Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

Police Find Marijuana Grow House in St. Marys, Georgia

Published on: October 4, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Police in Florida and Georgia are on the lookout for homes in which marijuana is being grown. Marijuana grow houses, as they are often called, often use elaborate equipment to create an environment where marijuana can be successfully grown in the privacy of one’s home. The downside to that for people growing marijuana is that the police have learned certain tactics that help them locate these grow houses. They may look at electric bills, and when they find an electric bill that is much higher for one house than similar houses in the neighborhood, this raises suspicion that marijuana is being grown inside because the lights that are used to grow the marijuana use a lot of electricity. Police also look for houses with security cameras outside as people growing marijuana or storing drugs in their home often have security cameras outside to alert them when people are approaching.

Sometimes, the police come across a marijuana grow house by accident. In St. Marys, Georgia, which is about an hour north of Jacksonville, Florida, police were investigating a house fire on 4th Street that was caused by a generator used to power the lights that helped grow the marijuana. When the police went to investigate the fire, they found the marijuana plants inside a room in the home. Normally, the police are not allowed to enter a home without a search warrant signed by a judge. However, in certain emergency circumstances and/or circumstances where the police or fire department are conducting a valid investigation, i.e. a house fire investigation, the police can enter the home to follow up on the emergency or investigate the fire. If they come across the marijuana plants or other evidence of illegal activity, they are permitted to investigate the new evidence. In this case, not only did they find the marijuana grow house when they investigated the fire, but they also found documents in that house which informed them of the location of another grow house. These documents may have given the police probable cause to obtain a search warrant for the second house, depending on what was in those documents.

This case will likely result in some interesting search and seizure issues that can be challenged by the criminal defense lawyers for the people charged with growing the marijuana. However, people need to understand that some of the items that accompany these marijuana grow houses, such as generators, lighting equipment and large electric bills, can alert police to the existence and location of a marijuana grow house.

Police Made A Lot of Marijuana Arrests in 2009, Fewer Violent Crimes Arrests

Published on: September 30, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

With all of the talk about the terrible economy and out of control state and national deficits, one has to wonder how much sense it makes for law enforcement to spend so much time, effort and money on arresting and incarcerating people for minor drug offenses. However, recent statistics for 2009 show that the police are arresting people for minor drug offenses almost as much as ever despite the fact that arrests for violent crimes and property crimes have steadily decreased over the last couple of years. FBI crime statistics for 2009 show that police in the United States made more than 1.6 million drug arrests in 2009. More than half of those arrests for for marijuana related crimes. Therefore, in one part of the country, marijuana is legally considered medicine that people can use to alleviate symptoms from their medical conditions. Travel a certain distance in one direction or another in this country and the use of the same plant labels that person as a criminal for which he/she may get serious jail time and the local, state and county governments will spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayers’ money to prosecute that person.

Of the over 850,000 marijuana related arrests in 2009, most of them were for simple marijuana possession. Very few of those arrests were for marijuana trafficking, sales or manufacturing. Police are still arresting many more people for simple drug possession crimes than for more serious crimes like violent crimes, burglaries and white collar crimes.

Sexting Crimes Becoming More Prevalent in Florida

Published on: September 27, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Many of the crimes we see that involve computer or networking technology and criminal activity of a sexual nature deal with people in possession of child pornography on their computers. Law enforcement officials are able to track these photos and videos and find them on just about any computer. People need to understand that connecting a computer to the internet is like opening a door to the harddrive through which the government can freely walk, with the appropriate search warrant or permission, of course.

However, another crime we are starting to see more often in Florida deals with a new term called sexting. Sexting, which is derived from the word texting, involves sending sexually suggestive, and sometimes illegal, picture via text messages, which can be done on most cell phones these days. Some kids may think that sending a naked picture to a friend of similar age is a joke. In fact, sending a sexually suggestive picture of a minor to another person over the internet or via text message can be a serious crime in Florida. Police in the Jacksonville area are receiving more complaints about such activity and following up with arrests. When a person uses a cell phone or computer to send such a picture, it can be a federal crime. One twenty-four year old kid was recently sentenced to twenty years in federal prison for violating federal criminal laws by sending naked pictures of a minor over the internet and by cell phone. Everyone should be aware, and adults should tell their kids, that it can be a very serious crime to send nude and other sexually suggestive pictures by text message or over the internet, regardless of how harmless it may seem.

What Happens if the Police Do Not Mirandize a Suspect in Florida?

Published on: September 24, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

As criminal defense lawyers who handle all varieties of criminal cases in state and federal court in Florida, particularly in the Jacksonville area, we get a lot of good questions from clients about the legal process in Florida. One common question from clients pertains to Miranda warnings. Most people understand Miranda warnings to be those statements from the police officer to the suspect when he/she is being arrested. The police officer is supposed to inform the person, among other things, that he/she has a right to remain silent, that if he/she says anything it can and will be used against him/her in court and he/she has a right to a lawyer before and during any questioning by police.

