An Idaho Statesman article reports on the findings of the Boise Police Ombudsman that officers used excessive force when they used their Taser on a suspect’s "buttocks."  OK – so another poor fool got the Taser and now the Ombudsman wants us all to understand that even he can identify misconduct when he sees it – or hears it.  That would be screaming and pleading and the smell of "ham" frying.  Here’s what the Ombudsman reportedly found:

"The suspect said that he was hit three times with a Taser after he was already handcuffed and face-down on the floor. Murphy’s investigation found evidence that the suspect was hit twice with the Taser — once in the back before he was handcuffed and once in the buttocks after he was cuffed."

Of course the notion of excessive force usually involves injuries, sometimes deadly injuries. I posted about this before and provided a video of what it looks like to get the Taser treatment.  Check that one out to see what you think about this "non-lethal" force.  

Here’s what I cannot figure out – what happened to those cops who could take control of a suspect without Tasing or beating or whining about how tough their job is?  Why do they get all that training on the use of reasonable force, only to pass a personal "tasing" so that they can then deploy the Taser instead of reason or reasonable force. The officers I meet in court seem fit enough to handle almost any drunken fool WITHOUT the use of Tasers, so why go for the simple solution?  

Then again, nobody died.  And give the officers a break on the "inappropriate language" beef.  The constitution does not guarantee civility, it simply outlaws cruelty.  These officers put up with a lot of grief from suspects, and an occasional verbal shot across the bow won’t likely ruin anyone who is in that "under arrest" situation.  Of greater concern by far is the notion of young men (mostly) being treated unreasonably when arrested. 

If you have been subjected to excessive force during an arrest – join in here – share your story by commenting on this post.

 I haven’t written lately about the Trial Lawyers College – proud to say I am a graduate – but talking to one of my classmates reminded me of the methods taught there.  Daniel Rodriguez was a classmate, and he and I are headed for trial in a personal injury case in Bakersfield in September. More recently he successfully settled a civil rights case on behalf of the survivors of a man beaten to death in jail. The County decided (WISELY)  to settle the case rather than face a potential $20 – 25 million verdict.  A news story about the settlement details how Daniel’s clients received $6 million from the county.

What is so different about the methods taught at Thunderhead Ranch and the Trial Lawyers College?  First – the focus is on the story. Every case is about the story, not the lawyers.  So great trial lawyers have to be great story tellers, and Rodriguez is a master of telling the story.  Second – TLC lawyers use techniques that focus on getting the jury into the scenes of that story.  The method is called Psychodrama – and the staff at TLC are masters in its use at trial.  There is much more about TLC method that is different, but that is for another day.  If you want to learn more go to other posts here under the category Trial Lawyers College, or go to Gerry Spence’s website.

I have posted before why most civil rights cases go nowhere – but not always.  Daniel’s case is a good example of what a great lawyer can do with a real deprivation of civil rights.  I will update you on in September on the case he and I will try in Bakersfield.  Can’t wait to work with him on a truly great case in California.

Wonder if you have a civil rights case that has merit?  Send me a contact sheet or give us a call.

 I have previously confessed that I am an Apple Mac loving lawyer, and in my office I have all but converted the flock.  Only the former judge among us insists that the Dark Empire (Microsoft) produces the perfect "professional" pc.  Last week she said so while I helped her pack up the Vaio for another cross-country trip to that great Sony service center.  "It just won’t run – probably a reaction to the Macs in this place."

But enough about Microsoft – if you hate the way lawyers bill (and most lawyers hate this too), consider the great blog post by Jay Shephard at his site The Client Revolution.  A lot of lawyers bill by the hour – so a simple five minute phone call can cost a client a tenth of an hour’s time – and remember – "time is money." So a $300 hourly rate means that goofy five minute call ("can you tell me why that stupid judge set my trial for opening day of elk season?") can cost you $30.  That is the same amount of money you might spend for six 12-inch Subway sandwiches (chips and drink not included).  The point for us lawyers is that this kind of billing only benefits US.  And clients hate that!

Apple Stores serve up value – as Shephard describes. They want to make your "experience" better than that you get from other computer makers.  A simple "can I help you with that iPhone cover" can generate (given time) the sale of a Macbook Air laptop. The Macbook Air is a thing of beauty and likely a thing of great profits for Apple. So it is with lawyers – if the client trusts you with the little case, and you (as the lawyer) do a great job – maybe you will be trusted with the big case. We can do a better job as lawyers by adding value to the client, even if the value is certainty of price and the feeling that the client can call you without worrying about how much that call will cost.

