Articles Posted in Civil Rights

Many of the people I meet in Jackson, Ridgeland, Clinton, The City of Madison, and all over Mississippi have a misunderstanding about the right to vote after a felony conviction. The Mississippi Constitution lists ten (10) crimes. The specific Mississippi Constitutional Provision is as follows:

SECTION 241, MS. Constitution of 1890:
Every inhabitant of this state, except idiots and insane persons, who is a citizen of the United States of America, eighteen (18) years old and upward, who has been a resident of this state for one (1) year, and for one (1) year in the county in which he offers to vote, and for six (6) months in the election precinct or in the incorporated city or town in which he offers to vote, and who is duly registered as provided in this article, and who has never been convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy, is declared to be a qualified elector, except that he shall be qualified to vote for President and Vice President of the United States if he meets the requirements established by Congress therefor and is otherwise a qualified elector.

In addition to these ten (10) crimes the Mississippi Attorney General in an opinion listed eleven other crimes that should be added to the list. These crimes are armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, unlawful carjacking. These crimes were added because in the opinion of the Attorney General they fell within Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution that prohibited voting after a theft conviction. In total there are 21 crimes that will take away your right to vote.

This is the 50th Anniversary of the Freedom Riders coming to Mississippi to help integrate bus stations, lunch counters, hotels, and various other public places. When the Freedom Riders arrived however, Mississippi police officers were waiting and armed with new laws with which to arrest them. These so-called “breach of peace” laws were passed in 1960 and 1961 primarily to allow officers to arrest civil rights protestors. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the conviction of various Freedom Riders in this 1964 case.

The most disturbing part of these statutes is that most of them are still on the books and being used every day to arrest Mississippi citizens for failing to comply with police orders even when they are not breaking the law in the first place. The Mississippi Legislature did repeal one of the “breach of peace” statutes in 2009.

I cannot recount the numerous cases which I have defended over the years which started out with an officer telling someone to “shut up”, “come here”, or do something. When the person excercised his or her constitutional right to refrain from doing as the officer said, the person was arrested and charged with “failing to comply with a police officer”, “disturbing the peace”, “disorderly conduct”, and/or “resisting arrest”. The facts at trial usually show that the citizen arrested was not committing any criminal act before being told by the officer to do something. Speaking, contrary to most police officer’s opinion, is NOT a criminal offense. In fact, the Mississippi Supreme Court has even held that a citizen may even curse at a police officer but I do not recommend this course of action.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by police. This area of the law is very complex with a rich history of decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Generally, a person is entitled to protection in any place or any thing where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The term reasonable expectation of privacy includes an individual’s house, car, purse, motel room, and other such places. It can also include telephone calls that you expect to be private.

Another general rule is that the law favors a search warrant that is issued by a judge only after law enforcement can provide probable cause to the judge that the place to be search has evidence of a crime or contraband. Practically, most experienced lawyers believe that warrants are issued far to easily by judges. That is not the subject of this article. The real problem is Fourth Amendment search cases usually come down to the “exceptions” to the warrant requirement.

As I stated the law strongly favors warrants, but there are many, many exceptions where officers do not have to obtain warrants. It would take me to long to list them all. I will provide a few examples. Because of the moving nature of a car, a warrant is not required if the police have probable cause to search a car. The rationale is that the individual could drive the car away while the officers got the warrant. If the police arrest a person and impound his car, they can conduct what is called an inventory search of the car to safeguard any property and protect the police from claims that property was stolen from the individual arrested. When a person is arrested the police can also make a full search of the person, which is called a search incident to a arrest. Lastly, if there are “exigent circumstances” the police can enter a building or house without a warrant. An example of this would be if the police heard a person screaming and they did not have time to get a warrant to go into the house in order to see if someone was hurt or being harmed.

The United States Supreme Court is set to decide if prosecutors should be immune from civil liability when they prosecute and help convict an innocent person. This is a hot bottom issue for many people. There have been 212 people freed from prison in the last decade. These were people convicted of serious, violent offenses. The people convicted were freed using new DNA technology. Their convictions were also based on eye witness testimony that had to be absolutely incorrect. It is horrible for an innocent person to go to prison. Think a few minutes about how you would feel if you spent 15 or 20 years in a maximum security prison for a crime you did not commit. On the other hand prosecutors argue that they have to be free to pursue their duties and not be worried about lawsuits.

It is going to be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will handle this case. I think it makes total sense to provide prosecutors liability from civil liability in their routine duties. But, what about in those situations where the proof shows that the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony or made up testimony that caused a man to get convicted. I personally think that if a case shows that a prosecutor knowingly used or supported the use of false testimony there should be no immunity for the prosecutor. Prosecutors have a duty not only to prosecute but to ensure that the accused receives a fundamentally fair trial and that statutes, rules, and the Constitution are followed. The prosecutor should not be entitled to immunity if he violates the law. I am not hopeful of a positive decision from the Supreme Court. Let’s wait for the opinion.

Merrida Coxwell is an attorney with 29 years of experience helping people charged with criminal offenses. Over the course of his career he has helped hundreds of people during some of the worse times of their life. If you have a criminal problem do not hesitate to call for a free consultation.