Anyone suspected of, or arrested for, a crime would do well to heed those warnings. All too often we see people giving all sorts of statements to police that do nothing but help the police make their case against them. If you are unsure about whether it is prudent to talk to the police or anyone else about your case, the best course of action would be to contact a criminal defense attorney who can properly advise you on that subject and anything else related to your criminal case.

But what happens if the police officer never gives the Miranda warnings to the suspect? Some people we have spoken to asked if that means the charges must be dropped because the arrest was invalid. That is not necessarily the case. Miranda warnings deal with statements given by suspects to the police when they are in custody. If the police officer does not give Miranda warnings, but no statement is given to the police by the suspect, the failure to give Miranda warnings may have no effect on the case. However, if a person is taken into custody by the police, no Miranda warnings are given and the person does give a statement to the police, that statement can be found to be inadmissible and thrown out of court. If the state cannot prove their case without that statement, the failure to give Miranda warnings could ultimately result in the criminal charges being dropped.

Police Seize Mortgage Fraud Documents When Suspect is Arrested in Her Vehicle

Published on: September 21, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In a Florida mortgage fraud case, the police obtained an arrest warrant for a person they claimed had obtained fraudulent mortgage loans by using straw buyers and falsifying salary and employment information on loan documents. The police located the suspect driving near her home, stopped her vehicle and arrested her. When she was arrested in her vehicle, the police saw a bag in the backseat containing various documents. The police seized the bag of documents when they arrested her.

The suspect was ultimately convicted after her trial for mortgage fraud, grand theft and racketeering. Her criminal defense lawyer tried to have the documents found in the bag thrown out claiming the police illegally seized those documents. The criminal defense attorney claimed that the police did not have a search warrant for the bag of documents and had no reason to believe the bag contained evidence related to the case at the time the bag was seized. The criminal defense lawyer argued that unlike drugs or guns, nothing about a bag of papers suggests that it is evidence of criminal activity, and therefore the police do not have a right to take it without a search warrant.

However, the judge disagreed and allowed the state to use the documents as incriminating evidence to convict the defendant of the mortgage fraud and the related criminal charges. Under Florida law, when the police arrest a person in his/her vehicle, the police are permitted to search the vehicle if the suspect is within arm’s reach of items in the passenger compartment of the vehicle at the time of arrest or there is reason to believe the vehicle has evidence related to the crime(s) for which the suspect is being arrested. In this case, the judge found that latter standard to have a very low threshold. Basically, the judge found that since mortgage fraud is the kind of crime where one would expect there to be physical evidence, perhaps in a vehicle, the police were authorized to assume the bag they seized might have contained evidence of the related crimes. As a result, the police were justified in seizing the bag.

Defendants in Federal Fraud Cases Can Rely Upon Advisor’s Counsel

Published on: September 18, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In federal criminal cases charging a defendant with fraud relating to the operation of a business, a common defense is asserted that the defendant relied upon the advice of a professional or other advisor, such as an accountant, and had the right to assume his/her conduct was legal. In a federal criminal trial where the defendant is charged with fraud or a related crime and the defense is a good faith reliance upon such advice, the judge should normally allow the defendant to assert such defense and should normally instruct the jury that such good faith reliance upon an advisor is a valid defense if supported by the facts.

In criminal fraud cases in federal court, the government normally must prove that the defendant intended to defraud the victim. In other words, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s purpose in performing the acts that constitute the fraud crime was to defraud another person out of services, money and/or other property. As a result, a logical defense to criminal fraud would be that the defendant had no ill-intent, but rather thought he/she was acting lawfully based upon the advice of an advisor. This is why good faith reliance upon the advice of a professional can be a valid defense in federal criminal fraud cases. Of course, whether the defendant acted with intent to defraud someone or was honestly and innocently relying upon an advisor is a matter for the jury to decide.

However, in order for the jury to properly understand and evaluate this defense when deliberating, the judge in the case must instruct the jury about this good faith reliance defense. If the judge rejects the federal criminal defense lawyer’s request to instruct the jury about the defendant’s good faith reliance upon an advisor defense, the jury cannot consider it when deciding the case. Under federal law, the judge does not have the authority to decide what the defendant’s defense is and instruct the jury accordingly. Likewise, the federal judge in a criminal case does not have the authority to decide that the defendant’s defense of good faith reliance upon an advisor is weak or lacking in credibility and therefore refuse to instruct the jury about the defense.

In Florida, Statements Made After an Accident May Not Be Admissible in DUI Case.

Published on: September 15, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In any driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) case in Florida, the state has to prove that the defendant was actually driving, or in actual physical control of, the vehicle. That seems obvious, but it may be problematic for the state in situations where the police respond to an accident and the drivers and others are out of the vehicles at the time. Accidents happen quickly, and sometimes, no one actually sees who is driving. Then, one may think it is as simple as the police officer asking who was driving. However, the initial discussion between the police officer and the driver about the accident is often inadmissible in a criminal case for DUI.

