Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer I scour the local, national, and world news to stay informed on current Criminal legal issues. Just recently a news article by Foxnews.com sparked my interest. The article titled "Cocaine Bust Lands Curvy Model in Italian Jail," was a colorfully written article.

The article states a Spanish model attempted to smuggle Cocaine into Italy via prosthetic breasts and buttocks. The model's plan was to distract the TSA by wearing tight-fitting clothes and her attractiveness would take suspicion away from the real task at hand. However, her "extra-large bosom and derriere" caught the attention of TSA and they investigated. After failing to provide sufficient answers to their questions, they conducted a strip search. The search revealed the model was attempting to smuggle 5.5 pounds of cocaine.

Currently the charges are pending and dependent upon Italian and international law, the charges could be quite severe. This article intrigued my legal mind because it shows the diminished expectation of privacy one holds while traveling through airports. At airports all the authorities need is reasonable suspicion before they can investigate. In contrast, inside one's own home the expectation of privacy is very high. Police are required to have a warrant before entering your home, absent exigent circumstances.

Even with this diminished REP, you still have rights! If the authorities violate these rights, the evidence collected against could be inadmissible in court or the charges could be dropped all together. A Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer can review your case and determine if the authorities have violated your rights and take the appropriate action to rectify the situation. Criminal drug possession and trafficking charges carry serious penalties and jail time. It is in your best interest if you have Jacksonville Criminal charges pending against you to contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to discuss your case and determine the best course of action moving forward.

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled on the standards and training required for automobile searches using drug detection dogs (Harris v. Florida, 36 Fla. L Weekly S163a (2011). This case has been applied by another Florida appellate court. In Sarasota County, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals addressed the drug detection dog's reliability standards in Wiggs v. Florida, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1688a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). In Wiggs, the drug detection dog, Zuul, gave a positive indication at criminal defendant Wiggs' vehicle during a Florida traffic stop. The police officer searched the vehicle and found cocaine.

Wiggs challenged the Florida K9 search on the basis that "Zuul's alert to the exterior of Wiggs' vehicle provided probable cause to support a warrantless search of the vehicle's interior." Although Zuul went through over 400 hours of training and did quite well, Zuul was not so effective in the field. He only had a 29% accuracy rate. Zuul had many false positives, including several instances of identifying drugs in areas where drugs had once been but no longer were.

In Harris v. Florida, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S163 (Fla. Apr. 21, 2011), the rule established by the Florida Supreme Court states "when a dog alerts, the fact that the dog has been trained and certified is simply not enough to establish probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle and the person." The Florida Supreme Court adopted a "totality of the circumstances approach" that places the burden of producing evidence to establish the dog's reliability on the state." In this case, Zuul's detection rate was too low for the court to consider "probable cause." Therefore, the cocaine in this case should have been suppressed.

If you have been arrested in Northeast Florida (Jacksonville and the surrounding counties) and have been subject to an automobile search, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney.

The Florida Law Weekly published an opinion from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals. The Florida Court had to decide "whether the trial court committed reversible error by answering a question from the jury without first consulting the defense attorney and prosecuting attorney." Pearson v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1156a.pdfThe Florida Criminal Defendant was on trial for sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a park and possession of cocaine. While deliberating, the jury asking for a definition for "abiding conviction of guilt" which was a phrase used in the standard jury instructions. The Florida judge went into a lengthy discussion about this phrase and the reasonable doubt standard without first discussing it with counsel for the Florida Criminal Defense Attorney and the State Attorney. Afterwards, he asked the attorneys if they had any objection, and the Florida Criminal Defense Attorney objected.

Rule 3.410, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, states that jury instructions "shall be given and the testimony read only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant." The Florida trial court gave clarification to the jury without affording defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to have input. It was not sufficient that the court later asked if the defense attorney had any objections to the trial court's statements. Therefore, the Florida Criminal Defendant is entitled to a new trial.

Recently, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled on a protective-sweep search of a Florida residence in a Florida Possession of Cocaine, Marijuana, and Paraphernalia case. The Florida Court held that the search of a bedroom was unlawful which occurred during an arrest of a woman, Mary Rogers, in her residence.

In Rogers v. State, the police went to the defendant's house, because a neighbor heard yelling and fighting. Police officers also heard the dispute and knocked on the door. A woman peaked through the window and police heard a man yelling not to open the door. The front door was unlocked, so the police entered, because they were concerned about the safety of the woman.

In the dining room, the officers saw pot in plain view. Upon doing a protective sweep, the cops realized the bedroom door was locked. The defendant, Mary Rogers, refused to open the door. By this time, Ms. Rogers and the other occupants of two other people were either handcuffed or seated at the dining room table. Thereafter, the police jimmied the lock and saw cocaine in an open dresser drawer, along with drug paraphernalia.

