Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida Court Finds That Police Pressing Key Fob is Not an Illegal Search

Published on: August 22, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida and elsewhere, people have privacy rights in their vehicles. This means that the police generally cannot search a person’s vehicle for drugs or other evidence of criminal activity without consent from the owner or a search warrant. There are some exceptions to this general rule, but the police cannot just go into a person’s vehicle and search it in almost any situation.

Vehicles are more advanced now, and rather than having the traditional key that is placed into the lock to open a vehicle like a regular door, many cars come with key fobs that can open a vehicle by pressing a button. Additionally, many key fobs have a button that can be pressed that will cause the vehicle to honk so the owner can find it in a crowded parking lot.

In a possession of cocaine case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was arrested for a public disturbance. The police officer searched the defendant after the arrest. Police officers are allowed to search people immediately after an arrest to make sure a person going to jail does not have any weapons or anything else that would be a threat to the police officer or anyone else. When the police officer searched the defendant, he found a key fob. The police officer pressed a button on the key fob, and the defendant’s vehicle’s alarm went off. The officer went to the vehicle and saw a bag of cocaine on the seat. The officer was able to see the cocaine in the vehicle by looking through the window. The bag of cocaine was ultimately seized, and the defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine.

Police in Florida Could Not Prove Constructive Possession of Drugs Found in Hotel Room

Published on: August 19, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

For any type of drug possession case, there are two ways the state can prove the crime in Florida. The easiest way is with an actual possession case. Actual possession is what it sounds like. If a person is holding the drugs or has drugs in his/her pocket or is actually possessing the drugs in any other way, that is an actual possession case that is likely easy to prove. However, even if a person does not have actual possession of the drugs, the state can still prove a drug possession case. The other form of possession is called constructive possession. This can be proven when the state establishes that the defendant knew of the drugs and had some ability to control the drugs. For instance, I have constructive possession of the sunglasses in my car even though they are nowhere near me. I know they are there, I have the keys to the car and I am the only one who drives my car.

Constructive possession cases get difficult for the state when there are multiple people who have access to the drugs. For instance, in a possession of Methamphetamine case near Jacksonville, Florida, police responded to a suspicious person call at a hotel. They went to one of the rooms and knocked on the door. A man and a woman were inside. The police got consent to search the room and found Methamphetamine in a pocket of a jacket in the room. It was not clear if the jacket belonged to the man, the woman or someone else. There was also a syringe presumably used to shoot the drugs in the room. The police asked the woman if her DNA would show up on the syringe, and she said yes. She was arrested for possession of Methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.

This case was ultimately thrown out. The state could not prove that the woman had knowledge and control over the Methamphetamine to the exclusion of the other guy in the room or anyone else who could have been in the room before the police arrived. The state lacked evidence that the jacket belonged to the woman. It could have belonged to the man or someone else. The state did not get any statements tying the woman to the Methamphetamine or the jacket. There was no other meaningful evidence connecting the woman to the Methamphetamine or the jacket that was sufficient to prove possession. In other words, the state did not have enough evidence to prove that any one person possessed the drugs as opposed to any other person. In these situations, constructive possession cases fail. If the police had obtained a statement from the woman or a witness or fingerprints or something indicating the jacket belonged to the woman, they would have had a stronger case. However, if multiple people have access to the drugs and the evidence does not specifically point to one of those people, the constructive possession case will likely fail.

Claimant in Florida Forfeiture Case May Be Able to Get Fees and Costs From State For Improper Forfeiture

Published on: August 12, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Many states have laws that allow the police and other law enforcement agencies to take a person’s property with very little evidence of criminal activity. In fact, it is not uncommon for the police to obtain ownership of a person’s property, referred to as forfeiture under Florida law, without ever even charging the property owner with a crime. It is also possible for the state to forfeit a person’s property when the state does charge the person with a crime related to the property, but the defendant wins the case either by having the criminal charges dropped or winning at trial.

When the government makes the laws, the government makes the laws very favorable to themselves.

The forfeiture laws in Florida give the police and other law enforcement agencies a lot of authority to take the property of people they suspect are involved in criminal activity. The forfeiture laws are also set up to provide property owners few quick and efficient options to retrieve their seized property even when the evidence supporting the seizure is weak.

Jacksonville, Florida Law Firm of Lasnetski Gihon Law Gets DUI Case Dismissed Despite Client Having a Blood Alcohol Level More Than Three Times the Legal Limit

Published on: August 8, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

A client recently came to the law firm of Lasnetski Gihon Law as a result of a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) arrest in July of 2016. The arrest was actually based on an alleged DUI offense in Jacksonville, Florida from 2013. Most DUI arrests are made at the time the police officer claims to observe the suspect driving while impaired from alcohol or drugs so there is little delay between the alleged offense and the prosecution and court appearances for the charge.

