The Law Office of Ruiz & Rickard, PLLC.

01/28/2024

This case is very useful for explaining the purpose of the preliminary examination and the use of deadly force. The COA was absolutely correct. The problem, in my opinion, was charging. If someone tries to take your weapon m you are in a deadly force encounter. The same is true for your taser. Civilians or police alike.

Cooley Law School Associate Dean and Professor Tonya Krause-Phelan gives WOOD TV8 analysis after the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled there was enough evidence to send former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr to trial, denying his appeal to throw out his second-degree murder charge for the killing of Patrick Lyoya.
https://hubs.ly/Q02hVysq0

10/31/2023

07/14/2023

The tribe is looking for help in many areas. I know many of our client's are looking for work. Please look into this if needed. They are really good people to work for.

📢 Join our team at the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community! 📢

👉 We are thrilled to announce that we are hiring for various positions in our community! Whether you're looking for full-time, part-time, on-call, or seasonal work, we have options for you. 🙌

To explore the complete list of openings and apply, visit our website: http://www.ojibwa.com/index.php/employment 🦅

05/04/2023

The ATF's "Bump Stock Ban" appears to be a dead issue for those of us in the Sixth Circuit.

The Court recently published Scott A. Hardin v BATF, No. 20-6380 (April 25, 2023), a case out of the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville (My home state and a city I used to live in; Just FYI :)

The Court reviewed the ban and made some interesting statements that I totally agree with. In essence, the ATF had previously said that the bump stock was NOT a machine gun part, but later changed their minds. Here are the statements:

1. "but also by the ATF's own flip-flop in its position. And because the statute is "subject to more than one reasonable interpretation," it is ambiguous."

2. "the existence of divergent court opinions also suggests ambiguity." quoting Pugliese v. Pukka Dev., Inc., [citation omitted]

3. In speaking of the Chevron Deference, " The Supreme Court, has never held that the Government's reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference." "where the Supreme Court further noted that "criminal laws are for the courts, not for the Government to construe."

4. "that policy choices' should be left to Executive Branch officials' directly accountable to the People." quoting Epic Sys. Corp v. Lewis [citation omitted]

5. "we feel deep discomfort at allowing an agency to define the very criminal rules it will enforce."

Of course, Congress could address this later; as could the US Supreme Court, but for now, it seems dead.