Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

Local Police in Jacksonville Continue to Raid Doctors’ Offices for Alleged Prescription Fraud

Published on: October 21, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

As criminal defense lawyers in the Jacksonville, Florida and North Florida area, we have seen a significant increase in the number of criminal cases involving pain clinics and pain management practices throughout Florida and South Georgia. State and federal law enforcement officials have been very active in raiding any medical practices they believe are illegally dispensing pain medication and narcotics in violation of the law and without following the proper medical procedures. They are also arresting doctors and owners of pain clinics for operating these pain clinics without the proper license from the Florida Department of Health. When the police or Drug Enforcement Agency officials raid and search these pain clinics, they often arrest everyone associated with the medical facility, including employees, doctors and owners. They also often seize any assets of value at the medical practice including records, equipment, money and vehicles.

Recently, local police raided another doctor’s office in Maclenny, Baker County, Florida and charged several people with prescription fraud. Police allege that the people arrested at the doctor’s office would provide prescriptions for pain medications for cash without having them examined by the doctor. Police alleged that some of the patients who received the prescription drugs illegally ultimately overdosed.

Pain management facilities have been around for many years, and they provide a valuable service to people dealing with chronic and acute pain. However, law enforcement officials, particularly in Florida, believe that some pain clinics are starting up that are providing pain pills to people who are not being properly examined by a doctor and do not medically need the pills. They refer to these places as pill mills as they allegedly see many patients a day and provide prescription pain medication to anyone for a small fee.

Jacksonville Postal Employee Steals Merchandise From the Mail And is Charged With Federal Crime

Published on: October 18, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

A postal supervisor with the United States Postal Service was arrested for stealing merchandise that was ordered from online stores and shipped through the mail. The defendant was sentenced to three years in federal prison for stealing over $150,000 in merchandise. One of the ways the defendant was tracked was through pawn shops in Florida and Georgia where the defendant sold the stolen merchandise. When a person pawns an item at a pawn shop, the pawn shop will keep identifying information about the person such as a picture, signature and fingerprint card.

Normally, the theft of store merchandise and most other items will be a crime charged in state court. However, the theft of mail comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government and will be prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office. Therefore, a person charged with a mail theft charge will face an entirely different criminal system with a different way of determining a proper sentence, if convicted. While this case involved more than $150,000, theft of any mail can still be a federal crime. When a defendant is charged with a federal crime in federal court, the rules are quite different from the majority of cases that end up in state court. When charged with any federal crime, it is important to seek the advice and counsel of criminal defense lawyers who are familiar with the different system and rules involved in the federal system.

if you have been arrested for a federal crime and would like to know your rights in the federal system, feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

Federal Government Escalating Medicare Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions

Published on: October 15, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Over the last several years with the ever-increasing deficit becoming more and more of a issue in the media, the federal and state governments have focused more on crimes that involve fraud, including fraud that involves government benefits. There may be no bigger crime involving fraud and government benefits at any time in our history than Medicare fraud.

Medicare is a government funded insurance program that assists approximately 46 million of the elderly and disabled with health care. One report estimated the total amount of Medicare fraud at $60 billion as of 2009. We have seen many cases where state and/or federal law enforcement officials have investigated and arrested doctors, medical center owners, executives and employees and patients for allegedly committing various versions of Medicare fraud. One of the most common methods of committing Medicare fraud occurs when a doctor or other employee sends a Medicare reimbursement form to the government for medical services or equipment that were unnecessary or never provided.

Recently the federal government announced that 91 people in eight different cities were charged with committing Medicare fraud in an amount totaling approximately $300 million. Among those charged were many doctors accused of seeking reimbursement for medical services that were never provided. As an example, one doctor is accused of billing Medicare for medical services allegedly provided to dead people.

The State Cannot Force Spouse to Testify About Conversations With Defendant in Criminal Case

Published on: October 12, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In criminal cases, the state may try and speak with the defendant’s spouse to obtain critical evidence against the defendant. However, in Florida there is a spousal privilege which limits the state’s ability to obtain testimony from one spouse against another spouse who is charged with a crime. However, this spousal privilege has limitations. There are instances where a spouse can testify against his/her spouse in a criminal case.

