Tag: Georgia Criminal Defense Law

How do Georgia criminal defense lawyers dispute tampering with utility charges?

Disputing a charge of tampering with utility services in Georgia, such as gas, water, or electricity, requires a defense that targets the element of intent and challenges the technical evidence presented by the utility company. The relevant statutes, like O.C.G.A. § 16-7-25, make it illegal to knowingly and without authorization tamper with or divert utility services. The defense must create reasonable doubt about whether the defendant acted knowingly and with a fraudulent purpose.

A primary defense is a lack of knowledge. In many cases, particularly in rental situations, a person may move into a property where the utilities have already been tampered with by a previous tenant. The current resident may be entirely unaware that a meter has been bypassed or altered. The defense would investigate the history of the utility account for that address, seeking to show that the tampering predated their client’s residency. Testimony from the client that they were simply paying the bills they received and had no idea there was an issue with the meter can be very effective.

Another key defense strategy is to argue that any damage or alteration to the utility equipment was accidental or the result of a legitimate repair attempt, not a deliberate act of tampering. For example, a homeowner doing yard work might accidentally damage an underground cable or pipe near a meter. Or, a person might try to fix a leaky pipe near a water meter and inadvertently break a seal. The defense would present evidence of the circumstances to show the lack of any criminal or fraudulent intent.

The technical evidence from the utility company must be rigorously challenged. Utility company investigators are not infallible. The defense can hire its own expert, such as a licensed electrician or plumber, to inspect the equipment and dispute the company’s findings. This expert can testify that the alleged tampering is actually a sign of equipment malfunction, weathering, or a faulty installation by the utility company itself.

The defense will also scrutinize the utility company’s records. How did they calculate the amount of allegedly stolen service? Their methods are often estimations that can be challenged as inaccurate or speculative. Any inconsistencies in their billing or service records for the property can be used to undermine the credibility of their claim.

Ultimately, the prosecution must prove that the defendant, with their own hands or at their direction, intentionally and knowingly manipulated the utility service to avoid payment. By presenting plausible, alternative explanations for the state of the equipment or by demonstrating that the client was unaware of the situation, a defense attorney can effectively dismantle the state’s case and protect a client from a conviction based on assumption and circumstance.…

How do Georgia criminal defense attorneys handle charges stemming from facial recognition errors?

Facial recognition technology errors present novel defense challenges as law enforcement increasingly relies on algorithmic identification systems known to produce false matches, particularly for minorities and women. Defense attorneys must understand the technology’s limitations while gathering evidence of misidentification and challenging the reliability of automated systems treated as infallible by prosecutors. These cases require technical expertise combined with traditional misidentification defenses.

Algorithm bias documentation reveals systematic errors affecting certain populations disproportionately. Defense attorneys obtain studies showing higher false positive rates for darker-skinned individuals, women, and younger people. They present expert testimony on training data limitations, lighting sensitivity, and angle dependencies affecting accuracy. Documentation of industry-acknowledged error rates undermines claims of scientific certainty.

Technical challenge requirements demand disclosure of specific systems, algorithms, and validation procedures used. Defense attorneys file discovery motions for source code, training datasets, and accuracy testing results. They challenge proprietary technology shields preventing meaningful examination. Expert witnesses analyze system configurations, threshold settings, and human review procedures identifying reliability weaknesses.

Corroboration absence exposes over-reliance on facial recognition without traditional investigation. Defense attorneys document failures to verify identifications through witnesses, alibis, or physical evidence. They present evidence that initial algorithmic matches directed entire investigations, creating confirmation bias. Lack of human verification or multiple system agreement weakens identification reliability.

Constitutional challenges address Fourth Amendment and due process violations from facial recognition surveillance. Defense attorneys argue mass scanning of faces constitutes unreasonable searches without individualized suspicion. They document retention of biometric data from innocent citizens and lack of regulatory oversight. Due process requires ability to challenge evidence, frustrated by algorithmic black boxes.

Case-specific defenses combine technical challenges with traditional misidentification strategies. Defense attorneys present photographs showing algorithm confusion between similar faces. They document environmental factors like masks, sunglasses, or image quality affecting accuracy. Alibi evidence becomes crucial when challenging algorithmic certainty. This comprehensive approach recognizes that technological advancement doesn’t eliminate human responsibility for ensuring accurate identifications before destroying lives through wrongful prosecutions.…

What defenses exist for unauthorized drone usage under Georgia criminal law?

