Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

In a recent drug case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s house for ecstasy pills (MDMA). The search warrant authorized by the judge was a knock and announce search warrant. A knock and announce search warrant is fairly self-explanatory. When the police officers approach a house, they have to knock, announce themselves as police and give the residents sufficient time to come to the door. The police cannot just show up, knock down the door and start searching.

In this case, the police officers showed up to the house late at night, knocked on the door for approximately 20 seconds and broke down the door after no one answered within 20 seconds. They searched the house and found large quantities of ecstasy pills. The defendant, who owned the house, was arrested for trafficking in ecstasy.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the ecstasy pills because the police officers violated the provisions of the the search warrant. Because this was a knock and announce search warrant, the police were required to knock and then announce their presence and wait a sufficient period of time for the people to answer the door. The court found that 20 seconds was not a sufficient period of time to wait for the occupants to answer the door for a knock and announce search warrant, especially at night when most people are sleeping. Since the police officers did not comply with the terms of the search warrant, the evidence of the ecstasy pills was thrown out, and the trafficking in ecstasy case was dismissed.

A common scenario in Florida occurs when the police pull over a driver for a traffic violation and suspect the driver has drugs in his/her vehicle and finds a way to search the vehicle. For possession of marijuana or trafficking in marijuana cases, the police report often indicates that the police officer smelled marijuana in the vehicle. Is this alleged odor of marijuana sufficient for a police officer to search a person’s vehicle?

In a possession of marijuana case near Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer pulled the defendant over for running a stop sign. When he approached the defendant’s vehicle, he said he smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The police officer then told the defendant to get out of the vehicle, searched the car and found marijuana inside a closed container. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana arguing that the smell of marijuana is not sufficient for a police officer to search a vehicle without a search warrant. The court disagreed and found the opposite. In Florida, if the police officer says he/she smells an odor of marijuana coming from a vehicle, he/she can search it.

The obvious problem is that the police officer can always say he/she smells marijuana coming from the vehicle and search the vehicle every time. If he/she finds marijuana, then he/she must have been right. If he/she does not find marijuana, the police can always say there must have been marijuana recently in the vehicle but removed.

In Florida, police officers are allowed to search a person or his/her property in limited circumstances. One situation where a search is usually legal is when the owner of the property or the person with authority over the property gives the police consent to search the property. However, a person cannot give police consent to search property that is not his/hers or over which he/she does not have authority.

For example, in a possession of cocaine case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police pulled a vehicle over in a high crime and drug area. The police officer suspected the occupants of buying crack cocaine. There was a male driver and a female passenger in the vehicle. After some discussion, the police officer asked the driver if he could search his car. The driver agreed, and the police officer asked the driver and the passenger to step out of the car. The police officer did not find any drugs in the car, but he did find some drugs in a purse that was on the passenger seat. The police officer arrested the female passenger for possession of the cocaine found in the purse.

The criminal defense lawyer moved to suppress the evidence of the cocaine because the police officer did not have authority to search the purse. If a police officer gets consent to search a car from the driver or owner, that usually means he can search all over the car, the glove compartment and even containers in the car depending on whether the consent is limited or general. However, if an item or container likely belongs to someone else who did not give consent, the police officer cannot use the driver’s consent as authorization to search another person’s property. In this case, it should have been fairly obvious that the purse belonged to the female passenger. There was no evidence that the driver owned the purse or had authority to give consent to search the purse. If the police officer wanted to search the purse, he should have asked the person most likely authorized to give consent to search the purse. Because he did not, he did not get proper authorization to search the purse, and the evidence of the cocaine was suppressed. The possession of cocaine charge was dropped.

People in Florida have very strong privacy rights in their homes, and police can only enter a person’s home in limited circumstances. Normally, the police will either need a valid search warrant, consent from an authorized person or an emergency making it necessary to enter a person’s home when there is no time to get a search warrant. Absent one of those situations, a police officer’s search of or in a person’s home will likely be illegal.