What is protected are confidential communications between the spouses. Even if the spouse/witness wants to testify to what the defendant/spouse told him/her, the defendant can prevent the spouse from testifying to any confidential discussions and communications between the two. For instance, if a defendant is charged with robbery and before the alleged incident, the defendant tells his wife in the privacy of their home that he really needs money and he’s going to go out and get some, that would be a confidential communication that the state could not use against the defendant.

The spousal privilege is a well-recognized privilege in Florida, but it is not absolute. The communication must be confidential for it to be protected. If a spouse admits to incriminating information to his wife but also in front of a third party, the statement is not confidential and it is not privileged. If the defendant makes an incriminating statement to his wife and tells her she can share it with another person, or the defendant shares it with another person, the statement is no longer confidential and is unprotected.

Florida Judge Finds the Possession or Delivery of Drugs Statute Unconstitutional

Published on: October 9, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

As criminal defense lawyers in the Jacksonville and North Florida area, two of the most common crimes we see are possession of illegal drugs and delivery of illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Hundreds of people in the Jacksonville and North Florida areas are put in jail for those crimes on a weekly basis. However, it is possible that those drug convictions were unconstitutional because the Florida possession and delivery of drugs law violates a person’s right to due process under the Constitution.

In a recent, very well-written opinion by a judge in Miami-Dade County, the possession and delivery of illegal drugs statute was determined to be unconstitutional. This is the same criminal statute that has put thousands and thousands of people in jails and prisons in Florida over the years. So, what was the problem with such a well-established and frequently used criminal statute? According to the judge’s analysis, the statute, as written, does not distinguish between people who possess or delivery illegal drugs knowing the illegal nature of the substance and those who possess or deliver illegal drugs not knowing what they have is illegal.

Of course, the majority of people who possess or deliver illegal drugs know very well what they are doing is illegal. However, there are those people who possess or deliver illegal drugs who do not know the illegal nature of what they are possessing or delivering. The criminal statute does not distinguish between those two mental states- intending to do the act that is illegal in the first instance and not intending to do anything illegal in the second instance. For that reason, according to the judge, the statute is unconstitutional because it covers conduct where there is no intention to break the law.

Statement of Dying Victim May Be Admissible in Criminal Trial

Published on: October 6, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Most people are familiar with the word hearsay as they have heard the term on TV shows and other places. The evidentiary rules regarding hearsay are often misunderstood, not just by the general public, but also by lawyers. Basically, hearsay is a statement by a person not in court that one side is attempting to use in court to prove the truth of the matter referenced in the statement. As a simple example, if Bob comes in to court and tells the jury that Steve told Bob that Defendant committed the robbery, Bob’s testimony is hearsay. As a general rule, hearsay is not admissible in court because the Defendant has a right to question Steve about what he saw, and he cannot do that if Steve is unavailable and the jury only hears what Steve allegedly saw through Bob’s testimony. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

One exception is called the dying declaration. In a recent murder and armed robbery case south of Jacksonville, Florida, shortly after the incident, the police saw the victim in the hospital. The police officers showed the victim a photo lineup which included the defendant’s picture. The victim could not speak, but he was apparently able to blink signifying an affirmative response when the police officers showed the victim the picture of the defendant. The victim later died, and the police officer came to court during the defendant’s trial and testified the victim blinked while looking at the defendant’s picture in the photo lineup to indicate the defendant was the person who robbed and shot him.

The criminal defense attorney argued to keep the evidence of this identification out of court claiming it was inadmissible hearsay. Inadmissible hearsay does not have to be an actual statement; it can also be an assertion like a gesture, pointing or blinking. However, the court disagreed. Under the dying declaration hearsay exception, if a person makes a statement or assertion while he/she reasonably believes his/her death is imminent and certain and the statement is concerning the cause of that death, that statement may be admissible hearsay in court. The witness does not need to expressly state that he/she knows death is imminent and certain if it is apparent from the circumstances that the witness would reasonably believe he/she is about to die.

Police Officer in Florida Cannot Search a Person For Violating Ordinance

Published on: October 3, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Police officers are allowed to search a person for drugs, guns or other evidence of criminal activity in limited circumstances. One of the most common bases for searching a person is consent. The police can almost always approach a person and ask for consent to search him/her. Additionally, everyone who is arrested for a crime will be searched by the police. The primary legal justification for this search incident to an arrest is to make sure the suspect does not have any weapons on him/her to ensure the police officer’s safety when he/she takes the suspect into custody.