However, in some cases, the police do not make an arrest immediately. For instance, in this case the investigation began when the client was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The client was not in a suitable condition to give a breath sample for the breathalyzer as the client was taken to the hospital to be treated for injuries. In those cases, the police will often attempt to obtain a blood sample from the DUI suspect at the hospital. While breathalyzer tests provide results immediately, blood samples used to test for blood alcohol content need to be sent to the crime lab for testing. As a result, the police usually do not make an arrest until the results come back a few weeks or a few months later, assuming the results show alcohol or drugs were found in the suspect’s system.

In this case, blood was taken from the client at the hospital and sent to the crime lab. The test results came back about a month later. They showed the client had a blood alcohol level of more than three times the legal limit of 0.08. At this point, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office obtained an arrest warrant for DUI. Three years later, the DUI charge was dismissed.

Police Search With Consent Became Illegal When it Went Too Far in Florida Drug Case

Published on: August 5, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Many drug cases in Florida are the result of police suspecting that a suspect has drugs and requesting that the defendant consent to a search of his/her vehicle, home, person or other belongings. People always have the right to refuse a police officer’s request to search, but people often allow the police to search anyway. When a person gives the police consent to search, as long as it is not under duress or after some search and seizure violation, that eliminates the need for the police to get a search warrant, have probable cause or rely on one of the few exceptions to the search warrant requirement. However, when a person gives the police consent to search, it is not a blank check for the police to search wherever they want and for whatever they want. A search by consent is limited to the area to which the consent applies and the nature of the item for which the police are looking.

As an example, in a possession of cocaine case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police were investigating a robbery during which an I-phone was stolen. They tracked the I-phone to an apartment complex and started knocking on doors and requesting permission to come inside and search for it. The defendant in this case gave the police consent to search his apartment for the I-phone. The police went into the apartment and found the I-phone on a table. After that, they continued searching the apartment and found cocaine in a drawer. The defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the cocaine arguing that the search conducted after the I-phone was located was illegal. The consent to search was limited to a search for the I-phone. Once the I-phone was located, the consent to search terminated. Therefore, without further evidence or additional consent, the police had no lawful basis to continue searching inside the apartment.

Excessive Delay in Investigation Results in Florida DUI Case Being Thrown Out

Published on: August 2, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Most DUI cases are initiated in a similar manner here in Florida. A police officer will claim to observe a driver violate some traffic law and then will pull that driver over. While the police officer will begin to check the driver’s license and consider writing a traffic ticket, if the police officer believes the driver is impaired from alcohol or drugs at some point, the police officer will likely abandon the traffic ticket process and initiate a DUI investigation. This will involve asking the driver questions such as where he/she has been and whether he/she has had anything to drink. This will likely transition into a request to perform field sobriety exercises. If the driver agrees to submit to them and the police officer subjectively determines the driver failed (which is likely since the police officer, who is the sole judge of the driver’s performance, already believes the driver to be impaired), then an arrest for DUI is likely.

A police officer is permitted to turn a routine traffic stop into a DUI investigation if there is specific evidence that the driver is impaired and the process does not take too long. Any time a police officer keeps a driver for a traffic ticket or criminal investigation, it is considered a detention under the law. A police officer can detain a person but only so long as necessary for a lawful purpose. If the purpose of the detention is to address a traffic violation, the police officer can only keep the driver for as long as it normally would take to write a traffic ticket. If there is specific evidence of a criminal violation, i.e., a DUI, the police officer can only keep the driver long enough for a normal DUI investigation and only so long as there continues to be evidence of a DUI.

As an example, in a DUI case just south of Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer pulled a vehicle over for a traffic violation. The police officer began addressing the traffic violation but then believed that the driver was impaired from alcohol. Instead of initiating a DUI investigation, the police officer called for another officer to come to the scene to handle the DUI investigation. Sometimes, a police officer will call for backup or another officer who is better trained to investigate DUI’s to take over a situation where the officer believes the driver is impaired. In this case, it took about 15 minutes for the backup officer to arrive and start the DUI investigation. The initial officer did nothing during that time, and the driver was left to wait for the second officer. Once the second officer arrived, he pursued the DUI allegation and ultimately arrested the driver for DUI.

Florida DUI Case Thrown Out After Police Stop Defendant for Honking Horn

Published on: July 30, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Most DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) cases in Florida start with a traffic stop. A police officer will allege that he/she saw a driver commit some sort of traffic infraction. The police officer will pull the driver over. If the police officer believes the driver is impaired from alcohol or drugs, the police officer will initiate a DUI investigation. However, if the DUI arrest is valid, it must start with a legal basis for the initial traffic stop. If the police officer did not have a lawful reason to stop the driver, it is likely that the DUI case will be thrown out in court.

