Interrogation

February 18, 2022

What is Civil Theft?

In short, the cause of action of Civil Theft involves the taking of another person’s property without their consent with the intention to deprive the person of their property. There is no distinction in terms of the act of theft between criminal and civil theft. However, the consequences are different and the proof required is also different.

772.11 Civil remedy for theft or exploitation.—

(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured in any fashion by reason of any violation of ss. 812.012–812.037 or s. 825.103(1) has a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Before filing an action for damages under this section, the person claiming injury must make a written demand for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages under this section. If the person to whom a written demand is made complies with such demand within 30 days after receipt of the demand, that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability for the specific act of theft or exploitation by the person making the written demand. Any person who has a cause of action under this section may recover the damages allowed under this section from the parents or legal guardian of any unemancipated minor who lives with his or her parents or legal guardian and who is liable for damages under this section. Punitive damages may not be awarded under this section. The defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney’s fees and costs under this section, the court may not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. This section does not limit any right to recover attorney’s fees or costs provided under any other law.

November 5, 2021

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO WHEN POLICE WANT TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE?

by Law Office of David M. Goldman

Seeing the flashing lights and hearing the siren of a police car behind you while on the road is always scary. In the best cases, these traffic stops are very brief and only involve a short conversation. In other instances, though, the stop may become much more serious, and the officer may at some point tell the driver they want to search the vehicle. If you find yourself in this situation, it is critical that you know what to do and that you understand how to protect your rights. Your Jacksonville criminal defense lawyer can assist you with any illegal search and seizure that you may be subjected to.

Vehicle Searches Under the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects all American citizens from unlawful search and seizure. Before law enforcement searches any property, they must obtain a search warrant to do so. That protection applies to vehicles as well, but drivers may have fewer rights when an officer wants to search their vehicle. The law recognizes that drivers could easily leave the scene if the police officer had to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle. As such, police officers must only have probable cause to search a vehicle during a traffic stop, and they do not need to obtain a warrant.

August 4, 2015

I May Have a Warrant for My Arrest

by David M. Goldman

As a Jacksonville criminal lawyer, I have had many conversations with people who believe they may end up having a warrant issued for their arrest. Sometimes, this conversation comes after law enforcement has completed an investigation; and other times this conversation happens during an active investigation. Either way, contacting a criminal defense lawyer is a good move when there is the chance a warrant could be issued. If you are contacted by law enforcement regarding an investigation, contact the Law Office of David M. Goldman PLLC immediately at (904) 685-1200. Our experienced criminal defense lawyers can help advise you of your rights and the necessary actions to protect yourself. It is also helpful to get a case evaluation based on the facts as early as possible.

Handcuffs1 Often, people who are being investigated want to talk to police to explain things. They wish for the best and hope that they can remove the possibility of an arrest or a warrant being issued. The truth is talking with the investigating detective or officer is almost always a bad idea, if you’re the target. Florida law, under Section 901.15, controls situations that arrests can be made. In general, an officer can only arrest a person for a misdemeanor if the officer sees it happen. There are exceptions. For felony crimes, officers can make an arrest without a warrant whenever there is probable cause. However, in my experience, if officers don’t make an arrest at the time the alleged crime takes place or while in “hot pursuit” of a suspect, officers will usually pursue an arrest warrant.

Talking to a detective or an officer to explain yourself isn’t likely to change his or her mind about the investigation. All too often I have seen situations where the evidence that was used to convict a person was given to law enforcement while the defendant was trying to “explain things” to an officer. Under the 5th amendment you have the right against self incrimination, which basically means you aren’t required to tell on yourself. The right to remain silent incorporated in the Miranda Warning comes from this right. The right to an attorney that you hear of in the Miranda Warning comes from the 6th amendment. You should always exercise these rights. Remaining silent is probably the most valuable right you have. You should immediately tell law enforcement that you’d like to contact your attorney.

February 2, 2015

Shooting : Talking to the Police or Press After a Shooting

by David M. Goldman

In July of 2014, an Arizona homeowner shot and killed one of two intruders who had entered his home in the middle of the night. The homeowner was eighty (80) year old Thomas Greer, who had been assaulted during the home invasion and suffered a broken collar bone, according to ammoland.com. Later, When Greer spoke with reporters regarding the attack and the shooting of the female burglar, Mr. Greer made comments that weren’t the smartest of things to say. In fact, the forensic evidence showed that what Greer told reporters wasn’t even the true about what happened.

What Greer told reporters is that the female told him she was pregnant and begged him not to shoot. He said that he shot her in the back as she ran out into his front yard in an attempt to escape. However, the the forensic evidence showed that the female intruder had been shot once in the chest and once in the knee. The evidence also showed that the woman had been shot inside Greer’s home, and later ran outside. The prosecution made its decision not to charge Greer with the shooting death based what the forensic evidence showed, but it could have easily turned into a situation where Greer could have been in need of a criminal defense lawyer himself.

Greer’s example comes to us from Arizona, but could have easily taken place anywhere in the State of Florida. Under Florida law, specifically Florida Statute 776.013, a person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force when an intruder enters a residence without permission. The law creates a presumption that the person using deadly force in this situation to defend his or home home was reasonable in his or her fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The issue with Mr. Greer’s statements is that the statements have the ability to chip away at the legal presumption of fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Continue reading

August 21, 2014

Police Use Tricks to Get Confessions: Major Reason to Remain Silent

by David M. Goldman

Remaining silent is a right that should be exercised more often by people suspected of committing crimes, but unfortunately, people’s desire to explain themselves and tactics used by police oftentimes overcome a person’s better judgement. The best time to contact a Jacksonville criminal defense attorney is before you’ve talked to the police. In an ideal situation, you should speak with a criminal defense lawyer even before you’re ever arrested.

The U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution, both, protect a person’s right against self-incrimination, meaning that a person can’t be forced to testify against himself or herself. In essence, a person cannot be forced to confess wrongdoing. These provisions are the source of the “Miranda” warnings that you often hear recited to suspects in crime dramas, such as “Law and Order”. The most prominent and important part of the warning is that the suspect has the right to remain silent; remaining silent is a great idea! For you protection, other than basic information like your name, etc, the only thing you should communicate with police about is your desire to have an attorney present.

Clients often think that there is no harm in speaking with an officer or a detective if the client has nothing to hide or hasn’t done anything wrong. The truth is that officers and detectives are searching for any information that can be used to solve the alleged crime, and a confession is the grand prize, even if you don’t realize you’ve confessed.
Continue reading