Drug Crimes

Obama Administration Releases New Drug Control Strategy

Published on: May 13, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

With the release of the proposed 2013 budget, the Obama administration also released its new drug control strategy. Although the Obama administration has given indications in the past that it’s going to take a more considerate and cost-effective approach to the old, expensive and ineffective War on Drugs, the new strategy does not seem to reflect a new direction. The new strategy allocates more than $25 billion for national drug enforcement, with approximately 60% of the money going towards actual enforcement while only approximately 40% is going towards prevention and treatment. In other words, it appears that approximately 60% of the more than $25 billion in taxpayer money is going towards the same policies and procedures that have not seemed to make any significant progress in drug usage and drug crimes.

The Obama administration is recognizing the shift in drug usage and drug crimes towards pain pills without a prescription and is allocating more funds accordingly. The administration is also calling for increased drug testing with immediate penalties for those who fail drug tests. This includes people under court supervision as well as people in the workplace, where applicable. The new budget and strategy do not give much, if any, credence to those supporting the legalization of marijuana, whether for medicinal purposes or otherwise.

All in all, the Obama administration’s new drug strategy does not appear to be much different from any other president’s drug strategies in recent years since the War on Drugs was initiated.

Florida Police Still Cracking Down on Pain Clinics

Published on: April 7, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

We have written several posts about state and federal law enforcement agencies focusing on what they call “pill mills” throughout Florida. We have represented many people in state and federal court who are charged with having some association with an illegal pain clinic ,or pill mill, in Florida or Georgia. The targets of the police investigations range from pain clinic employees to doctors to owners. Some of the factors police look for are as follows: pain clinics that have lines out the front door or lines early in the morning when the clinic opens, vehicles in the parking lot with out of state license plates and pain clinics where doctors see patients for a very short period of time and then write prescriptions for pain pills.

Over the last several years, we have seen many cases of the police going after these pain clinics. Many of these criminal cases have been successful, but some of them have targeted legitimate pain clinics that provide a much needed medical service to people who do not have good, or any, insurance coverage.

According to a recent Jacksonville news article, Florida police are still cracking down on pain clinics. The Florida Attorney General has called the prevalence of pain clinics and prescription drug abuse a health crisis in Florida. The Attorney General’s office claimed that more than 2,000 arrests in pain clinic related cases have been made, including 34 doctors. The Attorney General’s office and other law enforcement agencies throughout the state intend to continue to make arrests of people they consider to be involved in illegal pain clinics.

What Do Police Have to Prove About Drug Dog’s Qualifications?

Published on: March 29, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Jacksonville, Florida, we handle a lot of drug cases that arise from an arrest after a drug dog or K-9 alerts to the alleged odor of illegal drugs in a vehicle. In many of these cases, the police officer makes a routine traffic stop and then is suspicious that the person has illegal drugs in his/her car and either has his/her drug dog walk around the vehicle or calls for an officer with a drug dog to come to the scene to have the drug dog sniff the outside of the vehicle. If the drug dog alerts to the odor of illegal drugs from the vehicle, the police officer then thoroughly searches the vehicle looking for the drugs. If the police officer finds drugs, the police use that as an example of the drug dog’s reliability. If the police officer does not find drugs in the vehicle, they assume there were drugs in the vehicle but recently removed.

When these cases go to a trial or result in a motion to dismiss the evidence of the illegal drugs by the criminal defense attorney, the police officer who handled the drug dog is required to come into court and explain to the judge or the jury how the drug dog can reliably indicate to the odor of illegal drugs.

However, what exactly the police officer is required to establish with the drug dog is not clear. Criminal defense attorneys have complained that police officers get a free pass when it comes to proving that a drug dog has been reliable in prior cases. When inquiring into a drug dog’s prior track record, police officers often testify that when a drug dog has alerted to illegal narcotics in cases where no illegal drugs are found, it only means that the illegal drugs must have been in the vehicle earlier but removed. With that argument, a drug dog can never be wrong when alerting to the odor of illegal drugs.

President Obama’s Proposed Budget Increases Funding for Anti-Drug Programs

Published on: March 22, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Despite statements that he intends to decrease the budget deficit and focus less on certain drug crimes, President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget actually increases funding for anti-drug initiatives. The war on drugs goes on with seemingly no consideration for its spiraling costs and ineffectiveness in reducing the number of people using drugs. As further indication that the incredibly high cost to success ratio will not likely come down, the proportion of funds going to treatment and prevention versus funds going to law enforcement is not changing much. For every dollar spent on anti-drug initiatives, approximately 60 cents go to law enforcement while only about 40 cents go to prevention and treatment. This is very similar to the federal government strategies under President Bush and President Clinton.

