Whether you agree or disagree, there’s a lot to unpack and discuss about your rights—and the realities—during a traffic stop. Let’s get into it.

I sit down with law student Troy Hendrickson to tackle a question I’ve noticed popping up everywhere on social media: Do you really have to get out of your car when the police tell you to? After watching numerous viral videos of people refusing officers’ orders during traffic stops, I decided it was time to demystify the legal history behind this scenario—especially the Supreme Court case Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

I explain why, yes, you do have to follow police instructions in these situations (even if you disagree), and why the courtroom—not the side of the road—is where you should fight any questionable police conduct. Along the way, Troy and I explore the wider issues: officer safety, misunderstandings about the law, and the rise of misinformation online.

Here are 3 key takeaways you should know:

• You must comply if ordered out of your vehicle. Thanks to the Supreme Court decision in Pennsylvania v. Mims (1977), police can lawfully order you out of your car during a stop, even for minor violations.
• The fight happens in court—not on the roadside. Challenging a police order (even if you think it’s unfair or unlawful) on the street will result in arrest or worse. “You’re going to lose that fight…and a window.”
• Understanding why is crucial. These rules are based on “officer safety” and the structure of the rule of law. If you think your rights were violated, work with an attorney after the fact.

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

If you’ve ever wondered whether just carrying a large sum of cash could land you in legal hot water—or what steps you can take if it happens to you—this episode is a must-listen.

Host Steve Palmer is joined by Troy Hendrickson, a law student, to tackle the not-so-theoretical question: What really happens if the police take your cash during a routine traffic stop?

Steve and Troy unravel the complexities behind asset forfeiture, sharing real-life cases where drivers have had tens of thousands of dollars seized by law enforcement—sometimes with little explanation or due process. Together, discuss the legal procedures that should protect your property rights, what “due process” really means in these situations, and how a legal team actually fights to recover seized money.

They also dig into the difference between criminal charges and civil asset forfeiture, dispel myths about what cash in your car “proves,” and highlight the burdens of proof on both sides. Plus, they candidly share the frustrations and realities of navigating police departments, public records, and the sometimes slow-moving wheels of justice.

Moments

00:00 "Due Process and Contraband Notices"

03:57 Criminal Indictment and Asset Forfeiture

07:01 "Seeking Legal Help"

09:48 "Money Laundering Charges Negotiation"

13:58 Drug Mule Traffic Stop Explained

17:13 Money Possession Isn't Criminal

22:54 Roadside Bribe in Costa Rica

Here are 3 key takeaways you should know:

• Due Process Should Prevail (But Doesn’t Always): The system is supposed to require official notice and a chance to fight for your seized property. But real-world cases often leave people in limbo, unable to get a straight answer or their assets back without taking legal action.
• Just Having Cash Is Not a Crime: Simply possessing large sums of money—even if it sets off police suspicions—is not illegal. The government needs something more than "it looks fishy" or "a dog sniffed it" to justify permanent seizure.
• Challenging Seizure Is Complicated and Costly: To recover seized money, you often have to initiate a civil lawsuit, shouldering the burden to prove it's your property and that the government is holding it. This process can be lengthy, expensive, and stacked against innocent owners.

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast...

If you’re curious about the machinery of high-stakes criminal trials, want to understand the strategy behind post-conviction moves, or just love hearing behind-the-scenes details from seasoned legal minds, this episode’s for you.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk, where legal education meets real-world controversy! In this episode, host Steve Palmer teams up with law student Troy Hendrickson for a special "law school edition" focused on the high-profile P Diddy trial. The guys dig into the nitty gritty of what happens between conviction and sentencing, breaking down the so-called “throwaway” post-trial motions and whether they ever actually work.

From LeBron James’ famous party quote to the real implications of a compromise verdict, Steve and Troy peel back the layers of legal strategy used in Diddy’s defense—discussing grand juries, jury instructions, and the difference between a good argument and a long shot. They also cover why lawyers sometimes file motions more for publicity than for results, and what kind of jail time credit Diddy might expect after almost two years behind bars.

