Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

The United States and Florida Constitutions protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by police. One example where the police will stop and search someone is when they receive an anonymous tip of criminal activity. However, anonymous tips alone are not enough to justify a search and seizure of a person. Even where the anonymous tip very specifically identifies the suspect and his/her predicted behavior, that alone is insufficient to justify a search and seizure.

For instance, suppose a person unknown to the police approaches an officer and says that Joe Smith drives to the local motel every day and sells crack cocaine. That person gives a perfect description of Joe Smith, his vehicle and the exact time he will show up to the exact place at the motel. Suppose the police go to the motel the next day and they see Joe Smith arrive just as the tip indicated. Can the police stop Joe Smith at that point and search him? No. Even where the anonymous tip proves to be 100% accurate, the police need more to justify a search and seizure. For instance, the police would need to verify some evidence that Joe Smith is actually involved in criminal activity at the motel before they stop him. If the police went to the motel and saw Joe Smith pull up and then saw him conduct what appeared to be hand to hand drug transactions, that would be different. In the former scenario, the police merely confirmed harmless details about Joe Smith that did not indicate he was involved in criminal activity- his appearance, his vehicle and his location. However, once they actually see Joe Smith engage in conduct that may be consistent with criminal activity, that plus the anonymous tip information would be sufficient to stop Joe Smith.

Most people who are familiar with medical privacy laws know that a person’s medical records are confidential and can only be disclosed with the patient’s permission or under other limited circumstances. However, records of prescriptions for controlled substances (such as Oxycodone and Oxycontin) do not share the same privacy protections. In fact, police seeking a person’s pharmacy records relating to controlled substances do not even need a subpoena or other court order. They can simply call the pharmacy and request a person’s prescription records relating to controlled substances and say that the request is pursuant to their enforcement of the law. A statute in Florida requires pharmacies to keep prescription drug records for at least two years and allow police to inspect those records where the police officers are enforcing the laws. A court order is not needed, and there is no requirement to notify the patient in advance. The way the statute is worded, basically any investigation by the police is good enough to allow the police access to a person’s controlled substance prescription records going back at least two years.

In a recent criminal case of obtaining prescription drugs by fraud south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant created a fake prescription for Oxycodone and presented it to the pharmacy. He received 30 pills of Oxycodone. The pharmacy later checked the prescription and saw that the doctor’s name was incorrect. The pharmacist called the police to report the crime of obtaining prescription drugs by fraud. The police officer asked the pharmacy for all of their records relating to the defendant without first getting a search warrant or consent from the defendant. The pharmacy complied without notice to the defendant. The police officer confirmed that the prescription was fake and the defendant had in fact received the Oxycodone from the pharmacy. The defendant was arrested and charged with the felony crime.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant tried to have the pharmacy record evidence thrown out alleging that the search and seizure of the defendant’s pharmacy records violated his privacy rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court found the police officer’s conduct to be proper based on the Florida statute which allows the police to obtain pharmacy records of controlled substances when they are relevant to a criminal investigation.

In a recent case outside of Jacksonville, Florida, the police began investigating a suspect after they saw his vehicle outside of a hydroponic retail store. The police tracked the suspect’s license plate to his house where they saw the vehicle parked. The house windows were covered with blinds, and there was a large fence surrounding the back yard so the police could not determine what was in happening inside the house or in the back yard. Based upon the suspected hydroponic equipment inside the house, the police suspected the house was being used to grow marijuana. One of the first things the police will do upon such a suspicion is check the electricity consumption at the house. Marijuana grow houses typically require much more electricity than other houses. When police see an electric bill at one house that is routinely much higher than the neighboring houses, that is an indication that it is being used as a marijuana grow house.

In this case, the electricity consumption was normal. However, the police still suspected the occupants of the house were cultivating marijuana. The police assumed the occupants were stealing electricity so the total electricity consumption of the house was not reflected on the electric bill. The police contacted an investigator at the electric company to inspect the house for possible electricity theft. The electric company investigator went to the house, broke the lock on the fence and went into the back yard. In the back yard, he discovered that the occupants were running unmetered electricity into the house. The electric company told the police about the electricity theft, and the police asked the occupants for consent to search the house. The occupants of the house refused to consent to a search of the house, but the police were able to obtian a search warrant. They searched the house and found the marijuana cultivation equipment inside. The occupants were charged with trafficking in marijuana, cultivation of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and electric utility theft.