In a recent possession of marijuana case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police responded to a domestic disturbance call involving a husband and wife. The husband and wife met the police officers in the front yard, and everyone decided that the husband should spend the night somewhere else. The police officers offered to give the husband a ride to a friend’s house. The husband indicated he had a knife on him that he needed to put back in his house. The police officers followed him into the house and saw that he had a bag of marijuana in his pocket. The police officers arrested him for possession of marijuana.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana. The criminal defense attorney argued that the police officers did not have a right to enter the defendant’s home and as a result, any evidence found in the home should be suppressed. The Court agreed. The police officers did not have a search warrant, and there was no emergency that justified entry into the defendant’s house. While the defendant apparently did not object when the police officers followed him into his house, that is not the same as affirmative consent. Because the police officers did not have a legal basis to enter the house where they found the marijuana, the evidence of the marijuana was suppressed and the possession of marijuana charge was thrown out.

In Florida, if the police want to search a person’s home for drugs or other incriminating evidence, they would normally need a search warrant that can only be validly obtained if the police have probable cause to believe drugs or other evidence is in the home. The police can always go to the house and ask for consent to search it, but without that consent, a search warrant is typically required.

However, there can be exceptions. In a recent manufacture of marijuana and possession of marijuana case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police got an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing marijuana in his house. An anonymous tip alone is never going to be sufficient to get a valid search warrant for a house so the police did what is called a knock and talk where they walk up to the front door, knock and talk to the occupant. When the defendant opened the door, the police indicated they smelled marijuana in the home. The police officer went into the house and saw marijuana in plan view. They then got consent to search the home from the defendant. The police found more marijuana and marijuana plants and arrested the defendant for the marijuana charges.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana arguing that the police did not have a right to enter the home where they saw the marijuana. The police should have obtained a search warrant or consent to search before entering the home. Since they got consent to search only after entering the home illegally, the consent to search the home was invalid.

The general rule in Florida is that a police officer cannot search a person’s belongings unless an established legal exception applies. Examples include: consent, a search warrant, a search incident to an arrest and probable cause to believe incriminating evidence is present and exigent circumstances. However, if a person abandons the property, he/she may no longer have standing to challenge an alleged improper search of that property.

In a recent drug case south of Jacksonville, Florida, police officers were investigating a complaint that some individuals were selling cocaine and marijuana. The police officers arrived and saw three individuals standing near the street. The police officers saw one of the individuals pass a bag to another who then dropped it behind some bushes. A police officer then went behind the bushes, grabbed the bag and opened it. He found marijuana and cocaine inside and arrested the first individual who had the drugs.

The defendant’s criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the drugs arguing that the police officer did not have a legal basis to seize the bag and search it for illegal drugs. The issue was whether the defendant abandoned the property so that the officer was free to search it. In the search and seizure context, abandonment of property occurs when a person relinquishes his/her reasonable expectation of privacy in the property. The issue is not whether the person gave up his/her right to the property so that another person can take ownership of it.

Under search and seizure law in Florida, the police need to have reasonable suspicion that a suspect is involved in criminal activity before he/she can briefly detain the suspect for further investigation. A detention does not necessarily consist of a police officer telling a person to stop or stopping a person for a traffic violation. Sometimes, a detention can be a little more subtle. If the police officer does not have a legitimate legal basis to detain a suspect, any evidence that police officer may find as a result of the detention should be thrown out.

In a recent drug case near Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer was patrolling a known drug area in the early morning hours when he saw someone alone in a vehicle parked near a residential area. The vehicle was legally parked, but the officer found it suspicious that the person was alone in a vehicle at that hour with all of the lights off. The police officer drove up to the suspect and stopped his police car near the vehicle. The police officer activated his emergency lights because he wanted to make sure other cars could see his vehicle and shined his flashlight into the suspect’s vehicle. The police officer approached the suspect and said he smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The police officer said he saw a partially smoked marijuana blunt in the ashtray and arrested the suspect. Upon arrest, the police officer found some cocaine on the suspect. The suspect was eventually charged with possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana and the cocaine. He argued that the police officer did not have a right to detain the defendant just based on a suspicion when he merely saw the defendant alone in his vehicle in the dark. The state argued that the police officer did not actually detain the defendant until he smelled the marijuana and saw the marijuana blunt. At that point, the police officer did have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant for committing the crime of possession of marijuana and had probable cause to arrest him on that charge.