Moments

00:00 "Strategic 'Throwaway' Court Motions"

04:42 "Trial Objections and Appeals"

06:47 "Always Object in Court"

10:14 "Grand Jury's Role Examined"

14:50 "Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim Raised"

16:54 Sentencing Guidelines and Considerations

19:39 "Struggling for Connection"

3 Key Takeaways:

Post-Trial Motions Matter (But Aren’t Magic Bullets):

Defense attorneys often file motions for a new trial between conviction and sentencing. While many see these as “throwaway” or strategic filings, sometimes they’re essential for preserving arguments or highlighting egregious errors like jury misconduct.

Grand Jury Isn’t Always a Shield:

The episode highlights how the grand jury process, intended as a safeguard against baseless charges, is often procedural rather than protective. Prosecutors nearly always get indictments—even with flimsy evidence—making it challenging for defendants facing stacked charges.

Publicity & Sentencing Strategy:

High-profile cases come with unique challenges. Lawyers might file post-conviction motions not just for legal reasons, but also to shape public perception. Additionally, sentencing memoranda and jail-time credit play big roles in the ultimate outcome, sometimes overlooked in law school teachings.

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

If you want to know what goes into courtroom decision-making when the pressure is on, you’ll want to hear this one.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! I'm Steve Palmer, and in this episode, I’m giving you an inside look at a recent trial I just finished—one that didn’t have a jury.

Instead, my client and I made the tough decision to waive his right to a jury trial, choosing to have a judge decide his fate. I’ll walk you through exactly why I rarely take cases in front of just a judge, what made this case unique, and the careful reasoning behind our strategy—especially when there are tricky legal technicalities involved. I’ll also share some thoughts on what it really means to get a fair trial, whether it’s with a jury or a judge.

Three key takeaways:

• Strategic Choice Matters: Opting for a bench (judge-only) trial can be the right path when a case hinges on a nuanced, technical legal issue that a jury might not fully grasp.
• Deep Client Collaboration: The decision isn’t made lightly. It involves honest conversations about risks, pros, and cons, making sure the client is 100% involved all the way.
• Presentation Still Counts: While the theatrics are toned down for a judge, it’s crucial to present evidence clearly and treat the judge as the "fact finder"—advocating with the same intensity as if speaking to a jury.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

On this episode of Lawyer Talk, I’m going off the record and on the air to answer the many questions I’ve been getting about the Tyler Robinson case, which is making headlines for its connection to the Charlie Kirk assassination. I’ll be clearing up some misunderstandings about the evidence—especially when it comes to fingerprints and DNA—and giving you a clearer picture of what the legal process looks like from here.

I’ll also share my take on what it’s really like to defend someone in a high-profile case like this, from dealing with the media circus to the practical challenges lawyers face behind the scenes.

Top Takeaways:

Evidence Scrutiny is Critical:

Defense attorneys always start by dissecting the prosecution's evidence—including DNA, fingerprints, and the context surrounding them. As Steve notes, just because certain evidence is cited in a probable cause affidavit doesn’t make the case airtight; robust discovery and expert analysis are essential.

Taking on Death Penalty Defense is a Massive Undertaking:

These cases can last well over a year and consume significant resources. Most are handled by private lawyers appointed (and underpaid) by the state, not full-time public defenders, which can impact their own legal practices.

Expertise and Resources Make or Break the Case:

Successfully defending a death penalty case often requires applying for court-approved experts in forensics, cell phone data, and beyond. The responsibility is immense—not only for the client, but for the integrity of the justice process.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

I’m answering a great follow-up question that came straight from our producer, Brett at Circle 270 Media. After talking about search warrants and the “four corners” requirement, Brett asked: What happens if the police are searching for one thing, like a brick of cocaine, but while they're lawfully inside your house, they stumble on something else illegal—say, an unlawful firearm?

I walk you through the nuts and bolts of the Fourth Amendment, explaining how the “plain view” exception actually works and what it means if a search warrant turns out to be invalid. I’ll break down how law enforcement can—and can’t—use what they find, and why things like the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine can make or break a case. If you’ve ever wondered what really happens when police find the unexpected during a search, this episode is for you.

