Refer the Wall Street Journal. “The right call“, “a double-standard,” “the right thing,” a “miscarriage of justice.” The reactions to Tuesday’s dramatic development in the Hillary Clinton email investigation came in fast and furious and not surprisingly ranged widely in their assessment of the FBI director’s recommendation not to bring criminal charges against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Legal experts and former Justice Department officials generally agree that many of the findings from the FBI’s probe — underscoring gaps in security standards and punching holes in Mrs. Clinton’s defenses — were at least a damning rebuke of the former secretary of state.

But they disagree on whether Mrs. Clinton should face charges. Below is a selection of reactions from scholars and prominent legal figures from both sides of the debate.

Comey got it right:

• Defense attorney Abbe Lowell told Reuters that Comey’s recommendation to the attorney general was “completely consistent” with other high-profile case charging violation of laws governing the handling of classified information, including the case against retired Gen. and former CIA chief David Petraeus.

“The one common denominator of all such [prosecuted] cases is that the individual involved intentionally sent material to those not authorized to receive it, like the press, like a foreign government,” said Mr. Lowell, who also cited the leak case against a former State Department contractor he represented.

• Elizabeth Goitein, who co-heads the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Project, told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that Mr. Comey just didn’t think all the evidence gathered would support a criminal prosecution. “That’s what prosecutors base their decisions on — what the evidence shows, not what they personally think happened.”

• CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, a former adviser to four presidents, said “embittered partisans” may object to Mr. Comey’s decision. But he thinks the FBI conducted a “diligent” investigation and wrestled in good faith with a close call, particularly with respect to whether Mrs. Clinton committed criminal “gross negligence” under the Espionage Act.

If you have a problem, and you don’t have the resources that Hillary Clinton has, consider calling Alex Truluk. Alexander Truluck focuses his practice as a criminal defense attorney in Clearwater, Palm Harbor, Largo, Dunedin and the Tampa Bay area.

For more information, visit our website at http://www.criminallawyerclearwaterflorida.com
or call (727) 799-3550.

Refer AOL News. June 30, 2016. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers could administer warrantless Breathalyzer tests to people suspected of driving drunk.

The case, Birchfield v. North Dakota, effectively criminalizes the refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer test and affects laws in 11 states.

The outcome will most likely lead to an increase in drunken-driving convictions across the country, according to Derek Andrews, a defense attorney at the DUI Foundation, the organization linked to the viral “silent” drunken-driving checkpoint hack

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, though laws vary by state. Many lawyers openly encourage their clients to refuse a Breathalyzer because prosecutors have a harder time landing convictions with less evidence. Depending on the probable cause, refusing to take a pre-arrest Breathalyzer likely won’t result in a license suspension, but in many states, like New York, refusing a post-arrest Breathalyzer could lead to automatic license suspension of varying durations.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, however, there could be “an increase in the number of chemical test results,” Andrews wrote in an email to Business Insider. People might be more likely to submit for fear of the certain legal repercussions. Chemical tests can be a Breathalyzer, blood draw, or even a urine sample.

To put it simply, more people submitting to Breathalyzer tests means that states and prosecutors will have greater evidence against them.

While a state should be able to ask for a warrantless Breathalyzer test, and even a blood draw, states should not be able to criminalize the refusal of the test, according to Andrews.

“It is a fundamental premise of our criminal justice system that it is the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime, and it is the government’s duty to collect evidence and develop a case,” Andrews wrote. “It is not, however, a person’s duty to give that evidence to the government.”

Issuing criminal penalties, however, could also encourage people to refuse a Breathalyzer.

“This country is simply going to have more criminals because the government has chosen to criminalize a refusal to provide (potentially) incriminating evidence to law enforcement,” Andrews wrote. “…. There are other ways of combating DWI/DUI than convicting more people of crimes.”

It’s worth nothing the Supreme Court differentiated between Breathalyzer tests and blood tests, arguing that because blood draws are more intrusive, states may not demand them without a warrant.

Alexander Truluck focuses his practice as a criminal defense attorney in Clearwater, Palm Harbor, Largo, Dunedin and the Tampa Bay area.

For more information, visit our website at http://www.criminallawyerclearwaterflorida.com
or call (727) 799-3550.

.