Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

As many people are aware, marijuana laws have changed in some states over the last several years. Some states have realized how ridiculously wasteful, counter-productive and just plain stupid it is to give people criminal records and put them in jail for possessing and using a plant, and then ask taxpayers to pay for it. Florida, of course, is not one of those states. Anytime you have politicians who love spending taxpayer money on useless programs and policies that do nothing but increase the size and reach of big government, it is hard to get government to change its course. That is an obstacle for Florida.

However, people are trying to make medical marijuana legal in Florida. A recent bill that would have made medical marijuana legal in Florida was recently shut down. However, a group is obtaining signatures to try and place a medical marijuana constitutional amendment on the ballot for November of 2014. The initiative would apparently allow people to use marijuana for certain specified medical conditions and also when a doctor indicated its medical use would outweigh the potential health risks for the patient.

Adding a measure like this a the ballot takes time, resources and money. However, it looks like there is a good chance they will be successful in getting the medical marijuana measure on the ballot in 2014. Some of the polling done by various groups in favor of medical marijuana in Florida suggests that a medical marijuana amendment to the constitution would pass.

The Constitutional right to privacy prevents the police from entering a person’s home to search for drugs or other evidence except in certain circumstances. If the police have a valid search warrant or someone with authorization gives the police consent to enter and search the house, that is one thing, but without one of those two circumstances, it is rare for the police to have authority to enter someone’s home.

In a recent marijuana case near Jacksonville, Florida the police received an anonymous tip that the defendant was in his home and engaged in some type of drug activity. An anonymous tip is practically never going to be a valid reason for the police to search a person’s home. Understanding that, the police decided to walk up to the house, knock on the door and see what happens. The police are usually allowed to go to a suspect’s house, knock on the door and see if someone inside will open the door and talk to them. If the police see or smell drugs or the person who opens the door gives them consent to enter, then the police can likely move forward with a drug investigation. The other side of that is a person is free to ignore the police if they come knocking on the door.

In this case, the police knocked on the door. The defendant stepped out of a side entrance, saw the police and ran back inside. Based on that, the police searched the house, found marijuana inside and arrested the defendant for possession of marijuana.

Normally in Florida, the police can only search a person if he/she has committed a crime, the police have consent to search or the police have specific, reliable evidence that the person is in possession of evidence of a crime such as drugs or a gun. However, there are circumstances under the law when the police can search a person without any of those things.

In a recent possession of cocaine case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police came across a person who was exhibiting serious signs of mental instability, although he was not committing any crime. The law does allow the state to briefly detain a person, under what is commonly known as the Baker Act, for a brief period of time if the police believe the person will likely be a threat to himself or others in the near future. The Baker Act in Florida allows the police to secure the person and take him/her to a mental health facility. That is what occurred here. However, before the police transported him to the facility, they searched him for weapons. If was the police department’s policy to search anyone for weapons before being transported to a facility under the Baker Act. When the police searched the defendant in this case, they found cocaine and ultimately charged him with possession of cocaine.

The criminal defense lawyer argued that the evidence of the cocaine should be suppressed because the police did not have probable cause or consent to search the defendant. However, the court disagreed and found that the policy of searching a person during the Baker Act process was reasonable. Since the police found the cocaine during a reasonable search, they could use the cocaine against him.

In a recent trafficking in cannabis/marijuana case in South Florida, the police received an anonymous tip that a house was being used to grow marijuana plants. The police went to the suspected marijuana grow house to investigate further. It is clear that the police cannot search a house based on an anonymous tip of criminal activity. The police need to make their own specific observations that corroborate the tip. The police came with a drug dog. The two police officers walked the drug dog up to the front door. The drug dog alerted to the odor of marijuana coming from the house.

It is also clear, based on a recent Florida court case, that the police cannot walk a drug dog onto a person’s property to smell for drugs without a search warrant or consent. However, one of the police officers said he smelled marijuana coming from the house. The other police officer, likely a newer police officer, admitted that he did not smell marijuana coming from the house. The police officers also reported that all of the blinds were closed, there were three cars in the driveway and the air conditioning was running continuously. Based on that, they searched the house, found many marijuana plants and arrested the occupant for trafficking in cannabis/marijuana.