Unauthorized drone usage prosecutions in Georgia involve complex intersections of federal aviation regulations, state criminal law, and evolving privacy expectations requiring multifaceted defense strategies. Defense attorneys must understand technical capabilities, regulatory frameworks, and constitutional limitations while challenging overly broad applications of traditional laws to emerging technologies. These cases often involve hobbyists or commercial operators unaware of byzantine regulations.

Regulatory compliance defenses demonstrate adherence to Federal Aviation Administration requirements despite state law violations. Defense attorneys document pilot certifications, aircraft registrations, and flight plan authorizations showing good faith compliance efforts. They argue federal aviation law preempts conflicting state restrictions. Evidence of following FAA guidelines while violating unclear state laws supports mistake of law defenses.

Property rights challenges distinguish airspace ownership from surface property rights. Defense attorneys argue traditional trespass concepts don’t apply to navigable airspace where drones lawfully operate. They present evidence of flights at altitudes permitting manned aircraft, outside immediate reaches of property. Supreme Court precedent limiting air rights supports these arguments.

Intent elements require proving purposeful unauthorized use versus inadvertent violations. Defense attorneys document equipment malfunctions, GPS errors, or wind conditions causing unintended flights over restricted areas. They present evidence of immediate corrective actions upon discovering violations. Hobbyist operators’ lack of criminal purpose distinguishes mistakes from willful violations.

Privacy expectation analysis examines whether observed areas genuinely warranted protection. Defense attorneys document public visibility of allegedly private spaces, lack of privacy fencing, and activities observable from ground level. They argue drone observations revealed nothing beyond public view. Constitutional protections apply to reasonable privacy expectations, not all aerial observations.

Selective enforcement challenges address discriminatory prosecution of drone operators while ignoring traditional aircraft or surveillance methods. Defense attorneys document helicopter tours, banner planes, and news aircraft conducting identical observations without prosecution. They present evidence of targeting based on operator identity rather than conduct. This comprehensive approach protects emerging technology users from criminal liability for conduct society hasn’t clearly prohibited while recognizing legitimate privacy and safety concerns.…

How is fabricated digital evidence challenged in Georgia criminal defense?

Fabricated digital evidence poses increasing threats as sophisticated editing tools become widely available, requiring defense attorneys to employ technical experts and forensic analysis to expose alterations. Digital manipulation can affect photographs, videos, audio recordings, and documents, potentially creating false evidence appearing genuine. Defense attorneys must understand authentication requirements while developing strategies to reveal fabrication.

Metadata analysis reveals editing histories, creation dates, and software fingerprints indicating manipulation. Defense attorneys retain digital forensics experts examining EXIF data, file properties, and hidden information. They document inconsistencies between claimed creation circumstances and technical data. Evidence of editing software usage, multiple save generations, or timestamp anomalies suggests fabrication.

Pixel-level examination exposes image manipulation through technical analysis. Defense attorneys employ experts identifying cloning, compositing, or artificial intelligence generation artifacts. They document lighting inconsistencies, perspective errors, and edge artifacts invisible to casual observation. Advanced detection software reveals statistical anomalies indicating alteration.

Chain of custody gaps create opportunities for evidence fabrication or substitution. Defense attorneys trace digital evidence from creation through production, identifying unaccounted periods. They document who accessed files, what modifications occurred, and security vulnerabilities. Missing hash value verification or authentication procedures enables fabrication arguments.

Original source demands require prosecutors to produce native format files enabling complete analysis. Defense attorneys challenge compressed, converted, or partial productions hiding manipulation evidence. They seek court orders for forensic imaging of devices containing originals. Reluctance to provide complete access suggests evidence problems.

Expert testimony educates judges and juries about digital manipulation ease and detection difficulty. Defense attorneys present demonstrations showing how readily evidence can be fabricated using consumer software. They explain why visual inspection alone cannot verify authenticity. This comprehensive approach transforms digital evidence from seemingly objective proof into questionable material requiring careful scrutiny, protecting clients from convictions based on technological deception.…

What’s the Georgia criminal defense for disrupting public meetings or assemblies?

Disrupting public meeting charges in Georgia implicate First Amendment protections for political speech and petition rights, requiring defense attorneys to distinguish protected protest from criminal disruption. These prosecutions often arise from citizen activism at government meetings where officials seek to silence criticism. Defense attorneys must balance disruption statutes’ legitimate purposes against constitutional requirements for public forum access.

