the chetson firm, pllc

Teenagers sentenced as Level 1 NC DWI

Damon Chetson — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:56:34 +0000

As predicted, North Carolina’s new DWI statute – passed last year and in effect as of December 1, 2011 and affecting all DWIs committed on or after that date – is having a significant impact on people charged with Raleigh DWI offenses.

The most significant effects have occurred in cases involving young people who have never previously been convicted of DWIs, much less any crime, before. That’s because two changes to the law impose harsh penalties.

Under the old law, a person could be found guilty of a Level 2 DWI if the person was convicted of a DWI while having a person under the age of 16 in the vehicle. The law was intended to address parents or adults who had children in the car while driving while impaired.

The new law raises the age to 18 and at the same time increases the penalty by imposing a Level 1 judgment upon a person convicted of having a DWI while a person under the age of 18 was in the vehicle.

This two-part change in the law, probably also intended to address negligent parents driving in cars with children, now also affects teenager who may be driving a car after drinking, and have friends in the car who are under 18.

Consider a 16 year old, newly licensed, and young and… stupid – out at a party with friends who, license in hand, decides to foolishly drive his friends home.

If caught and convicted, that 16 year old is inviting at least 30 days in jail – and up to 2 years! – if any of the people in the car are also under the age of 18. So a 16 year old driver with a 17 year-old passenger can be put away in jail for 30 days if convicted of the underlying DWI.

In addition, that 16 year old is also going to be convicted of Driving After Consuming under the age of 21, a class 2 misdemeanor.

These penalties, which were likely intended for parents and adults, are going to be applied in increasing frequency to teenagers.

While no one wants drunks on the streets, the harshness of the current law will now affect young people who did not reflect on their actions and are not aware of the law.

If you're in need of a tough, experienced Raleigh, Cary or Apex criminal lawyer, call our offices day or night. The Chetson Firm represents individuals charged throughout the Research Triangle - Wake, Durham, Orange, and Chatham counties. Call anytime - (919) 352-9411 - weekdays, weekends, evenings or holidays.

Raleigh Criminal Video: SFST Tests

Damon Chetson — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:26:31 +0000

This 10 minute video explains some of the basics of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests in a Raleigh DWI case.

Raleigh DWI lawyer Damon Chetson defends people charged with felonies, misdemeanors, traffic and DWI charges in Raleigh, Cary, Apex, and Chapel Hill, NC. Durham DWI lawyer Damon Chetson also defends people charged with crimes in Durham, Chatham, and Harnett Counties. We are available day or night, weekdays or weekends. Call The Chetson Firm for a free consultation (919) 352-9411.

Probation following a NC DWI Conviction

Damon Chetson — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:01:58 +0000

Following a Raleigh DWI conviction, a Defendant may be placed on supervised on unsupervised probation. If the defendant has gotten an assessment, and can pay all of his court costs and fines on the day of conviction, then the defendant will in most cases be placed on unsupervised probation for Level 3, 4, or 5 convictions.

But a judge may always impose supervised probation if the judge believes supervision is required to enable the defendant to comply with the terms of probation, or supervision is warranted by the facts of the DWI or other related crimes.

If unsupervised probation is imposed, the Court will order the Defendant to:

Commit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction.
Possess no firearm, explosive device or other deadly weapon listed in N.C.G.S. 14-269.
Remain gainfully and suitably employed or faithfully pursue a course of study or vocational training, that will equip the defendant for suitable employment, and abide by all rules of the institution.
Satisfy child support and family obligations, as required by the Court.
Not abscond, by willfully avoiding supervision or by willfully making the defendant’s whereabouts unknown to the supervising probation officer.

