Jump to Navigation

Las Vegas Criminal Law Blog

For many parents going through a divorce, it can be very unclear what constitutes primary and joint physical custody. Many people probably have the misconception that for the arrangement to constitute joint physical custody, each parent must have the child 50 percent of the time. However, in a fairly recent case, Rivero v. Rivero, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified how much time each parent must have with the child to have joint physical custody.

In Rivero, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that although joint physical custody must approximate an equal timeshare, given the variations inherent in child rearing, such as school schedules, sports, vacations, and parents' work schedules, to name a few, an exactly equal timeshare is not always possible. Therefore, there must be some flexibility in the timeshare requirement. The court concluded that each parent must have physical custody of the child at least 40 percent of the time to constitute joint physical custody.

As with all aspects of custody arrangements, the sole consideration of the court is the best interest of the child. Courts generally agree that joint legal and physical custody is usually in the child's best interest if that is what the parents agree upon. The ruling in Rivero made a clearer guideline for parents to follow when making a timeshare arrangement for their children in order to ensure joint physical custody. Trying to maintain an exact 50/50 split between the parents can be sometimes impossible. This ruling makes it much more practical to create a joint physical custody arrangement.

The same is true for primary physical custody: "if a parent has physical custody less than 40% of the time, then that parent has visitation rights and the other parent has primary physical custody." The type of physical custody arrangement is important because it affects a parent's ability to receive child support. Child support is normally awarded to the party having physical custody and joint custody will be considered to offset the other party's obligation.

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that the installation and use of a GPS device on a targets vehicle constituted a search. For those unfamiliar with the case, the basic facts are as follows. Antoine Jones, a Washington nightclub owner, was suspected of being part of a cocaine selling operation. To confirm these suspicions, police officers placed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle driven by the defendant after obtaining a search warrant. However, the installation of the GPS device did not take place within the 10 day period authorized by the search warrant - it happened on the 11th day.  Following installation of the GPS device, the defendant's activities was monitored for 28 days.  During this time frame, the police discovered that the defendant went to a stash house where large amounts of money and cocaine were later found.

Following the filing of criminal charges, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the GPS tracking device. At the hearing on the motion, the court stated that the officers' actions were the equivalent of "warrantless activity" because they did not follow the terms of the warrant. However, the defendant's motion was still denied because the court ultimately opined that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while traveling on public roads. And, without an expectation of privacy, there is no search for Fourth Amendment purposes. At trial, the government entered into evidence the data derived from the GPS tracking device and the defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

Following the defendant's successful appeal to the DC Circuit, the government later petitioned for certiorari. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search.'" Justice Scalia took exception with the officers "trespass" of the defendant's vehicle, which occurred when officers undertook the "physical intrusion" of installing the device. The Supreme Court further opined that a trespass "conjoined with . . . an attempt to find something or to obtain information" constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

As so eloquently put by Walter Dellinger, the defendant's attorney, following this ruling: "law enforcement is now on notice that almost any use of GPS electronic surveillance of a citizen's movement will be legally questionable unless a warrant is obtained in advance." Whether this is true or not, only time will tell. But, for the moment, this seems a big win for citizens Fourth Amendment rights.

The Right to a Fair Trial?

The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is seen as an essential right in all criminal proceedings. But, with the mass media coverage available today to the general public, is any criminal defendant actually afforded a "fair trial?" Anyone watching the Casey Anthony trial likely developed an opinion regarding her guilt or innocence long before the prosecution made their opening statement.

The media coverage of Casey Anthony's actions following Caylee's death had been massive, making it near impossible to find a jury that was not already familiar with the intimate details of her case. The photos of Casey partying shortly after her daughter's disappearance and the numerous lies she told law officers were well known long before her trial began. Even while the trial was ongoing, legal commentaries from all over the country were all too willing to offer up their opinion about the trial and what the jury would decide. Because of this, some believed that Casey Anthony's right to a fair trial had been severely compromised.

But, based upon the verdict that many were shocked by, it seems Casey Anthony did get a fair trial. It would appear that despite all the media coverage, the jury carefully considered the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense and made a decision they felt was right under the circumstances. This is how the judicial system is supposed to work. A jury of one's peers, listening and weighing the evidence presented and determining guilt or innocence based upon that evidence and not on personal beliefs.

Welcome to Our Las Vegas Family Law and Criminal Defense Blog

When you are dealing with a significant legal problem, an attorney you can trust can be of great assistance and can look out for your rights. Nevada's legal system can be confusing and intimidating, with a unique set of rules and a language of its own. An attorney who understands the law and the process can help you evaluate your options and make the right decisions.

At Bellon & Maningo, Ltd., we assist clients throughout Las Vegas who are dealing with criminal or family law issues. We know how to quickly determine the next step in your criminal defense or family law case.

Contact our office by e-mail or call us at 866-395-6557 to discuss your situation with an attorney.

Our Family Law and Criminal Defense Blog

We established this blog to provide valuable information to people in Las Vegas and throughout southern Nevada who are going through divorce or family law issues, or who have been charged with crimes. We will regularly update this blog, posting on a wide range of family law and criminal defense topics, including:

We welcome your participation in the discussions on this blog. Feel free to comment on posts that interest you.

It's important to note that the stories and cases reported on this blog are not meant to implicitly or explicitly depict cases actively handled by our firm. In most cases, the blog will simply be covering cases similar to those we are interested in handling.

Contact Our Office

Contact us online or call us at 866-395-6557 for more information.

Do You Have a Case?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close