Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Richmond Images Violate Constitutional Rights
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Richmond Images Violate Constitutional Rights
Abraham v. Commonwealth Of Virginia
Facts:
On September 4, 2003, police interviewed appellant’s roommate regarding child pornography he found on appellant’s computer. On September 9, 2003, based on the roommate’s affidavit, police executed a search warrant at appellant’s residence. The search resulted in discovery of four hard drives, multiple zip disks, and multiple 3.5-inch diskettes that contained images of child pornography. The trial court found the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support appellant’s convictions. The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Virginia) convicted defendant on twenty-four counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1 and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Defendant challenged his convictions, contending that his prosecution violated his constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Richmond
Issue:
Whether the defendant’s prosecution violated defendant’s constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment?
Discussion:
This court held that the appellant continued to possess the child pornographic images at the time of his arrest, notwithstanding the date the images were originally downloaded. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions for possession of child pornography. Defendant contended that the material he was found guilty of possessing was either created or last accessed in December 2000, at a time when possession of child pornography was a Class 1 misdemeanor. But, he was indicted for possession of child pornography on September 9, 2003, two months after possession of child pornography became a felony under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Second, the Commonwealth met its burden of establishing that on September 9, 2003, defendant was aware of and knowingly possessed child pornographic materials on his computer and accessories, and this finding was earlier affirmed. The mere fact that some of defendant’s acts proving his possession in September, 2003 occurred before the change in the law did not preclude application of the new law. The trial court found that defendant continued to possess the child pornographic images at the time of his arrest, notwithstanding the date the images were originally downloaded.
Judgment:
This court hence affirmed the trial court judgment convicting the defendant for possession of child pornography.
A Virginia child pornography charge is a very serious crime. The SRIS Law Group Virginia child pornography defense lawyers can defend you against any type of child pornography charge in Virginia. Our Virginia law firm has handled numerous cases of child pornography in Virginia starting from simple possession all the way to distribution of child pornography. Our firm has the experience to defend you in any part of Virginia against any allegation of child pornography in Virginia.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyer today if you have been charged with child pornography in Virginia. We have client meeting locations in Fairfax, Manassas, Richmond, Lynchburg, Loudoun, Fredericksburg & Virginia Beach.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Sexual Violent Predator Lawyers Richmond City
Sodomy Virginia Rape Sexual Violent Predator Lawyers Richmond City
Leo v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Facts:
Defendant was convicted of, among other things, rape and sodomy and sentenced to a total of 45 years imprisonment, with five years suspended. Prior to his scheduled release from incarceration, the Commonwealth filed a petition pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 37.2-900 et seq., requesting defendant’s civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in allowing certain evidence to be presented to the jury. Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Richmond City (Virginia), which found him to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services for involuntary secure inpatient treatment.
Sodomy Virginia Rape Sexual Violent Predator Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the circuit court erred in admitting expert testimony unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct?
- Whether expert opinion testimony dependent, unadjudicated allegations are admissible into evidence?
Discussion:
The court held that the trial court erred in allowing an expert, a licensed clinical psychologist, to testify on direct examination about details of unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct she learned about from reading police reports. The evidence indicated that the expert, in forming her opinions, considered as true the unsubstantiated allegations contained in the police reports. Furthermore, the error regarding the admission into evidence such hearsay evidence concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by defendant was not harmless because it could not be found with assurance that such evidence did not influence the jury or that it had only a slight effect. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Virginia Sodomy Suspended Imprisonment Lawyers Prince William County
Rape Virginia Sodomy Suspended Imprisonment Lawyers Prince William County
LEO v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant was convicted of, among other things, rape and sodomy and sentenced to a total of 45 years imprisonment, with five years suspended. Prior to his scheduled release from incarceration, the Commonwealth filed a petition pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-900 et seq., requesting defendant’s civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in allowing certain evidence to be presented to the jury. Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Prince William County (Virginia), which found him to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services for involuntary secure inpatient treatment.
Rape Virginia Sodomy Suspended Imprisonment Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the circuit court erred in admitting expert testimony unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct?
- Whether expert opinion testimony dependent, un-adjudicated allegations are admissible into evidence?
