Constitutional Issues in Norwalk Sex Crimes Cases

In any type of sex crime investigation, law enforcement and prosecutors will want to obtain statements from an accused individual, and they may also want to search their home or vehicle. There are various constitutional rights that a person has, and thus when they are violated, there are many issues that will arise. One of the most common constitutional issues that arise in Norwalk cases is the individual’s right to remain silent.

A knowledgeable sex crimes attorney knows that constitutional issues in Norwalk sex crimes cases are a valid defense strategy, and can be used to bolster your case.

Right to Remain Silent

In most Norwalk sex crimes cases, a common constitutional issue is the defendant’s right to remain silent, meaning that an individual does not need to speak to the authorities or even testify in a proceeding against them, the fact that it is the government’s burden to present the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether taking DNA, blood draws, or something along those lines is a search and seizure or does it implicate somebody’s right not to self-incriminate. Everybody has the right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves so they can always let the clients speak or provide evidence.

Right to Refuse Searches

There is also the right against any unreasonable searches or seizures. Sometimes, when dealing with DNA-type evidence, the state does have the authority to compel somebody to provide that type of evidence and this is where the constitutional issues will come about. It is whether the government has the right to compel that type of information as a reasonable search or seizure under the circumstances.

But at the same time, the state and the government has the ability to search and compel a search of a person’s belongings under appropriate circumstances as long as it is reasonable. Then, the question becomes, ” by providing that information, is that a form of self-incrimination or is that more of a search and seizure?”

Physical Evidence

In almost all instances, the courts have said that that is more along the lines of a search and seizure, which can be compelled because they are not making the person say anything or provide any evidence. The physical characteristics of a person is something that is there no matter what and so it is just a question of what those things are, and it is not making the person do anything that is necessarily voluntarily in order to incriminate themselves.

Those kinds of constitutional issues in Norwalk sex crimes cases happen often because of the use of DNA and bodily fluid evidence, that comes up more often in a sex crime than it does in other types of crimes.

Building a Defense

When building a defense, it is important to learn what happened from the client’s perspective to basically see what the client thinks is important but beyond that, it is about going outside of the event that actually took place and then focusing on the lead-up to it and things that followed afterward.

Whereas the client will have a good perspective on what happened and may think that is relevant in terms of speaking about what happened on the actual events in question, a lot of times, it is important to talk about what happened before and after to see if people were acting in a certain way that is consistent with one version of events or the other.

A lawyer will deviate and end up switching to the surrounding circumstances and focusing on those because it is pretty certain that the events that actually happened are going to be in contention and there is going to be a dispute about that. All the defendant and their attorney can do, is try to prove that their version is more believable and more likely to have occurred than the other version of events and, in which case, they would start having to look at surrounding circumstances which can include any constitutional violations that have occurred. Constitutional issues in Norwalk sex crimes cases are valid as a defense strategy and can allow the defense to question evidence that was obtained in an unconstitutional manner, undermining the prosecution’s case.