Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

Jacksonville Police Arrest Eleven People After Drug Raid

Published on: May 8, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Jacksonville police raided a home off of Ivey Road in the Southside area of Jacksonville, FL and ultimately made eleven drug arrests allegedly related to fraudulent prescriptions, according to an article on News4Jax.com. The article indicates that the owner of the home was arrested and accused of printing false prescriptions for Oxycontin and similar drugs on his computer and paying people to fill the prescriptions.

There are a variety of issues that arise from a large drug case such as this from whether the Jacksonville police had a legitimate basis for searching the home to the various levels of culpability of the eleven people arrested on the drug charges. When so many people are arrested pursuant to one case, Jacksonville police and prosecutors will always look to some of the defendants to talk and provide incriminating information about the others and themselves. This is often done at a time when defendants are not thinking clearly and do not fully understand their rights. Police and prosecutors may try and paint all defendants with the same brush, so to speak, by making those less involved (or not involved) think they are in the same kind of trouble as those most involved.

It is important for anyone who is either the target of a Jacksonville police or other law enforcement department investigation or has been arrested to consult a criminal defense attorney prior to making any statements that could jeopardize your case. Giving a statement without understanding the facts and your rights could give the police the information they need to make a case against you, when they only pretended to have that information before the statement.

Florida Legislator Proposes Drug Testing as a Condition for Receiving Unemployment Benefits

Published on: May 7, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

As the number of people laid off and otherwise unemployed in Florida grows, one Florida legislator has proposed to require people to pass a drug test before they can receive unemployment benefits, according to an article at Rawstory.com. The Florida legislator claimed that he is concerned that the unemployment compensation fund is in danger of running out and this would be a way to limit unemployment benefits to those who were intended to receive them.

As the representative for the Drug Policy Alliance points out, the individuals who are seeking unemployment benefits after having lost their jobs have already paid their own money into the system in order to receive these benefits when unemployed. Additionally, when they paid that money for unemployment insurance while employed, they would not have been told that they could only recover their unemployment benefits on the condition that they passed a drug test. The article also raises the question that it is unfair to make people already out of a job to pay for drug tests they were never told they would have to take to receive unemployment benefits.

One other state has tried to require people to undergo drug testing prior to receiving public assistance. However, that policy was successfully challenged in federal court on the grounds that such blanket drug testing was a violation of the individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Watch Out for This Scheme to Defraud Corporations

Published on: May 5, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

This article was posted at elamb.org to help expose a scam to get corporations to pay $150 for nothing. The scam involves a letter that is sent to corporations across the country that seems to indicate that corporations are required to file the minutes of their annual corporate meetings with the relevant state department, and the company sending the letter, Corporate Compliance, will file the minutes for the $150 fee. The letter makes it seem like a company is violating the law if they do not file their corporate minutes with the state.

In fact, in Florida, corporate minutes do not need to be filed with the state. The company maintains them. You can go to the Florida Department of State website to learn more about what companies are required to do and what documents are filed by Florida companies. So, in effect, this Corporate Compliance scam is asking for money for nothing with a letter that appears official. I would guess that a lot of people who would receive such a letter on behalf of companies throughout Florida are not clear as to the filing obligations of their company. As a result, they may assume this letter is legitimate or just request a check from their company to comply with the letter out of an abundance of caution.

However, if you receive such a letter, the better practice is to do some research to see if what they are asking is legitimate. Sometimes, it is just a matter of doing a google search for the company. In this case, this would reveal that Corporate Compliance is a shady company and that others have been the victim of this scam.

How Do I Get My Criminal Record Expunged?

Published on: May 3, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

If you have been arrested for a crime in Jacksonville or any other part of Florida, or if you have been arrested and formally charged with a crime in Florida, you may be eligible to have your criminal record expunged. The Florida legislature has enacted laws which indicate when a person can or cannot expunge a criminal record, but those laws allow a person to expunge a criminal record in limited circumstances.

If you have been arrested for a crime in Florida, the following are some of the circumstances under which the law does not allow you to have that criminal record expunged. If you were arrested for a crime, formally charged and entered a plea of guilty or no contest to that charge, Florida law does not allow you to expunge that criminal record whether you were adjudicated guilty by the judge, i.e. convicted of the charge, or the judge withheld adjudication. In other words, a person who is arrested for a crime is only eligible to have that criminal record expunged if either formal charges were never brought against him/her or formal charges were brought but then completely dismissed. If a plea of guilty or no contest was entered, Florida law does not allow an expunction of that record (but that person may be eligible to have that criminal record sealed, which is different from expunging a record).

Even where charges were dropped, Florida law only allows a person to expunge a criminal record in certain situations. For instance, if the person was arrested on a particularly serious charge, the law does not allow the record to be expunged. Additionally, depending on the person’s criminal record other than the criminal charge at issue, he/she may or may not be eligible to have the criminal record expunged. Although, keep in mind that a person may not be eligible to have a record expunged but may be eligible to have the same criminal record sealed.