Discussion:
The court held that the trial court erred in allowing an expert, a licensed clinical psychologist, to testify on direct examination about details of un-adjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct she learned about from reading police reports. The evidence indicated that the expert, in forming her opinions, considered as true the unsubstantiated allegations contained in the police reports. Furthermore, the error regarding the admission into evidence such hearsay evidence concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by defendant was not harmless because it could not be found with assurance that such evidence did not influence the jury or that it had only a slight effect. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Virginia Miranda Rights Suppress Motion Attorneys Carroll County
Rape Virginia Miranda Rights Suppress Motion Attorneys Carroll County
ESARE ZEKTAW v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
The defendant there was an arrest warrant for rape outstanding against him. He was read his Miranda rights and signed a written waiver of those rights. During questioning, he said, “I’d really like to talk to a lawyer because this–oh my God, oh, my Jesus, why?” He did not mention a lawyer again during the rest of the interview. The intermediate appellate court held his single reference to a lawyer was ambiguous and he did not clearly invoke his right to counsel. After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to police, he was convicted of rape, abduction, and assault and battery. He appealed; the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed defendant’s convictions and the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant sought further review.
Rape Virginia Miranda Rights Suppress Motion Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the trial Court properly dismisses the Appellant motion to Suppress?
Discussion:
This Court held that as defendant did not introduce any new evidence on his own behalf that was “of the same character” as the statements to which he objected, and his use of his statements was during his cross-examination of the detective, he did not waive his objection to the admissibility of the statements. Under an objective test, he had unambiguously invoked his right to counsel; therefore, the interrogation should have ended, and his subsequent statements were inadmissible. As it could not be said that his admissions to choking and knocking the alleged victim down before they had consensual sex did not contribute to his convictions or to the severity of his sentence, the error was not harmless. The judgment of the intermediate appellate court was reversed and the case was remanded to that court with direction to remand to the trial court for a new trial if the Commonwealth was so advised.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Virginia Larceny Murder Abduction Lawyers Bedford County
Rape Virginia Larceny Murder Abduction Lawyers Bedford County
Davis v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
The Defendant’s wife had prepared an affidavit in support of a protective order, which was issued prior to the events that led to her murder. Before trial, defendant sought suppression of the affidavit as testimonial hearsay. Defendant was convicted of capital murder, abduction with intent to defile, rape, grand larceny, and use of a firearm (two counts), violations of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-48, 18.2-53.1, 18.2-61, 18.2-95. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (Virginia) reversed all of defendant’s convictions except the one for grand larceny. The Commonwealth petitioned for a rehearing. Upon rehearing, defendant’s convictions were affirmed. Defendant appealed.
Rape Virginia Larceny Murder Abduction Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether a conviction for crime should stand when a State has failed to accord federal constitutional guaranteed rights?
Discussion:
The trial court held that although the affidavit was hearsay, defendant forfeited his right to confrontation with respect to the statements under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Consequently, the trial court admitted a redacted copy of the affidavit. The trial court incorrectly applied the forfeiture doctrine by not considering defendant’s intent. However, the admission of the affidavit into evidence at trial, although violative of defendant’s U.S. Const. amend. VI right to confrontation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for each of defendant’s convictions. The evidence, independent of the affidavit, was sufficient to support all of the convictions. The affidavit was merely cumulative of other evidence properly before the jury. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to address defendant’s sufficiency argument with respect to the convictions for abduction with intent to defile and rape.
The court affirmed the judgment.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Sodomy Virginia Domestic Help Sexual Paraphernalia Sex Toys Lawyers Fairfax County
Sodomy Virginia Domestic Help Sexual Paraphernalia Sex Toys Lawyers Fairfax County
HENRY MOORE V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
A.B worked for Henry and often brought his twelve-year-old cousin, C.D, to help. The work generally entailed yard work and some light house work, such as carrying groceries. After completing the work, the boys would go into Henry’s basement to be paid and to converse with Henry. One day, Henry took the boys into the basement. He showed C.D. a pornographic video depicting boys, girls, and adults “doing sexual things.” Henry took C.D. into the bathroom where he performed fellatio on C.D. He then asked C.D. to perform fellatio on him, but C.D. refused. Henry then unlocked the bathroom door and both he and C.D. exited. The next day, Henry asked A.B, who was fifteen years old, to come into the basement. He began touching A.B and asking for sexual favors, but A.B shoved him away and left the basement. When Deputy Lacks questioned Henry about the sexual paraphernalia he had used in the C.D. incident, Henry took Lacks to his home, where he showed lacks a collection of “sex toys.” Four items simulating male and female genitalia and two “stimulation devices” were seized by Deputy Lacks and were introduced at trial, over defense objection.