If the defendant is on supervised probation, the defendant shall also:

Remain within the jurisdiction of the Court unless granted written permission to leave by the Court or the probation officer.
Report as directed by the Court or the probation officer to the officer at reasonable times and places and in a reasonable manner, permit the officer to visit at reasonable times, answer all reasonable inquiries by the officer and obtain prior approval from the officer for, and notify the officer of, any change in address or employment.
Notify the probation officer if the defendant fails to obtain or retain satisfactory employment.
Submit at reasonable times to warrantless searches by a probation officer of the defendant’s person and of the defendant’s vehicle and premises while the defendant is present, for purposes directly related to the probation supervision, but the defendant may not be required to submit to any other search that would otherwise be unlawful.
Submit to warrantless searches by a law enforcement officer of the defendant’s person and of the defendant’s vehicle, upon a reasonable suspicion that the defendant is engaged in criminal activity or is in possession of a firearm, explosive device, or other deadly weapon listed in N.C.G.S. 14-269 without written permission of the court.
Not use, possess, or control any illegal drug or controlled substance unless it has been prescribed for the defendant by a licensed physician and is in the original container with the prescription number affixed on it; not knowingly associate with any known or previously convicted users, possessors, or sellers of any such illegal drugs or controlled substances; and not knowingly be present at or frequent any place where such illegal drugs or controlled substances are sold, kept, or used.
Supply a breath, urine, or blood specimen for analysis of the possible presence of prohibited drugs or alcohol when instructed by the defendant’s probation officer for purposes directly related to the probation supervision. If the results of the analysis are positive, the probationer may be required to reimburse the Division of Adult Correction for the actual costs of drug or alcohol screening and testing.

In addition, a defendant would need to pay $45 each month in supervised probation fees. If a defendant can avoid supervised probation (by paying all court costs and fines at the time of a DWI judgment) then the person may potentially avoid supervised probation, which is much more onerous and more expensive.

Fingerprint Analysis is Unreliable

Damon Chetson — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:28:30 +0000

Most people get their understanding of forensic science from crime shows, such as CSI, or movies.

The impression that’s given is that forensic science is incredibly accurate and reliable. For instance, most people believe that fingerprinting analysis is a reliable way to determine whether someone touched an item. Or they believe that shoe print analysis can help determine whether someone walked in a particular place.

Such beliefs are fine in a crime drama, where no real lives are at stake.

But in a criminal case – in a courtroom – the belief that fingerprints and shoe prints are reliable forensic tools can be catastrophic.

One of the reasons why such analysis is allowed into a courtroom is that judges are usually ill-equipped to determine whether a particular forensic science is reliable. So they defer to the people trained in that science.

And those people suffer from a separate problem. Having spent weeks, months, or years as a fingerprint analyst, a fingerprint analyst is unlikely to say that his field is unreliable.

Consequently, the very people who testify in a courtroom for the prosecution (and even people testifying for the defense) are same people who will say that their testimony is reliable. It’s a circular pattern that, unfortunately, permits juries – who usually know very little about these subjects – to hear about what is essentially unproven forensic science.

Take fingerprint analysis, which until the advent of DNA, was a major way (in addition to serology/blood typing) that investigators linked a defendant to a crime scene.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2009 pointing out that the evidence to support the reliability of many techniques, including most kinds of fingerprint analysis, is lacking.

As a result, there has been little rigorous research to investigate how accurately and reliably many forensic science disciplines can do what they purport to be able to do. In terms of a scientific basis, the disciplines based on biological or chemical analysis, such as toxicology and fiber analysis, generally hold an edge over fields based on subjective interpretation by experts, such as fingerprint and toolmark analysis. And there are variations within the latter group; for example, there is more available research and protocols for fingerprint analysis than for bitemarks.

adding that:

In addition to investigating the limits of the techniques themselves, studies should also examine sources and rates of human error, the report says. As part of this effort, more research should be done on “contextual bias,” which occurs when the results of forensic analysis are influenced by an examiner’s knowledge about the suspect’s background or an investigator’s knowledge of a case. One study found that fingerprint examiners did not always agree even with their own past conclusions when the same evidence was presented in a different context.

So the next time you hear about fingerprint analysis, be very skeptical about whether the analysis shows what it purports to show.