There are many issues that arise in a case like this. First, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, in order for the police to enter one’s home, or even one’s back yard, the police must either have consent or a search warrant. In this case, it was the electric company investigator who went into the back yard without a warrant or consent. However, those Constitutional protections do not apply to private entities, like the private electric company. The criminal defense lawyer cannot file a motion to suppress evidence found by a private person. An exception to this rule would apply if the police directed the private person to enter one’s home or back yard without a warrant or consent. For instance, if the police asked the electric company investigator to go into the back yard and look for a marijuana grow house, that would be an illegal search. In this case, the court found that the electric company conducted the inspection on its own. Once the electric company investigator learned of the electricity theft and told the police, the court determined that the police had sufficient evidence to obtain the search warrant to find the marijuana cultivation equipment.

The law regarding searches and seizures recently changed removing a fairly common justification for police to search a person’s vehicle after he/she has been arrested. Prior to the change in the law, police officers could search a person’s vehicle after arresting him/her for a crime in or near the vehicle. After the arrest, the police were permitted to search the vehicle compartment for illegal drugs, guns or any other evidence. However, the law changed and now prohibits police officers from automatically searching a person’s vehicle after an arrest in each case.

Under the new law, police are still allowed to search a vehicle after an occupant has been arrested but only in more limited circumstances. Now, after an occupant has been arrested, the police can only search the vehicle if the occupant is unsecured and within arm’s reach of the inside of the vehicle or if the police officer has a specific reason to believe there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle. This change in the law should significantly limit searches of vehicles after an occupant’s arrest when in the past it was basically automatically allowed. When the police officer arrests an occupant, the officer is going to handcuff that person and put him/her in the police car. It is rare for a person to be unsecured and near his/her vehicle after the arrest. This would eliminate the first basis for searching the vehicle in most cases. Of course, the second basis still may exist- that the police officer has a reason to believe there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle, but the police officer must have a specific reason for the search. The police officer cannot rely upon the belief that there must be evidence of drugs or other criminal activity in the vehicle just because they arrested an occupant of the vehicle fro a drug-related or other crime.

If the police in Florida do search a vehicle after they have arrested and secured an occupant without a specific basis for the search, the criminal defense lawyer can file a motion to suppress any evidence found as a result of the illegal search.

Each person in Florida has a Constitutionally protected right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. If a police officer has probable cause to believe a person is committing a crime, the police officer may be able to stop a person and conduct a search. However, when the officer assumes a person is committing a crime or is going on a hunch or suspicion, any stop and search of the suspect will likely be illegal and result in the evidence recovered being thrown out of court.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer was driving through an area that had experienced many recent burglaries and other criminal activity. However, he was not actually responding to a burglary call or a call of any specific criminal activity. While driving through the area, he saw the defendant standing next to a car in the parking lot of a closed business late at night. When the defendant saw the police officer, he entered the vehicle and drove off quickly. The police officer then stopped the defendant. A K-9 walked around the car and alerted to the odor of illegal drugs. The police officer searched the defendant’s car and found marijuana and a handgun inside. The defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana and carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana and the firearm. The court agreed, and the marijuana and gun charges were thrown out. Because the police officer did not observe the defendant engaging in any criminal activity, he was not authorized to stop him and search his vehicle.

Police in Putnam County, Florida (which is about an hour south of Jacksonville, Florida) found a large indoor marijuana grow house after a vehicle crashed through a fence at the house, according to an article on News4Jax.com. Police arrived to investigate the crash and smelled the marijuana. At that point, they obtained a search warrant for the house and found 227 marijuana plants and 143 marijuana grow lights. No one was at the home when the police found the marijuana and marijuana growing equipment, but the police are trying to determine who is responsible for the house and marijuana and believe the marijuana grow house is being used to grow marijuana and transport it to south Florida.

Normally, the police in Florida are not allowed to go into a person’s home or through a fence at a person’s home without permission from the homeowner or a search warrant signed by a judge. However, there can be an exception for either emergency situations or where the police are lawfully there for another reason. For instance, if there is an auto accident at someone’s home, the police have a right to investigate that accident. If they find evidence of illegal activity while they are lawfully investigating the accident, they would have the right to investigate that criminal activity. Of course, there are limits to what the police can do when they are investigating an accident. The police cannot use it as an excuse to look around someone’s home to see if there is any evidence unrelated to the accident.

In this case, it would be important to know exactly what the police did and where they went to determine that there was marijuana in the house. If the police discovered the marijuana during the course of their normal accident investigation, the investigation may be legal. If the police started searching around the property when it was not necessary to investigate the accident, the search for the marijuana may be illegal and any evidence of the marijuana may not be used against whomever may get arrested for cultivating marijuana in this case.