Sodomy Virginia Domestic Help Sexual Paraphernalia Sex Toys Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether a curative jury instruction offered by the trial court that possession of sexual paraphernalia was not an element of the crime against defendant can allow for a new trial?
Discussions:
The Commonwealth had the burden of proving each element of its case, including Henry’s criminal intent. Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 529, 414 S.E.2d 401, 403 (1992).” The Commonwealth is burdened with proving beyond a reasonable doubt each and every constituent element of a crime before an accused may stand convicted of that particular offense. Proof of Henry’s possession of the trove of “sex toys” corroborated C.D.’s account of Henry’s attack on him. Furthermore, Henry’s possession and use of those items was probative of his intent toward his victims. Because the existence of intent to do an act makes it more probable that the person committed the act, intent is circumstantial evidence of guilt. In Blaylock’s, the Commonwealth bore the burden of proving appellant’s intent in committing the charged acts of sodomy and attempted sodomy, but appellant’s intent was not in “genuine dispute” because he contended the charged acts never took place. Therefore, any probative value the evidence may have had was “easily outweighed by the danger of prejudice.” Id. As a result, evidence of appellant’s “possession of the trove of ‘sex toys,’” as described by the majority, was not admissible under the “intent” exception to the rule requiring exclusion of evidence of other bad acts, and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the unrelated “sex toys” into evidence. Judgment affirmed, because the trial court offered a curative jury instruction that possession of sexual paraphernalia was not an element of the crime against defendant and limited the purpose for which the jury could have considered the evidence. Further, the court held whether to order a mistrial was within the sole discretion of the trial court.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Virginia Capital Murder Attorneys Chesterfield County
Rape Virginia Capital Murder Attorneys Chesterfield County
ANDRIA v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
On September 9, 1988, Andria raped Dominica Harris in his apartment in the City of Richmond. He transported Ms. Harris to a location in Chesterfield County where he raped her a second time. He then struck her several times with a jack, cut her throat, and left her on the side of the road. Her jugular vein was severed, a potentially fatal wound. Andria was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond of raping Ms. Harris. He was then convicted in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County Virginia (second trial court) of attempted capital murder and rape. Defendant appealed, arguing double jeopardy.
Rape Virginia Capital Murder Attorneys
Issue:
Whether the prior conviction for rape bared the attempted capital murder prosecution?
Discussion:
The Court of Appeals en banc affirmed, holding that the prior conviction for rape did not bar the attempted capital murder prosecution since the prior conviction for rape was in another jurisdiction and the court before which he was tried for attempted capital murder did not have jurisdiction over the rape component of the offense. The court noted that under the general test for double jeopardy, where the same conduct constituted a violation of multiple statutes, multiple convictions under those statutes were allowed if each statute required proof of a fact the other did not. But that test allowed multiple prosecutions in the same trial. However the court also found that the aforementioned rules of jeopardy did not apply where no one court had jurisdiction over all the alleged crimes, the indictment charging the Richmond rape could be tried only in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. The indictment charging the attempted capital murder in Chesterfield could be tried only in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County. No court had common jurisdiction over both charges. Thus, the jurisdictional exception applies to this case. Since the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond was without jurisdiction to try the charge of attempted capital murder, Andria was not put in jeopardy with respect to that charge when he was tried for rape in Richmond. Jeopardy with respect to that charge attached, first and solely, upon his trial in Chesterfield.
This court affirmed the Judgment of the trial court.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Sexual Intercourse Virginia Penetration Jurisdiction Lawyers Bath County
Rape Sexual Intercourse Virginia Penetration Jurisdiction Lawyers Bath County
DUSENBERY V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Late one night, two teenagers parked their car in a secluded area and partially undressed in preparation for sexual intercourse. Defendant, a part-time security guard in uniform, appeared at the window with a flashlight and told them that he would take them to the authorities or tell their parents unless they allowed him to watch. The couple agreed. Complaining that the boy had not penetrated the girl, defendant thrust his head and shoulders through the open window and forced the boy’s penis partially in the girl’s vagina. Defendant was convicted in the Trial Court of rape Code § 18.2-61.
