James Hopkins Full EP 6_Audio Only
James Hopkins: Welcome to Reasonable Doubt. James Hopkins for the defense.
Kevin Rosenquist: Hello and welcome back to Reasonable Doubt. James Hopkins for the defense with attorney James Hopkins. James is a top tier criminal defense attorney with over 30 years of experience in New York state and federal courts. A former ada, he's tried hundreds of high stakes cases, from homicide to drug crimes to embezzlement, earning his place among the top 100 trial lawyers. An expert in forensic DNA evidence and a fierce advocate, Hopkins delivers strategic, high impact defense for every client. I'm Kevin Rosenquist and today we're talking about your rights. James will explain what they are, how to use them, and what to avoid when you're facing criminal charges in New York. James, welcome back.
James Hopkins: Nice to see you.
Kevin Rosenquist: All right, so the do's and don'ts of when you're facing charges, I'm sure you've seen it all. So let's start here. For someone who's just been arrested, what should they know about their rights right off the bat that you think people often just don't have a clue about?
James Hopkins: Well, people in general want to be helpful to law enforcement and what they oftentimes don't realize is that everything that they are saying could potentially come back to bite them. their explanations may be based on less than, than, accurate information. And their attempts to, you know, to get themselves out of the situation sometimes digs the hole deeper. You know, we've all heard the Miranda warnings. You have a right to remain silent and generally speaking, that's the right thing to do. your attorney can do the talking for you and your attorney can, can set forth your explanation for how you found yourself in that situation. But generally speaking, it's best to not say anything, as you're being arrested.
Kevin Rosenquist: So I'd like to talk a little bit about the Miranda rights. We all know the first part of it anyway from we see it on Law and Order every episode that you've ever watched. In real life, what do those rights actually protect and when do they apply?
James Hopkins: They apply immediately upon, at any critical, stage of the proceeding. An arrest is a critical stage. and so but an arrest is actually a term of art. Ah, in a sense, you may be being questioned by a police officer, but you are not yet in custody and not yet under arrest. So therefore, what you are saying may be used against you without even offering, without giving those warrants warnings, the a custodial setting, where you're being interrogated is clearly, where your rights apply and if you're not given Miranda warnings at that time, it does not invalidate the arrest. It does perhaps implicate whether or not the statements that you make can be used against you. That's a common misperception. If somebody is not given Miranda warnings initially and they said, well, they took me off the jail anyhow, it doesn't necessarily mean that, that's not completely valid and, that the arrest will stand up. by giving you the Miranda warnings, it is probably fair warning that you're in danger of being arrested. And, so that. That is something that, individuals should, be mindful of. And at that point, my advice would be to call an attorney. you have the right to call an attorney, while in a custodial situation. And, you have the right, once you have invoked that right, questioning, is supposed to stop. Now, that doesn't always, apply. you know, sometimes police officers are looking forward to, getting a little bit more information. and whether or not there has been a, invocation of right to counsel, is sometimes open to interpretation. For instance, if you say, should I get an attorney? Or maybe I ought to call my attorney or do I need an attorney? Those are not clear, requests for counsel. And so therefore questioning may continue without an attorney being present. And, it sometimes leads to serious consequences for the, individual involved.
Kevin Rosenquist: You mentioned the thing about the Miranda rights not being said. I feel like I remember that at one time, people thinking that or people saying that, well, he didn't give them. The police officer didn't give the Miranda rights. So that's some sort of, issue or violation. Was that ever the case? Is there a reason people have this misperception?
James Hopkins: Well, it's just so routine now, okay, that, you know, when you're being arrested, you get your Miranda warnings read to you. but no, it does not invalidate the arrest itself.
00:05:00
James Hopkins: statements taken, after your arrest without the, The Miranda warnings being given may be subject to suppression. there are some exceptions to that, obviously, but, But generally speaking, any. Anything taken, any statements taken after, Miranda, warnings, or, excuse me, if Miranda warnings have not been given, you know, are subject to suppression. And, But the arrest itself. If a police officer, like, sees you, like, knocking a guy over the head with a. With a beer bottle and then running down the street, he can pick you up and, you know, take you into custody. He doesn't need you to explain what you were doing. Okay? And if you. If he fails to give Miranda warnings under those circumstances, his own observations are sufficient to make up the charge. So, but in, in other cases, your responses may provide the critical, information necessary to connect you to the crime. And if those were, if that information was obtained in violation of your constitutional rights, then it may be enough to throw out the charge. it's something that needs to be, investigated by an experienced attorney.
