Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

In Wisconsin, there is a pending marijuana case that started when the police received a tip that the defendant was growing marijuana plants on his property. The local police solicited the assistance of the DEA who went on the property without consent and without a search warrant and installed video cameras to record the marijuana grow operation and the activities of the defendant who owned the land. Once the video cameras recorded the defendant handling marijuana from the marijuana plants, the DEA obtained a search warrant. The police found thousands of marijuana plants on the property and arrested the defendant on multiple serious marijuana charges.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence on video and also the evidence seized by police after obtaining the search warrant. The defendant had a large piece of property, but it was marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Property” signs. The state argued that the DEA went into an open field and the DEA agents were not trespassing. For some reason, the Wisconsin court decided it was legal for the government to come onto the defendant’s property and install surveillance cameras without a search warrant. Normally, the police would need a search warrant to enter upon a person’s private property to search or conduct surveillance. However, the case has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court so the ultimate decision as to whether the DEA acted legally has not yet been made.

In Florida, there are generally two common bases that allow a police officer to search a person, vehicle, residence or anything else in which a person has a privacy right. If a person consents to a police search, the police can search pursuant to the terms of the consent. If the police go to a judge with probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime and the judge agrees, the police can search pursuant to a search warrant. Most searches are conducted based on one of those two reasons. However, there are other situations where a police officer can search a person, vehicle or residence without consent and without a search warrant.

One situation occurs when there is a medical emergency. For instance, if a person has a seizure in his bed and his friend flags down a police officer outside, the police officer can probably come into the house and check on the person. If the police officer happens to see a bag of marijuana or cocaine in the room and makes an arrest, there is a good chance that search and seizure will be upheld. However, a search based on a medical emergency has its limits.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the mother of the defendant called the police because the defendant appeared to be passed out in his room next to some pills. However, when the polcie arrived, the defendant was outside in front of the house. The police officer asked the defendant some questions, and he did not appear to need medical treatment. The police officer noticed a pill bottle in his pants. The defendant said it was blood pressure medication. The police officer then told the defendant to give him the pill bottle. The defendant complied, and the police officer determined that the pill bottle contained illegal pills. He arrested the defendant, and later found a bag of marijuana on him.

Many drug cases start with a simple traffic stop that turns into a search of the vehicle by police and/or a police K9 and ultimately an arrest on some drug charge. However, in order for that drug charge to be valid, the initial stop of the suspect and the search must be valid under the Constitution. In most cases, for the initial stop to be valid, the police must have probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion, that the driver is violating a traffic law or committing some other crime. For the search to be valid, the police officer normally must have consent to search the vehicle or probable cause to believe there are drugs or is evidence of criminal activity in the vehicle.

In a recent drug trafficking case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was driving a blue Ford when a police officer saw him and ran the tag. Apparently, the tag was registered to the same type of vehicle but the color on the registration information was green. Based solely on the color inconsistency, the police officer stopped the driver. The driver told the police officer that he had recently had the vehicle painted. The police officer smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle and searched it. Inside the vehicle, the police officer found marijuana and crack cocaine. The defendant was arrested for trafficking in marijuana and cocaine.

In most cases, a police officer can only stop a driver if there is specific evidence giving the officer at least a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The criminal defense lawyer argued that changing the color of a vehicle is not illegal or suspicious, and there is no legal obligation to report a change in vehicle color to the state. As a result, the court found that a police officer cannot stop a vehicle just because the vehicle’s color is different from the color on the registration information. This factor alone is insufficient evidence of criminal activity. However, there have been some courts in other states that have allowed a police officer to stop a vehicle based solely on a color discrepancy.

In Florida, the United States and Florida constitutions afford citizens certain rights to prevent police officers from unreasonably stopping them, detaining them and searching them. The term “unreasonable” in this context refers to police searches and seizures that are done without sufficient, specific evidence to establish the person is involved in criminal activity or possesses evidence of criminal activity.

While a police officer cannot go up to a person who looks suspicious and stop him for interrogation, a police officer can always go up to a person and ask questions in a consensual manner. For instance, in a recent marijuana case near Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer saw two juveniles walking down the street during school hours carrying full backpacks. The police officer stopped his vehicle without activating his emergency lights or siren and asked the juveniles some questions. The police officer asked the juveniles what they were doing there and for their identifications. Both juveniles agreed to answer the questions and provide their ID’s. Next, the police officer asked if he could search their backpacks, and the juveniles consented to the search. The police officer found marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia inside and arrested them both for possession of marijuana.

This was a legal police encounter. A police officer can always go up to a person and ask basic questions and ask for ID. Of course, the other side of the coin is that a person can refuse to answer the questions and walk away. As long as there is no evidence the person is involved in criminal activity, the police officer should not have a legal basis to stop the person and make them answer questions or provide ID. In this case, the juveniles agreed to talk to the police officer and let him search their backpacks to find the marijuana. Obviously, that was a bad decision and one was likely the result of the juveniles not knowing their constitutional rights. If a person has marijuana or other drugs on him/her and consents to a police officer search, that is a guaranteed arrest and criminal charge.

In a trafficking in marijuana case near Jacksonville, Florida, police officers were given a tip from a person who said the defendant was growing large quantities of marijuana in his home. A tip like that by itself is rarely sufficient to get a search warrant, but it is usually the starting point for further investigation by the police. In this case, the police conducted some surveillance of the house and then walked up to the house and knocked on the door. When the defendant opened the door, the police said they heard the sounds of a generator which was consistent with equipment used to grow marijuana. They also smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the house. The police then entered the home for what they said was a protective sweep to make sure no one else was in the house potentially destroying evidence. At the same time, they went to get a search warrant to search the house for marijuana and marijuana growing equipment.

When looking through the house, the police found marijuana and the equipment used to grow marijuana. They ultimately obtained the search warrant and seized the incriminating evidence. The defendant was charged with trafficking in marijuana and other charges. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana and growing equipment based on the fact that the police entered the home and saw the drugs and equipment prior to getting the search warrant.

The court agreed that the police did not have a right to enter the home based on the tip, the sound of the generator and the odor of marijuana. The police officer said they entered the home because they thought someone might destroy the evidence. However, that was pure speculation, and there was no specific evidence that destruction of evidence might occur. The police could only legally enter the home with a search warrant at that point. However, the marijuana evidence was not suppressed because the police ultimately did get a search warrant and seized the marijuana thereafter. Since the police were ultimately within their rights to search the house pursuant to the search warrant, the marjuana evidence was admissible.