Family Law Articles Child Support in Las Vegas, Nevada Las Vegas Divorce in Two Months Relocating with your child from Nevada Parental Alienation   Criminal Law Articles Traffic Tickets in the Las Vegas Valley Sealing or Expunging a Federal Criminal Record Riding your Bicycle, and Other Arrestable Crimes 'I didn't know': What Young Thugs Should Know But Aren't Taught Cruel and Unusual: How District Attorneys Punish Criminals   Other Articles Arguing in the Alternative:  Spirit vs. Letter of the Law Were you lying then or are you lying now?   Disclaimer: This information is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions, you should consult a qualified attorney. Traffic Tickets in the Las Vegas Valley Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  August 2007 The Las Vegas Valley has four jurisdictions within which to get a moving violation:  Clark County (Justice Court Jurisdiction), Las Vegas (Las Vegas Municipal Court Jurisdiction), Henderson (Henderson Municipal Court Jurisdiction), and North Las Vegas (North Las Vegas Municipal Court Jurisdiction).   Thus, our  little metropolis has four parts patrolled by police that belong to each jurisdiction. Las Vegas Metro cruises around Las Vegas and Clark County, however the cops in Henderson stick to Henderson and the cops in North Las Vegas stick to North Las Vegas.   When you get a citation, one of the first things to look for on the citation is which jurisdiction you are in. It is possible that the cop cited you outside of his jurisdiction.  If so, do not argue with the "peace" officer because it could ruin your day, if not your life.  Instead, smile warmly, thank him for protecting public safety, and take the ticket to an attorney who will argue the jurisdiction issue before a judge or district attorney who will likely dismiss the citation or greatly reduce the severity--say reducing it from speeding 25 mph over the limit to a parking ticket.   You should consider a few things when you receive a ticket. Yes, you are probably guilty.  If you are guilty, you committed a crime.  The crime is a misdemeanor, which is the least severe crime to be charged with.  Even though a fine is usually the punishment, jail time and community service are also at the Judge's disposal, along with requiring traffic school, and points on your driving record--which can result increased insurance premiums.    If it makes you feel better, consider it not a punishment but a user tax.  If you use your vehicle a certain way, expect to pay a tax for doing so.  The jurisdictions raise revenue through these user taxes.  We live in a state that has no personal income tax, so be grateful about that.  However, do not ignore the court appearance date or you could be faced with a "bench warrant" for your arrest.  This is not fun because you will likely go to jail if stopped again.  In addition, an attorney will charge extra to quash the warrant. Please note, the worst thing you can do is act upset with the police officer who stopped you.  They may treat you very poorly, they may search your person (it's called a "Terry Pat Down Search") to look for a weapon or drugs...likewise they may search the passenger compartment of your car all in the name of officer safety.  They may do these things on their own initiative, but if they ask to search, politely refuse to consent. If they have to ask, then they probably do not have the requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do it without your consent.  It is not wise to consent to a search because cops can literally tear your car apart as part of the search. And then there is the possibility that someone left contraband in your car that you were never aware of-try denying it is yours-I dare you.  Cops, district attorneys, and judges have heard that argument a hundred billion times.   The best thing to do is to not consent to a search no matter how innocent you believe you are.   Officers are sometimes known to violate Civil Rights and the law, but they have the guns and their buddies in blue to back them up, therefore it is in your interest to be on their best side. The best revenge for a traffic ticket is to hire a lawyer to represent your interest at the courthouse.   Usually lawyers can settle the ticket and you'll end up only having to pay a fine.  If you are the type of person to get tickets all over the valley, you should note that some jurisdictions have much heftier fines than others do.  I will not tell you which because I want you to be on your best behavior while driving at all times, but just know that a ticket in one part of town may be 5 times more expensive than in another part of town--even after the ticket has been reduced.   My public service message to you is to treat the ticket like a user tax, smile at the officer politely so that you can live to pay the fine.  Most importantly, hire my firm to represent you for your traffic citation.  By doing so, you will not have to appear in court-which could be an all day affair for you and I think you probably have better things to do.  Call me and ask us what we charge, I firmly believe that when you know what you get from an attorney for the money you pay, you will deem it worthwhile to hire an attorney for your tickets.   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguing in the Alternative:  Spirit vs. Letter of the Law Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright May 2007   In law, judges often face the issue of whether to follow the letter of the law or to follow the spirit. This issue is by no means a new one and has probably been around since humankind first learned to write. It is one of the major reasons to have lawyers.   