Intercept Logo.png
Sacramento California
Reno/Northern Nevada
Intercept commercial
Intercept commercial
Intercept commercial 2
Intercept commercial
Like us on Facebook
Like us on Facebook
Quick Links

From Reno through Sacramento...
Intercept is your premier SCRAM provider.
Sparks Municipal Court Gets A Face Lift

New Courtroom 1.jpg
The Sparks Municipal Court recently underwent a full renovation of both courtrooms. The cost was 100% paid for by statutory fees attached to fines and community service ordered by the judges. Per statute NRS 176.0611 there is a $10.00 administrative fee that is imposed on defendants for each conviction. This assessment, which is usually referred to as the "court facility fee assessment" may only be used to acquire land, construct, renovate or maintain facilities. The courthouse was built in 1985 and even though it had warped paneling the courtrooms had not undergone any upgrades in 23 years making this project long over due. Anyone going into SMC will be surprised at its fresh new face.

New Courtroom 2.jpg
Judge McCarthy said she is very pleased with the outcome. The remodel is user friendly; ergonomically correct but most importantly it is an ADA compliant courtroom. Previously our benches held up to 20 people in one row, requiring people to crawl over each other to get in and out of their seats. Now the seating allows the public to move about much more conveniently and safely. The new lighting makes such a huge improvement. The workstations for all of us (court clerks and marshals included) provide appropriate height and depth making our work environment healthier and minimizes risks such as chronic neck and back pain and other repetitive injuries. The remodel also reflects a modern design, which I love. It is a nice feeling coming into the courtroom and we have received nothing but positive feedback from the public.

New Courtroom 3.jpg
When asked how he likes the new courtroom Judge Spoo said it is such a dramatic improvement "how could you NOT like it". He stated that Courts are leaning towards a more contemporary design. He likes the idea of having chairs that can be rearranged instead of long benches and the lighting is so much better. I could go on and on. The marshals have a station now as opposed to just standing there. His favorite is that the bench is level with the courtroom. The witness area is better and you don't have to lean over to see the witness. He also said that it was nice that they were allowed to give their input and make suggestions.

written by Kathleen Brown

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the case of Missouri vs. McNeely, which asks if a blood sample can be taken from a suspected drunk driver without their consent or a warrant under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the Fourth Amendment. Lawyers for the state of Missouri think it should be allowed based on the idea that the natural dissipation of alcohol from the body is essentially destruction of evidence, and a delay in being able to obtain a blood sample prevents prosecutors from building a case with the best possible evidence.

The case arose from the 2010 arrest of Tyler McNeely in Missouri for suspected DWI. McNeely, who had two previous DWI convictions, refused to take a breathalyzer test after failing field sobriety testing and was transported to a local hospital by the arresting officer where blood was drawn without a warrant or McNeely's consent. The results of McNeely's blood sample were suppressed (a BAC of 0.154) in McNeely's trial after his defense lawyers successfully argued a warrant should have been obtained. The Missouri Supreme Court eventually heard the case and affirmed that a warrant was needed.

In yesterday's hearings, it appeared the justices questioned how a warrantless blood test is reasonable or needed. Early on, Justice Sotomayor posed the question, "So how can it be reasonable to forego the Fourth Amendment in a procedure as intrusive as a needle going into someone's body?" Justice Kennedy pointed out that half of all states do not allow warrantless blood draws and have streamlined processes in place to quickly allow warrants to be granted. The issue of a rural community's ability to implement a warrant process as easily as an urban community and if that qualified as an exigent circumstance was also raised, to which Justice Sotomayor asked, "Is reasonableness judged by the people who are the least efficient or most "reasonably" efficient?"

Attorney John Koestner, Jr., representing Missouri in this case, argued that although the arresting officer had not encountered trouble in the past obtaining warrants, there was going to be a delay in this particular case, and that "quickly securing blood alcohol evidence is important, because the evidence is being lost at a significant rate with every minute that passes."

Justice Scalia asked Attorney Steven Shapiro, representing McNeely on behalf on the ACLU, if the main advantage for a suspected DWI driver when a warrant is required is a delay that could result in a lower BAC. Shapiro answered that Fourth Amendment protections are strengthened when warrants are required because of the review done by a neutral party prior to the granting of a warrant.

In 1966 Chief Justice William Brennen wrote a majority opinion for Schmerber v. California, which approved a warrantless blood draw in a drunk driving case. Technology, and the ability to streamline virtual warrants may alter this Court's perspective on Schmerber.

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog thinks it is very clear that the Court will require a warrant, at least in the ordinary DUI case. If so, it may turn out to be an example of the current Justices having a more liberal take on the Fourth Amendment than the Warren Court did in 1966.

What do you think? Does a state's interest outweigh the privacy concerns of the individual when it is applied to the prosecution of drunk driving?

Click here to read the transcript of yesterday's hearing.

If you have someone you think should be acknowledged or spotlighted in our newsletter please contact:
Marion Straw 323-8273