Report Finds Police Use Faulty Methods to Test for Illegal Drugs

Published on: May 1, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

When the police in Jacksonville, Florida and other cities throughout the country find what they suspect to be illegal drugs, whether it is marijuana, cocaine, GHB or the many other narcotics, they will often use what is referred to as a field test kit to quickly test whether the substance is the drug they think it is. These tests are called field tests because they can be performed “out in the field” presumably allowing the police officer to determine whether a substance is an illegal drug without having to bring the substance back to the lab. When field tests results are positive, the police use those results as a basis for further searches and seizures, arrests and as evidence in a criminal case to obtain a conviction.

The problem is that these field tests are significantly flawed according to many articles and studies. A recent report issued by a forensic expert and a former scientist for the FBI found that the field tests commonly used by police give false positives more often than not when testing non-narcotic substances. For instance, they administered the field tests on non-marijuana substances, such as oregano, and found that the field tests resulted in false positives approximately 70% of the time. The field tests were similarly inaccurate when testing non-cocaine substances.

Police use field tests for a variety of purposes, i.e. to obtain search warrants, to search vehicles and homes, to seize evidence, to charge people with drug crimes and as evidence in a criminal trial. The United States Supreme Court has prohibited the use of inaccurate tests to prosecute someone for a drug crime, or any other crime, for that matter. These reports call into question the Constitutionality of using drug field test kit results against any defendant charged with a drug crime in a criminal case.

Man Convicted of DUI Circumvents Ignition Interlock Device Requirement and Crashes Car

Published on: April 29, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

A man who was convicted of driving while intoxicated/DWI in New York (which is called driving under the influence, or DUI, in Florida) was ordered to have an ignition interlock device placed on his vehicle as part of his sentence. The ignition interlock device is a mechanism that requires the driver to blow into the device before the car will start. If the driver’s breach alcohol content is over 0.05 (0.08 is the legal limit under the DUI laws in Florida), the car will not start. Apparently, the convicted DWI driver was able to rent a car without the ignition interlock device and then crashed it into a utility pole, according to an article on Foxnews.com.

In Florida, the DUI laws require a person convicted of DUI to have the ignition interlock device installed into any car he/she may drive in certain circumstances. For a first DUI in Florida it is up to the judge’s discretion to order the ignition interlock device, however if a person blows a 0.15 or higher or has a minor in the car, there is a mandatory 6 month ignition interlock device period. Upon a second DUI conviction, a minimum of one year with the device is required, and for a third DUI conviction, the minimum is two years. The device costs about $70/month and must be paid for by the driver.

In Florida, if you have been convicted of DUI and are permitted to drive only with the ignition interlock device, a restricted license will be issued with a “P” on it which tells a police officer, or rental car agency, that the ignition interlock device is required. Therefore, if a person has been convicted of DUI in Florida and must drive only with the ignition interlock device, a police officer will likely know by the nature of the restricted license. If that person gets caught driving a vehicle without the ignition interlock device, an arrest for violation of probation and a trip before the sentencing judge is likely.

Is an Anticipatory Search Warrant Legal in Florida?

Published on: April 26, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

All residents of Florida, and the United States as a whole, are protected by the Fourth Amendment which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by police. One aspect of the law on searches and seizures generally requires police to obtain a search warrant before entering someone’s home to look for evidence. A search warrant must be based on specific evidence that gives the police probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime can be located in a particular place. Normally, when a Jacksonville, Florida police officer asks a judge to issue a search warrant, that police officer swears to knowledge of evidence providing probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime, such as marijuana or cocaine possession or trafficking, is currently located in a specific place, such as a suspect’s house.

What if a Jacksonville police officer suspects that illegal drugs, like a shipment of marijuana or cocaine, will be delivered to a particular location in the future? Can the police officer obtain a search warrant now for evidence of illegal drugs that may materialize later? This is referred to as an anticipatory search warrant- where the police allege that there is evidence indicating that drugs or other evidence will be at a specific place at a specific time in the future. Anticipatory search warrants are not automatically illegal, but they require an additional element.

As stated, in order for a regular search warrant for existing drugs or evidence to be valid, there must be probable cause to believe that the drugs or evidence are present at the specific place to be searched. For an anticipatory search warrant, where the drugs or evidence are not present when the search warrant is requested but expected to be present in the near future, the police officer must establish that some triggering event will occur that will cause the drugs or evidence to appear. For instance, in a drug trafficking investigation, a confidential informant may inform the police that a suspected drug dealer will be getting a shipment of marijuana, cocaine or some other drug delivered to his/her house or apartment. The triggering event would be the delivery of the drugs by some specified person. The police officer may request a search warrant now to search that location at some specified time in the future. In order for the search warrant to be valid, there must be probable cause not only to believe that the drugs will be at that particular location but also that the triggering event will occur. In other words, the police officer must show some specific evidence indicating that the triggering event, i.e. the delivery by the person, will take place in the relevant time frame. The police officer may not just generally assert that a delivery will be made at some point and obtain a search warrant.