However, the arrest has to be valid for the search incident to the arrest to be legal. The police cannot search a person for illegal drugs, guns or other criminal evidence if there is no legal basis to arrest the person in the first place. For example, if a person commits a traffic violation, the police officer can give that person a traffic ticket, but the police officer is not allowed to search the person based on the traffic violation. The police officer can ask to search the person and/or his/her vehicle during the traffic stop, but the person has a right to refuse the police request to search. Likewise, if a person is in violation of some other ordinance for which jail time is not a potential penalty, the police cannot search a person based on a violation of that ordinance.

In a recent criminal case south of Jacksonville, Florida, police officers saw the defendant in a city park after dark. The city had passed an ordinance prohibiting people from being in the city park after dark due to drug activity in the park. The police officer approached the individual and told him about the ordinance. The police officer then arrested the defendant for violating that ordinance. Incident to the arrest, the police officer search him and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in his pocket. The defendant was then arrested for possession of marijuana (cannabis) and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Police in Florida Can Search House Without Warrant or Homeowner’s Consent

Published on: September 30, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Every person has a strong Constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. This privacy right is strongest in one’s residence. The police can only search a person’s residence in limited situations, the most common of which are with a valid search warrant and when the person who lives at the residence gives the police consent to search the residence.

When a police officer knocks on a person’s door and asks for consent to search, the resident has every right to refuse the search. As criminal defense lawyers in the Jacksonville, Florida area, we continue to be amazed at how often people let police officers go through their homes based on a simple request to search, particularly when the resident has drugs in the house. In any case, people should understand the strong Constitutional privacy right they have in their homes which allows them to refuse a police request to search the home.

On the consent issue, it is not just the owner of the residence who is authorized to give the police consent to search the home. Any person, such as another resident, a roommate or a tenant, who has common authority over the residence is authorized to allow the police to enter and search the resident. Common authority usually involves a person who has joint access to the premises. If the owner of a home has a friend staying at the home for some period of time and that friend has free access to the home, that temporary resident may have authority to allow the police to come in and search the premises. If it reasonably appears to the police officer from the circumstances that the person has joint access to the premises, that person can legally consent to a search of the premises by police even if the homeowner is no around at the time.

Police in Florida Search Suspect’s Car for Drugs After Playing Loud Music

Published on: September 27, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In a criminal case just south of Jacksonville, Florida the suspect was driving in his vehicle and playing his music in a loud manner when he was pulled over by the police for a noise violation. The police officer checked the driver’s license and learned that it was suspended. When the police officer searched the car subsequent to the arrest, he found a large quantity of cocaine and marijuana in the car. The suspect was then arrested for trafficking in 28 grams of more of cocaine and possession of marijuana.

The criminal defense lawyer for the suspect filed a motion to suppress the cocaine alleging that the search was illegal because the police officer did not have authority to pull the driver over for the noise violation. If the initial stop of the suspect was illegal, then the subsequent arrest of the suspect for driving with a suspended license and search incident to that arrest would be illegal. In that case, the evidence of the cocaine seized after the illegal search would be thrown out.

The criminal defense attorney argued that a person has a First Amendment right to play music loudly and the noise violation was unconstitutional. The Florida noise statute basically says that a person operating a vehicle on the roads cannot play music that can be heard at least 25 feet away from the vehicle. The court agreed that the noise statute was unconstitutional because amplified music is protected under the First Amendment and the noise statute unnecessarily allowed certain types of noise beyond 25 feet while prohibiting others.

Can the Police in Florida Seize Your Vehicle for Possession of a Concealed Weapon?

Published on: September 21, 2011 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Florida Contraband Act allows the state to seize and forfeit any property that is used in any way to commit certain crimes or that represents proceeds from certain crimes. The forfeiture law certainly covers motor vehicles used to facilitate any crime referenced in the forfeiture statute.

In a recent case just outside of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was stopped for having excessively tinted windows. The driver gave the police officer consent to search his car, and the police officer found a concealed firearm in a pouch attached to the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The driver, who did not have a concealed firearms permit, was arrested for possession of a concealed weapon. The police officer went on to seize the car based on that crime, and forfeiture proceedings were initiated by the state.

A person commits the crime of carrying a concealed weapon in his/her vehicle if he/she has the firearm out in the open in a place that is easily accessible. In other words, if the firearm is securely in a case or somewhere out of the driver’s reach, i.e. in the trunk, it is not a crime.