Kevin Rosenquist: You mentioned earlier, one of the mistakes that people make is talking too much, and wanting to be helpful. I can see how it would be. You'd feel pressure to explain yourself as you're being questioned. It's a stressful situation and all that. What do you tell people as far as that goes? Is it just don't say anything or can they say some things? What's your advice?
James Hopkins: Police officer could ask your name, you know, your address, those kind of things. And, and could be completely innocuous. the usual, statement on this on the street is you know, you know, what's your name, where are you coming from, where are you going? Those kind of things. Okay. Now, you know, moral response from people is giving your name, giving your address and giving. And informing the cop where you're going or coming from. Well, if it turns out that your address happens to be the site of where there's been a reported crime, your statement might have just implicated yourself in that. you don't know or where are you coming from? Those are relatively innocuous questions. That's something a good police officer is going to be, inquiring about. If you match the description of somebody that is wanted for, like a, a purse snatching down the street, that's, you know, they're going to be. It, it's, it's only good police work that they're going to try to, you know, to apprehend the the suspect there. And so a, A brief interaction asking, you know, that kind of information is certainly not going to be viewed as being, you know, contrary to you know, to your constitutional rights. However, if it keeps you there and doesn't let you, or takes you down, to the station for further questioning, that requires a little bit more. There has to be some probable cause there that you might be involved, in this, transaction. and those are things that perhaps, the lack of the same might lead to to a dismissal, of the charges.
Kevin Rosenquist: Okay. Are there other mistakes that people make during questioning or interrogation that can hurt their case other than maybe oversharing well.
James Hopkins: Also, speculation can be bad. you know, if you, don't know what the police officer knows, you don't know what, What they're actually talking to you about. And you. You know, if you start trying, particularly those who are trying to fashion an alibi in the midst, of, questioning, you can wind up saying some, you know, things that are demonstrably false and that could hurt you worse than if you had said nothing. if there is an alibi, if there's a viable, you know, explanation for what, What's happening in here, let your attorney know, Bring it. Bring it forth and, discuss it. You know, you know, see things, you know, understand where everything is. You don't know what other people have said. there's always, you know, people have different, perspectives. they view the same event from different sides of the street, and they might have a different understanding of what's going on. And people may have said things that appear, To have, Appear like, fully. Ah. factual. That they may have made a, Like a, A wrong conclusion about what's going on. So if you like, immediately contradict them, it may, you know, it may lead to some like, unfortunate, misunderstandings, between you and the. And the police. Police. So again,
00:10:00
James Hopkins: my. My recommendation. And I realize I. I'm an attorney who, you know, you know, obviously I'm going to be, you know, urging people to contact, myself or others in my profession. But it really is good advice. Okay. If you're being questioned, you really should, consult with counsel.
Kevin Rosenquist: I feel like it's. It's difficult probably for someone to tell the difference between cooperating with law enforcement and giving up information that could be used against them. Is that, Is that a fair, fair assessment? Is it difficult for people to separate those two?
James Hopkins: Well, sure. but if you're simply a witness, you know, the police officers are going to try to get your, Your take on things, and they're going to try and. And make you understand that they need your help. and a witness does not, necessarily enjoy the right to counsel. but if the questioning turns from, merely seeking information to an accusatory tone, that's something that should be, perceived by the person who's being questioned. And they should then say, okay, that's enough. I. I want to talk to my lawyer. And that. That's And it should be an unequivocal request. It's not, you know, is it time to call? You know, do I need Them now or words to that effect. You want to say? I want to speak to my attorney.
Kevin Rosenquist: Let's talk a little bit about search and seizure. What, what are the limits that a police officer can do without a warrant?
James Hopkins: There are a million different scenarios, and it depends on where it takes place. searching a car is different than searching a home. The fourth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. if a judge has signed a search warrant based upon probable cause, then the police officers are entitled to be at particular location and search for whatever is described in the search warrant. in a moving vehicle, there are fewer protections. police officer can stop a a ah, vehicle for, for different reasons, you know. You know, probably most likely is for a traffic violation. And when they approach the, the car, and ask the driver for identification which is also permitted, they may, may make observations. They may look inside and see a gun sticking out of ah, the passenger seat. Or they might see drug implements in there. And that gives them a heightened additional reason to make further inquiry. there's all, there's a, a series of steps that must be undertaken. But there's quite a bit of law on searches and seizures in here and it, it's too complicated to get into here. But but there are certainly circumstances where a police officer is allowed to, to search you without a warrant. if you're in the, if you're, if it's a search incident to arrest, they may pat you down, find that you have a weapon and that weapon could be used regardless of whether or not a judge had signed a search warrant for it. your car is impounded, because it's ah, the registration is revoked or something along those lines and they do an inventory search. What they discover there is probably usable against you in a court of law. there, there are many different aspects of it. But by and large you are supposed to be secure in your person and in your home from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement.
