Search and Seizure

July 17, 2011

United State Supreme Court Rules that Juvenile Criminal Defendant’s Constitutional Rights Were Violated

In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011), a uniformed officer questioned a 12-year-old boy at school about a string of local burglaries. The officer told the boy he was free to leave, but also told him that a court could order juvenile detention. The school’s assistant principal told the boy to “do the right thing.” Eventually, he confessed to the burglaries. At trial, the boy’s lawyer argued that the confession was essentially coerced due to the boy’s age and the circumstances surrounding the questioning. The state courts in Florida held that the boy was not in detention, because he was free to leave. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the child’s age is relevant. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, children are required by law to go to school and are often subject to discipline for disobedience. Students are therefore much more likely to believe that they are obligated to answer police questions. Therefore, Miranda warnings are required in order to inform students that they do not have to answer police questions and can contact an attorney.

If you or your child has been subject to police questioning, you should contact a Jacksonville Defense Attorney to discuss the case.

July 16, 2011

Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Suspects are Entitled to Warnings Before Being Questioned by School Campus Police Officers

by David M. Goldman

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer, I have represented juveniles that were questioned by police officers in their schools. Recently, in a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue. For the first time, the Court ruled that children questioned by police in school must be given Miranda rights before questioning. The Supreme Court released its decision in In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011), on June 16, 2011 (See United State Supreme Court Rules that Juvenile Criminal Defendant’s Constitutional Rights Were Violated by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer).

May 1, 2011

Florida Appellate Court Rules the that Search of a Florida House was Unconstitutional

by David M. Goldman

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.

April 30, 2011

Is Searching a Jacksonville House Without a Warrant Constitutional?

by David M. Goldman

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, 334 (1990)). 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.

April 3, 2011

Florida Court Declares that Florida DUI Stop was Valid

by David M. Goldman

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals heard a Florida DUI appeal and ruled that the stop of the driver was valid. In State v. Gentry, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D534a (Fla. 5th DCA March 10, 2011), the trial court granted the Florida DUI defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that was seized during a Florida DUI traffic stop.

The police officers saw the car stopped at 4:00 a.m. at a four-way stop for 20 minutes. The driver, Gentry, had his head down. When an officer tried to approach the vehicle, Gentry tried to drive off. Officers followed him and pulled him over. They held him the back of the patrol car when they determined that he did not have a valid license. Police officers searched the car, found drugs, and confirmed that the car was stolen.

The Florida appellate court ruled that an officer is justified in stopping a vehicle to determine the reason for the vehicle’s unusual operation. If an officer observes a vehicle operating in an unusual manner, there may be justification for a stop even when there is no violation of vehicular regulations and no citation is issued. The officer may be determining if the driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence. In this Florida DUI case, the Florida court held that the officer’s suspicion that Gentry was impaired or ill was reasonable and justified the stop. Since the car was stolen, Gentry did not possess standing to challenge the search of the vehicle (Read Search of a Stolen Car in Jacksonville Vehicle Theft Cases).

April 2, 2011

Jacksonville Police Stop and Search Vehicles in Grand Theft Auto Cases

by David M. Goldman

In Jacksonville Grand Theft Auto Cases, police officers will often stop and search the vehicle involved. The law is well-established that “the driver of a stolen automobile [has] no right to challenge the search of the stolen vehicle because he [does] not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle.” Florida v. Singleton, 595 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1992) (Read Search of a Stolen Car in Jacksonville Vehicle Theft Cases). However, this does not mean that the driver cannot challenge the search or seizure of his person. In Nelson v. State, 578 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1991), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the driver had standing to challenge his stop. The Court “recognized the distinction between the seizure of property in which the defendant did not have a possessory interest and the seizure of a person.” Singleton, 595 So. 2d at 45. Therefore, in Jacksonville Grand Theft Auto cases, even if the driver cannot challenge the search of the stolen car, he can attack the initial stop of the car.