Judges are supposed to interpret laws; this is their primary function. Judges generally are not supposed to create law; that is the job of the legislature. However, sometimes legislatures draft laws without really thinking about all of the potential problems with interpretation. Savvy lawyers will use these loopholes created by confusing language to influence a judge's decision.   Lawyers who say that a law is black and white do not want judges to interpret beyond the "four corners" of the statute.  They will argue that if the legislature wanted the law to be different, then they should revise the wording. Until then, the judge should apply the law in the strictest sense.   Lawyers who want the spirit enforced wish to make the judge consider why the law was enacted in the first place. They argue that the motivation for the law is more important than the actual language.   By way of example [1], let us say a statute declares, "Any person caught drinking and driving is guilty of a misdemeanor, for a first offence, punishable of up to a year in jail, or for a second offense, is guilty of a felony, punishable of not less than one year and not more than 5 years."   Willy is pulled over by a police officer and is cited for drinking while driving. Willy was in fact drinking water out of a plastic bottle while stopped at a red light.   Willy hires me because the prosecutor wants to make an example out of him and send a message that violators will be punished. I read the statute and laugh at how stupid the legislators were in drafting the statute.   I decide that I want to influence the judge by making the judge consider the spirit of the law. The legislature wanted to punish people for drinking alcoholic beverages while driving the vehicle, but the legislature neglected to clarify this in the statute.   The prosecutor does not care about the motive. He wants a conviction because he believes that drinking anything while driving is dangerous. He tells the judge that if the legislature meant "alcoholic" beverage then it should revise the law, in the meantime Willy must go to jail.   The judge appears to believe the prosecutor's viewpoint. I can see it in the glint of his eye. The judge has been embarrassed in the past because he did not follow the statutory language to the letter and a higher judge overturned his decision. Now, I am beginning to feel like I am losing.   So I might say, "Your honor, I fully understand that the letter of the law should be applied even if the intent was to curtail alcohol consumption while driving. If we are going to look at the plain meaning of the statute and not consider the motivations of the legislature, then it is important to consider that Willy was not in fact driving when he drank. The statute clearly states that a person must be driving, however Willy was stopped at a stop light. Thus, by the very language of the statute, he is not guilty of violating the law."   The judge's grimace lightens, his face softens. He never wanted to agree with the prosecutor but felt he had to because the statute seemed clear. My argument, however weak, would be enough to get Willy off.    The prosecutor might argue that Willy simply being in the car with the motor running was "driving" but because the statute did not define the word "driving" the judge is free to interpret the word. The judge could say "driving" meant only the condition of being in motion.   So, in this example, I might have lost on the strong argument that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter of the law, however I won on a much weaker argument. This is sometimes the case. [2]   There was a time about 2000 years ago when a group of legal interpreters focused so much on the letter of the law that challengers were killed. These scholars went through hundreds of scenarios to determine if people were guilty of violating the word of the law.  Now, the really interesting thing about the words of these laws were that they were considered holy, direct from the mouth of God. Thus, the scholars wanted to make sure that they interpreted correctly. How better to make sure the word of God was followed than to strictly construe the meanings of the words?    Therefore, according to their interpretation, a person who saved his work camel from drowning in pouring rain on Saturday was guilty of working on the Sabbath and punishable.   Then came a guy who said that the spirit of the laws was more important then the literal meaning of the writing. He explained that the motive behind the laws was to create a happy life for the adherents and give believers hope and joy. The scholarly interpreters (aka "the Pharisees") did not like this obnoxious trouble maker who thought he understood better than they, so they called the police and had him arrested. Then they told the judge that he was causing too many problems with his ideas. If the government wanted peace, they would have to silence this interloper. So they did.  They killed him.   Whether this story about Jesus and the Pharisees is literally true does not matter. The spirit of the story tells us that lawyers, like Jesus, can get in a lot of trouble for upsetting the time-honored ways of doing things.   Lawyers know that whether you argue for letter or for spirit, you must be prepared to suffer the consequences, so, they argue for both. You will note that in my example about drinking and driving, I explained how I would use both tactics. I argued spirit first and word second because my goal in this one instance was not to change the stupidly drafted law.  Nope--my goal was to free Willy.   