Recently in Search and Seizure Category

July 10, 2010

Jacksonville Florida Arrest: When is a Jacksonville Criminal Defendant "In Custody"

In Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer must have probable cause to arrest a person. However, police can conduct a consensual encounter with an individual without probable cause. Therefore, it is very important to review any kind of police contact to determine if it is a consensual encounter or illegal police detention.

For example, the Florida Supreme Court visited this issue on July 8, 2010. In

Caldwell v. Florida, an officer accused Mr. Caldwell of Florida Burglary. The officer read him his Miranda rights, after which Caldwell asked if he was under arrest. The officer stated that he was not under arrest but the officer needed to ask him some questions. The officer asked Caldwell to ride with him to view the surveillance tape where the burglary took place, and Caldwell agreed. The officer frisked Mr. Cadwell, prior to him entering the car. After arriving at the site of the burglary, but before he saw the tape, Caldwell confessed to the officer.

The Supreme Court of Florida held that Miranda warnings do not result in a seizure as a matter of law. Instead, when it comes to a 4th Amendment seizure analysis, a Miranda warning should be analyzed through the totality of the circumstances and not be the dispositive factor in that analysis.

The Court set forth the following four-factors to determine whether a reasonable person would consider himself to be in custody under the totality of the circumstances:

  1. The manner in which the police summon the suspect for questioning;
  2. The purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation;
  3. The extent that the suspect is confronted with evidence of guilt; and
  4. Whether the suspect is informed that he is free to leave.

If you have been arrest in Jacksonville, Florida, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer at (904) 685-1200, extension 103.  Your arrest may have been based on a violation of your 4th Amendment rights.  

Bookmark and Share
December 22, 2009

Florida Search and Seizure: Mere Possession of a Weapon is Not Grounds to Search

Unreasonable searches and seizures are unconstitutional. If a police officer violates this prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures, any evidence that was found due to such violation can be suppressed. Therefore, the evidence cannot be introduced at trial.

In Florida, there are three types of police encounters:

  1. a consensual encounter in which a person is free to leave at any time;
  2. a investigatory stop (Terry Stop) in which the person is not free to leave, but the police officer may only pat the subject down and the officer must have a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity; and
  3. an arrest that is supported by probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred (or is being committed).  
Recently, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals addressed this issue.  In Regalado v. State, an anonymous tipster informed police that Mr. Regalado was in possession of a firearm.  An officer stopped Mr. Regalado and patted him down.  As a result, he founded a gun on Mr. Regalado.  Mr. Regalado filed a Motion to Suppress the weapon due to an unlawful search and seizure.  The trial denied Mr. Regalado's motion.  The Florida appellate court reversed this decision and granted his motion.  The court ruled that:

"the only information received by the officer was that the individual had a gun.  Possession of a gun is not illegal in Florida.  Even if it is concealed, it is not illegal if the carrier has obtained a concealed weapons permit.  Although the officer observed a bulge in Regalado's waistband, which in his experience looked like a gun, no facts and circumstances were presented to show that Regalado's carrying a concealed weapon was without a permit and thus illegal."

Since the officer did not have a well-founded suspicion that the Defendant was involved in criminal activity, he did not have grounds to conduct an involuntary search and seizure.  When a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, it is important to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search or seizure.  If you believe that you have been subjected to such, you should contact a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney to discuss your rights.  A Jacksonville Criminal Attorney that has experience suppressing evidence recovered due to unlawful searches and seizures can investigate whether your rights were violated.  


Bookmark and Share
December 16, 2009

Can You Be Stopped for a Cracked Windshield in Florida?

Is a police officer permitted to stop a driver with a cracked windshield in Florida? It depends. A Florida driver can be stopped problems with a windshield if the windshield violates a provision listed in Florida Statute Section 316.2952 or Section 316.610.  A cracked windshield would be covered in Section 316.610.  However, a stop is only permissible under this Section if the crack poses a safety hazard.  This would make the vehicle unsafe and allows the officer to stop the driver, because he has a particularized and objective basis to believe that the driver is violating the law.  

On the other hand, if the windshield does not create a safety hazard, the officer does not have reason to stop the driver.  In

Hilton v. State, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that marijuana seized as a result of a stop pursuant to Section 316.610 was obtained illegally.  The court held that there was no evidence to establish that the crack in Hilton's windshield rendered his vehicle unsafe.  Thus, there was no evidence to support an objectively reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was unsafe and in violation of the statute.  

Like Mr. Hilton, criminal defendants are often stopped because of traffic infractions, such as a cracked windshield, in Florida.  While some stops may be legitimate, others are not.  Therefore, it is important to have a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney review the facts surrounding the stop to determine if a motion to suppress should be filed based on an illegal stop.   

Bookmark and Share
April 22, 2009

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Vehicle Searches

In the recent United States Supreme Court decision, Arizona v. Gant, the Court limited a police officer's ability to search a criminal defendant's vehicle.  Prior to this ruling, there was a debate as to whether police officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle when an occupant of the vehicle is arrested.  This is known as a search incident to arrest, which allows police officers to search a vehicle without a warrant.  In Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement may conduct a search of a vehicle incident to arrest only in two situations:

  1. At the time of the search, the defendant is within reaching distance of the interior of the vehicle, or
  2. the officers have a reasonable belief that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the defendant is being arrested.
The Gant case is a push in the right direction to protect everyone's 4th amendment rights as applied to the State of Florida via the 14th amendment.  As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Attorney, I have seen many cases that were dismissed due to unlawful searches and seizures.  When a Jacksonville police officer conducts an unlawful search of a defendant's vehicle, he is violating the defendant's constitutional rights.  The proper remedy is to suppress any evidence that the Jacksonville police officer found in violation of the such rights.  

The Gant case will be extremely favorable to any Jacksonville criminal defendant that was subject to a search incident to arrest of his vehicle.  For more information about Jacksonville searches and seizures contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer at (904) 685-1200.
Bookmark and Share