Drug Crimes

Internet Pharmacy Employees Arrested for Dispensing Drugs Without a Pharmacist

Published on: July 13, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In a recent criminal case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police were investigating a location from which prescription drugs like Hydrocodone and Oxycodone were being dispensed pursuant to internet orders with the involvement of a pharmacist. Police observed a warehouse and saw some employees loading packages into vehicles that were taken to local shipping businesses. The police officers spoke to the employees and learned that the packages contained prescription drugs that were ordered by people over the internet. The employees were taking the orders and prescriptions over the internet and then filling the prescriptions and shipping them out to customers. According to the employees, there was a pharmacist employed by the internet pharmacy, but he was not present very often and did not review all of the prescriptions and drug deliveries.

In Florida, it is a felony crime to manufacture, sell or deliver any drug that is habit forming or potentially unsafe except with a prescription and under the supervision of a practitioner licensed to dispense the drug. There are two primary requirements for dispensing prescription drugs that can be dangerous and addictive like Hydrocodone, Oxycodone and Oxcyontin- there must be a valid prescription, and the drugs must be dispensed by a pharmacist who reviews the prescription for potential side effects, drug interactions and proper dosages and usage.

In this case, the customers ordering the drugs over the internet apparently had valid prescriptions. However, the defendants who were selling and dispensing the drugs were not doing so under the supervision of a licensed pharmacist who was properly reviewing the prescriptions as required by Florida law. There was a pharmacist associated with the internet pharmacy, but that pharmacist was not reviewing every prescription. Because this was not done, the employees responsible for dispensing the drugs were charged and convicted of felony drug crimes.

An Example of Insufficient Evidence to Prove Constructive Possession of Marijuana in Florida

Published on: July 7, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, the state can prove possession in one of two ways. The most obvious involves actual possession. For instance, marijuana found in a person’s hand or pocket would constitute actual possession of marijuana. However, even when a person is not in actual possession of drugs, the state can still prove possession of the drugs under certain circumstances. This other situation involves constructive possession of drugs. For instance, if the police search a person’s house and find a bag of cocaine on that person’s dresser right next to his bed, along with other items belonging to him in room belonging to him where he is the only occupant of the room at the time, that may be sufficient to prove a case of constructive possession of cocaine.

In order to prove constructive possession of drugs, the state needs to prove that the suspect knew the drugs were present and had some sort control over the drugs. For instance, if you go to a party with hundreds of people, you are standing in the kitchen by yourself next to the closed refrigerator and the police come and find a bag of marijuana in that refrigerator, they cannot convict you of possession of marijuana without proof that you knew the marijuana was in the refrigerator and you had some sort of control over it, i.e. you put it there or used some of it. You may have been the closest to the marijuana, but that is just one potentially relevant factor. Without evidence that you knew the marijuana was present and had some significant connection to it, that marijuana cannot be attributed to you in a criminal case.

In a recent criminal case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police pulled a car over for speeding. The police obtained consent to search the car and found a suitcase containing marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. The police then arrested the driver for trafficking in cannabis/marijuana. There was also a passenger in the vehicle who had the keys to the vehicle prior to the driver.

Police Trespass on Property to Investigate Marijuana Growing Case

Published on: July 4, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police went well beyond what is permissible under Constitutional search and seizure law and trespassed upon a person’s property in order to investigate a complaint relating to growing marijuana. In this case, the police received an anonymous tip that the suspect was growing marijuana at his house. When the police arrived at the house to investigate, they saw that the house was completely surrounded by a tall fence and some bushes. As a result, the police were unable to see the house from public property. Therefore, the police could not observe any criminal activity that would corroborate their anonymous tip or even the house itself.

Generally, the police are not allowed to search a person’s home or go through a private gate onto a person’s property without a valid search warrant or consent to search the premises. In this case, the anonymous tip without any corroborating evidence was not sufficient to allow the police to get a search warrant. Not to be deterred however, when the suspect opened the gate to leave his property, the police officers slipped inside the gate and blocked the suspect from leaving. The police asked the suspect to sign a consent to search form, and, knowing he had a lot of marijuana plants inside his house, he refused. After some period of time, the suspect did open his door and allow the police inside. Once inside, the police found over 100 marijuana plants and arrested the suspect for cultivation of marijuana.

This was clearly an illegal search. The anonymous tip that was not corroborated by specific observations of the police officers was not enough for the police to obtain a warrant. If the police do not have a search warrant, they are not permitted to go onto a person’s private property through a gate clearly meant to keep people out and maintain the homeowner’s privacy. That is a trespass. If the police trespass to get on the person’s property, the property owner’s subsequent consent for the police to search is tainted and likely will not hold up in court.