This is referred to as the Florida accident report privilege. This Florida law says that a driver is required to tell the police what happened after an accident. However, because this requirement affects a person’s right to remain silent if there is possibly criminal activity involved, any statements the driver makes about the accident during the accident investigation phase are not admissible in a criminal case. When the state cannot use the statement by the driver that he/she was driving the vehicle, the state may have a very hard time actually proving the suspect was driving a vehicle.

Even where the statement that a suspect was driving is not protected by the accident report privilege, the statement is still not admissible in a DUI trial unless and until the state can prove that a crime was committed by substantial evidence independent of the statement. In other words, if there is insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect may have committed a DUI and the suspect then makes incriminating statements about committing a DUI, that statement will not be admissible in a DUI trial. So, before such a statement can be used against a defendant in a DUI trial, the state must have other evidence that he/she committed the crime. Going back to the original point, when an accident occurs and the police show up after the fact, a suspect’s statement may be thrown out of a criminal trial if there are no solid witnesses or other evidence establishing that a DUI was committed.

In Florida, Is Evidence of Defendant Running From Police Admissible in Court?

Published on: September 12, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Consider a situation where a crime occurs and the police believe they know who committed the crime. They obtain an arrest warrant, but they are not able to locate the suspect for some time. When they do find the suspect, the suspect runs from the police. At the defendant’s trial for the original crime, is evidence that the defendant ran from the police admissible at the trial for the original crime in Florida? It depends.

When a person runs from the police when the police are arresting that person for a crime that previously occurred, the prosecutor may not be allowed to introduce evidence of the defendant’s flight from police at the trial. It largely depends on how much longer the arrest, and the running from the police, occurred after the initial crime because the key question is whether it can be shown that the defendant ran from police due to consciousness of guilt for this particular crime. In other words, if the police are looking for person X for a robbery that occurred previously, can it be shown that person X ran from the police because he knew he was guilty of that robbery?

Obviously, one of the factors is how much time elapsed between the crime and the flight from police. The more time between those two events, the harder it is for the prosecutor to establish that the defendant had a reason to believe the police were looking for him for that particular crime. If the flight occurs a couple of days after the crime, it is more likely that evidence of the defendant running from police will be admitted at the trial. However, if it is months or years later, such evidence should not be admissible at the trial absent other facts suggesting the defendant knew the police were after him/her for that particular crime.

Federal Law Enforcement Investigating More Online/Internet Sex Cases

Published on: September 9, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

As the Internet becomes more popular and more accessible through portable and handheld devices, more people are sending sexually explicit pictures in violation of state and federal laws. These pictures are also being sent as attachments to text messages to and from cell phones. What one person thinks is a harmless or funny text or email may actually be a serious felony crime.

Federal law enforcement authorities have noted an increase in such online criminal behavior. One area that is specifically of note is the crime of sexual extortion. Sexual extortion may result when a teenager sends a naked or suggestive picture of herself over the Internet, and someone threatens to expose her behavior to family or friends unless she sends more such pictures or more sexually explicit pictures. One federal criminal affidavit labeled this kind of crime as sextortion, according to an article on SFgate.com. The article provides several examples of recent, high-profile cases involving sexual extortion over the Internet, and the punishments some of these defendants are getting are severe, including lengthy prison sentences. Some people, particularly young people, may assume that sending sexually suggestive pictures over the Internet or via text message is fun or a harmless prank. However, depending on the circumstances, state or federal law enforcement officials may consider it a serious crime with serious consequences. And emails and text messages are often easy to trace back to the sender. The best course of action is to not post any suggestive pictures of oneself or anyone else on the Internet or send them via email or text message to anyone. Once they get posted or sent, they can end up anywhere.

Police Can Only Draw Blood in DUI Case In Limited Circumstances in Florida

Published on: September 6, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

When a police officer suspects a person of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (i.e. DUI), he/she will sometimes request a blood draw to measure blood alcohol content rather than a breath test, or breathalyzer, or a urine test. While an officer can request a breath test, or breathalyzer, or a urine test from a suspect when he/she has good reason to believe the suspect is intoxicated from alcohol and/or drugs to the extent his/her normal faculties are impaired, i.e. DUI, that officer is not as free to request blood to investigate a DUI as blood tests are more intrusive than breath and urine tests.

Under Florida law, a police officer can only request a blood draw to check for DUI if: 1) the police officer has reason to believe the suspect was operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, 2) the suspect appears for treatment at a medical facility and 3) a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. A person can always consent or agree to a blood test, but that consent must be free and voluntary. If a police officer requests a blood draw when all three of the above factors are not present without notifying the suspect that a blood test is not required and that implied consent only applies to a breath or urine test, then consent to a blood test for DUI is not valid.

The three factors allowing police to request a blood test for DUI are most often present in serious accidents. However, if a person is in a less serious accident and does not need medical treatment, a blood test is likely inappropriate. Blood tests are not the norm for DUI investigations in Florida. If you have been arrested for DUI in the Jacksonville, Florida area, or even been asked by a police officer to submit to a blood test and think you may be arrested for DUI in the future, feel free to contact us for a free consultation. It is certainly possible that the police officer was not justified in requesting the blood draw and any incriminating blood alcohol test results may be inadmissible in court.