Search and Seizure

July 18, 2014

Police Use False 911 Calls to Trick People into Consenting to Warrantless Searches

According to a recent article by policestateusa.com, police officers in Durham, North Carolina routinely lie to gain access to homes in search of wanted suspects. The “tactic is apparently legal–and commonplace – according to an officer’s sworn statements”, writes a policestateusa.com staff journalist.

An officer from the Durham Police Department admitted recently, under oath, that he told a resident at a private home in Durham that he was investigating a 911 hang up call in order to gain access to the private home. In reality, the officer was there to serve an arrest warrant on an occupant of the home.

How would this type of conduct by law enforcement hold up in Florida? Would this type of conduct be considered an unreasonable search or seizure under the U.S. Constitution or the Florida Constitution? Jacksonville criminal defense lawyers, along with defense attorneys throughout the state, are often faced with answering these types of questions in defense of their clients.
Continue reading

July 5, 2012

Another Meth Lab Located at a Jacksonville Motel 6!!

by David M. Goldman

This incident of a Meth Lab at a Motel 6 will be the third incident where JSO were dispatched to a Jacksonville Motel 6 and the resulting investigation turned up a Meth Lab.

JSO were dispatched to a Motel 6 on the Northside of Jacksonville around 1 AM this morning. Upon arrival the security officer notified JSO that the occupants of the motel room had fled the scene. The Security officer also notified JSO that he has inspected the room and located a smoking bottle with an unknown substance inside. JSO responding by sending in the fire-rescue team, bomb squad, and a chemical specialist to investigate the motel room and the items contained within.

To date the suspects are still at large and JSO is continuing to investigate. As a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney, these stories are not unusual or bizarre. These tough economic times have driven some individuals to take drastic measures that they normally would not consider. These individuals are not hardened criminals, but victims of these tough economic times.

April 19, 2012

Cocaine and Cash Seized after Traffic Stop; Potential Probable Cause Issue.

by David M. Goldman

A recent Jacksonville news article stuck my attention from the lack of details and the questions the article bring to my mind. As a San Marco Criminal Defense Attorney, I review arrest reports and news articles relating to Jacksonville Criminal law and analyze them as if they were my potential clients. This is just the case regarding the arrest and booking of George Walters, 21.

In this incident, police pulled over Walters for what is stated as a “felony traffic” stop on Monday. Then article then states the Officers searched his vehicle following his arrest. It was during this subsequent search that police were able to locate two bags of cocaine, money, and a semi-automatic pistol. Walters was then taken to Duval County Jail on charges of armed trafficking in cocaine and possession. Both Jacksonville charges are felonies and carry very heavy penalties.

Analyzing this case, given the limited facts, as if a Walters was a potential client I would have several issues with the Police procedure and whether or not they had valid Probable Cause to search the vehicle following Walters arrest. First, a search incident to arrest of the vehicle is no longer applicable following a recent Supreme Court Decision. The new law under Gates, only permits the search of the vehicle follow an arrest if the suspect can still gain access to the interior of the vehicle or the police believe there is evidence of the offense the suspect was pulled over for inside the vehicle. For example, if pulled over for speeding and arrested for no valid license, the police would not have the ability to search the vehicle if you were already in handcuffs. Also, the police could not search the vehicle on the premise to prevent the destruction of other evidence of the offense (because there is not any). Just a reminder to San Marco Criminal Defendants, if you give the police consent this negates all the defenses to an invalid search and seizure.

February 6, 2012

Jose Ferrer v. State: Jacksonville Consent, Search, and Seizure

by David M. Goldman

The 2nd DCA recently heard the case of Jose Ferrer v. State of Florida over the issue of whether the Defendant’s consent to enter the gate of his property and to talk about criminal activity permitted the Officers to walk behind the house, up the stairs, and therefore smelling marijuana. The Court ruled the search was not withing the confines of the 4th and 14th amendments and therefore reversed the Defendant’s conviction.

The Court based its conclusions upon the premise that searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable unless conducted within a recognized exception. The Court went further and stated Consent is one such exception to the warrant requirement. However, the Court noted when a Consent search is conducted the scope of such search must remain within the confines of the consent given. The scope is based upon an objective reasonableness standard; what would a typical person understand the scope to be when giving permission to the Officers. In this case, the Officers approached the Defendant who was located behind the locked and electrified gate at his house. The Officers proceeded to ask permission to talk with him on the other side of the gate. The Defendant complied. However, when inside two officers proceeded behind the house and smelled the aroma of marijuana.