Lawyers are often accused of speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Incidentally, most politicians are lawyers too. There is a reason for it. We want to cover all of our bases. If one argument won't win, try another even if it seems contradictory. Its called, "arguing in the alternative". Have a nice day!   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] This example is fictional and is not intended to dramatize legal abilities for advertising purposes.  It is intended only to facilitate comprehension. This law is not an actual law and any similarity is merely coincidental. [2]  I love fictional examples; they make me look so smart! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Child Support in Las Vegas, Nevada Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  December 2006   Child support is a State mandated expense that parents must pay or risk going to jail.  Thus, it is important for a parent to consider several options when there is fallout with the other parent.  Failure to prudently assess your situation could result in a parent unexpectedly being fully burdened with child support while the other parent lives on the monthly check.   Child support is determined by the number of children you have, a percentage of your income, and adjustments made for such benefits as health insurance.  It is very formulaic and leaves little discretion to the judges.    One of the biggest effects on child support is the amount of physical time you spend with your child.  Three options are available in Nevada and this article will briefly explore each.   Option 1:Terminate parental rights.   If you have no desire to raise your child or even visit your child, you may be able to completely relinquish all of your rights as well as all of your duties.  Few people consider this option because they love their children and because it would be unfair to the other parent.  The judicial system frowns upon parents who give up their kids without a very good reason.  If you made a human being, you are responsible for its welfare.  However, if you can relinquish your rights, you will also not have to pay child support.   Option 2:     Primary custody   If you take full responsibility for your child so the other parent only has visitation, then the other parent will have to pay you child support--no ifs, ands, or buts.  Sometimes this is the best alternative because one parent is clearly in a better position to raise a child than the other.   I always recommend to my divorcing clients that they seek primary custody because it shows an earnest desire to raise one's child and the other parent may even consent to it.  If the other parent fights it, then my clients can always negotiate a settlement for joint custody.   Option 3:Joint Custody (splitting the baby)   Joint custody is favored because it gives equal physical time to both parents.  However, the parent who makes more money may have to pay child support to the other parent.  The rationale for this is that a child should not spend half its week in a mansion and the other half in a cardboard box.  However, if both parents make the same income then child support is not awarded to either party.  If both parents should be making nearly the same amount of money, but one is not working but living off child support, then the paying parent can ask the court to adjust the child support based on "willful" unemployment.   Conclusion It is crucially important to your relationship with your child and the other parent that you consider each of the above-listed alternatives.  The option you choose will affect the time you spend with your child and the amount of child support you have to pay or that will be paid to you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Divorce in Two Months Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  January 2007    Las Vegas is the town of quick marriages and quick divorces.  Many states in the United States require a person to have resided in the state anywhere from six months to several years before a divorce court will exercise jurisdiction over a divorce.  Not so in Nevada.  You need only have lived here for six weeks before you can file a Petition for Divorce.  Once the petition is filed, the actual divorce date will depend on several factors including whether the spouse will cooperate, the court's calendar, and amount of property in dispute, and disputes over child custody.  However, if both spouses can agree on everything, then a divorce decree could be filed within a couple of month. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Were you lying then or are you lying now? Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  April 2006 Whether you committed a crime or not, you have the right to remain silent when being questioned by an authority figure.  The right against self-incrimination is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. This article will point out a few of the reasons you should keep your mouth shut. Reason 1. The police are not there to help you. They are there to gather evidence against you.  Officers will play the good cop by acting like they want to understand you and will be on your side.  Then, if you are less than forthcoming, the same cop or another one will become angry and attempt to threaten you into confessing.  Do not fall into these traps. The officers might act like they are just conversing with you.  The fact is that they want to gather sufficient evidence so that they have probable cause to arrest you, at which point they will read you your rights-but it could be too late already if you confessed.  The officers will say that you confessed voluntarily, even if they manipulated you long before they arrested you.  Who are you to then stand up in court and call our fine peacekeepers liars? Reason 2. Officers can purposefully or negligently miswrite on their reports what you told them.  