Kevin Rosenquist: If someone feels like their rights are you know, being violated during an arrest, during an investigation, during a search, what should they do next?
James Hopkins: Well discuss it with the attorney that there's going to be representing that obviously, if it rises to such a level that it was unconstitutional, it could result in an outright dismissal of all charges or suppression of the evidence depending on what the nature of the violation is. you know, by the same token, the police officer is allowed to use force to affect and arrest A police officer is allowed to, to, search to make sure you're not holding weapons or, hypodermic needles or something that's going to cause harm. and, you know, so, you know, it's a case by case determination in here, but it does, it does. you know, that. That is certainly a major part of what, the representation will be focused on. If the arrest is. Is no good, there's no probable cause, that could. Could result in dismissal of all charges.
Kevin Rosenquist: Do you find that people kind of, you know, you know, clients of yours might try to jump to that too quickly? Oh, my rights were being violated where it's like. Well, not really, man.
James Hopkins: Well,
00:15:00
James Hopkins: sometimes, yes. but. But, you know, oftentimes there have been violations. That's whether or not it rises to such a level that, you know, that, you know, the, you know, ultimate, sanction of dismissal is, is required. there are, you know, sometimes minor transgressions that are not going to affect the outcome of the case too much. Right. and, you know, that's one of the things you try to, you know, to convince first the prosecutor and ultimately the judge that those, transgressions rise to that level. if they do, then, you know, then you may get some relief. If not, it's just, something that you can take up on appeal.
Kevin Rosenquist: So there you go. All right. Well, thanks for listening to Reasonable Doubt. James Hopkins for the defense. To learn more about James and his work defending clients across New York State and in federal court, visit jameshopkinslawfirm.com and, be sure to, like, subscribe. Leave us a review. We appreciate it. We'll see you next time. James, always love chatting with you. Thanks so much.
James Hopkins: Thanks. Nice to see you. See you next time. Thanks for watching. Be sure to hit that like and subscribe button and leave us a review in the comments.
00:16:17
James Hopkins: Welcome to Reasonable Doubt. James Hopkins for the defense.
Kevin Rosenquist: Hello and welcome back to Reasonable Doubt. James Hopkins for the defense with attorney James Hopkins. James is a top tier criminal defense attorney with over 30 years of experience in New York state and federal courts. A former ada, he's tried hundreds of high stakes cases, from homicide to drug crimes to embezzlement, earning his place among the top 100 trial lawyers. An expert in forensic DNA evidence and a fierce advocate, Hopkins delivers strategic, high impact defense for every client. I'm Kevin Rosenquist and today we're talking about your rights. James will explain what they are, how to use them, and what to avoid when you're facing criminal charges in New York. James, welcome back.
James Hopkins: Nice to see you.
Kevin Rosenquist: All right, so the do's and don'ts of when you're facing charges, I'm sure you've seen it all. So let's start here. For someone who's just been arrested, what should they know about their rights right off the bat that you think people often just don't have a clue about?
James Hopkins: Well, people in general want to be helpful to law enforcement and what they oftentimes don't realize is that everything that they are saying could potentially come back to bite them. their explanations may be based on less than, than, accurate information. And their attempts to, you know, to get themselves out of the situation sometimes digs the hole deeper. You know, we've all heard the Miranda warnings. You have a right to remain silent and generally speaking, that's the right thing to do. your attorney can do the talking for you and your attorney can, can set forth your explanation for how you found yourself in that situation. But generally speaking, it's best to not say anything, as you're being arrested.
Kevin Rosenquist: So I'd like to talk a little bit about the Miranda rights. We all know the first part of it anyway from we see it on Law and Order every episode that you've ever watched. In real life, what do those rights actually protect and when do they apply?
