Let’s sort out some common misconceptions about voting in Minnesota.
1. Individuals with misdemeanor convictions cannot vote – You can absolutely vote if you have a misdemeanor conviction on your record or have pending misdemeanor charges. If you’re being held in jail, you can legally vote by absentee ballot.
2. Felons cannot vote in Minnesota – Back in 2023, Minnesota restored the right to vote to convicted felons who have been released from prison. You can learn more about the change on the ACLU’s website. They are eligible to vote in person or absentee once they are out of prison.
3. Homeless individuals cannot vote – Again, this is untrue. Homeless individuals can register and vote in the precinct in which they live and usually sleep (which can be a street corner, a park, a shelter, or any other location).
4. You need to have an ID to vote – Having a valid form of identification makes it easier to vote, but it’s not required. If you did not bring identification to your polling location to register to vote, you may satisfy the identification requirement by having someone who is registered to vote in your precinct vouch for your identity.
5. You can’t vote after the polls close – As long as you are inside the building where voting is taking place, or you’re in line to vote when the polls close at 8:00 p.m., you are allowed to wait until it’s your turn and legally cast your vote. You cannot be turned away if you are in line before the polls officially close at 8:00 p.m.
Don’t let misinformation keep you from voting, and know that it’s illegal to knowingly spread false information about an election, so speak up if something or someone isn’t following the rules. Make your voice heard and practice your civic duty today!
And if you get a speeding ticket on the way to the polls or have a criminal matter hanging over your head, let the team at Appelman Law Firm help sort it all out. Give our team a call today at (952) 224-2277.
]]>Should I Tell My Lawyer If I Actually Committed The Crime?
Let’s first begin by sharing Avery’s answer to the above question.
“You should only answer the question that your lawyer asks you. That’s it. Don’t offer more information. The minute that you give the lawyer facts, information, he or she is bound by that, right? And one of our ethical requirements is that we can’t put somebody on the witness stand to testify under oath to something that we know is false. We can’t suborn perjury. We can’t put you on there to lie. So answer the question your lawyer asks you, and nothing more.”
We stand by this advice, and we want to expand on it a bit in this blog. For starters, some people incorrectly thought that admitting to the crime to your lawyer means that they will go hand over that evidence or tell the judge or prosecutor that you admitted to the crime. Lawyers are not required to tell on a client if they admit to the crime, and this information would be subject to attorney-client privilege. That information stays between us, but we are legally obligated to alter how we pitch your defense if you admit to the crime.
We can’t put a client up on the stand, know that they are guilty because they admitted to it and ask questions that directly cause our client to perjure themselves. Attorneys can’t knowingly put their client on the stand to lie under oath, which is why no attorney worth a damn will ever ask if you committed the crime. There may be physical evidence that suggests you committed the crime, there may be video recordings that appear to suggest you committed the crime, and you may not have an alibi for the night in question, but all of those issues can be worked around by your attorney. Physical evidence could be planted, video recordings could be altered or inconclusive, and the fact that you don’t have an airtight alibi doesn’t mean you certainly committed a crime. We can and routinely work for our clients when the deck appears to be stacked against them.
But legally, we have to alter our defense strategy in the event that our client admits to the crime. Anything short of this, and we can easily create plausible deniability, but when you admit to the act in question to your lawyer, they have to change their defense strategy. Again, they will not take this information and hand it over to the other side, but legally we can’t set you up to willfully and knowingly perjure yourself under oath.
So at the end of the day, follow the advice provided by Avery and only answer the question your lawyer asks, because they’ll never outright ask if you did it. They don’t want to tie their hands and make it more challenging to win a case, so whether you’re talking to a lawyer or police, keep your answers short and only answer the specific question being asked.
If you want to connect with a lawyer who knows how to best defend you against the levied charges and understands how to put you in the best position to win your case, reach out to Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.
]]>Recently, a study out of New Jersey took a closer look at how darkness impacts crime rates, and the results were truly fascinating. We take a closer look at how darkness impacts crime rates in today’s blog.
To learn more about what’s lurking in the shadows and the impact of letting there be light, researchers took a closer look at crime data around aging streetlights. More specifically, they looked at the crime data from specific areas and then tracked crime statistics for the next six months after aging streetlights were replaced with bright LED fixtures. The study, which took place in Newark, New Jersey, and involved upgrades to more than 1,400 streetlights around the city, discovered that crime fell by 46% in the areas where the older streetlights were replaced with brighter and wider illuminating light bulbs.
