Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

In a recent possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine case in Florida, the convictions of the defendant on those drug charges were reversed because the state prosecutor was unable to prove that the defendant was in either actual or constructive possession of the drugs.

What constitutes actual possession of drugs in Florida is usually simple. If a person is holding a bag of marijuana in his or her hand or if a person has cocaine in his or her pocket, they are in actual possession of those drugs. However, police often arrest people, and the state often charges people, when drugs are found near a person or in a house or car owned or occupied by a person. In those cases, the police and prosecutors rely on the concept of constructive possession of drugs.

A recent Florida criminal case explains what this means and explains a situation where such charges are improper. In this case, Mr. Robinson lived in a house with three other people. The police searched the house pursuant to a search warrant and found marijuana and cocaine inside a ceramic decoration in the kitchen that had been hollowed out. No fingerprints were taken from the decoration. The police arrested Mr. Robinson, the owner of the house.

Clearly, Mr. Robinson was not in actual possession of the drugs. The police arrested him because he was the owner and relied on the theory that Mr. Robinson was in constructive possession of the drugs. This means that he knew the drugs were in his house and had the ability and authority to exercise control over the drugs. When the state is relying on constructive possession, they usually have to prove that the defendant knew the drugs were there and had the authority to control them with independent evidence. They cannot just show that the defendant lived in or owned the house or even was close to the drugs, especially when other people also live there. Examples of the extra proof the state needs is a statement from the defendant or a witness tying the defendant to those drugs or a situation where the drugs were found immediately near the defendant in plan view, not hidden.

In the Robinson case, the state could only prove that Mr. Robinson owned and lived in the house. The drugs were concealed so that a person would not know they were in the decoration just because the person was in the house. There was no specific evidence that Mr. Robinson put the drugs in the ceramic decoration or even knew they were there. There was nothing concrete tying him to the drugs, and the state could not prove he was in constructive possession of those drugs. As a result, his conviction was reversed.

Posted by Shorstein & Lasnetski | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

In Jacksonville, (Duval County) Florida, the crime of copper theft is increasing significantly, according to a recent article from First Coast News. Copper theft typically occurs when a person steals or breaks open air conditioning units in buildings and homes and steals the copper out of the units. That valuable copper is then resold for approximately $4 per pound.

Judging by the number of Jacksonville Sheriff's Office police reports, there are several incidents of copper theft each week in the Jacksonville area because the crime is fairly easy to commit and the fruits of the crime are in high demand. Additionally, copper theft is currently classified as a misdemeanor in Florida which means that the maximum jail sentence if a person is convicted of the crime is 12 months.

However, in an effort to reduce the frequency of these crimes along with the often significant cost of the damage to homes and buildings that often accompany copper theft, the Florida legislature is working towards making copper theft a first degree felony which would subject people convicted of copper theft to potentially spending multiple years in prison and other penalties.

Posted by Shorstein & Lasnetski | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Theft Crimes

Bookmark:

Federal government paid contractors are the target of federal legislation currently being considered by Congress. Specifically, Congress is considering several bills that would restrict contractors from doing business with the U.S. government if they have not paid their taxes. Contractors with the federal government are paid over $400 billion per year.

The U.S. government estimates that there are thousands of companies who are delinquent in paying their taxes. This represents over $7 billion in money owed to the U.S. government. There is currently no system in place for the U.S. government to identify which customers who want to do business with the government are among those companies who have not paid their taxes. In order to identify those potential contractors who have not paid their taxes, Congress is considering a law that would require all companies bidding on a federal contract to submit a declaration that the company is current with their tax obligations. The proposed law would also bar any company that is delinquent in the payment of their taxes from being awarded a government contract. The proposed standard for disqualifying a company from contracting with the federal government is whether the IRS has filed a tax lien against the company. Therefore, companies with fairly insignificant amounts owed to the IRS would still likely be eligible to contract with the federal government if a tax lien is not likely to be filed against them.

Additionally, to prevent companies contracting with the federal government from setting up shell companies in foreign companies that act as the employer for the contractor so they can avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, a proposed bill would treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies contracting with the federal government as U.S. companies for which are required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Finally, one other bill being proposed would require contractors doing business with the U.S. government to disclose the identities of, and compensation for, their executives and make this information available to the public.

Posted by Shorstein & Lasnetski | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Federal Crimes

Bookmark:

The Florida legislature has made it a crime (punishable by up to 15 years) to traffic in, or endeavor to traffic in, property that you know, or should know, is stolen. The key words here are "should know." The State doesn't have to prove that you actually did know the property was stolen, only that you should have known.

The common Dealing in Stolen Property case arises when a person pawns property at a local pawn shop. If that property has been reported stolen in a recent (or even distant) burglary, the person that pawned the property is generally arrested for dealing in stolen property, regardless of whether there is any nexus between the burglary and the pawning.

The problem with the prosecution is that there generally is a lack of evidence concerning whether the person that pawned the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen. Most property does not come with a tag that reads "Stolen." For example, you cannot tell whether a lawn mower is stolen by simply looking at it. Ownership of property can legally change hands with nothing more than a handshake. For example, Mr. Smith certainly can give Mr. Jones his lawn mower to pay off a debt that he owes Mr. Jones. And Mr. Jones can certainly pawn that lawnmower to recover the money that he loaned Mr. Smith.

So how does the State prove that the pawning person knew or should have known that the property was stolen? They generally rely on the time frame between when the property could have been taken and when the property was pawned. The shorter that time frame, the more likely it is that the person that pawned the property knew or should have known that it was stolen. The chink in the armor of this reasoning is that it is based on speculation. The State is speculating about what happened between the theft and the pawning. It is entirely reasonable that the property changed hands several times between the theft and the pawning.

Dealing in Stolen Property cases are often prosecuted with little investigation done by the law enforcement agencies. Once the police determine that property has been taken in a burglary and that the property was later pawned, an arrest is made and the case is turned over to the State Attorney's Office for prosecution.

Posted by Shorstein & Lasnetski | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Theft Crimes

Bookmark: