Contact Vincent Rivera
Contact Vincent Rivera
success as a trial lawyer
At jury trial, client acquitted of possession with intent to distribute. Facts: after a brief car chase, client was charged with drug distribution, for 9 baggies of drugs found around the corner from the stop/arrest. Jurors acquitted based largely upon the sloppy evidence preservation by officers, as highlighted through cross-examination.
My client and a friend were standing outside a motel entrance. An officer, acting without any indication of criminal activity, conducted a “pedestrian check.” Soon multiple officers arrived, and unconstitutionally subjected the men to search after search after search, none of which produced any incriminating evidence. Eventually, the officers obtained “consent” to search their room where drugs were found. After appealing the District Court’s ruling, the Kansas Court of Appeals agreed the eventual search of the motel room was unconstitutional. The Court’s opinion can be read at: http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/CtApp/2013/20131213/108949.pdf
Officers received reports of a “disturbance” in an apartment complex’s parking lot. Upon arriving at the scene, officers discovered everything was calm and no disturbance was taking place. None the less, when officers saw my client in the area they illegally detained him and “ran” him, discovering a warrant. During the arrest for the warrant officers found him in possession of drugs. Fortunately, his detention, “running,” arrest and search were found to be unconstitutional and the evidence was suppressed.
Client was charged with Indecent Solicitation of Child, which requires lifetime post release supervision. At sentencing, we objected to the imposition of lifetime post-release on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally disproportionate. The judge granted our motion, and imposed a 60 month period of post-release supervision.
Successfully suppressed search of defendant’s home, where the officers and prosecutor tried to use the emergency exception to the warrant requirement.
Successfully suppressed client’s consent to search and statements. Client was present at someone else’s house when a search warrant was executed. Police illegally detained, questioned and obtained consent to search her car.
Represented a client who had 4 co-defendants, all co-defendants had council with 10+ years of experience. All codefendants plead to criminal charges. Noting the lack of evidence I encouraged my client to take the matter through prelim. After hearing the evidence, the Judge found there was no probable cause and the case was dismissed.
During a felony DUI prelim, the State attempted to introduce a breath test result of .152. However, while the State was laying foundation, I asked to inspect the Officers certification. It turned out that the Officer was not certified to operate the Intoxilyzer 8000 at the time of the arrest. Eventually, we made a deal for misdemeanors. Client remains felony free.
Former client is sitting in my office facing new charges. Client says to me “[cops] asked for permission to search my car, and I remember you told me to ‘always say no,’ so I told them they couldn’t.”
email@example.com | (913) 210-0844
115 E. Park St., Suite C Olathe, KS 66061