October 2009 Archives

October 30, 2009

Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Cases: Who Pays the Restitution

In a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Case, the juvenile defendant is the party that is accused of committing a crime, not the juvenile's parent. However, parents can be obligated to pay restitution in their child's criminal case. Restitution is normally the amount of money or value of the property that the alleged victim has lost due to the defendant's actions. In a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Case, the parent and child can be responsible for paying for this loss, because the court has jurisdiction over the parent and the child.

Florida Statute Section 985.437(2) permits the court to order a juvenile to pay "restitution in money, through a promissory note cosigned by the child's parent or guardian, or in kind for any damage or loss caused by the child's offense in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court." If the court orders restitution, "the amount of restitution may not exceed an amount the child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make." It is important that Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Defendants not be required to pay an obscene amount of restitution for a couple reasons. First, when a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, he or she is normally placed on probation to pay the restitution. If he or she is required to pay too much every month, then this will certainly result in a violation of probation. Second, it is difficult for adults to find employment right now. It would be ridiculous to believe that a juvenile could find a job that would pay enough to cover tens of thousands of dollars in restitution. Thus, the parent would be required to pay the restitution.

Florida law does provide for an exception to the rule that a parent can be required to pay a Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Defendant's restitution.  Under Florida Statute Section 985.437(4), a parent may avoid such responsibility if the court finds "that the parent or guardian has made diligent and good faith efforts to prevent the child from engaging in delinquent acts."

Bookmark and Share
October 26, 2009

'Girls Gone Wild' Shoot Leads to Several Arrest in the Jacksonville Area

839420_in_the_water.jpg

The Nassau County Sheriff's Department led to several arrest last weekend in Yulee, Florida, a small town outside of Jacksonville. According to the Jacksonville News, the 'Girls Gone Wild' film crew went to The Mill Night Club where "men were allegedly encouraging women to show their breasts so they could be filmed."  Several people were arrested for violating a

Nassau County City Ordinance which prohibits exposing one's self in public and operating a sexually oriented business.  If a person violates this Nassau County Florida law, he or she will be charged with a second degree misdemeanor which is punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.  

At Apple Law Firm PLLC, we represent people in Jacksonville and the surrounding areas for charges ranging from indecent exposure and violating the adult entertainment code to Florida sexual battery.  Regardless of the type of Jacksonville sexual offense that you are charged with, it is important to discuss your case with a Jacksonville Sex Crimes Attorney.  

Bookmark and Share
October 22, 2009

Man Hunt, a Game Played by Jacksonville Children, Violates Florida Gun Laws

young_boy_as_guard_1.jpg

Today, I learned about a game that some children play in the Jacksonville, Florida area. It is called "Man Hunt." It appears to be a spin off of hide-n-seek and tag, but firearms are involved. According to an article entitled "How to Play Man Hunt," the players set up a large perimeter. All players, except the hunter or hunters, are given a time period to hide.  Then, the hunt begins. While this article, does not reference the use of firearms or weapons in any way, it appears that children have taken the game a step further and incorporated air guns and/or BB guns.

Not only is this dangerous to the children involved and bystanders, it can result in civil and criminal liability for parents. As for civil liability, a parent that allows a child to use an air gun or BB gun in a negligent fashion or without supervision may be sued for negligence and be held liable for any damages to person or property. As for criminal charges, Florida Statute Section 790.22(1) states:

"the use for any purpose whatsoever of BB guns, air or gas-operated guns, or electric weapons or devices, by any minor under the age of 16 years is prohibited unless such use is under the supervision and in the presence of an adult who is acting with the consent of the minor's parent."

Florida Statute Section 790.22(2) declares that it is a second degree misdemeanor if an adult responsible for the welfare of a child under 16 years old knowingly allows that child to violate the statute listed above.  Indeed, parents should watch their children closely to prevent violations of Florida firearm's law in Jacksonville.  This will not only prevent an arrest, but also prevent injury to others.  In fact, a ten-year-old boy died last month due to an injury inflicted while playing cowboys and indians with his father's air gun.  

Bookmark and Share
October 19, 2009

Florida Driving Under the Influence Case: Motion to Suppress Granted Due to Hearsay

In Bowers v. State of Florida, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a county court's ruling that suppressed all evidence obtained during the search of a driver's vehicle during a Florida Driving Under the Influence (DUI) stop.  This ruling was based on the fact that the police officer that initiated the vehicle stop did not attend the hearing on the motion to suppress.  Thus, the only evidence that the State of Florida presented to meet its burden of proving the validity of the Florida DUI stop was through the hearsay testimony of the DUI officer that was not present during the initial stop of the vehicle.  

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals ruled differently than the Fourth District Court of Appeals did in a similar case. In Ferrer v. State, 785 So. 2d 709, the court allowed hearsay evidence to support probable cause for a Florida DUI stop although the state attorney failed to call the officer that initially stopped the vehicle.  The Fourth District Court of Appeals held that such evidence was admissible due to the fellow officer rule.  

Therefore, the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal are in conflict.  It should be interesting to see if this Florida DUI case makes it to the Florida Supreme Court based on such conflict.  Since the First District Court of Appeal has not ruled upon this issue, I do not know what position a Jacksonville Florida court would take if confronted with similar facts in a Jacksonville DUI case.  However, it would make more sense for a Jacksonville court to follow the Second District Court of Appeals based upon the fact that the fellow officer rule is not an exception to the hearsay rule.  Therefore, the court should not allow such evidence to be admitted.  

Bookmark and Share