Damon Chetson is a North Carolina Lawyer. He practices in Raleigh, Apex, and Cary, North Carolina. He also defends individuals charged with crimes throughout the Research Triangle. He works hard to defend his clients' rights. He represents people charged in all parts of the Research Triangle. If you're looking for a lawyer in Raleigh or Wake County, NC, you can call the us for a free consultation at (919) 352-9411 weekdays, evenings, weekends, and Holidays.

Stopping for Weaving is Unconstitutional

Damon Chetson — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:08:22 +0000

Police may stop a vehicle for reasonable suspicion – specific facts that suggest criminal activity may be afoot – or probable cause that the car in fact is committing a crime by, perhaps, speeding, having expired registration, or violating another motor vehicle law.

When police rely upon reasonable suspicion, they must be able to articulate facts that indicate that the driver of the car may be engaged in criminal activity. Your lawyer will often ask you about why you think your car was stopped as a way to determine whether reasonable suspicion existed in your case.

What constitutes enough facts to meet the reasonable suspicion standard? The NC Court of Appeals recently held in State v. Otto that weaving alone is not enough.

Megan Sue Otto (Defendant) appeals from a judgment imposing a suspended sentence based on her conviction for driving while impaired. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress on the grounds that the arresting officer lacked the required reasonable suspicion immediately prior to the stop that she was driving while impaired. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Stopping for weaving in the lane is unreasonable. While weaving may be an indicator along with other evidence (driving too slow, driving in an area with bars), weaving alone can’t be used to support a lawful stop.

The weaving was observed for 3/4 of a mile, and was quite pronounced. But the weaving alone was not enough to support a stop.

Can Police Stop a Vehicle for a Broken Brake Light?

Damon Chetson — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:17:55 +0000

The answer is: it depends. If both brake lights are out, then the car is violation of NC motor vehicle law, and a police officer may stop the vehicle. But if just one brake light is out, and nothing else unusual is observed about the vehicle or the driving, a police officer may not stop the vehicle.

In State v. Hine, a sheriff deputy noticed a defendant had a brake light that was out. One light was functional, one light was out.

Sergeant Matt Darisse (Sergeant Darisse), of the Surry County Sheriff’s Office, testified that he was “conducting criminal interdiction” on Interstate Highway 77 (I-77) when he observed a passing vehicle (the vehicle) driven by a man who appeared to be “stiff and nervous.” Sergeant Darisse pulled onto I-77, “observed the driving of the vehicle, and noticed that [the] vehicle approach[ed] a slower moving vehicle, appl[ied] its brakes[,] and [that] the right side brake light was out.” Sergeant Darisse testified that, upon observing that the vehicle’s right brake light was out, he “put [his] blue lights on to pull the vehicle over.”

The NC Court of Appeals held:

We note that the holding in this case, based upon the present language of the applicable statute, makes it clear that having a single operable brake light is legally sufficient, and that a vehicle having only one operable brake light is not a valid justification for a traffic stop. The statute at issue having been enacted several decades ago, retains an antiquated definition of a stop lamp, not reflecting actual vehicle equipment now included in most automobiles. We are well aware that the role of our courts is to adjudicate the laws as enacted by the General Assembly, and only the General Assembly, as our State’s policy-maker, can modify and update this outdated statutory language.

Raleigh criminal lawyer Damon Chetson defends people charged with felonies, misdemeanors, traffic and DWI charges in Raleigh, Cary, Apex, and Wake County, NC. Durham Criminal Lawyer Damon Chetson also represents people charged in Wake County, Durham County, Orange County and Chatham County. The Chetson Firm is available day or night, weekdays or weekends. Call day or night for a free consultation (919) 352-9411.

Definition of Probable Cause in North Carolina

Damon Chetson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:26:35 +0000

Probable cause a standard used at different points in a criminal process – it is the standard used to arrest, the standard used to indict, and the standard used to issue search warrants. In each of these situations, someone might be arrested, indicted (charged), or searched without probable cause being shown.