The evidence of the drug dog alert was inadmissible because walking the drug dog onto the property without a warrant or consent was not legal. The court still held that the search was valid based on the conflicting evidence of the odor of marijuana, the cars in the driveway, the blinds and the air conditioner.

We have said several times how dumb and counterproductive it is to have legislators in Tallahassee, for Florida state cases, and Washington D.C., for federal cases, to make laws requiring a minimum amount of prison time for cases about which they know nothing. Yet, there are mandatory minimum penalties for all sorts of crimes in Florida and in federal court. This prevents the judges, who know or can learn the details of the case and the parties involved, from ordering a fair sentence and places that power in the hands of politicians in another city who have no involvement in the case at all. Mandatory minimum penalties also give the prosecutor tremendous leverage and power to force guilty pleas from defendants who do not want to risk a significant, guaranteed minimum penalty if the trial does not work out in their favor. And this is a tool that is often used by prosecutors across the country to scare defendants into a plea deal for a lesser charge and lesser penalties just to avoid a huge, mandatory penalty for the greater charge.

A trend in the federal system is fewer violent crimes being committed, yet the prison populations are increasing. One reason for this disjointed result is the mandatory minimum penalties to which defendants are often exposed. Another reason is the high sentencing guidelines that are associated with drug crimes in federal court. As a result, the United States Sentencing Commission, an agency that sets sentencing policies for federal courts, may consider lowering sentencing guidelines for first time drug offenders and non-violent offenders. Various states that have also seen their crimes rates reduced but their prison costs and populations rise have implemented similar changes with success.

When crime is down but taxpayers are paying more to imprison people at greater rates, something is obviously wrong. Even the government can see it. One great place to start would be to stop, or at least slow down, the ridiculous amounts of money and resources that go into prosecuting and imprisoning non-violent drug offenders.

In its never ending effort to increase the size of government and continue the famously unsuccessful war on drugs, the Florida legislature is considering enacting a law that would make it a first degree misdemeanor to sell certain items commonly used to smoke marijuana. These would include certain pipes and bongs. A first degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 12 months in jail in Florida. The law would also allow the government to revoke the license of someone convicted of selling such items.

As it stands now, most of these items are permitted to be sold by stores that derive at least 75% of its sales from tobacco and less than 25% of its sales from this paraphernalia. That is a dumb rule- either it is legal or illegal to sell these pipes and bongs and one look at the ridiculous war on drugs should tell any reasonable person the government has better things to do than waste time, money, effort and prison space on people using marijuana or selling marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia to people who do.

We will keep an eye on this bill to see if it passes and becomes one more law in the government’s war on drugs arsenal.

As we have discussed on here several times, the federal government finally got around to reducing (not eliminating) the huge disparity between sentences for powder cocaine crimes and crack cocaine crimes. Under the old law, which was in effect for a long time, the difference between prison sentences for crack cocaine crimes versus powder cocaine crimes was about a 100-1 ratio. In other words, someone who possessed a quantity of crack cocaine was likely to get a much higher prison sentence than a similarly situated person who possessed the same quantity of powder cocaine.

It was clear that this sentencing disparity in federal drug cases was having a disproportionately negative effect on African-American defendants. There was no denying that they were the ones primarily serving these inflated sentences. There was also little to no justification for why crack cocaine sentences were so much worse than powder cocaine sentences.

Congress did change the law with the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act. While it did bring crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences closer together, there is still a pretty large disparity between those cases. The ratio in sentences between crack cocaine and powder cocaine cases is now about 18-1.