So check out Shephard’s post if you are at all interested.  And when you get ready to hire a lawyer for your case – ask about alternative fee agreements.  Some lawyers (including this lawyer) offer alternatives, like fixed fee agreements.  Most lawyers with experience can predict to some degree how much the typical DUI or battery case should cost.  Then we simply charge you that amount of money that we think fairly shifts the burden of risk in a particular case.  The advantage to the client is certainty.  You know the worst case when it comes to how much money you will spend.  And you can call the lawyer and ask that question which sounds like it might violate the "there are no stupid questions" rule, without worrying about how much the lawyer will charge you for his or her excellent advice.  

And go here to find out about the Questions You Must Ask Every Lawyer You Are Even Thinking Of Hiring.

Got a question about attorney billing?  Call or send a contact form to us here.

 This was the message on my phone today – "the cops are here, they think I have illegal pornography on my computer and want to search.  Can they search it without a warrant?  Should I talk to them?" And then the phone went dead.  I suppose the caller had a little talk with the nice officers and they straightened it all out – or maybe not.  Remember those TV cops who ALWAYS tell the obviously guilty suspect that he or she has "the right to remain silent" and how the suspects always "lawyer-up?"  In real life what happens is the suspect almost ALWAYS talks, because we believe we can talk our way out of trouble.  

That nice officer cannot solve the problem you face based on your explanation.  So do not talk. Let me repeat – DO NOT TALK TO THE NICE OFFICER.  Call a lawyer and have a real discussion – a confidential discussion – about your situation.

Back to the computer question – no, they generally cannot search without the warrant.  The constitution bars unreasonable searches and a search without a warrant is generally held to be "unreasonable."  That is not always the case as there are many exceptions to that rule – hence the reason to call the lawyer. 

Can they get a warrant?  Depends on what facts they have to convince a judge that there is evidence of a crime on the computer.  Make them get a warrant and if they do, then they get the computer.  But guess what happened in this situation? The suspect turned over the computer to the cops.  They get the computer and whatever is on the hard drive. Will there be evidence of a crime? If so, there is no problem with the search because the suspect consented to the search and seizure.

 There is an interesting article in the Statesman today about an old client – Randy Weaver.  I was lucky enough to have tried the "Ruby Ridge" case with Gerry Spence, Garry Gilman, David Nevin and Ellie Matthews back in the early 1990s.  By the way – Gilman never gets enough credit for his efforts on the case.  With neither fringed jacket nor cowboy hat, Garry was a constant source of support as the trial preparation got under way.  So it seems that Ed Brown, a New Hampshire tax protestor (and dentist if my memory serves correct) wants to call Randy Weaver as a witness in his case.  Randy visited Brown and his wife while the Browns were holding out against the feds.  Their case ended peacefully – Weaver lost his bride and his son.  Randy and Kevin Harris were both shot, and Deputy US Marshal Bill Degan (everyone said he too was well liked and regarded) lost his life in one of this country’s saddest times. 

So what would Randy testify to on behalf of Ed Brown?

Not sure – but it might be fun to watch  this one.

The last time I heard from Randy I had just finished a morning run and had jumped in the shower. He was calling me to come and see him as he sold his books at a gun show.  He looked the same as when I had last seen him – just a little grayer and heavier.  Then again, most of us look a little older and grayer!

 I am so saddened by today’s news that another young man – a wonderful, bright, respectful young father and husband – was needlessly killed by an inattentive driver last night on Hill Road.  I knew this kid, he was truly a kind and caring young dad.  He leaves behind a heartbroken wife and two-year-old child.  We are hurt by this loss – all of us.  And I am saddened for the young person who struck him last night, and that young person’s family.  We all lost here.  

So what can we do?

Riders – please be more careful out there.  We need to pay even more attention to intersections and trouble spots.  I wrote this week that I was dusted off by a guy in a Green Ford Expedition on Monday.  I had fortunately not moved over any further to the right or I would also have been hit.  I know that riders have the right to use the roads, but we must remain vigilant about the traffic around us.  

Drivers – we must all pay even more attention to Riders at intersections and trouble spots.  A friend told me today that Hill Road has become a "war zone" with bikes and cars at each other like Sunnis and Shiites fighting over the right to control Baghdad.  We are not at war – bikes and cars – we are friends, family members and community members.  As we drive we must be more careful.  We must give room.  We must be respectful.  We must treat every person on the road with the care we would treat our own children on the road.  