Protected speech defenses establish that verbal criticism, however harsh, cannot constitute criminal disruption. Defense attorneys document adherence to reasonable time limits, speaking from designated areas, and addressing agenda items. They argue passionate delivery, unpopular messages, or official displeasure don’t transform protected speech into criminal conduct. Video evidence often shows peaceful criticism characterized as disruption.

Public forum analysis examines whether restrictions violated established forum rules applied equally. Defense attorneys investigate written policies, past practice, and treatment of supportive versus critical speakers. They document arbitrary enforcement, mid-meeting rule changes, or viewpoint discrimination. Government meetings must remain open to citizen input within reasonable constraints.

Actual disruption challenges require proving conduct prevented meeting continuation versus causing mere discomfort. Defense attorneys distinguish brief outbursts, applause, or collective responses from sustained interference. They present evidence meetings continued despite alleged disruption. Official overreaction to mild protest doesn’t justify criminal charges.

Void for vagueness arguments attack statutes failing to clearly define prohibited conduct. Defense attorneys argue citizens cannot determine what constitutes disruption when officials arbitrarily apply standards. They document inconsistent enforcement across similar conduct. Constitutional notice requirements demand clear boundaries between protected and criminal behavior.

Selective prosecution evidence reveals targeting based on political viewpoint rather than disruptive conduct. Defense attorneys compile meeting videos showing differential treatment of speakers based on message content. They document patterns of charging government critics while ignoring supporters’ similar behavior. This comprehensive approach protects democratic participation while acknowledging needs for orderly government operations.…

How can unlawful GPS tracking be used as a defense in Georgia courts?

Unlawful GPS tracking by law enforcement creates powerful suppression opportunities and potential complete defenses when location data forms the cornerstone of prosecutions. Defense attorneys must examine whether proper warrants existed, tracking duration, and how location information led to other evidence. Constitutional violations in obtaining tracking data can unravel entire investigations built on illegally obtained location information.

Warrant requirement violations under Supreme Court precedent demand suppression of long-term tracking without judicial authorization. Defense attorneys investigate whether warrants existed, covered relevant time periods, and established probable cause. They document tracking exceeding warrant scope in duration, geographic area, or target vehicles. Warrantless tracking violates Fourth Amendment protections absent exigent circumstances.

Fruit of poisonous tree analysis traces how illegal tracking led to seized evidence, witnessed crimes, or discovered locations. Defense attorneys map investigation timelines showing tracking data directed officers to contraband, meeting locations, or co-conspirators. They argue subsequent evidence flows directly from constitutional violations. Prosecutors struggle breaking causal chains from unlawful tracking.

Private party tracking raises distinct issues when civilians conduct surveillance later used by law enforcement. Defense attorneys investigate whether government agents directed, encouraged, or participated in private tracking. They document relationships between trackers and law enforcement suggesting agency. Private party doctrine may not shield government-instigated tracking.

Standing challenges examine whether defendants possessed privacy expectations in tracked vehicles. Defense attorneys establish ownership interests, exclusive use, or permission limiting access. They document efforts maintaining location privacy through varying routes, counter-surveillance, or secured parking. Privacy expectations extend beyond titled owners to regular users.

Alternative evidence arguments demonstrate prosecutions rely entirely on illegally obtained location data. Defense attorneys show absence of independent evidence placing clients at relevant locations. They emphasize circular reasoning where tracking created suspicion justifying continued tracking. This comprehensive approach can eliminate prosecutions built on unconstitutional location surveillance while protecting privacy rights in digital age.…

How do Georgia criminal defense lawyers discredit confidential informants?

Confidential informant testimony presents unique credibility challenges requiring systematic attacks on reliability, motivation, and law enforcement handling. Unlike jailhouse informants, confidential informants often participate actively in alleged crimes while receiving compensation and protection. Defense attorneys must expose the transactional nature of informant relationships while revealing unreliability inherent in purchased testimony.

Financial motivation documentation reveals extensive compensation beyond mere expense reimbursement. Defense attorneys obtain complete payment records including cash, dismissed charges, sentence reductions, immigration benefits, and relocated expenses. They calculate total compensation value often reaching tens of thousands of dollars. Juries learning about substantial payments naturally question whether testimony reflects truth or earnings.