In the event that someone is charged, indicted or arrested without probable cause being shown, a person is likely to have some recourse. In a drug, DWI, or case involving physical evidence, a person might be able to have the fact that certain evidence suppressed if the arrest, charge, or search was done without a showing of probable cause. (A search can sometimes occur in exigent circumstances.)

What is the Definition of Probable Cause in North Carolina?

Probable cause is notoriously ill-defined.

One definition is: “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true.”

This is essentially the definition that is applied in North Carolina to govern arrests, coming out of a 1984 case State v. Zuniga 322 S.E.2d 140 (1984)

Thus, while a reviewing court must, of necessity view the action of the law enforcement officer in retrospect, our role is not to import to the officer what in our judgment, as legal technicians, might have been a prudent course of action; but rather our role is to determine whether the officer has acted as a man of reasonable caution who, in good faith and based upon practical consideration of everyday life, believed the suspect committed the crime for which he was later charged.

The court also said:

Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A practical, nontechnical probability is all that is required.

Notice that probable cause is crime-specific. In other words, probable cause isn’t generalized suspicion that something is wrong. In other words, while a person may be briefly detained as part of a Terry Stop, the detention can’t be prolonged. If the detention is prolonged, and then the person is ultimately charged for a different crime, the person’s rights were certainly violated.

Probable cause must support the crime that was later charged, although in the course of arresting someone, police may discover still other crimes have likely been committed and charge those as well.

The Zuniga probable cause standard has been echoed by the North Carolina Supreme Court in subsequent opinions, including:

“Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A practical, nontechnical probability is all that is required.” in State v. Howard
“Probable cause exists where `the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonable trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’an offense has been or is being committed.” State v. Rodriguez
“North Carolina Supreme Court noted that [W]hile a reviewing court must, of necessity view the action of the law enforcement officer in retrospect, our role is not to import to the officer what in our judgment, as legal technicians, might have been a prudent course of action; but rather our role is to determine whether the officer has acted as a man of reasonable caution…” in State v. Mills
“Probable cause for an arrest has been defined to be a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.” in State v. Kizer
“‘When a law enforcement officer, by word or actions, indicates that an individual must remain in the officer’s presence…, the person is for all practical purposes under arrest if there is a substantial imposition of the officer’s will over the person’s liberty.’” State v. Joe, 2011

Zuniga, decided in 1984, follows the basic approach of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates (1983) of using a non-technical, totality of the circumstances approach:

This totality-of-the-circumstances approach is far more consistent with our prior treatment of probable cause[6] than 231*231 is any rigid demand that specific “tests” be satisfied by every informant’s tip. Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable-cause standard is that it is a “practical, nontechnical conception.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949). “In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.”

In the DWI context, the North Carolina appellate courts have held that faulty driving and clues as to the consumption of alcohol are enough to justify arrest. For instance, in State v. Adkerson, the Court of Appeals decided that:

In this case, we hold there was sufficient evidence to support Trooper Robles’ belief in good faith, that defendant was guilty of driving while impaired. Before making the stop of the vehicle he noticed Adkerson weaving back and forth and once running off the highway. After he made the stop, he noticed that Adkerson’s eyes were extremely red and glassy and that he appeared to be in a daze. He stated that Adkerson “moved sort of slowly” and that “he appeared to be nervous and in [his] opinion he was not normal.” Finally, Trooper Robles testified that he detected “a moderate odor of alcohol about his breath.” As a result of Adkerson’s driving, 437*437 appearance and behavior, Trooper Robles placed him under arrest for driving while impaired. We hold that probable cause existed to justify this action.

In State v. Thomas, the Court of Appeals wrote:

In addition to the information received from Officer Ward, Officer Bigelow’s own observations of defendant, set forth fully above, provide sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify defendant’s warrantless arrest. Based on his observations of defendant—including his disorderly appearance, red glassy eyes, the strong odor of alcohol, backing up when he saw Officer Bigelow, and inability to produce either a driver’s license or registration—Officer Bigelow arrested defendant. Taken as a whole, this evidence is clearly sufficient to establish probable cause, and the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress

In State v. Tappe, the Court of Appeals wrote:

probable cause to justify the warrantless arrest of defendant.

