Most people’s exposure and understanding of DNA evidence comes from television shows, books or brief news stories. DNA evidence is not used, or even attempted to be obtained, in the overwhelming majority of cases. However, there are criminal cases where DNA evidence can be a critical element to the case.

In a recent armed robbery and battery case near Jacksonville, Florida, a convenience store was robbed by two people wearing masks. They jumped into a vehicle that later crashed. The police found the crashed vehicle, and recovered the masks inside. The police were able to obtain DNA from the masks.

At the trial, the state’s expert testified that the DNA of at least two individuals was recovered from the masks. The expert compared sixteen genetic markers and performed an analysis on the results. He testified that the defendant could not be excluded as a contributor of the DNA in one of the masks as fifteen of the sixteen genetic markers matched the defendant. However, due to the limited DNA that was recovered, the expert was not able to do a full analysis of all of the genetic markers. The expert testified there was a 1 in 2600 chance that an unrelated male of the same race contributed the DNA.

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.

At Lasnetski Gihon Law in Jacksonville, Florida, we handle all varieties of criminal cases in state and federal courts in Jacksonville, North Florida throughout Florida and in Georgia. Forfeiture cases are not exactly criminal cases, and they are not exactly civil cases. While the civil rules largely apply to these cases, they have many elements of a criminal case as well.

A forfeiture case arises when the police or other law enforcement agency seizes a person’s or company’s property based on the allegation that the person or corporation is involved in criminal activity and the property is related to the criminal activity or proceeds from the criminal activity. In many of these cases, the police will also arrest the person(s) allegedly involved with the criminal activity and/or the owner of the seized property. However,we have handled forfeiture cases in Florida where no criminal arrest was made at all; the police and the state were only interested in taking and keeping the individual’s and corporation’s money.

While the Florida forfeiture laws allow the state a lot of leeway in taking a person’s or company’s property based on allegations of criminal activity on the front end, that person or corporation has many rights and avenues to recover that property through the court system once it is seized.

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.

Laws.com, which is a national website that provides an abundance of legal information and information about lawyers across the country, recently published an article recognizing Lasnetski Gihon Law partner Harry Shorstein for his work as a criminal defense lawyer in Jacksonville and throughout Florida.

The article quotes Harry Shorstein as he discusses communicating with juries after having tried more cases than any other criminal defense attorney practicing in the Jacksonville, Florida area today. The article also discusses the work he did as the State Attorney for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties in North Florida including his juvenile justice program that saw amazing results, was studied by prosecutors’ offices throughout the world and was featured by multiple national news programs such as 60 Minutes and the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.

Having Harry Shorstein at Lasnetski Gihon Law allows the firm to add the unprecedented experience that comes with almost 50 years in criminal law and litigation to a small firm environment that allows us to pay particular attention to each client and each case.

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.

In this day and age, cell phones can contain an abundance of evidence that could be used by the state to incriminate a defendant, including texts, emails, pictures, contacts, phone numbers, website searches and map locations. We have discussed several cases dealing with when the police can search a person’s cell phone before or after an arrest. Getting a valid search warrant is typically one path to a legal search of a suspect’s cell phone, but police often search a suspect’s cell phone without a search warrant. The question, then, is whether the police can search a person’s cell phone upon his/her arrest without a search warrant.

Search and seizure law provides for a search incident to an arrest which typically allows a police officer to search a person, anything on that person and the immediate area around the person upon his/her arrest. The primary reason for this kind of search is to make sure the person going into police custody does not have any weapons that could harm the police officer. A secondary reason for such a search is to allow the office to see if the person has any evidence relevant to the crime for which he/she was arrested. Therefore, most courts have allowed the police to search anything on a suspect who has just been arrested regardless of whether it could be used as a weapon or appears to contain evidence.

Cell phones present a new issue within this analysis because, unlike most everything else a person may carry on his/her person, a cell phone can have an abundance of private information that would normally require a search warrant to be searched. Considering the breadth of private information that can uniquely be contained on a cell phone, the Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged that the older cases are not analogous to a search incident to an arrest of a cell phone. In other words, it’s one thing to go through a person’s wallet or purse when he/she is arrested, but it is entirely different to go through voluminous personal data on a cell phone without a search warrant. The Florida Supreme Court properly compared a search of one’s cell phone without a search warrant to going into his/her home and searching the file cabinets and computers.

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.

The search and seizure laws deal with when, and under what circumstances, police officers can search a person or his/her property for drugs or other evidence of criminal activity. A general rule is that the police officer can ask a person if he/she can conduct a search and if the person consents, then the police officer is free to search without probable cause or a search warrant. However, there are exceptions to this general rule.

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer was responding to a call of suspicious activity and observed the defendant walking near a house in a residential neighborhood. The police officer made contact with the suspect and asked him for his driver’s license. The suspect gave up his driver’s license, the police officer ran the information in his computer and did not find any warrants for the suspect. After checking the suspect and finding nothing illegal, the police officer asked the suspect if he could search him. The police officer still had the suspect’s driver’s license at the time. For some reason, the suspect agreed, and the police officer found illegal pain pills in his pocket. The suspect was arrested for possession of hydrocodone.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the pain pills. The criminal defense attorney argued that the suspect was being detained at the time the police officer asked for consent to search, and the detention was not based on any evidence of illegal activity. Therefore, the consent to search was tainted and invalid.

Contact Information