Rape Sexual Intercourse Virginia Penetration Jurisdiction Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant committed that crime as a principal in the first degree?
Discussion:
With respect to certain crimes, the law regards a person who acts through an innocent agent as a principal in the first degree. In some jurisdictions, this rule has been applied in rape cases where the accused forced an innocent third party to have carnal knowledge of an unwilling victim. But the “innocent agent” rule cannot be applied here, for it is antithetical to the construction this Court has placed upon Virginia’s rape statute. One element of rape is the penetration of the female sexual organ by the sexual organ of the principal in the first degree. Whether Dusenbery’s conduct constituted an offense other than rape is not a question before us on appeal. We hold only that the evidence is insufficient to prove that defendant carnally knew the prosecutrix within the intendment of Code § 18.2-61 as construed by this Court and the judgment must be reversed.
The case will be remanded for further proceedings if the Commonwealth be so advised, provided that defendant may not be retried for rape.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers Norfolk City
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers Norfolk City
AVENTA MARK v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and convicted him of carnal knowledge of a minor, statutory rape, two counts of sodomy, participating in child pornography, possession of child pornography, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed.
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the search warrant and affidavit are compliant with statutory requirements in terms of probable cause requirement and specificity requirement?
Discussion:
A presumption of validity attaches when a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate or judicial officer. Therefore, where the police conduct a search pursuant to a judicially sanctioned warrant, the defendant must rebut the presumption of validity by proving that the warrant is illegal or invalid. Code § 19.2-54 expressly prohibits issuance of a “general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage.” So long as the search warrant describes the objects of the search with reasonable specificity, it complies with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. The determination whether the warrant possesses the requisite degree of specificity requires a fact-specific, case-specific analysis. In the present case, warrant was issued in relation to the “Production, Sale, Possession, Etc. Of Obscene Items,” supported by an affidavit that specifically enumerated the things or persons to be searched for, all items reasonably related to the particular offenses. Thus, the pertinent instruments sufficiently detailed the objects that were the subject of the search, together with a compelling nexus to the offenses under investigation, thereby satisfying both constitutional and statutory safeguards. Defendant asserts that the probable cause requirement was not fulfilled by evidence of the Commonwealth. When considered in totality, the circumstances clearly gave rise to a “fair probability” that like contraband or evidence of a crime would be found within defendant’s residence and justified issuance of the disputed warrant. The description of the items to be seized was included in the affidavit and was a part of the warrant. Where the actual photographs and attendant circumstances, including an explanation of the images, were before the judicial officer issuing the warrant, providing facts that substantially enhanced the measure of probable cause in support of the warrant, there was no constitutional or statutory taint to the affidavit, search warrant, or related search.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Rape Sodomy Virginia Confession Warrant Attorneys Richmond City
Rape Sodomy Virginia Confession Warrant Attorneys Richmond City
MARK TAYLOR V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of sodomy. A detective executed the rape warrant and, accompanied by a Richmond police officer and another Salem officer, arrested defendant at his home in Richmond. On the day of trial, defendant made a motion to dismiss his arrest warrant as being improperly executed and to exclude the confession as a fruit of the unlawful arrest. The trial court denied the motion as untimely under Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:12(c)(1), and defendant was convicted.
Rape Sodomy Virginia Confession Warrant Attorneys
Issue:
Whether the officer violated the following provisions of Code § 19.2-76 in effect at the time of the arrest?
Discussion:
The court held that the officer’s failure to take defendant before a Richmond magistrate as required by Code § 19.2-76 was a mere procedural violation of that statute which did not prejudice defendant, and which did not involve an error of constitutional dimension giving rise to an application of the exclusionary rule. Here, contrary to the situations in the cases relied on by defendant, there was no lack of probable cause to arrest; there was no coercion, the confession being freely given during the brief trip from Richmond to Salem; there was no suggestion of bad faith by the police; and there was no inordinate delay in bringing defendant before a proper judicial officer having authority to grant bail. The police conduct was not tantamount to a Fourth Amendment violation and it would therefore be inappropriate to invoke the exclusionary rule.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
