Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) is a company that provides technological and outsourcing services to mortgage lenders that is based out of Jacksonville, Florida. According to an article on www.Jacksonville.com, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated an investigation of LPS. The article does not go into detail about the investigation but mentions that it may be related to services provided by LPS in bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings.

We noted earlier how federal law enforcement authorities had noticeably shifted their focus towards mortgage fraud and securities fraud cases and away from immigration and more post-9/11 related criminal investigations which were more prevalent in the years following 9/11. Because of the government’s tendency to follow prevailing trends and move resources more towards issues they, or the media, consider timely, we expected to see more such investigations into companies and individuals who operate in the mortgage and securities industries. It appears from this article and other ongoing federal investigations that Jacksonville is falling in line with that trend.

Federal law enforcement authorities show up at your company with a search warrant to search the entire premises of the business including computers, customer files, billing and accounts receivable information, internal memoranda, bank account information and training materials. They conduct an extensive search and seize a variety of materials from the business which leads to federal criminal charges against you, the company president, your vice president and the company itself. You retain a federal criminal defense attorney and attempt to have this evidence thrown out so it cannot be used against you in court because the search warrant was vague or overly broad, i.e. the search warrant was not limited to items for which there was probable cause to search and seize. Can you, the president of the company, challenge the search of your business? In most cases, the answer is no, according to a recent federal criminal case out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens and companies against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fourth Amendment protections are realized in a couple of ways, one of which is the requirement that police and law enforcement authorities obtain a search warrant that must be signed by a judge before searching a person’s home or business. If the police obtain a search warrant, conduct a search of a business and seize evidence that results in criminal charges, a motion to suppress can be filed to suppress such evidence if it is determined that the search warrant was invalid, for instance because it was overly broad. The end result is that the evidence obtained pursuant to that invalid search warrant is thrown out and cannot be used against the defendant in the criminal case.

However, after a questionable search and seizure, a person or company can only move to suppress the seized evidence if he/she has standing. Standing relates to a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that is searched. A classic example is one’s home. Without legal standing, the judge will not even hear a defendant’s argument on a motion to suppress evidence. The question raised by this Ninth Circuit case, United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., was whether a company president/part owner had standing to challenge a search of his business.

A woman from Lehigh Acres, Florida was arrested for allegedly teaching children how to shoplift, which is the term commonly used to describe a theft of store merchandise. Lehigh Acres is about 5 1/2 hours southeast of Jacksonville, Florida. The woman was charged with the crimes of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child cruelty and petit theft, according to an article on News4Jax.com.

This story raises a question as to what a person’s exposure to criminal liability is based on his/her involvement in a crime. In other words, if a person encourages another to commit a crime, such as theft, but does not actually steal the items, is that person guilty of a crime in Florida? A person can be found guilty of attempting to commit the crime, i.e. attempted petit or grand theft, if he/she does some act to try and commit the crime but does not succeed. Therefore, a person does not have to successfully complete the crime to be found guilty of a crime. Additionally, considering the story referenced above, if a person encourages or induces a child under the age of 12 to commit a crime, that person is also guilty of the crime of criminal attempt.

Next, a person who commands, requests or encourages another to perform some specific act that constitutes a crime or an attempted crime in Florida is guilty of the crime of solicitation. Therefore, a person can be guilty of a crime in Florida merely by words of encouragement for another even if that person had no other involvement in the commission of the crime.

Law enforcement officials have been arresting more and more people for sexual solicitation of minors, according to an article on News4Jax.com. The article attributed the increase in arrests for sex crimes involving minors on greater enforcement efforts and better technology as opposed to more offenders. Arrests for sexually soliciting a minor over the Internet increased by five times when an undercover officer was posing as the minor, while arrests for the same crime increased by 21% when actual minors were solicited.

In Florida, the Attorney General’s office has increased efforts to investigate cases involving the sexual solicitation of minors and considers the protection of children from sexual solicitations from adults over the Internet to be the office’s top priority. According to the Attorney General’s website, Florida ranks fourth in the country in volume of child pornography over the Internet. As a result, the Florida Attorney General’s Office has established the Child Predator Cybercrime Unit to protect children and investigate cases involving child pornography and sexual solicitation and exploitation of minors in Florida. Florida also enacted the Cybercrimes Against Children Act in 2007 which increased criminal penalties for conduct such as possession of child pornography and soliciting children over the Internet.

In 2007, a large Cybercrime unit headquarters was opened in Jacksonville, Florida.

Eric Holder, the new Attorney General under President-elect Obama, has indicated that the new administration is seeking to change the administration’s policy and federal law making it easier for reporters to maintain the confidentiality of their sources. Holder is reportedly in support of a law that would allow reporters and journalists to protect their secret sources and refuse to reveal information about them in court or in front of a federal grand jury. Such a law, commonly referred to as a shield law, was blocked under the Bush administration. Holder has also indicated that the new adimninstration plans to change the Bush administration’s policy of withholding federal records from the public if there is a plausible reason to do so. Presumably, under this “plausible reason” standard, a reason is plausible if those who want to keep the information from the public say their reasoning is plausible.

This issue of forcing journalists to reveal their sources or face severe penalties made the news fairly recently when a federal judge ordered two journalists for the San Francisco paper to reveal their sources relating to the Barry Bonds/BALCO steroids case or face up to 18 months in jail. However, under legislation supported by Obama, journalists would not be forced to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury or in court unless a judge first determines that the information is required for national security.

