@hokiestorm
@WxDan
@KevinMyattWx
@KathrynProciv

 Bring on the supercells!

You do something stupid. You do your punishment. You think it’s behind you.

You definitely think it’s behind you when it was FORTY years ago.

A Wells Fargo employee, Yolanda Quesada, found out that it’s not. She was fired after a background check revealed she was convicted of shoplifting twice in 1972. She had apparently been a well-regarded Wells Fargo employee for five years. Now she’s unemployed.

This is one reason it’s critical to consult with an attorney if you’re charged with shoplifting in Virginia. It’s a serious offense that could have devastating consequences decades down the road.

You never know when an employer might find out about a past offense, and you certainly don’t know what they will do about it. I’d like to think that Yolanda’s situation is an extreme example, but I’m afraid it’s not.

The side point that I don’t see addressed in the media reports about Yolanda is whether or not her Wells Fargo application asked if she had ever been charged and/or convicted of a theft offense. I would bet that a bank’s employment application would inquire about that info. At the very least, I’m not sure why an initial hiring background check didn’t reveal the 1972 offenses. The bigger problem Wells Fargo might be facing is if Yolanda was asked about any prior convictions and she didn’t disclose them. That becomes a current offense of dishonesty against the company instead of an old offense that might could be overlooked.

In other words, if you have a shoplifting conviction, even from 40 years ago, you must disclose it whenever you’re asked. Better to tell the truth about an indiscretion from a long time ago than be accused of lying today.

Photo by boutmet

Originally published at AndrewFlusche.com. © 2012 Andrew Flusche. 40-Year-Old Shoplifting Conviction Costs Woman Her Job

It’s fundamental that everyone has the right to a fair trial in the United States. Or is it?

Apparently that right might not exist in some Stafford cases, according to a breaking news article.

A judge just set aside an assault verdict where a jury convicted the defendant. The defense attorney accused the Commonwealth’s Attorney of withholding exculpatory evidence, which was required to be given to the defense.

What sort of evidence? Part of it is a statement from the victim to Stafford law enforcement that his assailant doesn’t match the description of the defendant that Stafford charged and convicted. Yeah, I’d say that might matter in court.

All the more reason why anyone charged with any type of offense in Stafford should talk to an attorney asap.

Originally published at AndrewFlusche.com. © 2012 Andrew Flusche. Stafford Accused of Withholding Evidence – Verdict Reversed

To pull you over, an officer typically needs “reasonable articulable suspicion.” That’s a mouthful that basically means “more than a hunch.”

Video Transcription

Hello, my name is Andrew Flusche, and I’m a Virginia traffic attorney. If you are stopped while driving a vehicle, the officer has to have what’s called “reasonable articulable suspicion” in order to pull you over. There are some exceptions to that, such as roadblocks and checkpoints, but those are a whole other video’s worth of information.

Basically, if you’re stopped in a normal situation, where the officer puts on their lights and pulls you over, to make it a legal stop, what the law says is that the officer has to have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are violating the law in some form. Typically, that involves speeding, making an improper lane change, running a stop sign, or something of that nature. In many cases, a simple stop like that ends up being a DUI, possession of marijuana, or something more serious.

But in some cases, it’s not clear that the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion of some kind of legal violation. Sometimes what happens is maybe the officer doesn’t have a specific, clear violation of the law. Virginia law, unfortunately, does let the officer stop you if there is some reasonable suspicion of some kind of problem. There is case law that says that weaving in your own lane can be enough for the officer to pull you over and suspect you for DUI if his training basically says, and his experience says that weaving within your lane is caused by DUI, then he can pull you over for that.

Sometimes though, the officer can be mistaken when he pulls you over. He might think that he has a good stop, but that stop might not be upheld by the court as valid. The key thing for a defense is that if the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to pull you over, then any evidence obtained from the stop should be suppressed in court. In many traffic and DUI and possession of marijuana cases, that might be enough to win the whole case. That might throw out all the evidence against you basically.

This is a really important thing for us to look at first in your case: did the officer have a reasonable articulable suspicion to pull you over? It’s not probable cause – that’s a whole other topic and it’s a different standard – but to make a traffic stop, he has to have reasonable articulable suspicion, and that’s basically more than a hunch. So if you would like to talk about that on your case, give me a call.

Originally published at AndrewFlusche.com. © 2012 Andrew Flusche. Traffic Stops: Reasonable Articulable Suspicion