The total amount budgeted for anti-drug programs is $26 billion. This amount is split over a variety of federal departments. For instance, the Department of Justice would get $7.85 billion with the Bureau of Prisons getting an 8% increase from the previous fiscal year.

Obviously several questions are raised by this budget. If we are giving large amounts of money to the same groups in the same proportions with no success year after year, do we think we will ultimately find success by allocating more taxpayer money this way? What might happen if we allocated more money for treatment and prevention as opposed to law enforcement and changed programs and policies accordingly? What do we accomplish by giving more and more taxpayer money to the Bureau of Prisons other than putting more people in jail for drug crimes?

Search By Consent is Limited to Scope of Consent in Florida

Published on: March 16, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, most people understand that the police cannot search a person’s home for drugs or other evidence of criminal activity without a valid search warrant or consent from someone with authorization. This privacy right may also extend to a person’s front and back yards. While a police officer may walk onto a person’s open property to knock on the door and talk about criminal activity, a police officer may not enter gated areas to search without a warrant or consent to search.

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant lived at a home that was surrounded by an electric gate. Someone tipped police that he was growing marijuana in his home. The police went to his house and conducted surveillance but did not see any marijuana, marijuana plants or drug transactions. When the defendant exited the house and opened the gate to take out the trash, the police approached him to talk to him. The police asked if they could talk inside the gate. The defendant agreed to talk inside the gate but nothing more. Once inside the gate, one of the police officers spoke to the defendant while another one started searching around the house. The other officer indicated he smelled marijuana in the house. They detained the defendant until they could get a search warrant for the house. With the search warrant, they searched the house and found a large amount of marijuana. The defendant was arrested for trafficking in marijuana.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the marijuana based on an illegal search. The state argued that the defendant gave consent to enter the premises, the police officer then smelled marijuana and then had probable cause to get a search warrant which allowed them to enter the house. However, the state’s argument was rejected. The key issue was the scope of the consent given by the defendant. The defendant only gave the police officers authority to enter the gate to talk. The police officers were not allowed to search the premises. When the officer left the front yard to search around, he exceeded the scope of the consent. Once he did that, any evidence of marijuana he smelled or found was based on an unlawful search. Likewise, the search warrant was only obtained based on the illegal search. Therefore, the search warrant was not valid.

Defendant Cannot Challenge Illegal Search of His Co-Defendant in Florida

Published on: March 13, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, if the police conduct an illegal search of a person and find drugs or evidence of other criminal activity, that person can challenge the search and have the evidence thrown out if successful. However, what if the police conduct an illegal search of another person that detrimentally affects the defendant? A defendant does not have standing to challenge the search of another person, or another person’s property, because that illegal search does not implicate the defendant’s own 4th Amendment privacy rights.

For instance, in a recent criminal case south of Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer was on patrol when he saw suspect, who he previously knew as a drug trafficker, reach into a parked car and hand what appeared to be cash to the defendant, who was in the driver’s seat, in exchange for a brown bag. The police officer assumed this was a drug transaction and stopped both the suspect and defendant. The police officer searched them both and found cocaine on the suspect and $1,000 in cash on defendant.

Both of the individuals were arrested on cocaine charges. Defendant’s criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the cash found on defendant as well as the cocaine found on suspect. The court denied the motion as to the cocaine found on suspect because defendant did not have the right to challenge the search of another person. A defendant cannot challenge the illegal search of another person even if the evidence found on that other person affects the defendant and produces damaging evidence for the defendant’s case.

Police Officer Brings Marijuana Into Jail, Blames Juvenile and Arrests Him

Published on: March 10, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

It is illegal in Florida to bring contraband into a jail or other detention facility. Normally, examples of contraband that bring about this criminal charge include drugs (legal or prescription), cigarettes and other tobacco products and weapons. If a person possesses contraband in, or brings contraband into, a county detention facility, it is a third degree felony crime in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison.

