Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

The constitution protects people in Florida and other states from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means the police cannot come up to a person and make demands, or search them, without specific evidence that the person is engaged in criminal activity or has evidence of criminal activity. The police often try to use the phrase “high crime area” to justify questionable searches that certainly would not be permissible in other areas. Granted, there are high crime areas in the Jacksonville, Florida area and throughout Florida, but the police cannot rely on that vague phrase alone to justify a search. The police need specific indications of criminal activity.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police were patrolling a “high crime area” and saw a man standing in a driveway with his hands in his pockets. The police approached him and demanded that he remove his hands from his pockets. The man refused. The police then asked the man if they could search him, and he refused that as well. The police then patted him down, felt what they believed to be cocaine in his pocket, removed the item which was a bag of cocaine and arrested him for possession of cocaine.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the cocaine based on the illegality of the search. Being in a high crime area is not a basis for a search. In this case, assuming the suspect was in a high crime area, he was doing nothing else to indicate he was involved in criminal activity. When the police came up to him and demanded that he take his hands from his pockets, that becomes a seizure. In order for that to be valid, the police must have some specific evidence of criminal activity. The police can, at times, pat someone down if they believe the person may be armed and there is a police safety issues. But again, they can’t just pat anyone down in a “high crime area”. They still need something specific to indicate there is a danger.

In Florida, a person has a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Sometimes this is obvious. A police officer cannot just search a person’s home or car without consent or a search warrant in most cases. However, it can also get complicated as old rules may be difficult to apply to newer technologies.

In a recent trafficking in cocaine case near Jacksonville, Florida, the case started as most drug cases do with a confidential information telling police that the defendant was moving large quantities of cocaine throughout the area. The informant indicated he had phone conversations on the suspect’s cell phone where large cocaine transactions were discussed. With this information, the police obtained a pen register and trap and trace device on the suspect’s phone with a court order. The pen register records the phone numbers dialed from that phone. The trap and trace device records the phone numbers of incoming calls to the phone.

The informant later told police that the suspect was going to make a large drug deal on a particular date. Without getting a court order, the police obtained information from the suspect’s cell phone provider that helped the police track the defendant’s real time location through his cell phone. Cell phones give off information as to its location that police can use to track a person with the cell phone. The police successfully located the suspect through his cell phone and stopped him. They found a kilogram of cocaine in his vehicle and arrested him for trafficking in cocaine.

The Constitution establishes privacy rights, and one of the more sacred privacy rights protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures when it comes to their property. For instance, in most cases, the police are not allowed to go into a person’s residence without a valid search warrant or consent from the person who lives at the residence. The rules are somewhat different when it comes to hotel rooms. The police cannot just walk into a hotel room that is being rented by a hotel customer. Likewise, the police cannot merely get consent from the hotel owner or employee to go into a hotel room that is being rented by a hotel customer. The police must either have a valid search warrant or get permission to enter and search a hotel room from an authorized person who rented or is staying in the room.

In a recent drug case near Jacksonville, Florida, hotel management received an anonymous tip that the occupants of one of the hotel rooms had cocaine in the room. The hotel manager called the police. The police went to the hotel, got the room number and the name of the suspect who rented the room and then proceeded to the room. The police officers knocked on the door, and an individual answered. The police officers asked the individual if they could come in to search the room, and he agreed. Inside the room, the police found cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The defendant, who was the one who actually rented the room but did not answer the door, was arrested for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the cocaine found in the room based on the argument that the police did not have a legal basis to enter the room. The court agreed. The police cannot enter a hotel room without a search warrant or permission from an authorized person or a person with apparent authority to give the consent. Some guy staying in the room with the person who rented the room is not someone with authority to give the police consent to enter and search the room for drugs. The state tried to argue that the person who answered the door had apparent authority to give consent. The police can rely on someone who appears to live in a residence or to be staying in a hotel room to give authority to enter and search. However, in this case, the police knew the name of the person who rented the room, so it was as simple as the police asking the person who answered the door whether he was the person whose name was on the room registration. Because they didn’t do that basic investigation, they could not rely on the guy’s apparent authority to give consent. Since the police did not have legal justification to enter the room, the cocaine they found inside was suppressed.