Police reports are considered to be pretty good evidence in court.  When you take the stand and recount under oath the events leading up to your arrest and what you say does not match up with the police report, the District Attorney can then ask you the damning rhetorical question of, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" Reason 3. If you told the police anything, whether you are innocent or not, you have just made it much more difficult for your attorney later on to present a theory of the case that could show you are not guilty.  By speaking to the officers, you are reducing your possible defenses. Conclusion A wise man once said something to the effect of "a person is not condemned by what is put in the mouth but by what comes out of."  Therefore, when approached by an officer, be polite, courteous, and quiet.  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relocating with your child from Nevada Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  June 2006 If you have primary custody of your child and wish to move out of Nevada, you must first give notice to the other parent of your intention to move.  If the other parent consents, then you may move without court intervention. However, if the other parent does not consent, Nevada law requires the moving parent to file a "Petition for Removal".  The non-moving parent can then file an answer arguing the moving is not in the best interest of the child and a difficult court battle will ensue. The moving parent will have to prove that there is a "good faith reason" for the move.  Nevada Supreme Court cases have declared that moving to pursue a romantic relationship is a good faith reason, so is moving to better one's occupation.  The moving parent should also present evidence to show the following:  (1)  The extent to which the move is likely to improve the quality of life for both the child and the custodial parent; (2)  Whether the custodial parent's motives are honorable, and designed to frustrate or defeat visitation rights accorded to the non-custodial parent; (3) whether, if permission to remove is granted, the custodial parent will comply with any substitute visitation orders issued by the court; (4) whether the noncustodian's motives are honorable in resisting the motion for permission to remove, or to what extent, if any, the opposition is intended to secure a financial advantage in the form of ongoing support obligations or otherwise; (5) whether, if removal is allowed, there will be a realistic opportunity for the noncustodial parent to maintain a visitation schedule that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship with the noncustodial parent.  Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev.378, 383 (1991). Once the moving parent has proven a good faith reason to move, the objecting parent must prove that the move is not in the best interest of the child, otherwise the court will grant the move. Conclusion It is advised that a contested removal should be handled by an attorney because if the petition is not completed correctly and the evidence not presented adequately, the constitutionally protected right to move can be hampered when balanced against the other parent's constitution right to raise his or her child. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sealing or Expunging a Federal Criminal Record Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  April 2007 You want to be an upright citizen with opportunities for a good career, however you have a criminal record which you feel will bar you from advancement in life. In State courts you can often seal a State record after a certain length of time and depending on the crime. An attorney can aid you through the procedure. However, if your crime happened to be a federal offence, be prepared to spend enormous amounts of money just at the chance to seal your record. The odds are against you because the federal courts have ruled that only in rare situations will the court seal a record-and I mean rare.  Your crime could have been minor, it does not matter. A less expensive and perhaps even better gamble would be to write a personal letter to the President of the United States asking for a presidential pardon. Sorry folks. Once you are branded by the federal system it is likely a lifetime stain. It reminds me of the novel Les Miserable in which the hero was thrown into prison for many years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. Once he served his time, no one wanted to help an ex-convict and the police were always suspicious of him. He eventually changed his identity in order to get some semblance of a good life. However, even then he eventually ended up dying at the hands of an overzealous cop. My advice to you is to fight any federal charges from the beginning and not to plead guilty, unless you truly believe that the deal offered by the US Attorney's office is good and your chance of a conviction and severe punishment is high. If you find yourself in the unenviable position of having a federal criminal record, all I can suggest would be to do your best to explain the circumstances in a light favorable to you when a nosy employer asks. Write a summary of the incident explaining it from your point of view and attach it to your job application. If it is well written, it may even improve your chances of getting the job. As our government churns out more and more criminals with its arbitrary enforcement of arbitrary laws, more and more employers will become more and more understanding of your plight. Good luck. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Riding your Bicycle, and Other Arrestable Crimes Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  January 2006 Crimes in the United States are generally classified as misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies. Misdemeanors generally are crimes that are not very serious such as speeding. Gross misdemeanors are crimes that we consider more dangerous or more serious, and felonies are the crimes that generally involve evil intent and victims. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that police officers may arrest any person if there is probable cause of a crime. It is within the cops' discretion to arrest you if you were speeding in your car, throwing a cigarette on the ground, loitering, and riding your bicycle without using proper hand signals. The probable cause comes from the officer witnessing you committing the crime. Some cops will arrest you and justify the arrest in the police report by claiming you were belligerent and they did not believe you would sign the citation in which you promise that you will show up in court. This could be a lie on the part of the officer, but without video footage of the arrest, it is your word against the police. Law-abiding citizens are often arrested on minor offenses because they are shocked by the attitude they are given by police who stop them. Surprised at being stopped and at the condescension of the officer, the misdemeanant will say something to the effect of "I know my rights." If you argue with the cop or offer an excuse for you behavior, you could be doing yourself a grave disservice. I can tell you of a cop who stopped this fellow for speeding. The fellow said that he had not seen the speed limit sign, hoping the cop would understand and let him go with a warning. Instead, the cop wrote him the citation for speeding and added another citation for inattentive driving. Cops do not like to hear any lip and can arrest you. Cops do not care that you already feel humiliated that you are being charged with a crime when you believed you were adhering to the law. They do not care that you are a law-abiding taxpayer and you pay for their salary. Some of the slickest criminals are ex-felons. They understand the cop psychology and act with the utmost respect toward the officer, saying "Yes sir" and "No sir" and "thank you for informing sir". Even though these ex-felons probably do not pay much by way of taxes and are not responsible for contributing to police salaries, police treat them much nicer sometimes. If you act like the boot-kissing sycophant with a cop, the Cop may think you are a convicted criminal, however generally the cop will treat you better than if you act like a law-abiding citizen who knows his rights. Conclusion Be calm, courteous, and quiet with police officers when stopped. If they harass you, keep your cool or you will fuel their adrenaline and make them more apt to treat you worse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'I didn't know': What Young Thugs Should Know But Aren't Taught Anthony M. Wright, Juris Doctor Copyright:  January 2006 "I didn't know." This is the excuse many criminals give when they did something that violated the law. The excuse is most often used when a misdemeanor occurred and the misdemeanant did not know what he did was wrong. An example would be not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, which is a crime in Las Vegas, Nevada . A person from California , where rolling stops are legal, might not know that they are illegal here. It does not matter, however, that the person did not know because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Most often people feel that their lack of knowledge ought to be an excuse to pardon them from their behavior when the crime was what we in the legal profession call "malum prohibitum", which is Latin for "bad because its prohibited". Malum prohibitum laws come about when our law makers have, in their infinite wisdom, decided that some actions or inactions should be unlawful because they harm or have the potential to harm society in someway. An action or inaction is deemed wrong for public order even it there is no discernable victim. A rolling stop in Nevada could be dangerous, so it is prohibited and you are a criminal if you violate this law whether you knew better or not and whether an accident occurred or not. The problem is that there are so many laws created by so many law makers, that no one can really knows them all and many otherwise law-abiding citizens become criminals. Most often, malum prohibitum crimes are also classified as "strict liability" crimes in which the criminal's intention does not matter. It does not matter that you knew that you were committing a crime, all that matters is that a crime was committed. You did not see the speed limit was 25 miles an hour when you were flying by at 75 miles an hour. Too bad, reckless driving-no defense. Another common example of malum prohibit crimes would be statutory rape. States set age limit on who can have sex with whom. If an adult has sex with a 13 year old and the age of consent is 16, like in Nevada , then the adult is guilty of statutory rape even though the adult thought the minor was 18. A mistake of fact is not an excuse for a strict liability crime. On the other hand, we have another category of crime which is called "malum in se." Malum in se means "evil in and of itself". These crimes are crimes that people should know are wrong because their conscience tells them so. Our lawmakers have codified these crimes, but even if they hadn't, we would still know the crime to be wrong based on our morality. Such crimes include murder, rape, mayhem, robbery, arson, and others. One problem is that many of our young are not taught morality-anywhere.