H. Michael Steinberg has over 32 years experience practicing Colorado criminal law. Mr. Steinberg strives to stay current with the ever changing aspects of criminal law issues and updates resulting in his extensive knowledge of successful criminal defense as well as appellate work. He is also an active member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Association, the Colorado Trial Lawyer's Association, and the Colorado and Arapahoe Bar Associations.

Articles Posted in Search and Seziure Laws

Published on:

Colorado Criminal Law - Motion To Suppress Evidence - New 2015 Case Changes Burden of Proof.jpgBy H. Michael Steinberg – Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer Online Blog

Colorado Criminal Law – Motion To Suppress Evidence – New 2015 Case Changes Burden of Proof – For over 30 years the burden of going forward in a Colorado criminal Motion to Suppress Evidence hearing was on the prosecution. With the announcement of a new case People vs Cunningham – that burden – in many Colorado criminal courtrooms – now sits with the Defendant and his or her lawyer.

The Case of People v. Cunningham 314 P.3d 1289 (Colo. 2013), 13SA179,

Published on:

Colorado Cell Phone Searches.jpgCell phones – 91% of us have them. Cell phones are a modern marvel defying most of us to com close to fully understand how they function. They are truly highly complex “mini computers” containing vast amounts of personal information that should remain private and well away from the eyes of law enforcement.

Recently the United States Supreme Court has been asked – in the case of Riley vs California – to set the standard for searches “incident to arrest” involving the seizure – but much more importantly – the search of the contents of cell phones.

A petition to the Supreme Court asks the court to clarify whether – and under what conditions – law enforcement may access the massive amounts of personal information on all of our cell phones without a search warrant.

Published on:

Colorado Miranda Rights.pngOn June 17, 2013 the United States Supreme Court – in Salinas v. Texas – took a step back from the protections accorded by the Fifth Amendment’s Right To Remain Silent.

The Facts of Salinas:

Salinas – before being placed into custody – answered questions posed by a police officer in a homicide investigation. At the time he answered the questions he was not under arrest. Among the questions was a comment by the officer about the potential ballistics match as regards casings found at the scene.

Published on:

Colorado Mirand Rights Law.jpgBy Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer – Attorney – Colorado Miranda Rights Law – H. Michael Steinberg

Colorado Miranda Rights Law is sometimes not only internally complex but is ever evolving for law enforcement since the original Miranda decision so many years ago.

Understanding the application of the Miranda decision – the imposition of the advisement and issues surrounding the waiver of your Miranda rights requires a close look at the law and what constitutes a valid waiver of those rights.

Published on:

In a unanimous but confusing decision issued by the United States Supreme Court last week – the Justices held that a 28 day use of a GPS tracking device paced on a suspects vehicle without the benefit of a search warrant – is unconsitutional.

The confusing part? Scalia did not hold that a warrant was always necessary. Walter Dellinger, who represented the Defendant Antoine Jones at the Supreme Court, said the decision means that any use of GPS technology by law enforcement without a warrant “would be a risky undertaking.”

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion which held that the GPS attachment violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Published on:

In an important case decided recently by the Florida Supreme Court — the Court held that a dog sniff at the front door of a private residence was an illegal search… thus shutting the door to an expansion of the use of the “dog sniff” tool to invade the privacy of the home of the average citizen.

In Jardines v Florida, the police conducted a warrantless “sniff test” by a drug detection dog at Jardines‟ home and discovered live marijuana plants inside. The trial court granted Jardines‟ motion to suppress the evidence, and the State appealed.

An important point of law from the decision – says it all –