail regarding the case.

A lot of people are confused by the defense's theory of the case.  Mrs. Senser's attorney has stated that the defense is not disputing the fact that Mrs. Senser's car was the vehicle that struck the victim, nor are they disputing that she was driving the car at the time.  Most people hear this and say, "Why are we having a trial here?  If she's the one who hit and killed the man, then she's guilty, right?"  Wrong.  The actual causing of death is not the crime here.  There are qualifiers that must be met in order for a person to be criminally liable for injuring or causing the death or another by hitting them with a vehicle.  Those qualifiers include things like operating the vehicle in a grossly negligent matter, in a negligent manner while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, being above the legal limit of .08 BAC, or when the driver in question leaves the scene of the accident.  Simply getting in an accident and causing someone's death is not enough to be guilty of criminal vehicular homicide in Minnesota.  The bare minimum mens rea (lawyer-talk and Latin for "guilty mind") is that of gross negligence.

In the Senser case, the State won't be forced to prove that she was driving the car that killed the victim (that is being stipulated to by the defense), but they will have to prove that she had acted in a manner that was grossly negligent.  The position of the defense is that Mrs. Senser did not have actual knowledge that she hit anyone with her vehicle.  If this assertion is true, the element of gross negligence would be out the window, as would be the fleeing from the scene of a felony element of the crime.  Basically, the point of all this is that in order for Mrs. Senser to be guilty of a crime, she has to have known that she committed the crime, or have acted in such a grossly negligent matter that it was foreseeable that her actions could cause harm to or the death of a person.  This can be an extraordinarily difficult thing to prove, as there were few, if any, eye witnesses at the scene of the crime.  Without knowing the level of care being taken by Mrs. Senser in the moments leading up to and following the accident, the prosecution will have a hard time proving gross negligence.

The preceding statement assumes, however, that the defense can show that it's reasonable that Mrs. Senser didn't know she hit anything.  Mrs. Senser, through her attorney, claims to have thought she hit a piece of construction equipment and didn't think anything else of it.  Because of this claim, the actions of Mrs. Senser immediately following the accident will be closely scrutinized at trial.  The prosecution claims that after the accident, Senser "sped off" and drove around for about half an hour, all the while talking on the phone with her husband, her daughter, and her daughter's friend (with whom she was suppose to be attending a Katy Perry concert).  There were over a dozen calls to her cell phone from these three people during that half hour period.  The defense claims that these calls were made because Mrs. Senser had gotten lost due to not being able to take her normal route east because of road construction.  Her family was simply assisting her in finding her way.

I find this to be a very interesting explanation for the phone calls, as Mrs. Senser has, presumably, lived in the Twin Cities metro area for a very long time, making it somewhat curious (to me, at least) that she would have trouble finding her way around when she was driving in I-94.

There are a number of other pieces of circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Senser may have been under the influence at the time of the accident.  There are eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a vehicle meeting the description being driven erratically on I 94 around the time in question.  Her daughter's friend texted her mother about Mrs. Senser being unable to pick them up from the concert and indicated that she thought Mrs. Senser may have been drinking.  There was a phone call placed from Joe Senser's cellphone to a Twin Cities drug and alcohol abuse center the next morning.  None of these things prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Senser was intoxicated at the time, but it would not be surprising if a jury finds sufficient evidence to convict based on that inference by the prosecution.

In my opinion, Mrs. Senser's defense attorney has done a good job of listening to his client and laying out a relatively feasible set of events that will challenge the prosecutions ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Senser acted in a grossly negligent manner or that she was under the influence of intoxicates at the time of the accident.  This case will boil down to the amount and credibility of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, as well as the witness testimony.  To me, there seems to be a lack of cold, hard evidence proving that Mrs. Senser knew (or reasonably should have known) that she struck a person on the night in question.  It will be up to the prosecution to prove that she did.

Is it reasonable for Mrs. Senser to have failed to notice the blood on the front of her car?  Is it reasonable that she believe the object she struck was not a vehicle or a person, but a piece of equipment?  Eyewitnesses say that the victim's car had it's flashers on that night, so it's reasonable to assume that Mrs. Senser at least saw the car sitting near the off-ramp.  There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding what Amy Senser did and didn't know that night, and the resolutions to those questions will decide her fate.

One thing I can say with certainty is that Mrs. Senser did the right thing by contacting a criminal defense attorney the first moment she felt like she could potentially be in some trouble.  If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, it is imperative that you get in contact with a qualified, talented, and dedicated criminal defense attorney immediately.  Don't wait until you've been charged with an actual crime and have come to the realization that you may have already said too much.  Protect your rights by getting a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer in your corner.