These cases, taken as a whole, demonstrate that probable cause is not a very high standard. It is a totality-of-the-circumstances standard, non-technical in nature, and generous to the observations of a cautious officer acting in good faith. Where an officer has taken his time, identified specific clues as to criminal activity, whether it be driving and impairment in a DWI or possession of drugs in a PWISD or drug trafficking case, the court will defer to the officer’s judgment, provided the officer can articulate specific facts that support the arrest.

In the past year, both as to the probable cause and reasonable suspicion standards, North Carolina appellate courts have rejected certain instances where defendants have been stopped or arrested without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, including a reasonable suspicion case where the defendant was merely weaving with no other evidence of criminal activity.

But the standard still remains favorable to law enforcement. The best approach, when stopped and questioned, is to reveal nothing. Be polite, but don’t answer questions, and insist on either being able to leave on your own, or being able to have a criminal lawyer present.

Working on a Felony Drug Contract

Damon Chetson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:15:47 +0000

Someone recently asked me:

I sold marijuana to an “informant” twice. The second time I was brought in by police and offered a deal to become an confidential informant. I was told if I brought in 5 controlled drug buys. My first buy went bad, and the cops ended up revealing my cover. After that they told me I just had to do one more buy. I can’t come up with anything substantial. I’m wondering if I have any chance of still getting my charges dropped, or at least most of them. I have no clue how the law works. Should I get a lawyer?

The short answer is that you should have gotten a lawyer from the very beginning. If you are arrested on a felony drug charge and offered the opportunity to cooperate – either by providing information or by setting up potential drug buys – you should always have an attorney on your side to make sure that the deal you’re offered is a good deal. In addition, you should have an attorney who can help you work with police to get credit for everything you do.

Many contracts technically fail – meaning that the defendant has trouble providing all the assistance the defendant said he would provide at the beginning of the contract. But a good attorney is sometimes able to get the defendant credit for his good faith efforts to succeed on the contract.

Wake County lawyer Damon Chetson helps people accused of serious felonies, misdemeanors, drug charges, DWI and traffic offenses in Raleigh, Apex, Chapel Hill, and Cary, NC. Chapel Hill lawyer Damon Chetson also represents people charged with felonies and criminal charges in Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Chapel Hill, and Durham, North Carolina. Our lawyers are available day or night, weekdays or weekends. Call (919) 352-9411 for a free consultation.

Vehicle Seizure and North Carolina DWI Cases

Damon Chetson — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:03:45 +0000

North Carolina law allows police to seize vehicles in a number of circumstances, including if you’ve been convicted of a prior DWI or are in a civil revocation period for a prior DWI arrest and are arrested for a subsequent DWI. Therefore, it’s possible for your vehicle to be seized even if you’ve never actually been convicted of a DWI, provided you were in a civil revocation period while you got a subsequent DWI charge.

How can you get your vehicle back if it has been seized?

If you’re the innocent owner of the vehicle, you may be able to get the vehicle back, provided you show proof to a court that you are at least a partial owner of the vehicle, and that at the time of the second DWI charge, you were either unaware that the person’s license was revoked for a prior DWI charge or conviction, or you had not given permission to the person to drive.

If you had not given permission to the person to drive, you may be required to file a police report to demonstrate to the court that the vehicle had been unlawfully taken from you without your permission.

If you are the person convicted of a DWI and you are arrested for a subsequent DWI, you must prove to the court that your license was not revoked at the time of your second arrest in order for the court to relinquish control of the vehicle to you.

Where is your vehicle?

Typically, your car will have been towed at the request of the arresting officer to a local lot. But soon after the arrest, the car will be towed to Erwin, NC by Martin & Edwards, a Linden, NC based company that contracts with the State of North Carolina to conduct auctions and house seized cars. Martin Edwards & Associates, based in Linden, serves the eastern part of the state. You may contact Martin Edwards at (877) 897-5444.

