|
|
|
Finland court jails Iraqi twins suspected of IS killing
Legal Business |
2015/12/15 08:25
|
A Finnish court on Friday jailed 23-year-old twin brothers from Iraq for four months pending trial on suspicions they were Islamic State militants who fatally shot 11 unarmed soldiers in Iraq in June 2014.
Friday's custody hearing was held behind closed doors at the Pirkanmaa District Court in Tampere.
The two were arrested Tuesday at a refugee center in the town of Forssa, 120 kilometers (75 miles) northwest of capital of Helsinki. Finnish police say an IS video shows the men taking part in a massacre outside the Iraqi city of Tikrit.
The killing of the 11 Iraqi soldiers was part of atrocities committed by IS in the Camp Speicher military base outside Tikrit, where 1,700 Iraqi soldiers were captured and then killed by IS militants.
National Bureau of Investigation spokesman Jari Raty said the court case will start in April. If guilty, the brothers face up to life imprisonment, which in Finland means being released — although not automatically — after serving between 12 and 15 years.
It was not known what the men had pleaded because their defense lawyers were barred from commenting.
The men had arrived in Finland in September but it was unclear whether they were asylum-seekers — although Finnish media claimed they are. Some 17,000 Iraqis have sought asylum in Finland so far this year, by far the biggest national group to seek shelter in the country.
The tabloid Ilta-Sanomat quoted Omar Mohammed, an asylum-seeker from Baghdad at the Forssa refugee center, as saying the brothers had avoided talking to other refugees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbus County lawyer enters pleas on obstruction charges
Court Watch News |
2015/12/15 08:24
|
A Whiteville lawyer and former prosecutor has pleaded guilty to misdemeanor obstruction charges, ending a separate criminal investigation.
Multiple media outlets report that 41-year-old Randy Lemay Cartrette pleaded guilty Monday. Felony charges leveled against Cartrette last week, and one from last year, were dropped as part of a plea deal. Cartrette was sentenced to suspended sentences of 45 days in prison, 30 hours community service and two years' probation.
Cartrette's lawyer Howard "Butch" Pope says Cartrette also agreed to a voluntary disbarment in North Carolina.
In his plea, Cartrette admitted to forging a court document in July 2014 to recall orders of arrest for his clients.
Another indictment charged Cartrette with improperly obtaining limited driving privileges for his clients through the courts in Columbus County. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mexico issues first permits for marijuana under court ruling
Topics |
2015/12/14 08:25
|
The Mexican government on Friday granted the first permits allowing the cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal use.
The federal medical protection agency said the permits apply only to the four plaintiffs who won a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court last month. The court said growing and consuming marijuana is covered under the right of "free development of personality."
The permits issued Friday won't allow smoking marijuana in the presence of children or anyone who hasn't given consent. The permits also don't allow the sale or distribution of the drug. Ironically, the plaintiffs said that even with the permits in hand, they don't plan to smoke the marijuana permitted.
They said they filed the suit to make a point about prohibitionist policies being wrong, not to get their hands on legal weed. "The objective is to change the policy, not to promote consumption," said Juan Francisco Torres Landa, one of the four plaintiffs. "We are going to set the example; we are not going to consume it."
The court's ruling didn't mean a general legalization for Mexico. But if the court ruled the same way on five similar petitions, it would then establish the precedent to change the law and allow general recreational use.
The government medical protection agency, known as COFEPRIS, said it has received 155 applications to get such permits. But other applicants would have to go through the appeals process, something supporters say would probably take at least a year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court takes up challenges to drunken-driving test
Court Watch News |
2015/12/13 08:26
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether states can criminalize a driver's refusal to take an alcohol test even if police have not obtained a search warrant.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear three cases challenging laws in Minnesota and North Dakota that make it a crime for people arrested for drunken driving to refuse to take a test that can detect alcohol in blood, breath or urine.
At least a dozen states make it a crime to refuse to consent to warrantless alcohol testing. State supreme courts in Minnesota and North Dakota have ruled the laws don't violate constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects. The high court said circumstances justifying an exception to the warrant requirement should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In the case from Minnesota, police arrested William Bernard after his truck got stuck while trying to pull a boat out of a river in South Saint Paul. Police officers smelled alcohol on his breath and said his eyes were bloodshot. After Bernard refused to take a breath test, police took him into custody.
Bernard was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and a first-degree count of refusal to take a breath test, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison.
He argued that the refusal law violated his Fourth Amendment rights by criminalizing his refusal to submit to a search. A divided Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that officers could have ordered a breath test without a warrant as a search incident to a valid arrest.
The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld similar challenges to its test refusal law, ruling that motorists are deemed to consent to alcohol testing. The court called the law a reasonable tool in discouraging drunk driving.
One of the two North Dakota cases the high court will hear involves Danny Birchfield, who was arrested after he drove his car into a ditch and failed a field sobriety test and a breath test. He declined to take to additional tests and was convicted under the state's refusal law, which counts as a misdemeanor for a first offense.
A second appeal from North Dakota comes from Steve Beylund, a driver who was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and consented to a chemical alcohol test. Beylund later tried to suppress the evidence from that test, but lower courts declined.
In all three cases, the challengers argue that warrantless searches are justified only in "extraordinary circumstances." They say routine drunk driving investigations are among the most ordinary of law enforcement functions in which traditional privacy rights apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