James Hopkins: They apply immediately upon, at any critical, stage of the proceeding. An arrest is a critical stage. and so but an arrest is actually a term of art. Ah, in a sense, you may be being questioned by a police officer, but you are not yet in custody and not yet under arrest. So therefore, what you are saying may be used against you without even offering, without giving those warrants warnings, the a custodial setting, where you're being interrogated is clearly, where your rights apply and if you're not given Miranda warnings at that time, it does not invalidate the arrest. It does perhaps implicate whether or not the statements that you make can be used against you. That's a common misperception. If somebody is not given Miranda warnings initially and they said, well, they took me off the jail anyhow, it doesn't necessarily mean that, that's not completely valid and, that the arrest will stand up. by giving you the Miranda warnings, it is probably fair warning that you're in danger of being arrested. And, so that. That is something that, individuals should, be mindful of. And at that point, my advice would be to call an attorney. you have the right to call an attorney, while in a custodial situation. And, you have the right, once you have invoked that right, questioning, is supposed to stop. Now, that doesn't always, apply. you know, sometimes police officers are looking forward to, getting a little bit more information. and whether or not there has been a, invocation of right to counsel, is sometimes open to interpretation. For instance, if you say, should I get an attorney? Or maybe I ought to call my attorney or do I need an attorney? Those are not clear, requests for counsel. And so therefore questioning may continue without an attorney being present. And, it sometimes leads to serious consequences for the, individual involved.
Kevin Rosenquist: You mentioned the thing about the Miranda rights not being said. I feel like I remember that at one time, people thinking that or people saying that, well, he didn't give them. The police officer didn't give the Miranda rights. So that's some sort of, issue or violation. Was that ever the case? Is there a reason people have this misperception?
James Hopkins: Well, it's just so routine now, okay, that, you know, when you're being arrested, you get your Miranda warnings read to you. but no, it does not invalidate the arrest itself.
00:05:00
James Hopkins: statements taken, after your arrest without the, The Miranda warnings being given may be subject to suppression. there are some exceptions to that, obviously, but, But generally speaking, any. Anything taken, any statements taken after, Miranda, warnings, or, excuse me, if Miranda warnings have not been given, you know, are subject to suppression. And, But the arrest itself. If a police officer, like, sees you, like, knocking a guy over the head with a. With a beer bottle and then running down the street, he can pick you up and, you know, take you into custody. He doesn't need you to explain what you were doing. Okay? And if you. If he fails to give Miranda warnings under those circumstances, his own observations are sufficient to make up the charge. So, but in, in other cases, your responses may provide the critical, information necessary to connect you to the crime. And if those were, if that information was obtained in violation of your constitutional rights, then it may be enough to throw out the charge. it's something that needs to be, investigated by an experienced attorney.
Kevin Rosenquist: You mentioned earlier, one of the mistakes that people make is talking too much, and wanting to be helpful. I can see how it would be. You'd feel pressure to explain yourself as you're being questioned. It's a stressful situation and all that. What do you tell people as far as that goes? Is it just don't say anything or can they say some things? What's your advice?
James Hopkins: Police officer could ask your name, you know, your address, those kind of things. And, and could be completely innocuous. the usual, statement on this on the street is you know, you know, what's your name, where are you coming from, where are you going? Those kind of things. Okay. Now, you know, moral response from people is giving your name, giving your address and giving. And informing the cop where you're going or coming from. Well, if it turns out that your address happens to be the site of where there's been a reported crime, your statement might have just implicated yourself in that. you don't know or where are you coming from? Those are relatively innocuous questions. That's something a good police officer is going to be, inquiring about. If you match the description of somebody that is wanted for, like a, a purse snatching down the street, that's, you know, they're going to be. It, it's, it's only good police work that they're going to try to, you know, to apprehend the the suspect there. And so a, A brief interaction asking, you know, that kind of information is certainly not going to be viewed as being, you know, contrary to you know, to your constitutional rights. However, if it keeps you there and doesn't let you, or takes you down, to the station for further questioning, that requires a little bit more. There has to be some probable cause there that you might be involved, in this, transaction. and those are things that perhaps, the lack of the same might lead to to a dismissal, of the charges.
Kevin Rosenquist: Okay. Are there other mistakes that people make during questioning or interrogation that can hurt their case other than maybe oversharing well.
James Hopkins: Also, speculation can be bad. you know, if you, don't know what the police officer knows, you don't know what, What they're actually talking to you about. And you. You know, if you start trying, particularly those who are trying to fashion an alibi in the midst, of, questioning, you can wind up saying some, you know, things that are demonstrably false and that could hurt you worse than if you had said nothing. if there is an alibi, if there's a viable, you know, explanation for what, What's happening in here, let your attorney know, Bring it. Bring it forth and, discuss it. You know, you know, see things, you know, understand where everything is. You don't know what other people have said. there's always, you know, people have different, perspectives. they view the same event from different sides of the street, and they might have a different understanding of what's going on. And people may have said things that appear, To have, Appear like, fully. Ah. factual. That they may have made a, Like a, A wrong conclusion about what's going on. So if you like, immediately contradict them, it may, you know, it may lead to some like, unfortunate, misunderstandings, between you and the. And the police. Police. So again,
00:10:00
James Hopkins: my. My recommendation. And I realize I. I'm an attorney who, you know, you know, obviously I'm going to be, you know, urging people to contact, myself or others in my profession. But it really is good advice. Okay. If you're being questioned, you really should, consult with counsel.