New Law Limits Police Officer’s Right to Search Your Car After Arrest

Published on: April 24, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The United States Supreme Court (USSC) recently decided a case dealing with when police officers can search the vehicle of a person who has recently been arrested. The USSC’s ruling seems to pretty significantly limit a police officer’s right to search a person’s vehicle incident to an arrest when compared to the current practice.

Let’s look at this by way of a common example. A person is driving his (or another person’s) vehicle in Jacksonville, Florida and a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) officer stops the driver for a traffic violation. The JSO officer gets the driver’s license of the driver, runs it in his computer and learns that the driver’s license is suspended. The JSO officer then arrests the driver for driving with a suspended license (DWLS) and places him in the back of his patrol car.

This is a fairly common scenario in Jacksonville and cities all over the country. At this point, is the JSO officer permitted to search the driver’s vehicle? In the past, probably yes. This is what has been referred to as a search incident to arrest. Police officers commonly search the passenger compartment of a vehicle when the driver of the vehicle has been arrested. Thousands and thousands of drug charges, gun charges and other criminal charges have resulted from these kinds of searches. Police will search the vehicle of a driver arrested for any crime, find drugs, guns and/or evidence of other crimes and add criminal charges on the driver. Time and time again an initial arrest for DWLS or driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) turns into a drug and/or gun case based on evidence police find in the vehicle.

If You Entered a Plea of Guilty or No Contest to a Crime in Florida, Can You Withdraw Your Plea?

Published on: April 22, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

If you have been arrested and charged with a crime in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida and entered a plea of guilty or no contest to the charge, there may be a way to withdraw that plea and proceed with your defense to the criminal charge. After a defendant in a criminal case has been sentenced for the crime, the judge must let the defendant withdraw the plea if there is good cause, and the judge has discretion to allow a defendant to withdraw the plea if good cause cannot be shown

If a criminal defendant has already been sentenced for the crime, he/she still may be allowed to withdraw the guilty or no contest plea. After the sentence has been entered, the defendant must show that the plea resulted in a “manifest injustice” and that the defendant would not have entered the guilty or no contest plea absent the manifest injustice. In order for a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge to be valid, the defendant must enter the plea freely, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If some fact or circumstance prevented the defendant from entering such a plea, he/she may have right to withdraw that plea. Examples of valid reasons to withdraw a plea after sentencing include: the plea was not voluntary, the plea violated a plea agreement with the prosecutor or there was a legal error with the sentence.

Another circumstance where a defendant who pleads guilty or no contest to a criminal charge may be able to withdraw that plea is where he/she was not fully advised of his/her rights and defenses by the criminal defense lawyer. For instance, where the facts of the criminal case suggest that the defendant had a valid defense such as self-defense or duress and the defendant entered a guilty plea without knowing that he/she had a right to assert that defense, that defendant may be able to withdraw the plea even after he/she has been sentenced. It may be a manifest injustice for that defendant to plead guilty to a crime when he/she had a legitimate defense that would have exonerated the defendant.

Largest Drug Arrests in History of Palatka, Putnam County, Florida

Published on: April 20, 2009 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Eleven people were arrested and approximately $24 million worth of cocaine and marijuana were seized as a result of a recent drug investigation in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida (which is about an hour south of Jacksonville, Florida), according to an article on Firstcoastnews.com. The cocaine and marijuana drug investigation involved local Putnam County police as well as officials from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the article, the cocaine and marijuana as well as cash, vehicles and electronic equipment were stored in two houses on San Jose Avenue in East Palatka, Florida.

It is unclear from the article how they arrived at the $24 million dollar value for the drugs, but clearly this case involves a significant amount of drugs. In a case of this size with multiple law enforcement agencies and many defendants, there are likely to be several issues regarding to whom the police can actually attribute the illegal drugs. Widespread arrests such as these often involve people who may have little or no direct connection to the drugs in the hopes that the police can get incriminating statements from them, flip them as witnesses or somehow tie them to drugs found at a particular location.

It is not uncommon for police to use shaky evidence from unreliable co-defendants to try and incriminate others on whom the police have little to no evidence. This occurred in a recent ecstasy trafficking case involving a Lasnetski Gihon Law client. Once we uncovered the true nature of the alleged evidence and the unreliability of the state’s witnesses in that case, it was clear that the state could not prove their drug trafficking case against our client and the charges were dropped.