If you have been charged with a crime in Jacksonville, Florida or the surrounding areas, it is important to speak with an Jacksonville Criminal Attorney about any stop or search that occurred in your case.

April 1, 2011

Search of a Stolen Car in Jacksonville Vehicle Theft Cases

by David M. Goldman

As a Jacksonville Grand Theft Auto Attorney, I have seen a fair share of Jacksonville Grand Theft Auto Cases. In most of the cases that I have handled, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office attempts to stop the vehicle. Quite often, the suspect runs from the vehicle. When this occurs, the Jacksonville criminal defendant is charged with Jacksonville fleeing and attempting to elude an officer and Jacksonville grand theft auto. Police will usually search the stolen vehicle.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in order for the driver of a vehicle to have standing to challenge the search of a vehicle, “he or she must show a proprietary or possessory interest in the area of search or that there are other factors which create an expectation of privacy which society is willing to recognize as reasonable.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The driver of a stolen car cannot challenge the search of the car. The Florida Supreme Court confirmed this ruling in State v. Singleton, 595 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1992). Recently, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals held in accordance with this law in State v. Gentry, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D534a (Fla. 5th DCA, March 11, 2011).

March 15, 2011

Exceptions to the Florida Warrant Requirement when Searching a Car in St. John’s County Florida

by David M. Goldman

Note: This article is a continuation of St. John’s County Florida Counterfeit Currency Bust and Stop and Search of St. John’s County Florida Criminal Defendant’s Vehicle by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer.

When examining a St. John’s County Florida Counterfeit Currency Arrest, or any other criminal case that involves the stop and search of a vehicle, a St. John’s County Criminal Attorney should evaluate the search and seizure. Did the St. John’s County Police Department have probable cause to stop the vehicle? This will be based on the description of the vehicle and the knowledge that they had prior to stopping the vehicle. If so, did the police have grounds to search the vehicle? In order for a police officer to search an person’s vehicle, the officer must have a warrant or be entitled to search under an exception to the Florida warrant requirement. The exceptions to the warrant requirement include the following:

a search incident to a lawful arrest;

March 15, 2011

Stop and Search of St. John’s County Florida Criminal Defendant’s Vehicle

by David M. Goldman

St. John’s County Police stopped a vehicle in connection with a Counterfeit Currency allegation based on a tip from an employee at the St. Augustine outlet mall (See St. John’s County Florida Counterfeit Currency Bust by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer). As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer, I became suspicious as to whether the police actually stopped the correct vehicle. After all, a Ford Explorer is a popular SUV. However, the media reports state that:

“Investigators said the driver allowed them to search the vehicle, and they found numerous $5 bills, along with a printer and equipment that is used to wash ink from bills, and other counterfeiting equipment. Deputies said they also found several counterfeit $100 bills and property bought with the fake bills.”

Since this evidence is very damaging to the defense, a St. Johns Criminal Defense Attorney will examine the case in great detail to see if there are grounds for a motion to suppress the evidence that police found based on an unlawful stop or seizure (See Exceptions to the Florida Warrant Requirement when Searching a Car in St. John’s County Florida by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer).

March 15, 2011

St. John’s County Florida Counterfeit Currency Bust

by David M. Goldman

Two men were arrested yesterday for passing counterfeit currency in St. Augustine, Florida. Georgia residents, Karl Hollingsworth and Dennis James, were booked into the St. John’s County Jail and charged with Florida Possession of Counterfeit Currency, Florida Possession of Tools for Forgery Counterfeiting, and Passing a Forged Bill. This stems from the accusation that James passed an altered $100 bill at the St. Augustine Outlet Mall. However, they were not stopped at this Florida mall. Instead, an employee of one of the stores followed their vehicle to the International Golf Parkway. Local media reports that the employee lost the vehicle as it turned South on Interstate 95. The employee gave a description of the vehicle, a Ford Explorer, to the Florida St. John’s County Police Department.

Was the stop of this vehicle in St. John’s County, Florida lawful? Read Stop and Search of St. John’s County Florida Criminal Defendant’s Vehicle by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer.