Rockville Criminal Defense Lawyer
In 1967 the director of the FBI, Herbert Hoover, established the National Crime Information Center. He directed all law enforcement agencies, city, state and federal, to report the names and profiles of anyone arrested of a crime. That direction is still in effect today. The databse is of considerable help to those who fight crime, but certain aspects of the database flaunt America's "innocent until proven guilty" assumption. Once on the list, there is no way off. Were you found Innocent at trial? Too late, your name, fingerprints and a barage of personal data are recorded for evermore. Death? You can leave but your name stays. There is a field provided for recording the resolution of the case. The obligation of the courts to report that information is not as well defined as the obligation of law enforcement to record the arrest in the first place. With some effort you can discover what has been recorded of you. See http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm see record access procedures. If you have further questions, email me.
As a criminal defense lawyer I often see laws whose unintended consequences beg to be reviewed for possible recall. But the question that arises when I think about the "pay to stay" law is, how did it ever pass in the first place? This Connecticut law requires that an incarcerated citizen not only pay for his/her crime, but also pay roughly $100.00/day.for board and room. Once released the debt must be paid by giving up 1/2 of any property, inheritance, lottery or insurance payments that the released citizen may receive. For example when a five year sentence is served, the prisoner is released facing a $180,000 debt to the state that incarcerated him. The state most often collects from a dying parent's will. What say you about this law?
The second amendment is most often viewed as a bulwark against a tyrannical government. World history gives Americans plenty of reason to worry about that. If we put aside the value of AK-47's in avoiding that catastrophy we might find far more effective ways to guarantee our freedom.
While President Obama was celebrating his second term victory, two states ended state pot prohibition. The federal government, it would seem, may not legally have a say in it. Their right to war was based largely on their role in interstate commerse. Short of amending the constitution as they did for alchohol prohibition, federal enforcers may not be welcome in Colorado and Washington from now on.