Criminal history examination exposes patterns of deception and self-interest. Defense attorneys investigate informants’ complete records emphasizing crimes of dishonesty, failed cooperation agreements, and deportation orders. They document how criminal exposure motivates fabrication. Career informants working multiple agencies simultaneously particularly lack credibility.

Handler relationship analysis reveals coaching, protection, and unrecorded communications shaping testimony. Defense attorneys depose handlers about meeting frequency, preparation sessions, and information provided to informants. They document violations of recording policies, suggestive questioning, and promises beyond formal agreements. Close relationships between handlers and informants contaminate testimony reliability.

Corroboration failures highlight absence of supporting evidence for informant claims. Defense attorneys emphasize missing recordings of crucial conversations, lack of documented transactions, and absence of physical evidence. They contrast detailed informant testimony with sparse objective proof. When informants claim exclusive knowledge, attorneys demonstrate information availability through public sources.

Entrapment evidence shows informants creating crimes rather than merely reporting them. Defense attorneys document informants’ leadership roles, provision of resources, and pressure overcoming targets’ reluctance. They present evidence of government-funded criminal enterprises where informants profit from inducing others’ participation. This comprehensive approach transforms informants from crime fighters into crime creators, undermining entire prosecutions built on purchased testimony.…

What arguments are used against overbroad search warrants in Georgia?

Overbroad search warrants violate Fourth Amendment particularity requirements by authorizing general searches reminiscent of colonial general warrants that inspired constitutional protections. Defense attorneys must examine warrant applications and executions for improper breadth while seeking suppression of evidence seized beyond legitimate scope. These challenges require careful analysis of probable cause limitations and executed search boundaries.

Particularity requirement violations occur when warrants fail to specifically describe places searched and items sought. Defense attorneys document vague descriptions authorizing searches of entire properties for broadly defined evidence categories. They argue warrants reading like general crime investigations rather than targeting specific evidence of particular offenses. Constitutional history condemning general warrants supports strict particularity enforcement.

Probable cause limitations restrict searches to evidence for which specific cause exists. Defense attorneys parse affidavits identifying which items enjoy probable cause support versus boilerplate additions. They argue officers cannot bootstrap limited probable cause into comprehensive searches. Evidence categories lacking individualized probable cause require suppression.

Severability doctrine application attempts saving valid warrant portions while suppressing overbroad sections. Defense attorneys argue entire warrants fail when overbreadth permeates throughout rather than affecting discrete portions. They document how overbroad authority enabled fishing expeditions tainting entire searches. Meaningful severability requires clear divisions between valid and invalid warrant sections.

Execution challenges examine whether officers exceeded even broad warrant authority. Defense attorneys document searches of areas not specified, seizure of items beyond categories listed, and extended presence enabling general exploration. They present evidence of officers reading documents to find crimes rather than identifying described evidence. Warrant breadth doesn’t authorize unlimited investigation.

Good faith exception limitations prevent sanctioning deliberate overbreadth through exception doctrines. Defense attorneys argue officers trained in particularity requirements cannot claim good faith when obtaining general warrants. They document patterns of overbroad warrant applications suggesting institutional practices. Suppression deters future violations while protecting citizens from general searches dressed in warrant clothing.…

How does Georgia criminal defense address racially discriminatory traffic stops?

Racially discriminatory traffic stops violate equal protection guarantees while undermining law enforcement legitimacy, requiring defense attorneys to document patterns of bias through statistical analysis and individual officer conduct. These cases demand careful development of both systematic discrimination evidence and specific targeting of individual defendants. Defense attorneys must navigate courts’ reluctance to find discrimination while protecting clients from pretextual enforcement.

Statistical evidence compilation reveals disparate impact on minority drivers through traffic stop data analysis. Defense attorneys obtain department records showing stop rates, search frequencies, and citation patterns by race. They employ statisticians calculating standard deviations from expected distributions. Significant disparities unexplained by traffic patterns, violation rates, or neighborhood demographics suggest discrimination.

Individual officer patterns document specific bias beyond department-wide statistics. Defense attorneys investigate officers’ stop histories revealing disproportionate minority targeting. They obtain personnel records showing bias complaints, problematic social media posts, or membership in extremist groups. Officers with documented prejudice lack credibility claiming race-neutral enforcement.