Fourteen suspected cocaine dealers in Fernandina Beach (Nassau County), Florida were arrested this week, according to an article at www.Jacksonville.com. According to the article, the arrests and charges were the result of a six month investigation into drug dealing in the Fernandina Beach and Amelia Island areas. Apparently the investigation involved the Jacksonville, Florida office of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the local Fernandina Beach police department. The police officers allegedly used undercover police officers to make drug purchases from Side Hustle Fashions, which is a clothing and shoe store in Fernandina Beach, Florida. Police also executed search and seizure warrants and seized significant quantities of drugs and cash (Police often seize cash and other property that they believe are proceeds of, or related to, illegal drug activity. However, there is a procedure criminal defense lawyers can follow to return that money and property for people when they are improperly seized.)

The article indicates that some of the the fourteen people arrested and charged with drug crimes as a result of the Fernandina Beach drug investigation will end up in federal court while others may face state charges. While there are significant differences between charges, sentences and procedures in the federal system as opposed to the state system, most of the charges will involve the sale and delivery of crack cocaine.

If you have any questions about your rights in a drug case, or any other criminal case, whether it is in the federal criminal system or the state system, contact a law firm whose attorneys have the experience and knowledge to understand all of the legal issues in a complex criminal case and will protect your rights if you have been arrested and charged.

Two individuals were arrested this week for allegedly trying to buy $100,000 worth of cocaine from federal undercover agents, according to an article on News4Jax.com. Apparently, federal law enforcement authorities and local St. Johns County, Florida police were working together on the case over the last few months. Both men were arrested and charged with trafficking in cocaine.

The majority of undercover illegal drug investigations target sellers and suppliers of illegal drugs such as cocaine, crack, methamphetamine and ecstasy. However, when the amount of the drugs is big enough, local and federal law enforcement officials will set up an undercover operation to try and arrest buyers as well. In this case, the potential buyers reportedly were looking to buy 5 kilograms of cocaine. The idea is that buyers of such quantities of drugs will turn around and sell the drugs to other drug suppliers or users.

If a police officer in Jacksonville or anywhere else in Florida pulls you over and suspects that you are under the influence of alcohol, he/she will likely conduct a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) investigation. This typically consists of questions about where you have been, whether you have been drinking and if so, how many drinks. This is followed by a request to submit to field sobriety tests, the results of which are based on the subjective opinions of the police officer. You have a right to refuse to answer these questions and a right to refuse to take the field sobriety tests by politely requesting to speak with your criminal defense lawyer.

The typical DUI investigation in Jacksonville, Florida will also involve a request by the police officer for you to submit to a breath, blood or urine test to measure your blood alcohol content. Usually, the request is for the breath test. Drivers often refuse to submit to these breath, blood or urine tests during a DUI investigation.

However, in one case in Jacksonville, Florida, the police officer took the driver to jail and then obtained a search warrant for the driver’s blood to test the blood for alcohol content after the driver refused the breathalyzer. The officer contacted a judge who signed the search warrant and authorized the forced seizure of the driver’s blood for alcohol content testing purposes. The criminal defense attorney for the driver later challenged the state’s right to use the blood test in court in the criminal case. However, the court allowed the state to use the results from the forced blood test because a valid search warrant was obtained for the blood. The court noted that driving is a privilege and can be strictly regulated by the state. As a result, a driver may have the option to refuse a breath, blood or urine test, but a driver does not have the right to refuse, and the state may be able to force a blood test pursuant to a valid search warrant.

Police set up an undercover sting where they contacted the suspected prostitutes through the website Craigslist.com and arranged to meet them at a hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. When the two women arrived at the hotel and asked for $300 for their services, they were arrested on misdemeanor charges, according to an article on the local Atlanta newspaper’s website.

Craigslist is a website that allows people to advertise a variety of items and services for sale from homes and cars to lawyers and accountants. And prostitutes. The general Craigslist website has specific websites for particular areas and cities, including Jacksonville, Florida. While it is clear that escort services are advertised on Craigslist at times, I have not seen any articles or criminal cases indicating that the Jacksonville police are investigating and arresting people based on ads on Craigslist.

However, anyone advertising illegal services or the sale of illegal contraband, or responding to such an ad, should be aware that the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office or other local police department may be monitoring the Craigslist website, and it may be a police officer on the other end of the transaction.

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) recently reported that data breaches increased by 47% from 2007 to 2008. Data breaches commonly involve unauthorized access to identification and/or financial information that is stored on a company’s computer or network. It can result in severe financial penalties and irreparable damage to a company’s reputation.

The ITRC has also put together a guide for small and mid-sized businesses that contains steps they can take to reduce their exposure to data breaches and identity theft. The guide can be found here. Some of the highlights include: determining the data the company needs and eliminating all other data from the company’s files/network, storing paper files and disks with sensitive information in a locked room and limiting access to that room, implementing proper shredding procedures, minimizing the number of places or computers where financial information is stored, encrypting all sensitive information that is sent over the Internet, ensuring that employees use responsible computer passwords that are not easy to detect and limit access to those passwords, discontinuing the storage of sensitive information on laptops to the extent possible and establishing confidentiality and security procedures and training employees accordingly.

Contact Information