If you are granted permission to have your car released to you, you will need to be prepared to pay towing and/or storage costs. In addition, your insurance company may be required to pay the State of North Carolina for any damage to your car under the Civil Seizure law.

Finally, you may be able to retrieve items from your car, but you will need to show the company – either the local towing company or Martin & Edwards – that you own those items.

A more detailed guide is available on DWI vehicle seizures from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (pdf).

Tuck in Your Shirt! Criminal Contempt in NC District Courts

Damon Chetson — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:29:13 +0000

Judges in North Carolina, whether they are District Court or Superior Court judges, have the power to rule in contempt hearings pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 5A.

Criminal contempt can be punished by censure, imprisonment up to 30 days, or a $500 fine, or any combination of the three. Criminal contempt can come in two forms: direct or indirect. Direct contempt is contempt that:

Is committed within the sight or hearing of a presiding judicial official; and
Is committed in, or in immediate proximity to, the room where proceedings are being held before the court; and
Is likely to interrupt or interfere with matters then before the court.

Except for contempt under G.S. 5A?11(5) or 5A?11(9), fine or imprisonment may not be imposed for criminal contempt, whether direct or indirect, unless:

The act or omission was willfully contemptuous; or
The act or omission was preceded by a clear warning by the court that the conduct is improper.

Does having your shirt untucked interrupt or interfere with matters then before the court? Probably not, but that doesn’t stop judges from putting people in custody for having untucked shirts.

Direct criminal contempt can be punished in one of two ways: through a summary hearing, or through a non-summary hearing. A summary hearing is one that happens immediately upon judge believing something contemptuous has happened. A non-summary hearing is one in which the person is told that at a later time he will need to come back for a contempt hearing.

At a non-summary contempt hearing, a person has all the normal procedural rights that would be afforded in a regular criminal matter, although the person does not have a right to a jury trial. At a non-summary contempt hearing, the person has the right to counsel, for instance. And the right to remain silent.

More to the point, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Brandt v. Gooding (2011) that:

Twenty-three years later in In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), the Supreme Court clarified that the same due process rights apply, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to individuals accused of criminal contempt in state court. In re Oliver involved a Michigan state judge acting as a “‘one-man grand jury’” who disbelieved an individual’s testimony based, in part, on the testimony of another witness. See id. at 258, 68 S.Ct. 499. The state judge “immediately charged [the witness] with contempt, immediately convicted him, and immediately sentenced him to sixty days in jail.” Id. at 259, 68 S.Ct. 499. The Supreme Court held that the state court’s failure to afford the witness “a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charge of false and evasive swearing was a denial of due process of law.” Id. at 273, 68 S.Ct. 499.

The In re Oliver Court emphasized that summary criminal contempt proceedings are available only in limited circumstances where an individual’s misconduct not only occurs “within the ‘personal view’ of the judge, ‘under his own eye,’” id. at 274, 68 S.Ct. 499, but also “disturbs the court’s business.” Id. at 275, 68 S.Ct. 499. Unless “all of the essential elements of the misconduct . . . are actually observed by the court” and “immediate punishment is essential to prevent `demoralization of the court’s authority,’” id., an individual must be afforded “reasonable notice of [the] charge against him[ ] and an opportunity to be heard in his defense,” including “a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.”[5] Id. at 273, 68 S.Ct. 499. Because In re Oliver involved a factual scenario in which “essential elements” of the witness’ alleged “offense” were not within the personal knowledge of the judge, thus requiring the judge to “depend upon statements made by others for his knowledge,” id. at 275, 68 S.Ct. 499, the Supreme Court held that the witness should have been “accorded notice and a fair hearing.” Id. at 275-76, 68 S.Ct. 499.

While it’s completely appropriate for judges to enforce order in the court – prevent outbursts, even ask people to silence their phones – the practice of finding contempt simply as a way to lord over other human beings or as a way to enforce dress codes is abhorrent in a democratic system.

The state’s laws governing criminal contempt can be found here.