However, the effects of these upgrades were short-lived. Although crime fell by 46% in the first six months after the bulbs were replaced, the effect faded over time, and by two years after the upgrade, the reduction in violent crime was no longer statistically significant. Researchers concluded that while these light bulb upgrades may curb violent crime in the short term, infrastructure upgrades alone may not be enough to sustain those gains.
“The results of this study suggest that enhanced street lighting can be an effective strategy for reducing nighttime violent crime in urban areas,” researchers concluded. “However, this deterrent effect diminishes over time, possibly indicating that motivated offenders adapt to these environments.”
Criminals like to stay in the shadows, but like any predator, they’ll adapt to their surroundings, so it’s not surprising that crime leveled out after a couple of years. Upgrading the street lights may be a good stating point, but larger community efforts to reduce crime and make neighborhoods safe are needed to have any hope of impacting crime rates on a long-term scale.
If you’ve run into trouble with the law and need a criminal defense attorney to help sort everything out, pick up the phone and reach out to Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.
]]>Prosecutors say that Makayla Lee Craig filled out paperwork claiming to be a 17-year-old named Molly Fox. “Fox” claimed to be homeless with no identification documents while attempting to enroll at Maple Grove High School. Fox insisted on immediate enrollment and told school staff that “they looked older than 17, so the staff would not seem concerned when they met.” If that wasn’t enough, Fox allegedly told staff they were concerned about “being mistaken for Makayla Ray Craig, who is a registered sex offender out of Oregon.”
Not surprisingly, school administrators quickly contacted police. During an interaction with the suspect, Craig told officers that their name was Molly Fox, that they had never attended school and that they wanted to start school after finding sobriety. Maple Grove police referred to Craig as male, while court documents use they/them pronouns. Craig was later arrested and charged with three counts of forgery.
According to court records out of Oregon, Craig was previously convicted on charges for claiming to be 15 years old and attempting to enroll in a high school in that state in 2024.
This latest attempt was also unsuccessful, as Maple Grove police said Craig never completed enrollment and was never on campus or in online classes. Police credited the school staff “for their alertness with the incident, quick action to notify a school resource officer, and collaboration in the investigation.”
At last notice, Craig was being held at Hennepin County Jail prior to their first appearance, which was scheduled for last Friday.
I’m sure a lot of us would like to go back to high school for a day to hang with our friends or play one last game with our teammates, but forging documents and attempting to enroll at a high school isn’t the best way to go about it. Hopefully Craig gets the mental health care that they need to move on from this and make a positive impact on society going forward.
In the meantime, if you need assistance fighting a criminal charge or a traffic citation that you received, pick up the phone and contact the team at Appelman Law Firm. Give our team of defense experts a call today at (952) 224-2277.
]]>Flock, the company behind more than 120,000 automated license plate readers across the country, said that it’s changing its policies in the wake of concerning information about how the data collected by their company is sometimes being used. There are countless stories where widespread and unauthorized access is putting the public at risk, including but not limited to:
Unauthorized Surveillance and Stalking – At least 50 law enforcement officers across multiple states have been reprimanded for using the technology to track spouses, ex-partners, romantic interests or simply a woman they found attractive during a traffic stop.
Problematic Access – Investigations have found that retired, suspended or former police officers sometimes retain access to Flock information long after leaving their departments.
Unauthorized Viewers – Investigations have discovered that unsafe password and login information has allowed unauthorized individuals to access some Flock systems.
In response to all the backlash, Flock has announced some new policies and restrictions that the believe will help address the issues, but others aren’t so certain the changes will do much. According to Flock, the new changes include:
As we always come back to when talking about Flock cameras and mass surveillance, the quote from Benjamin Franklin once again rings true – “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Sacrificing general privacy so that we can potentially stop rare crimes just a little bit sooner seems backwards, especially when you consider how the system is regularly being abused by police. Due process still matters, and police shouldn’t be able to track our movements or find out our daily habits because of these automated license plate readers. We’re allowing our rights to be stripped away under the guise of “it’s for your protection,” and we’ve seen how that has played out throughout history.
50 communities nationwide have already terminated or cancelled their contracts with Flock, and hopefully more follow suit. This mass surveillance is problematic even when it’s not being abused.
If you or someone you know needs assistance fighting a criminal charge or a traffic offense, reach out to Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.
]]>