In Florida, the police are not permitted to search a person’s belongings unless the police officer has consent to search from someone authorized to provide such consent, the officer has probable cause in certain circumstances or the officer has a search warrant. Police officers often assume they can search a pill bottle because they believe there will be illegal drugs inside, but the existence of a pill bottle does not automatically entitled a police officer to search it.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police officer stopped the defendant driver for driving erratically. Upon approaching the defendant’s vehicle, the police officer asked the driver if he could search his vehicle. The defendant agreed. The police officer found a pill bottle next to the driver’s seat. The police officer noted the bottle had the driver’s name on it and drug information for the drug Suboxone. However, the police officer said he could see into the bottle and recognized that one of the pills was Xanax and he did not recognize the other pill. Because the Xanax pill did not match the drug description on the bottle, the police officer opened the pill bottle and ultimately determined that the other pill was Oxycodone. The driver was arrested for possession of Oxycodone and Alprazolam (Xanax).

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the Xanax and Oxycodone arguing that the police officer did not have a legal basis to search the pill bottle. Consent to search the car is not the same as consent to search every container within the car. The question, then, was the police officer had probable cause to search the pill bottle without permission. The court ruled that the police officer did have a legal basis to search the pill bottle. Assuming the police officer’s testimony to be true, because the police officer could see that the pills in the bottle did not match the description of the pills on the bottle, there was reason to believe the defendant was in possession of drugs without a proper prescription. The court basically ruled that if a person has pills in a container that is not designated for that particular drug, the police will have a right to search the container and make an arrest. As a result, the conviction for possession of Oxycodone and Xanax was affirmed.

If the police want to search a house for drugs or other evidence of criminal activity, there are two primary ways they can do that. One, depending on how the the property is situated, the police can usually walk up to the front door, knock and ask to search the residence if someone answers the door. If the person who answers the door has apparently authority to give the police permission to search the residence, and does so, then the police can search the residence. Two, if the police have specific evidence that there are drugs or other evidence of criminal activity in the house, they can apply to a judge for a search warrant. If the judge signs the search warrant, the police can use that search warrant to search the residence.

Even where there is a search warrant, a criminal defense lawyer can still challenge the search in the subsequent criminal case. Search warrants are difficult to overcome in criminal cases because the criminal defense attorney is basically asking a judge to rule that the initial judge who signed the search warrant made a mistake. Judges do not like to do that. Even worse, the second judge already knows drugs or other criminal evidence were found in the house, otherwise there would not be a criminal case in which to file the motion to suppress.

But, every now and then, a criminal defense lawyer can successfully challenge a search warrant. In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police received an anonymous tip that the suspect was making and selling methamphetamine in his house. Normally, the police will then take steps to try and corroborate the tip- conduct surveillance outside the house, knock on the door and see if they can detect an odor or get someone to answer questions, check the trash on the side of the road and other law enforcement techniques. In this case, the police did some surveillance but did not see anything indicating there was drug activity at the house. They also checked the criminal histories of the occupants of the house and noted they had prior drug convictions. Based on this, the police went to a judge, got a search warrant, searched the house and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside.

In Florida, many criminal arrests start out with a much less serious traffic stop. When a person commits a traffic violation like speeding or running a red light, he/she is normally just looking at a fine and possibly some points on his/her driving record. However, when the police stop a person for a traffic violation, it can turn into a much more serious criminal violation. Most DUI’s and many drug cases start with traffic stops and turn into criminal investigations followed by arrests.

There are many different traffic violations that a police officer can use to stop a driver to write a traffic citation or as an excuse to investigate criminal activity. In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the driver came to a stop sign and instead of stopping behind that stop bar line that is at most stop signs, the driver stopped just past it so that part of the front tire and hood were in front of the stop bar. Seeing this, the police officer stopped the driver for running the stop sign. When the police officer approached the car to write the traffic ticket, he said he smelled marijuana inside the vehicle. The police officer ultimately arrested both the driver and passenger for marijuana and cocaine possession charges.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs arguing that the driver did not truly violate a traffic law. if the original basis for the stop is not valid, than any evidence the police officer discovered as a result of the initial traffic stop should be thrown out of court.