Albany, New York Criminal Law Blog

Investigations continue to increase in the Penn State sex scandal case. Within 25 days of the arrest of Penn State's former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, there were already seven different formal investigations underway.

The former assistant football coach claims no wrongdoing on his part and denies taking part in any child molestation. As part of his defense, an attorney and a private investigator have been hired. Penn State's former head football coach, Joe Paterno, has also hired a criminal defense attorney, although he has yet to be charged with anything. Several administrators were charged with lying to a grand jury and failing to report suspected abuse, and other university personnel continue to be scrutinized. A former FBI investigator has been appointed to oversee the board of trustees' investigation into the sex scandal.

The numerous investigations and the heightened scrutiny on the college have taken a toll on university students as reporters and news vehicles continue to swarm the campus. Although students, faculty and administrators would prefer the story to simply disappear, it does not appear this will happen any time soon.

New rules regarding sentencing for individuals convicted of possessing or distributing crack and cocaine could mean that thousands of current inmates will be released early.

In August 2010, with the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, Congress changed the disparity in minimum sentences for crack charges and powder cocaine charges. Previously, those charged with crack possession faced much stricter minimum sentences than those charged with powder cocaine possession. If convicted of possession or distribution of 5 grams of crack cocaine, one would receive a minimum of 5 years in prison. To receive that same amount of time for possession or distribution of powder cocaine, someone had to have 500 grams -- a difference of about 100 to 1, when looking at the punishment based on weight.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court considered just how far strip searches can be used in criminal cases.

The underlying case, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, involved a New Jersey man who was arrested in 2005. He was picked up in error for an outstanding warrant -- a warrant that should have been dropped after he paid a delinquent fine. He was actually processed in two separate county jails. During the route processing, he was strip searched not once, but twice.

Once he was freed, he sued, claiming that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search was violated. The federal district court agreed, but the appellate court reversed, finding that routine strip searches were based on safety for the general prison population. The man petitioned the nation's highest court for review, arguing that police should only strip search arrestees if they have a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is hiding something. Absent that suspicion, he argued, strip searches are a "significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity."

Two-point-five billion. No, that's not the population of the U.S. And no, it is not how many burgers McDonald sells each year. It is the value of assets that the law enforcement agents seized in 2010 in under forfeiture laws.

The Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies seized over $2.5 billion last year in asset forfeitures. The purpose of forfeiture laws is to take apart criminal enterprises and remove "ill-gotten gains" from alleged criminals. But, as pointed out by the Wall Street Journal, the government may have too much power to seize those assets.

Imagine yourself sitting in class, listening to a lecture, when suddenly someone comes running in the room, knocks the professor aside, grabs his briefcase and dashes out of the room. You look at your classmates, realizing they looked as stunned as you do at the brash crime. The professor slowly picks himself off the floor, and looking out at the class, says, "Did anyone get a good look at the guy?"

Wanting to be helpful, several in the room pipe up with descriptions. But as everyone began to describe what they noticed about the intruder, a theme emerged: no two descriptions were exactly alike. This exercise only further supports numerous studies that approximately one in every three eyewitness identifications are wrong.

In 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was enacted, putting into effect a national standard for registering and monitoring convicted sex offenders. Now, five years later, states are up against the implementation deadline for the Act's requirements. All states who haven't met the Act's requirements face a 10 percent cut in their federal justice assistance funding.

As of earlier this week, only 14 states had "substantially implemented" the sex offender registration provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Under the law, registration is required for more categories of crimes, and the registration period is increased for a number of offenders. SONRA also required certain juveniles to become registered offenders.

The overall goal of the act was to create a national public registry, but based on the small number of states and territories in line with the Act's requirements, it appears that it will still be some time before the goal becomes a reality.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) is under fire for racial profiling when it comes to "stop-and-frisk" activity. Civil rights advocates are quick to point out that data shows African-Americans are stopped disproportionally by police, and very few stops actually result in charges.

And the numbers do reveal a disproportion: 50.6 percent of those stopped were black, compared to 33.4 percent Hispanic, 9.2 percent white, and 3.7 percent Asian. Given that 33 percent of New York City residents are white, 29 percent are Hispanic, 23 percent are black and 13 percent are Asian, the numbers of those stopped are not reflective.

Stop-and-frisk searches occur when law enforcement officials confront a suspicious person, conduct a pat down (searching for weapons) and question the individual. While officers do not have to have a warrant to stop and frisk an individual, they do have to have a reasonable suspicion that the individual may be involved in illegal activity before making a stop.

Almost every driver will be pulled over at least once in their life, whether it is for speeding or on suspicion of something more serious - such as drunk driving or drug possession. During the average traffic stop, the officer approaches the car and asks for the driver's license and registration. But occasionally, an officer may ask if he can search the inside of the vehicle.

If an officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, then the officer can search you and your car. But the officer must have evidence that you could be armed, dangerous or involved in illegal activity. Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the only other way an officer can legally search your car is if you, the owner, give permission.