Kevin Rosenquist: I feel like it's. It's difficult probably for someone to tell the difference between cooperating with law enforcement and giving up information that could be used against them. Is that, Is that a fair, fair assessment? Is it difficult for people to separate those two?
James Hopkins: Well, sure. but if you're simply a witness, you know, the police officers are going to try to get your, Your take on things, and they're going to try and. And make you understand that they need your help. and a witness does not, necessarily enjoy the right to counsel. but if the questioning turns from, merely seeking information to an accusatory tone, that's something that should be, perceived by the person who's being questioned. And they should then say, okay, that's enough. I. I want to talk to my lawyer. And that. That's And it should be an unequivocal request. It's not, you know, is it time to call? You know, do I need Them now or words to that effect. You want to say? I want to speak to my attorney.
Kevin Rosenquist: Let's talk a little bit about search and seizure. What, what are the limits that a police officer can do without a warrant?
James Hopkins: There are a million different scenarios, and it depends on where it takes place. searching a car is different than searching a home. The fourth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. if a judge has signed a search warrant based upon probable cause, then the police officers are entitled to be at particular location and search for whatever is described in the search warrant. in a moving vehicle, there are fewer protections. police officer can stop a a ah, vehicle for, for different reasons, you know. You know, probably most likely is for a traffic violation. And when they approach the, the car, and ask the driver for identification which is also permitted, they may, may make observations. They may look inside and see a gun sticking out of ah, the passenger seat. Or they might see drug implements in there. And that gives them a heightened additional reason to make further inquiry. there's all, there's a, a series of steps that must be undertaken. But there's quite a bit of law on searches and seizures in here and it, it's too complicated to get into here. But but there are certainly circumstances where a police officer is allowed to, to search you without a warrant. if you're in the, if you're, if it's a search incident to arrest, they may pat you down, find that you have a weapon and that weapon could be used regardless of whether or not a judge had signed a search warrant for it. your car is impounded, because it's ah, the registration is revoked or something along those lines and they do an inventory search. What they discover there is probably usable against you in a court of law. there, there are many different aspects of it. But by and large you are supposed to be secure in your person and in your home from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement.
Kevin Rosenquist: If someone feels like their rights are you know, being violated during an arrest, during an investigation, during a search, what should they do next?
James Hopkins: Well discuss it with the attorney that there's going to be representing that obviously, if it rises to such a level that it was unconstitutional, it could result in an outright dismissal of all charges or suppression of the evidence depending on what the nature of the violation is. you know, by the same token, the police officer is allowed to use force to affect and arrest A police officer is allowed to, to, search to make sure you're not holding weapons or, hypodermic needles or something that's going to cause harm. and, you know, so, you know, it's a case by case determination in here, but it does, it does. you know, that. That is certainly a major part of what, the representation will be focused on. If the arrest is. Is no good, there's no probable cause, that could. Could result in dismissal of all charges.
Kevin Rosenquist: Do you find that people kind of, you know, you know, clients of yours might try to jump to that too quickly? Oh, my rights were being violated where it's like. Well, not really, man.
James Hopkins: Well,
00:15:00
James Hopkins: sometimes, yes. but. But, you know, oftentimes there have been violations. That's whether or not it rises to such a level that, you know, that, you know, the, you know, ultimate, sanction of dismissal is, is required. there are, you know, sometimes minor transgressions that are not going to affect the outcome of the case too much. Right. and, you know, that's one of the things you try to, you know, to convince first the prosecutor and ultimately the judge that those, transgressions rise to that level. if they do, then, you know, then you may get some relief. If not, it's just, something that you can take up on appeal.
Kevin Rosenquist: So there you go. All right. Well, thanks for listening to Reasonable Doubt. James Hopkins for the defense. To learn more about James and his work defending clients across New York State and in federal court, visit jameshopkinslawfirm.com and, be sure to, like, subscribe. Leave us a review. We appreciate it. We'll see you next time. James, always love chatting with you. Thanks so much.
James Hopkins: Thanks. Nice to see you. See you next time. Thanks for watching. Be sure to hit that like and subscribe button and leave us a review in the comments.
00:16:17