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, a juvenile was arrested on an outstanding juvenile pickup order. The juvenile had a backpack with him. The police officer took possession of the backpack and took the juvenile to jail. The police officer never returned the backpack to the juvenile. The police officer took the juvenile and the backpack into the jail. Once inside, the police officer opened the backpack to inventory the contents as is standard procedure. When they searched the backpack, the found less than 20 grams of marijuana inside. The police then arrested the juvenile for the felony charge of introducing contraband into a county detention facility along with misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

The criminal defense lawyer moved to dismiss the felony introducing contraband into the county detention facility charge because the juvenile did not actually bring the backpack containing the marijuana into the jail. The state argued that the juvenile was in constructive possession of the backpack, and the marijuana inside, so that was sufficient to support the charge. A person can be in constructive possession of drugs or other items even if he/she does not actually have the item on him/her. However, constructive possession requires that a person knows the items are present and has the ability to control the items. Presumably, the juvenile knew the marijuana was in his backpack, however he did not have control over it once the police officer took the backpack and arrested him. As a result, the juvenile did not possess the backpack and marijuana and could not be held responsible for bringing the marijuana into the jail.

Police Stops Vehicle After Leaving Florida Pain Clinic

Published on: January 27, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Over the last few years, we have seen how police in Florida have taken a much greater interest in so-called pain clinics, making a multitude of arrests of a wide range of people from the owners and doctors at the pain clinics to the people who use the prescription medication obtained at the pain clinics.

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, police were conducting surveillance in the parking lot of a pain clinic. They observed the defendant exit the pain clinic and enter a vehicle with two other people inside. The police officer followed the vehicle and watched as the three occupants apparently passed around a prescription pill bottle. Based on this observation, the police officer stopped the vehicle and arrested the defendant for doctor shopping after finding the pill bottle.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress evidence of the pill bottle alleging that the stop of the vehicle was invalid. The police officer testified that he had been investigating pain clinics for years and it is common for people to come from long distances to these pain clinics, buy prescription pills with cash without a proper medical exam and then share the pills with others in the parking lot.

Does Weight of Marijuana Include Water for a Trafficking in Marijuana Charge?

Published on: January 24, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, in order to be charged with trafficking in marijuana, which typically carries much higher penalties than possession of marijuana, the quantity of marijuana has to be greater than 25 pounds. In a recent trafficking in marijuana case south of Jacksonville, Florida, after the defendant was arrested, the police weighed the marijuana at 26 pounds, which is sufficient for a trafficking in marijuana charge. Approximately a year and a half later, the criminal defense lawyer for the defendant had the marijuana re-weighed. The weight at that time was 24 pounds, which was not sufficient for a trafficking in marijuana charge. Apparently the discrepancy was due to water seeping from the marijuana over time that pooled at the bottom of the container. The question, then is whether the weight of the water can be included in the weight of the marijuana for the purpose of a trafficking in marijuana charge.

The court determined that the weight of the marijuana does include moisture and the charge of trafficking in marijuana was appropriate. Under Florida law, marijuana, or cannabis, is basically defined as all parts of the marijuana plant including the seeds, the resin and any compound thereof. As a result, the court found that this includes any moisture naturally found in the plant for weighing purposes. It would not, however, include packaging materials, soil or excess water not inherent in the plant’s vegetable matter.

Since the court decided that the water that seeped out of the marijuana plant over time was a natural part of the plant, and not excess water, it was included in the weight of the marijuana and the trafficking in marijuana charge was upheld.

Can Police Have a Drug Dog Sniff Front of Residence Without a Search Warrant?

Published on: January 21, 2012 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, police often bring a drug dog to a traffic stop if they think there are drugs in the vehicle. The police are allowed to bring a drug dog to the scene of a traffic stop if they have reasonable suspicion to believe there are drugs in the vehicle and there is a brief wait for the drug dog to arrive or if the police officer is writing the driver a ticket for a traffic violation and the drug dog is brought to the scene within the normal time it takes to write the ticket. The justification is that it is not a significant violation of one’s privacy rights to allow a dog to smell around the outside of a vehicle. As a result, the courts in Florida are more lenient with drug dog sniffs and allow police to do them in more situations than if the police are opening doors or looking in and searching personal property.

In a recent case involving marijuana trafficking and electricity theft, the Florida police tried to extend this authority to the front door of a residence. In this case, the police went onto the property of the defendant and had the drug dog sniff the front door area without a search warrant or probable cause to believe marijuana or other drugs were inside. The drug dog alerted to the odor of marijuana, and a trafficking amount of marijuana was found in the vehicle.

The Florida Supreme Court found the search illegal. While the police did not enter the home, as in the drug dog cases involving vehicles, a person’s home gets greater protection than a person’s vehicle on the public roads. As a result, police are not allowed to go onto a person’s property with a drug dog and sniff the outside of the home without a search warrant. This was considered to be an unwarranted invasion of a person’s strong Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in his/her home or on his/her residential property.