Key takeaways:

• Plain View Doctrine: If law enforcement is lawfully present (with a valid warrant) and spots contraband in plain view, they are legally allowed to seize it—even if it’s not what they were originally searching for.
• Invalid Warrants Have Consequences: If a search warrant is later found invalid, any evidence found, including that seen in plain view, can be excluded from court under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
• Scope of Search Matters: Police can’t look for “an elephant in a shoebox.” If the warrant is for a large object (like a machine gun), searching small containers exceeds the scope—unless the warrant includes broader language about searching for related items.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

I’m tackling the twists and turns of the criminal appellate process—particularly the difference between direct and indirect appeals, also known as post-conviction or habeas corpus actions.

I’m drawing directly from my experiences and real questions that come up in my practice, breaking down what I call the “appellate ladder” that anyone must climb after a conviction, especially here in Ohio.

I’ll explain why you can’t just skip steps in the appeal process, even if it feels like it might save time or money. Skipping a rung can create procedural traps, especially if you’re hoping to take your case up to the federal courts later on. I know how tempting it can be to jump ahead, but I’ll show you why following every step is crucial if you want a real shot at relief.

I’m here to cut through the legal jargon and share practical advice for anyone facing an appeal—or just curious about how the process really works. And yes, I’ll even throw in a Mario Bros. analogy to make it all a bit more fun. Stick around if you want to understand the true “appeal” of appeals!

Moments

00:00 Consider indirect appeal first; it's often more successful and cost-effective than the direct appeal, saving time and legal resources.

03:30 Habeas corpus in federal court is complex; missing technicalities at the state level can lead to case dismissal.

Here are 3 key takeaways from the episode:

• There Are Two Appellate Ladders: The criminal appellate process includes a direct appeal (challenging errors from the trial as recorded in the official record) and an indirect or post-conviction appeal (addressing issues outside the record). Both play crucial roles.
• Don’t Skip Steps: As tempting as it is to save time and money by jumping straight to the “stronger” argument, skipping any step in the ladder can lead to procedural default—meaning federal courts may not even consider your case.
• Strategic Foresight is Vital: Allowing each court level to rule preserves your right to seek relief at the federal level (like habeas corpus). Shortcuts, unfortunately, just aren’t an option in appellate law.

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm...

In this Q&A episode, I answer a question about search warrants and explain the difference between a standard motion to suppress and the all-important Franks motion.

Responding to a listener’s question, I break down how police affidavits are used to obtain search warrants, what happens when there’s a lack of probable cause, and what it means if law enforcement lies—or leaves out key information—when seeking a warrant.

I walk you through how the Fourth Amendment protects your privacy, how courtroom strategies develop, and why it’s so important to keep solid communication with your defense attorney if you’re ever facing criminal charges.

Whether you’re caught up in your own case or just curious how all this plays out in real life, this episode gives you a practical, step-by-step guide straight from my experience in the trenches.

Moments

00:00 Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must present a sworn statement or affidavit to a judge, establishing probable cause and a nexus between the search location and evidence of criminal activity.

03:41 Exclusionary rule: Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court; supports motions like suppressing evidence or Frank's motion.

08:35 Discuss police report discrepancies at Frank's hearings; consult your lawyer for strategy and communication.

Here are my top 3 takeaways:

Know the Difference:

A traditional motion to suppress focuses exclusively on what’s contained within the “four corners” of the search warrant affidavit. If the affidavit lacks probable cause, that’s your argument.

A Franks motion takes it a step further—challenging the truthfulness of the statements in that affidavit. If police knowingly lied or omitted critical information, the entire warrant (and seized evidence) can be thrown out.

Procedural Impact Matters:

Motion to suppress hearings are mostly decided on the documents—you don’t typically get to call witnesses or present new evidence.

Franks motions can turn into full-blown evidentiary hearings, where you get to subpoena officers, cross-examine them, and introduce evidence showing intentional falsehoods or omissions.

Strategic Use:

Skilled defense attorneys often file both types—creating multiple avenues to contest the evidence and strengthen your client’s defense.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E....