Florida Drug Case Thrown Out After Police Enter Backyard Without a Search Warrant

Published on: July 1, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, the Constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures by police is strongest when it involves a person’s privacy interest in his/her residence. Normally, a police officer cannot search a person’s house, apartment or other residence without a valid search warrant or consent to search by a person authorized to give consent to search the home. This protection against illegal searches and seizures also extends to a person’s backyard.

In a recent marijuana case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police received an anonymous tip that three individuals were outside of a particular house standing next to a white SUV with cocaine and guns. The police arrive and saw the SUV and some people in front of the house, but they did not see anyone matching the description in the anonymous tip nor did they see any drugs or guns.

One of the police officers said he heard voices coming from behind the house. The police officers proceeded to walk through the gate and into the backyard to see if anyone there was armed. While in the backyard, the police officers saw marijuana in the house through a window and arrested the defendant who was also in the house with the marijuana.

When Police in Florida Have a Search Warrant for Your House, What Else Can They Search?

Published on: June 25, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, in order for the police to have a right to search a person’s house, they normally will need a valid search warrant signed by a judge. Police typically obtain a search warrant for a person’s house after conducting surveillance and observing drug related activity at the house or having a confidential informant go to the house to make drug buys. Once the police obtain the search warrant for the house, are they limited to searching inside the house in areas where illegal drugs can be stored or can they search other areas outside, but near, the house?

Many search warrants for someone’s house will also include what is called the curtilage of the house. The obvious questions becomes: What is within the curtilage of the home to be searched? Curtilage is not specifically defined in Florida law, and it depends on the nature of the property. However, the general definition of curtilage is the area around the home that is intimately tied to the home. The factors a criminal court would look at to determine if something is within the curtilage of the home are: how close the area searched was to the house, whether the area searched was enclosed near the home, how that particular area is used at the home and what steps, if any, the homeowner took to protect the privacy of the area.

Therefore, one can assume this includes the driveway of the home and a fenced-in backyard. If there is no fence at the house, the curtilage still likely includes the immediate area around the house.

In Florida, the Police Can Get Quick and Easy Access to Your Pharmacy Records

Published on: June 13, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In recent years in Florida, as prescription drug use has significantly increased, police have been investigating how and where people are obtaining narcotic pills without a prescription. One crime that police focus on is doctor shopping. In Florida, the crime of doctor shopping is committed when a person sees different doctors to get the same prescription pills within a thirty day period without informing the subsequent doctor(s) of the previous doctor(s). When the police think a person is doctor shopping, they often attempt to obtain the prescription drug records without consent of the patient, a subpoena or a search warrant. Florida law allows the police to do this.

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police obtained evidence that the suspect had obtained multiple prescriptions for Hydrocodone and Oxycontin within a short period of time from different doctors. The police officer went to the various pharmacies without notifying the suspect and without a search warrant and requested the patient’s pharmacy records. The pharmacy provided the information which showed the suspect had presented several prescriptions for the same drugs from different doctors in a short period of time. The police officer then contacted the doctors, obtained their patient contracts, spoke to the doctors about whether the suspect was a patient and had the doctors confirm they issued the prescriptions for Hydrocodone and Oxycontin without knowing the patient visited other doctors for the same reason.

The suspect was ultimately charged with trafficking in Hydrocodone and Oxycontin due to the number of pills he received with the various prescriptions. While normally having a valid prescription for pills is a legal defense to trafficking in those pills, it is not a defense if the prescriptions were obtained illegally through doctor shopping.

States May Be Rethinking Medical Marijuana Laws After Warning From Federal Government

Published on: June 1, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

As you may know, there are more than one set of criminal laws that govern people in this country. The criminal laws most people are familiar with are the state criminal laws that are promulgated by each state’s legislature. State police, prosecutors and court systems handle the majority of crimes in this country. State laws vary from state to state. Of course, there are also federal criminal laws which are a single set of laws promulgated by Congress that apply in all states. Most criminal conduct that is illegal under a state’s criminal laws is also illegal under the federal laws. However, some conduct may be legal under one set of laws and illegal under another set of laws. Medical marijuana may be one such issue.

Many states are considering enacting laws that make medical marijuana legal. Florida does not have a law that makes medical marijuana legal. Marijuana laws in Florida can be quite severe depending on the nature of the crime. Like Florida, federal criminal laws also have not legalized marijuana for any reason. Because the federal government has not budged on the medical marijuana issue, some states are reconsidering whether to make medical marijuana legal. A couple of years ago, the Department of Justice’s stance was that it was a waste of their time and resources to go after people dispensing medical marijuana if the state in which they operate allows it. Given the increasingly limited resources with which we are working in this country, that seems like a pretty logical position.

However, more recently, the Obama administration has indicated they might go after (i.e. arrest and prosecute) those involved with some of the larger medical marijuana operations even if they are in compliance with their state’s laws.