Pretext analysis examines whether minor violations served as excuses for racial profiling investigations. Defense attorneys document extended stops for equipment violations rarely enforced against white drivers. They present evidence of immediate drug questioning, consent search requests, and passenger interrogations unrelated to traffic safety. Video evidence often reveals fishing expeditions following race-based suspicions.

Comparative evidence shows similarly situated white drivers avoiding stops or receiving warnings. Defense attorneys investigate enforcement patterns on specific roadways documenting differential treatment. They present evidence of white drivers passing officers while speeding without stops occurring. Discretionary enforcement enabling discrimination undermines claimed violations.

Remedial arguments extend beyond individual cases to systemic reform. Defense attorneys propose consent decrees, data collection requirements, and training addressing implicit bias. They argue suppression alone insufficiently deters discriminatory policing. This comprehensive approach protects individual clients while advancing equal justice under law regardless of race.…

What defenses are viable for unlawful possession of prescription drugs in Georgia?

Unlawful prescription drug possession charges require prosecutors to prove defendants lacked valid prescriptions while defendants often face challenges documenting legitimate medical treatment. Defense attorneys must navigate privacy concerns, obtain medical records, and present evidence of lawful possession while addressing stigma surrounding certain medications. These cases increasingly involve chronic pain patients and mental health treatment.

Valid prescription defenses establish legal authorization through medical provider documentation. Defense attorneys obtain pharmacy records, physician statements, and insurance documentation proving legitimate prescriptions. They address name variations, expired bottles, and transferred medications creating confusion. Electronic prescription databases increasingly provide definitive authorization evidence.

Household member prescriptions create inference of lawful access when multiple residents share spaces. Defense attorneys document family relationships, caretaking responsibilities, and medication management for elderly or disabled relatives. They argue constructive possession requires excluding lawful access possibilities. Shared medicine cabinets and pill organizers complicate possession determinations.

Emergency refill situations explain possession of medications between prescriptions. Defense attorneys document chronic conditions requiring continuous medication, insurance delays, and pharmacy shortages. They present evidence of subsequent prescriptions confirming ongoing treatment. Good faith efforts obtaining refills negate criminal intent.

Mistake of fact defenses apply when defendants reasonably believed possession was lawful. Defense attorneys document similar medication appearances, pharmacy errors, or family members’ consent to use medications. They present evidence of open medical sharing within households. Honest mistakes about prescription requirements don’t constitute criminal conduct.

Medical necessity arguments emphasize health consequences from criminalizing legitimate treatment. Defense attorneys present expert testimony on conditions requiring controlled substances, inadequate alternatives, and abandonment by providers fearing regulatory scrutiny. They document how prescription crackdowns harm patients while failing to address addiction. This comprehensive approach protects patients from becoming collateral damage in opioid enforcement while recognizing legitimate control needs.…

How can facial injuries be defended as self-defense in Georgia criminal cases?

Facial injuries inflicted during altercations often appear severe in photographs, creating prosecutorial advantages that defense attorneys must overcome by contextualizing defensive actions within Georgia’s self-defense framework. These cases require careful documentation of threat circumstances, proportional response analysis, and expert testimony explaining how defensive strikes can cause dramatic-appearing but relatively minor injuries.

Defensive strike targeting explains why face contact occurs during legitimate self-defense. Defense attorneys present expert testimony on natural defensive reactions targeting attackers’ sensory centers. They document how untrained defenders instinctively strike toward faces when threatened. Biomechanical analysis shows facial strikes effectively stopping aggression with minimal force.

Injury appearance versus severity distinctions educate juries about misleading photograph impact. Defense attorneys obtain medical records showing superficial injuries despite dramatic bruising or swelling. They present expert testimony on facial vascularity causing disproportionate visible trauma. Time-lapse healing photographs demonstrate rapid recovery inconsistent with serious assault.

Aggressor identification evidence establishes defendants responded to unlawful attacks. Defense attorneys document initial aggressors’ actions through witness testimony, surveillance footage, and injury patterns. They present evidence of defendants’ defensive wounds, torn clothing, and retreat attempts. Multiple aggressor scenarios particularly justify facial strikes stopping attacks.

Proportionality analysis examines force reasonableness under totality of circumstances. Defense attorneys document size disparities, weapon presence, and numerical disadvantages justifying strong defensive responses. They present evidence that single facial strikes ended confrontations without continued violence. Reasonable fear perception matters more than hindsight analysis.