In a case near Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer was on patrol when he heard the defendant honk his horn several times without any apparent reason. The police officer conducted a traffic stop and gave the driver a ticket for improper use of his horn. The police officer then detained the driver for a DUI investigation because he found his conduct suspicious after the traffic stop. This DUI investigation ultimately resulted in a DUI arrest.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress based on the argument that the initial traffic stop was not lawful. Florida law requires every motor vehicle to have a horn in good working order and for drivers to use it to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle. The statute does not prohibit the use of the horn for any particular reason. A police officer does have the right to stop a driver for a legitimate public safety reason, but none existed in this case. Therefore, the stop would only be valid if the defendant had violated some traffic law. Honking one’s horn for no apparent reason is not such a violation. As a result the traffic stop was not lawful.

Judge in Florida Can Suspend a Person’s Driver’s License for a Traffic Violation

Published on: July 27, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, there are certain crimes that come with an automatic suspension of the defendant’s driver’s license. For instance, a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) conviction will always result in a driver’s license suspension of at least six months. Other crimes that come with driver’s license suspensions include possession of marijuana and racing if the defendant is convicted of one of those crimes.

Routine traffic offenses are not considered crimes in Florida. They are not normally handled in criminal court; they are handled in traffic court by a traffic court judge. The penalty for most traffic citations is a fine and possibly a driver improvement course. If a person gets a certain number of traffic tickets within a certain period of time, it can result in a driver’s license suspension.

While the penalty for most traffic tickets is a fine, the judge does have the authority to suspend a person’s driver’s license for a routine traffic violation like speeding or running a red light. A Florida statute gives the judge discretion to suspend a person’s driver’s license for a period of up to one year for certain traffic violations.

Can the Judge in a Florida Criminal Case Order Sex Offender Therapy for Defendant Not Convicted of Sex Offender Crime?

Published on: July 8, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In Florida, there are certain crimes that require a judge to sentence the defendant to sex offender therapy if the defendant is convicted of the crime, i.e. either enters a plea of guilty or no contest to the charge or is convicted of the charge at trial. Normally, these sex offense crimes are serious felonies like lewd and lascivious molestation of a minor. A conviction for such an offense will likely result in not only sex offender therapy but prison time and sex offender status which mandates that a person goes on the sex offender list for life.

What if a defendant is convicted of a crime that is not one of the enumerated sex offenses under Florida law, but the state or the judge still wants to require the defendant to participate in sex offender therapy while on probation?

In a sex case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was charged with lewd and lascivious molestation and went to trial. A conviction of that charge would have resulted in a sentence of sex offender therapy (likely after a prison sentence) and sex offender status for life. The jury found the defendant not guilty of the lewd and lascivious charge but found the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense. A lesser included offense verdict occurs when the jury finds that there is not sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of the main charge, but the jury finds the defendant’s conduct did rise to the level of a less serious crime. As a result, the jury will find the defendant guilty of the less serious charge. In this case, the less serious charge the jury decided on was battery, which is a misdemeanor. A battery also does not have any sex offense connotations. Molesting a minor will always also be a battery, but a battery usually does not involve sexual molestation.

In DUI Cases, Police in Florida Can Force a Breath Alcohol Test Without a Warrant but not a Blood Alcohol Test

Published on: July 3, 2016 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

When a driver is stopped by the police and the police officer initiates a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) investigation, the police officer will almost always ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer test. The breathalyzer machine is designed to measure the amount of alcohol in one’s system. The legal limit in Florida is 0.08. What many people do not realize is that the police only offer the breath alcohol test or the blood alcohol test at the jail after the driver has been arrested for DUI. Therefore, it is fairly obvious that the police are not seeking the breath or blood alcohol test as part of an objective determination into whether the driver is impaired; the purpose of the breath or blood alcohol test is for the police to try to obtain additional evidence to support the DUI prosecution. In other words, no one is getting “un-arrested” after a favorable breathalyzer reading. The police officer has already concluded that the driver is guilty of DUI as a result of the arrest he/she has already effected.

While a person gives his/her implied consent to submit to a breathalyzer test when he/she agrees to accept driving privileges in Florida, some people refuse the test when the time comes. Some people do not trust a system that offers the test only in the jail after the arrest for a DUI and do not trust a police officer who did not trust a driver who claimed to not be impaired. Can the state require a person to give a breath or blood sample without a warrant if the driver refuses and punish a person for that refusal? Yes and no.

A recent United States Supreme Court case looked at two situations where drivers refused a breath test and a blood test and the state (not Florida) charged them with separate crimes for the refusal. If a person has a right to refuse a breath test and/or a blood test under the Fourth Amendment, then the state cannot prosecute someone for the refusal.