Guest Post and Blog Tour For Venetian Bind by Lawrence E. Rothstein

Venetian Bind
by Lawrence E. Rothstein

About Venetian Bind

Venetian Bind
Cozy Mystery
1st in Series
Setting – Venice
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Wild Rose Press (May 15, 2024)
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1509254153
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1509254156
Digital ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CX5T3CP5

In Venetian Bind, Detective Marko Korb and his associate Kelan Su, a Chinese-American woman, must hunt down a murderer and prevent a devastating terrorist attack in the romantic city of Venice.

Korb, a fat, egotistical, and brilliant detective, and Kelan Su, a former Chicago police officer, licensed attorney, and martial arts expert, arrive in Venice to investigate the murder of Stefan Pakulić, a former Serbian paramilitary leader and accused war criminal.The daughter of a Bosnian expat who had rescued Korb from Pakulić’s clutches during the war is a suspect in the killing. Korb is torn between finding the murderer and his sympathy for the Serbian’s killer—the Venetian bind.

The investigation leads to Pakulić’s connection with Italian neo-fascists planning a terrorist action in Venice. It takes Korb’s genius and the intrepid sleuthing of Su to find the murderer, forestall the terrorist action, and protect the daughter of Korb’s rescuer.

GUEST POST

As a university professor teaching law courses, I often created hypothetical cases for the students to analyze and discuss according to the case law we were studying. This experience was one of the inspirations for writing detective novels after retiring from both a legal and a teaching career. Here is an example that plays off the situation in the movie My Cousin Vinnie.

HIGH AND STONED BUSTED IN ALABAMA

Billie Bob High and Joe Don Stoned, both 21 years old, were arrested in Jasper County, Alabama for armed robbery, murder, the illegal possession of a weapon and for theft of a mint green, 1963 Pontiac Tempest. Deputy (pronounced “deppitee”) Sheriff Ewall Goodalboise first saw the defendants standing on the sidewalk outside of the Moonshine Bar & Grill with a six pack of beer. The Deputy was driving back to the Sheriff’s Office at the end of his shift. Goodalboise, a twenty year veteran on the force, didn’t like their looks. As he said, “I seen such shifty characters too many times not to be all-fired suspicious that evil doin’s was afoot.” However, he was unable to say exactly what prompted him to stop his car, get out and ask for their identification. Although they both provided valid driver’s licenses, he then spun Billie Bob around and told him to put his hands up against the wall and patted down the outside of his clothing looking for weapons. He found a .357 magnum pistol stuck in the back waistband of Billie Bob’s pants underneath his loose Hawaiian shirt.

He removed the gun and put cuffs on Billie Bob. Before he patted down Joe Don, he told him to “put that theah sixah down on the sidewalk.” Joe Don complied, whereupon the Deputy patted him down finding something long and hard that felt like a switchblade knife. Upon removing it from Joe Don’s pocket, he pressed the button and out popped —— a car key. “Whereabouts is the car that this key is fer?” asked Deputy Goodalboise. “The green one up yonder,” answered Stoned, pointing vaguely at a mint green vintage 1960s car parked up the street. The Deputy then reached down for the six pack, saying: “If ya gonna drive, boy, I’d bettah keep this here sixah.” He turned it around to note the brand and noticed that its price sticker was from the Sack O’ Suds over in Beechum County.

Suddenly, Deputy Goodalboise remembered that the Jasper County Sheriff’s Office received an inquiry that day from Sheriff Farley over in Beechum County about a mint green, 1963 Pontiac Tempest, two boys and a .357 magnum. The information had been requested by the attorney, Vincent Gambino, representing two New York City boys on trial for armed robbery and murder at the Sack O’ Suds. He pushed his hat back, wiped the sweat off his forehead with his sleeve and drawled: “Well, well, well! You boys’ll both have to come with me. It seems y’all maght have some questions to answer over to Beechum County.” He spun Stoned around, pulled his hands behind his back and clapped on another pair of cuffs.

Prior to trial the boys’ attorneys move to suppress all evidence pertaining to the pistol, the car key, the six pack label and any statements made by the boys concerning the car. The trial judge suppresses the evidence and the prosecutor takes an immediate appeal as there is no case without this evidence. The state supreme court affirms the decision of the trial judge and the defendants file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition is granted. Discuss the constitutional arguments and cases that will be raised.

