Blog Topic

Utahns can now practice DUI jail call
Posted by: Tim Keck
September 02, 2009

The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY - In Utah, even if you don't get arrested for drunk driving you might still have to call your mom from jail - sort of.

The Utah Highway Patrol and some local bars hope letting people practice an uncomfortable call from the local lockup will help dissuade drinking and driving.

A phone number has been set up to recreate what it would feel like to make such a call. After dialing 1-877-JAIL-FON, the caller is given the option to talk to a hysterical mother or a disapproving father, among others. A prerecorded message then plays one end of what the conversation might sound like, with the caller filling in the other half.

Slogans associated with the campaign include "Getting a DUI is easy, calling your mom from jail is hard."

Permalink

Age Does Matter When You are Talking Jessica?s Law
Posted by: Tim Keck
September 02, 2009

In 2006 the Kansas Legislature passed "Jessica's Law" which requires stricter sentencing for sex offenses based on the age of the defendant and the alleged victim. Under the Jessica's Law, a Defendant who is 18 years or older and commits a sex crime against a child, would be sentenced to 25 years for a first time offense, and repeat offenders receive a sentence up to life without parole.

Three recent cases decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas show that age does matter. On July 2, 2009 the Supreme Court ruled in State v. Bello, that " . . .the State presented no evidence as to [Bello's] age, and the trial Court did not instruct the jury to make a finding that Bello was age 18 years or older." As a result Bello will be sentenced to up to 20 years less than what Jessica's Law would require. The other two cases with similar rulings are State v. Gonzales (decided July 24, 2009) and State v. Morningstar (decided August 14, 2009).

Permalink

When are "Miranda" Warnings Required?
Posted by: Tim Keck
September 02, 2009

The determination of whether an interrogation is custodial, so as to trigger the requirement for Miranda warnings, involves a two-prong test. First, the court determines the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, employing a substantial competent evidence standard. Next, the court employs a de novo standard to determine whether, under the totality of those circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and disengage from the encounter.

Here, although the interview occurred in a law enforcement facility, it was not the station of the interviewing detective. The detective suggested moving the interview to that site for convenience, i.e., to avoid interruption by customers at Jerry's workplace, and Jerry agreed to the move. Jerry drove himself to the location, accompanied by Tammy. The interview was conducted in the lobby of the facility, rather than an isolated interview room. Jerry was told he was free to leave whenever he wanted. Further, Jerry points out in his brief that the detective "told [him] numerous times that no matter what he said he would not be arrested." The totality of the circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that he or she was free to terminate the conversation and leave at any time. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's determination that Jerry was not in custody and the failure to give him the Miranda warnings did not mandate the suppression of his statements.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, No. 99,411, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JERRY W. TRUSSELL, Appellant.

Permalink