The Court concluded the Officers actions taken after permission given to enter and talk were unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court concluded a typical person’s consent to enter and talk would not authorize Officer’s to roam about the property without a warrant. Therefore, the Defendant’s conviction was reversed.

December 26, 2011

Can Consent to Search overcome an Illegal initial Search?

by David M. Goldman

In a recent case, Rozzo v. State of Florida, the 4th District Court heard an appeal from the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County. The issue presented before the court was whether the consent given by the homeowners after and unlawful warrantless entry and protective sweep of the home was valid and therefore the defendant’s motion to suppress should be denied.

The issue arose after the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered inside the house following his arrest. In this case, the defendant sold drugs to an undercover officer on the street by his house. The officers arrested the defendant on the street. The officers then moved to the house, owned by the defendant’s parents. The officers proceeded to order the parents to stay outside during the “protective sweep.” Then the officers got a signed Consent form to search the house. The search revealed other drug related items in the defendant’s bedroom.

The U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment has established a high reasonable expectation of privacy regarding one’s home. Furthermore, Florida Courts have established absent consent or exigent circumstances, police may not enter a home without a warrant. Additionally, Florida Courts have only permitted a “protective sweep” if the officers have reasonable, articulable suspicion to protect the safety of the officers or to prevent the destruction of evidence.

December 23, 2011

Model Arrested for Attempting to Smuggle Cocaine through the Airport

by David M. Goldman

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.

September 2, 2011

Florida Courts Rule on Automobile Searches Using Drug Dogs

by David M. Goldman

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.

September 1, 2011

Jacksonville Florida K9 Drug Search of Vehicles

by David M. Goldman

In Jacksonville, police often use trained drug detection dogs to detect illegal drugs in vehicles. Usually, the canine (K9) walks around the vehicle and signals if it senses the illegal substance. Then, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office will search the vehicle. When a Jacksonville drug detection dog search is conducted, police officers must comply with certain procedures and standards.

Jacksonville Florida is in the First District. In April of 2011, the Florida Supreme Court addressed a First District Court case regarding K9 searches (See Harris v. Florida, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S163a). The Florida Supreme Court stated:

“The issue of when a dog’s alert provides probable cause for a search hinges on the dog’s reliability as a detector of illegal substances within the vehicle. We hold that the State may establish probable cause by demonstrating that the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the dog to be reliable based on the totality of the circumstances. Because a dog cannot be cross-examined like a police officer on the scene whose observations often provide the basis for probable cause to search a vehicle, the State must introduce evidence concerning the dog’s reliability. In this case, we specifically address the question of what evidence the State must introduce in order to establish the reasonableness of the officer’s belief — in other words, what evidence must be introduced in order for the trial court to adequately undertake an objective evaluation of the officer’s belief in the dog’s reliability as a predicate for determining probable cause.”

July 22, 2011

Florida Police Without Reading Miranda Warnings Properly but Questioning was Constitutional

by David M. Goldman

A Florida man was charged and convicted of felon in possession of a firearm. In Powell v. Florida, this Florida Criminal Defendant was arrested in the apartment in which the gun was found and taken to the police station where Florida police officers questioned him. Police officers testified that Powell stated that the gun was his.

The United States Supreme Court held that:

“Criminal suspects have a right to have their lawyer present during police questioning, and the police are required to inform suspects of that right as part of their “Miranda warning.” In this case, police officers told a suspect that he had “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering [any] questions” and “[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.” The Court held that even though this warning did not specifically mention the right to have a lawyer present during questioning (as opposed to the right to talk to the lawyer before questioning), the warning nonetheless was constitutional because it conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to have an attorney present.”

July 18, 2011

Miranda Warnings and the Right to an Attorney in Jacksonville, Florida

by David M. Goldman

If you are arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, you have certain rights provided by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held, in Miranda v. Arizona, that police must inform persons in custody that they have the right to remain silent, anything that they can be used against them, they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and an attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one. These are known as Miranda Warnings.

If police do not comply with Miranda warnings when arresting a person in Jacksonville, Florida, a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney may be able to suppress (throw out) any statements made by the Jacksonville Criminal Defendant. However, there are exceptions to this rule which can be found in other Supreme Court rulings, such as Florida v. Powell, 130 S.Ct. 1195 (2010).