ANALYSIS

Remember this case would have gotten to the Supreme Court around the year 2000. Please excuse the lack of legal citation and full discussion of cases.

Does the 4^th amendment (through the 14^th) apply to Deputy Goodalboise’s stop of High and Stoned to ask them for identification? Yes, but not an arrest, only a limited interruption to their freedom of action. Since Terry v. Ohio, this means a less restrictive standard – reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. It is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and the suspects are linked to criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion, however, is not just a hunch or a feeling. It must be based on specific stateable facts that relate the suspects to criminal activity. In Terry, Officer McFadden had observed Terry and his colleagues walk repeatedly past a jewelry store, look inside, and stop and confer with each other out of sight of the store. In Illinois v. Wardlow, a more recent extension of Terry, the officers observed the suspect running from the police presence in an area known for drug trafficking carrying an opaque paper bag.

High and Stoned were doing nothing unusual at all and certainly nothing that could be linked to criminal activity. The Deputy admitted that he could not state exactly what made him suspicious of criminal activity or of danger to himself. As for the danger issue, when questioned, they produced valid identification and did nothing more to create reasonable suspicion.

If the initial stop and frisk violated the 4^th Amendment, then all evidence seized as a result of that stop is inadmissible. The fruit of the poisonous tree. Mapp v. Ohio.

How might we rehabilitate the initial stop? While the Deputy did not say so, we might argue that he possessed facts that made his decision reasonable, i.e. he knew of the Jasper County inquiry about two boys whose descriptions were given. He might have unconsciously realized that High and Stoned matched the description, even though he only consciously remembered the inquiry later. We might be breaking new legal ground here with regard to a good faith exception.

If we have rehabilitated the initial stop on the suggested grounds, then the Deputy also had reasonable suspicion of danger. He was then entitled under Terry to frisk, i.e. is to conduct a limited patdown of the outside of the clothing in a search for weapons. He feels the gun clearly and can now pull it out. He has probable cause to arrest High now. He may also frisk Stoned for the same reason. Finding something that feels like a weapon allows him to pull it out and determine if it is a weapon (it appeared to be a switchblade knife when viewed). However, can he push the button once he has protected himself from its use? Probably yes since the possession of a switchblade is also illegal and he would have grounds for an arrest and search incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California. Similarly, he may look at and manipulate the six-pack as an arrest search (but not if only a stop and frisk). Finding the key, can he now ask what the key is for and use that information to gather further evidence? This is more problematic as he did not give the Miranda warnings although both could be considered in custody, probable cause being established and both being frisked and relieved of possible weapons. On the other hand, he might have been prepared to let Stoned go once he determined the key case was not a weapon and therefore Stoned was not interrogated in a custodial situation. This could be indicated because he asked to keep the six pack if Stoned were driving. Miranda v. Arizona.

About Lawrence E. Rothstein

I am a retired lawyer and university professor who has published in constitutional law, privacy law, political theory and labor law. Born and raised in Chicago, I am now residing with my wife and family in beautiful southern Rhode Island. I have lived and traveled widely in Europe. As an avid reader of crime fiction, I have always wanted to write detective novels. As a lover of food and cooking, I include many scrumptious meals and some recipes in my novel and on my website.

Webpage: www.Rothsteinsmysteries.com;
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/Rothsteinsmysteries;
GoodReads:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/209521954-venetian-bind

Purchase Links: Amazon B&N

TOUR PARTICIPANTS

July 8 – Mystery, Thrillers, and Suspense – SPOTLIGHT

July 9 – Christy’s Cozy Corners – REVIEW, CHARACTER GUEST POST

July 9 – Lady Hawkeye – SPOTLIGHT

July 10 – FUONLYKNEW – SPOTLIGHT

July 10 – Socrates Book Reviews – SPOTLIGHT

July 10 – Books, Ramblings, and Tea – SPOTLIGHT

July 11 – Ascroft, eh? – CHARACTER INTERVIEW

July 11 – Baroness Book Trove – SPOTLIGHT

July 12 – fundinmental – SPOTLIGHT