Can the Police Search a Person’s Cell Phone After an Arrest Without a Search Warrant

Published on: May 29, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, the general rule for searches and seizures is that the police cannot search a person, a vehicle, a home or other private property without a valid search warrant. Of course, there are exceptions to this general rule which allow the police to search a person or his/her property without a search warrant in many situations.

One common exception to the search warrant requirement is the search incident to an arrest. When the police arrest a person for a crime in Florida, that police officer can search that person incident to the arrest. There are two primary bases for the search incident to an arrest exception to the search warrant requirement. First, the police officer is allowed to search the person, any container on the person and any container within the person’s immediate reach for officer safety. The police officer has a right to make sure the person being arrested does not have a weapon in his/her possession or within arm’s reach that could be a threat to the officer. The other basis for a search incident to arrest is to protect against the destruction of evidence. For instance, if the police officer arrests someone for a drug crime, the officer has a right to search the person to make sure he/she does not have more drugs or other evidence on him/her that can be thrown away, swallowed or otherwise destroyed.

The search can cover the entire person, his/her clothing and any closed containers on that person. Does that include a person’s cell phone? In other words, can a police officer in Florida search the contents of a person’s cell phone without a search warrant after arresting that person? This can certainly be a significant issue in any criminal case. Cell phones contain pictures, text messages, emails, website histories and phone records which can provide the police with all sorts of evidence in criminal cases. Each person clearly has a significant privacy interest in the contents of his/her cell phone.

Laws to Require Tracking of Pseudoephedrine Cold Pills Does Not Reduce Methamphetamine Production

Published on: May 23, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

People familiar with the drug methamphetamine and its production know that it can be made using many products that can be found at your typical household. One of the key ingredients of methamphetamine is pseudoephedrine, which is found in many cold pills such as Sudafed. Once police realized that these cold medicine products were flying off of the shelves at pharmacies and grocery stores and making their way to methamphetamine labs, police agencies and legislatures started making and enforcing laws to try to make it more difficult for people to buy pseudoephedrine in large volumes. As a result, cold medicines containing pseudophedrine are no longer out on the shelves for anyone to purchase. They are kept in a locked container and/or behind the counter requiring the assistance of a store employee to retrieve them. Also, there are limits on the number of pseudoephedrine products a person can buy at any given time, and everyone buying pseudoephedrine products must show identification and sign a register. In some states, that information is entered into a statewide computer database for tracking. That way, when police are investigating methamphetamine manufacturing cases, they have a quick and easy source to determine who may be supplying one of the most important ingredients in the production of methamphetamine.

A recent article by the Associated Press looked into whether these laws have been effective in curbing the manufacture of methamphetamine. The article concluded that not only have the laws not reduced methamphetamine production, but production has increased recently. Additionally, as anyone with a historical perspective would expect, a black market has developed where people are acquiring large quantities of pseudoephedrine products and selling them to methamphetamine manufacturers at a premium. Because the laws have artificially affected the supply and demand, pill brokers are using various people to go store to store to buy pseudoephedrine pills for $7 to $8 per box and then selling them for $40 to $50 per box.

Despite the laws and with the assistance of the pseudoehopedrine black market, methamphetamine related activity (including arrests, seizures and discoveries of meth labs) was up 34% in 2009. Methamphetamine related activity increased more in the states that require electronic tracking of pseudoephedrine purchases. People in the black market and those involved in meth production are enlisting the help of friends, family members and customers to acquire pseudoephedrine pills- a practice known as “smurfing”. In that way, the laws have resulted in more people being involved in the production of methamphetamine while in the past methamphetamine production required fewer people.

Police Need Probable Cause for Drug Dog Sniff Test of a Residence

Published on: May 20, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Florida Supreme Court recently decided a marijuana case that discussed the search and seizure issues involved with the police walking a drug dog around the outside of a person’s home to smell for marijuana or other drugs. The police and the state argued that walking a drug dog around the front of a person’s home without going inside is not considered a search pursuant to search and seizure constitutional law because there was no intrusion into the person’s home. They also argued that if it was considered a search, the police needed something less than probable cause to believe drugs were inside the home to validate the search. The defendant, who was charged with growing marijuana plants in his home, argued that it should be considered a search when police officers and a drug dog come onto his private property with the intention of smelling for illegal drugs.

In this case, police officers received an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing marijuana in his home. The police did not do anything to verify the accuracy of this tip with corroborating facts or observations. Instead, the police walked onto the property with a drug dog and conducted a sniff test right outside of the front door. The drug dog alerted to drugs inside, and the police officer indicated he smelled marijuana as well. Based on this information, the police obtained a search warrant for the home. Inside, they found marijuana plants and marijuana growing equipment. The defendant was arrested for cultivating marijuana.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the marijuana plants and growing equipment arguing that the defendant’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police and the drug dog walked onto his property to smell the area near his front door without probable cause.