Photographic context manipulation reveals prosecution’s selective presentation. Defense attorneys obtain all photographs showing complete injury patterns supporting defensive actions. They document lighting, angles, and timing maximizing apparent injury severity. Complete visual evidence often transforms prosecution narratives of brutal attacks into justified self-defense against aggressors suffering predictable consequences.…

How do attorneys argue for dismissal due to lack of probable cause in Georgia?

Probable cause challenges form fundamental defense strategies attacking arrests, searches, and prosecutions lacking sufficient factual basis for reasonable belief in criminal activity. Defense attorneys must dissect affidavits, testimony, and circumstances known to officers when making probable cause determinations. Successfully demonstrating absence of probable cause can result in evidence suppression, charge dismissals, and civil liability.

Preliminary hearing challenges provide early opportunities to test probable cause through cross-examination. Defense attorneys aggressively question officers about information sources, investigation thoroughness, and credibility assessments. They expose hearsay reliance, conclusory allegations, and speculation filling probable cause gaps. Judges bound over weak cases often signal openness to subsequent dismissal motions.

Warrant affidavit attacks reveal false statements, material omissions, and misleading presentations. Defense attorneys conduct Franks hearings challenging affidavit accuracy. They document excluded exculpatory information, mischaracterized evidence, and stale information. Reconstructed affidavits excluding false information and including omissions often lack probable cause.

Temporal analysis examines whether probable cause existed at crucial moments. Defense attorneys distinguish between arrest probable cause and later-developed charging evidence. They document post-arrest investigation revealing initial errors. Retroactive probable cause cannot justify earlier constitutional violations.

Collective knowledge doctrine limitations prevent aggregating information unknown to acting officers. Defense attorneys establish individual officers lacked probable cause despite department’s collective information. They document communication failures, database errors, and reliance on incorrect briefings. Officers must personally possess or receive reliable information establishing probable cause.

Malicious prosecution elements extend beyond criminal proceedings to civil remedies. Defense attorneys document probable cause absence, malice indicators, and special damages from baseless prosecutions. They preserve evidence supporting civil claims while defending criminal charges. Threat of civil liability motivates careful prosecutorial screening. This comprehensive approach vindicates innocent clients while deterring future baseless prosecutions through meaningful consequences.…

What’s the Georgia criminal defense against misuse of public funds allegations?

Misuse of public funds prosecutions require proving defendants intentionally diverted government money for unauthorized purposes, creating defenses based on budgetary interpretation, authorized discretion, and good faith financial management. Defense attorneys must understand complex government accounting, procurement regulations, and administrative procedures while distinguishing criminal intent from policy disagreements or accounting errors.

Authorized discretion defenses establish defendants acted within granted fiscal authority. Defense attorneys document budget provisions, administrative policies, and past practices permitting challenged expenditures. They present evidence of supervisor approvals, board resolutions, and auditor acknowledgments. Reasonable interpretations of broad discretionary authority negate criminal intent.

Budgetary interpretation arguments recognize legitimate disagreements about permissible expenditures. Defense attorneys present expert testimony on government accounting standards, statutory construction, and administrative law. They document ambiguous regulations, conflicting guidance, and industry practices supporting defendants’ interpretations. Criminal law shouldn’t resolve complex budgetary disputes.

Public purpose analysis examines whether expenditures served legitimate government functions despite technical violations. Defense attorneys document public benefits from challenged spending, emergency circumstances, and ultimate cost savings. They present evidence of transparent decision-making, public disclosure, and ratification by oversight bodies. Technical non-compliance during good faith public service lacks criminal character.

Accounting error distinctions separate mistakes from intentional misappropriation. Defense attorneys trace bookkeeping mistakes, software errors, and miscommunications creating false appearance of misuse. They document defendants’ cooperation with audits, voluntary corrections, and absence of personal benefit. Complex government accounting systems generate errors without criminal intent.

Political prosecution challenges address selective enforcement against policy opponents. Defense attorneys document similar practices by political allies avoiding prosecution. They present evidence of targeting following election changes, policy disputes, or whistleblowing. Criminal prosecution shouldn’t serve political vendettas disguised as financial integrity. This comprehensive approach protects public servants from criminalization of difficult financial decisions while maintaining accountability for genuine corruption.…

Page 15 of 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34