We try to monitor news about the monumentally inept war on drugs, changing drug laws and general attitudes about drugs and drug crimes both in the Jacksonville, Florida area and throughout the country. From a political standpoint, if one identifies being responsible and efficient with money and limiting the size of government as “conservative” characteristics, the war on drugs may be the least conservative policy in the history of mankind. There are many articles out there which estimate the incredible amounts of money spent on the war on drugs will little to no tangible (positive) results. However, this article looked at the war on drugs from a different angle and illustrates how poor it has been in managing the cost of illegal drugs to the consumer. It is another factor that suggests the war on drugs has done nothing but put a lot of people in prisons, waste an unbelievable amount of taxpayer money and increase the size and reach of government.

However, the article does mention some factors that may give cause for optimism. The current administration does not seem to be as enthusiastic about the war on drugs as previous administrations. Some states, of course, have legalized or decriminalized marijuana possession. The number of people being incarcerated for drug crimes has declined for the first time in a long time.

There is still a long way to go, particularly in the Jacksonville, Florida area, for the government to understand just how inefficient, ineffective and wasteful our current drug laws are. Maybe it takes a terrible recession to start that process. However, there do appear to be some signs of improvement.

Can the police detain a person just because he/she ran from the police? Of course, if the police had a legitimate basis to tell the person to stop and the person ran, then the police would have a legal basis to catch and detain the person. That would require specific evidence giving the police officer reasonable suspicion of a crime. What about when the police are driving through an area, a person sees the police and just runs away? Is that sufficient to allow the police to chase the person, stop him/her and detain him/her? It could be.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police received an anonymous tip of people selling marijuana and crack cocaine in a particular area. They drove to the neighborhood, which they considered a “high crime area”, and saw some people engage in what could have been drug transactions. When they saw the police, they ran. The police chased them, caught the defendant and found marijuana and crack cocaine on him. He was arrested for possession of marijuana and possession of crack cocaine.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana and cocaine arguing that the police did not have a specific basis to stop, detain and search the defendant. The criminal defense attorney argued that it is not illegal to run from the police so that should not be the basis for a legal search and seizure. The court disagreed and held that the police may have a right to stop and detain people who run from the police without being provoked in a high crime or drug area when the police do not make an unreasonable show of force.

A marijuana case was recently dismissed after the police illegally came onto the defendant’s property and looked into his window and saw marijuana plants. This case near Jacksonville, Florida, started the same way many drug cases do when the police come on to a suspect’s property looking for drugs they believe are there. Someone got arrested and in order to improve his own situation, he told the police that the defendant was growing marijuana in his house. As a result, the police went to the suspect’s house, went up to the front door but instead of knocking, they went to a nearby window and looked inside. When they saw the marijuana plants through the window, they went inside and arrested the defendant for cultivating marijuana plants and possession of marijuana.

The criminal defense lawyer was able to get the evidence of the marijuana and marijuana plants thrown out because this was an illegal search. The Constitution gives the greatest protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in one’s home. In this case, the police did at least two things wrong. The police can walk up to a person’s home, as long as it is not gated or otherwise blocked off from public access, knock on the door and ask questions of the residents. The residents are free to ignore the police if that happens. However, if the police decide not to knock on the door or no one decides to answer the door if they do knock, the police cannot go snooping around the home looking for drugs or other evidence. That means the police cannot walk around the home and look into windows. If the police can clearly see drugs through an open door or a window from just outside the front door or the walkway to the house, that might be a different story. But in this case, the police took extra steps to look through a window and see the marijuana plants.

At that point, the search was bad, and this drug case was going nowhere. However, assuming the police legitimately saw the drugs, the police still could not enter the home at that point. Even where the police have evidence that a person has drugs in his/her home, the police still need a search warrant, consent to enter the home to search or some sort of emergency to enter the home. In this case, none of those factors were present so the entry of the home to locate and seize the marijuana plants was also illegal under the search and seizure laws. At that point, the police needed to get a search warrant, knock on the door and get consent to search from the owner or perhaps see someone inside attempting to destroy the marijuana plants. Without any of those events occurring, going into the home to seize the marijuana plants and marijuana was illegal.

Contact Information