And parents of young drivers – sit down with your kid and talk about this problem.  Bike riders are hard to see sometimes and they need to look.  They need to wait for that rider at the corner.  They cannot "race" through the intersection.  Regrettably they lack the experience behind the wheel to understand that their lack of attention may hurt or kill.

Another father-husband-son-brother-friend is dead.  Enough.  Let’s try to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE out there.

Slow down out there.

So this week I am really concentrating on getting to Saturday’s Ironman 70.3 – alive.  This morning on my ride some guy in a green Ford Expedition ran through the right turn lane (off Grove at Broadway) and about half a block later passed me on my right.  That’s right – my right!  I wondered what this guy was thinking and after pounding on his window and asking very politely ( "what the .#@4!!") he responded likewise. He had a truck – and what did I think I was doing riding a bike in that far right lane in the right direction? And that’s how bike riders get killed in Boise.  A simple ride, a simple corner, in their correct lane and dusted off by a driver who owns the road.  

My dad blames the bikes – or their rider’s "attitudes."  Save that stuff for my obit’ if they get me. Truth is we all need to share the road.  So if you’re out there and see some old guy on a bike trying to survive another week to Ironman – give him a break!  Take your time around him and try to keep him alive!  Someone out there likely loves and cares for him! 

Not bad for an off-topic rant, and if I can just get past that survival swim on Saturday – I will return to the law!

 A funny thing happened on the way to the courthouse – I was approached by Charles Crafts to join in the defense of Zachary Neagle.  I have been covering the case in this Blog but now that must change. I can only say that I have met with Zachary – and in person he is every bit as young and naive as the photos suggest.  His next appearance is Wednesday – for the preliminary hearing.  So on to another subject for the blog and on to helping Charles Crafts build a defense for this kid.

 On a day when Canyon County Prosecutor John Bujak announced that his office had taken over the contract to provide "prosecutor services" to the City of Nampa, his office also announced that it had charged a 15 year-old girl with tricking another girl into sending her a nude photo, which she then distributed to other students at her high school.  The un-named juvenile is now in detention and faces a possible maximum 90 day sentence in a juvenile detention facility as a result of her "sexting." For those of us not hip enough to get that term – it has come to describe sending sexual pictures over cell phones – as in "texting."  Most kids caught with sexually explicit pics on their phones get into a diversion program (not a criminal case) – but this case involved a girl who tricked another girl into sending her the nude picture, for the purpose of sending it on to others.  It was that intent to injure and embarrass the sender that led to the charges.

So did the Canyon County Prosecutor get this one right?  Seems like it to me.  Kids do all kinds of stupid stuff that has to be illegal based on some state, federal or municipal law or ordinance – but this one is kind of a no-brainer.  If you trick someone into an embarrassing situation involving nude photos, you can’t be heard to complain that it isn’t fair. The real danger here is the feds – if they suddenly decided to charge kids for distributing child pornography (if the nude kid is underage) there would be huge problems for that kid. Not suggesting that will happen – the feds are (at least in Idaho) usually thoughtful about such charges.  Sounds like John Bujak was this time too.  

So John – what about that other kid?  The 14 year-old kid still locked away and charged with first degree murder?  The kid you initially locked up as an adult in an adult jail.  The baby-faced kid who, it seems, was likely just trying to defend himself and his siblings from a man who had molested him.

What about Zachary Neagle? 

And why is a Republican "less government" guy EXPANDING his domain to include providing prosecutors for Nampa?  Sounds like you already have a full time gig.  Why add to your responsibilities?  What is in it for the people of Canyon County who elected you to be their FULL TIME prosecutor? After all – you are now responsible for the lawyers who prosecute the Nampa City cases too.

 In the continuing saga of whether Zachary Neagle should be charged with any adult crime (answer here is "no"), Canyon County Prosecutor John Bujak blinked today – literally Today.  In an interview aired today Bujak indicated that if the facts show there was provocation (maybe sexual abuse?) then he might have to consider a manslaughter charge.  The "M" word – so maybe all the pressure is making a difference. The public is ready to rally to this kid’s defense and Bujak is an elected official. Public pressure can make a difference – so to readers of this blog (both of you) – keep the calls going to Canyon County’s top law enforcement officer – prosecutor Bujak.