At the Motion to Suppress hearing, officers admitted that the bedroom was beyond the reach of the occupants of the residence, and they never asked the people in the house if there was anybody else in the residence before prying open the door. The State Attorney failed to present any evidence that indicated a need for the search of the locked bedroom. Therefore, the marijuana that police discovered in the dining room was lawfully admitted, because police discovered it in a location in which they were permitted. However, the cocaine and paraphernalia discovered in the bedroom should have been suppressed, because police were not permitted to enter the bedroom.

In general, Jacksonville police officers cannot search a house without a warrant. However, there are exceptions to the rule. On exception to the Jacksonville Florida requirement that a warrant is need for a search is the "protective sweep."
When police officers make an arrest in a house, they "may as a 'precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.'" Rogers v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D725b (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)(citing Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 3341990)). This is known as a protective sweep and cannot go any further than necessary to protect the officers from harm. For a protective sweep to go further, "there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene." Buie, 494 U.S. at 334

When the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office conducts a search of a house using the protective sweep exception, it must follow the law as set forth in Florida cases such as Rogers v. State.

Recently, the Florida Third District Court of Appeals reversed a Florida cocaine possession case. The court filed its opinion on December 8, 2010 for Watson v. State (35 Fla. L. Weekly D2717b). Watson was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison for trafficking in cocaine. He was pulled over and the officer found 124.6 grams of cocaine. He testified that he did not know the cocaine was under the the seat and that the car was not his. The officer never testified that he saw Watson hide the bag. During closing arguments, the State argued that it could be inferred from the bag's position that Watson was trying to conceal the cocaine.

In this Florida Cocaine Possession Case, the Florida appellate court ruled that a prosecutor must confine his closing argument to evidence in the record and must not make comments which could not be reasonably inferred from the evidence. The evidence did not inferred that Watson hid the drugs, so the prosecution should not have stated this in the closing argument. The case was reversed.

If you are facing Possession of Cocaine or Trafficking in Cocaine charges in Jacksonville, Florida or the surrounding counties, contact a Jacksonville Possession of Cocaine Lawyer.

In Jacksonville, Possession of Cocaine can be established by actual or constructive possession. Jacksonville constructive possession of cocaine occurs when the drug is in a place over which the Jacksonville criminal defendant has control or in which the he or she has concealed it. If the drug is in a place over which the Jacksonville criminal defendant does not have control, the State must prove his or her (1) control over the cocaine and (2) knowledge that the cocaine was there.

In Jacksonville Possession of Cocaine cases, the Duval County State Attorney's Office will use the circumstances surrounding the encounter that police had with the Jacksonville criminal defendant to prove constructive possession at trial. However, the prosecutor cannot make unreasonable inferences that are not supported by the evidence (See Watson v. State, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2717b (Fla. 3rd DCA, 2010)).

If you are facing Possession of Cocaine charges in Jacksonville, Florida or the surrounding counties, contact a Jacksonville Possession of Cocaine Lawyer.

In many Jacksonville Florida criminal cases, the State Attorney must prove possession. Examples of "possession" crimes are possession of marijuana, cocaine, or other controlled substances. There is also possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Possession can be actual or constructive.

Actual Possession occurs when the Defendant has the item in his hand or on his person, the item is in a container in his hand or on his person, or the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person. Constructive Possession means that the object is in a place that the Defendant has control or in which he has concealed it.

In most criminal "possession" cases, constructive possession is easier to negate. Just because the Defendant is close to the item, this does not mean that he was in possession of it. You must look at the circumstances surrounding the situation to determine if there is constructive possession.

Like many Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorneys, I began my career working at the Duval County Office of the Public Defender in Jacksonville, Florida. I began working as a misdemeanor attorney and was later promoted as a felony attorney. One of my mentors at the office explained to me that the cases in my felony division would not be that different. She told me, "trafficking is the same as possession, but the defendant is just possessing a lot more of the drug." While this is true, there is a big difference: the sentence involved.

For example, in a Jacksonville Trafficking in Cocaine case, a defendant is looking at a minimum mandatory sentence in Florida State Prison which will depend on the amount of cocaine possessed. It can range anywhere from 3 years to life in prison (See Trafficking Sentences).

If you are facing Possession of Cocaine or Trafficking in Cocaine charges in Jacksonville, Florida or the surrounding counties, contact a Jacksonville Possession of Cocaine Lawyer.

In Jacksonville possession of cocaine cases, the prosecutor will often attempt to enter into evidence the fact that the Jacksonville possession of cocaine defendant had a large amount of cash in his possession.  Obviously, this highly prejudicial to the Jacksonville possession of cocaine defendant.  When a defendant is alleged to have illegal drugs and large amounts of cash on his person, most juries will look at the defendant and see a drug dealer.  Evidence of cash in a Jacksonville possession of cocaine case is irrelevant and should not be allowed.  In mere Jacksonville possession of cocaine cases, the defendant is not alleged to have sold the cocaine.  He is merely in possession of the cocaine.  Therefore, the fact that he has a large amount of cash on his person has nothing to do with the possession of cocaine, and is irrelevant.  To learn more about Jacksonville possession of cocaine evidence law, read Mosley v. State or contact a Jacksonville Possession of Cocaine Attorney.