Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

In a recent drug case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police received a call that a black male wearing a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers was selling drugs beside a particular road. Police responded to the area and saw the defendant who met the general description. However, the police did not observe the defendant selling drugs or doing anything else that appeared to be illegal. One police officer drove right up to the defendant and put his spotlight on him while the other police officer asked the defendant some questions including permission to search the defendant for illegal drugs. The defendant emptied his pockets, and the police recovered a bag with cocaine inside. The defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine.

This was a bad search, and the criminal defense lawyer was able to file a motion to suppress the evidence that resulted in the evidence of the cocaine being thrown out. Every person has a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means the police cannot just approach someone in an intimidating manner giving the impression that the person cannot leave and request a search for drugs or anything else. Likewise, the police cannot detain or search a person based on an anonymous tip of illegal activity if the police do not verify that the person is actually engaged in any illegal activity.

In this case, the police received an anonymous tip that someone was selling drugs. They found the person described in the tip, but the police officers did not see any evidence of illegal activity. When they drove up to the defendant, shined the spotlight on him and started interrogating him, that was considered a detention. Since the police did not have any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was doing anything illegal, it was an illegal detention and any cocaine or other evidence found by the police during the illegal detention was thrown out of court and the possession of cocaine charge was ultimately dropped.

In a recent asset forfeiture case involving a client of the criminal defense and litigation law firm of Shorstein & Lasnetski, LLC, the state attorney's office in South Florida agreed to return approximately $2.5 million of forfeited funds to the client, which constitute approximately 90% of the funds originally seized by the state.

In this case, Shorstein & Lasnetski's client was a legitimate business in South Florida. The company was operating normally when the president learned that its main operating account had been frozen by law enforcement officials. The company was constantly ordering merchandise and paying vendors so that operating account was crucial for the normal operation of its business on a daily basis. However, with no notice of any kind, the state severely handicapped the business by seizing, and freezing, that account. The terms of the seizure allowed funds to be deposited into the bank account, but no money could be taken from that account. As a result, the company was at risk of bouncing checks to customers and vendors and was unable to make the regular payments required to make payroll and run the business.

After the initial sabotage of the company's bank account, we learned that the state was accusing the company and its president of money laundering and money structuring. Money laundering occurs when a person or company obtains money that comes from an illegitimate source (such as drug money) and runs that dirty money through a business and mixes it with the business's legitimate stream of income in a bank account in order to hide the source of the money, or clean it. Money structuring occurs when a person or company receives cash in excess of $10,000 and breaks that cash into lesser amounts to avoid the financial reporting requirement. When a business receives cash in an amount greater than $10,000, that business is required to prepare and file a form 8300 which provides identification information about the person providing the cash. The purpose of this requirement is to provide information to the government about people dealing in large amounts of cash so they can investigate the source of the cash. If a company receives $12,000 in cash from a customer and deposits $7,000 one day at one bank branch and $5,000 another day at a different branch, that is money structuring if it is done to avoid the financial reporting requirement.

In any case, the Shorstein & Lasnetski, LLC client was a business that sold its merchandise internationally. It sold tens of millions of dollars worth of products yearly to customers all over the world. The state was tipped off by the customer's bank that the client was receiving cash in varying amounts under $10,000 at bank branches in different locations. Based on this evidence, the state decided to seize the client's entire bank account without regard for how much money was in the account and what that might do to the business.

After a long course of litigation, it was determined that the state had very little to support the seizure and attempted forfeiture of the client's bank account. The state made blanket allegations of money laundering but could not provide any evidence that the seized funds came from any illegitimate or illegal source or that anyone in the company was aware of any drug or other illegal activity by any customers. This, however, is a requirement if the state seeks to prove that the company was laundering money. The state also made blanket allegations of money structuring based solely on the denominations of the money deposited in the company's bank account without any evidence of who deposited the money and whether the various deposits came from separate customers and transactions which would be a defense to structuring. Additionally, the state did not consider that the company had met the majority of its reporting requirements with regard to the seized funds.

For a majority of the $3 million dollars seized by the state, it was shown that the state could not prove it had any connection to drug money, money laundering or money structuring. For the small remainder of the funds seized, there was evidence of deposits into the company's bank account that were just under $10,000 but no evidence that the deposits were broken down from amounts greater than $10,000 with the intent to avoid the reporting requirements. It was clear that the state intended to strong-arm the company into a quick settlement by seizing and attempting to forfeit as much money as possible thereby crippling the company and scaring it into thinking the state had a valid money laundering and money structuring case. This appears to happen often in South Florida. However, fortunately, the company was run well enough that it was able to survive the temporary seizure of its operating account and the longer but still temporary seizure of the almost $3 million in that operating account. Once the company decided to put up a fight and shine a light on the state's (lack of) evidence, it was determined that the state had significant holes in its case and theory. The case was ultimately resolved favorably with the large majority of its money was returned.

However, at the end of the day, it was very troubling to see a state law enforcement agency go after a legitimate business in such a way with so little evidence of any wrongdoing. We imagine this probably happens often, and when it happens on a smaller scale with less money involved, the companies probably settle the forfeiture action quickly as it may be easier and more cost effective than fighting the forfeiture for a year or two. In other words, the government is probably often successful in squeezing money out of legitimate companies who settle on unfavorable terms because they are too worried about the potential consequences, need to settle to keep their business running or decide not to incur the expense of litigation for a year or two to fight the government.

In a recent criminal case near Jacksonville, Florida where the defendant was charged with marijuana manufacturing and cocaine possession charges, the case was ultimately thrown out because it was found that the police searched the defendant's home and found the drugs based on an improper search warrant. In this case, the police received an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing marijuana and had a quantity of cocaine in his home. The tip also provided certain information about the defendant's identity, home and place of employment. The police were able to confirm the details about the defendant's identity, vehicle, home and job. However, the police did not corroborate any details that indicated the defendant was growing marijuana plants, had cocaine in his home or was actually doing anything illegal.

The police obtained a search warrant and found marijuana plants, fluorescent lights, a generator, digital scales, guns, cocaine and other drug paraphernalia in the home. The defendant was arrested for manufacturing marijuana, possession of cocaine and other charges.

The criminal defense lawyer was able to have the evidence of the drugs, guns and drug paraphernalia thrown out because the search warrant was improper. The police are allowed to search a person's home for drugs or other evidence of a crime with a search warrant only if the search warrant is valid. A search warrant that is based on information in an anonymous tip is not valid if there is no indication that the police corroborated any of the incriminating information in the tip. It is not enough for the police to corroborate general, easily obtained information about the tip, such as a description of a person or vehicle, an address or a place of employment. The police have to actually corroborate some fact that indicates the suspect is committing a crime. Without that corroboration, the anonymous tip of illegal activity is not sufficiently reliable, and any search warrant based on that tip will be invalid.

The United States Supreme Court ruled recently that supervisors at work may read an employee's text messages if they think the employee may be violating work rules. The case stemmed from a situation in California where a police chief read thousands of text messages between a sergeant on the police force and his wife. The texts were sent on a pager that was issued to employees by the police department. The police chief said he searched and read the employee's text messages because he suspected employees of using the pagers for personal use rather than purely work purposes.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We often see the Fourth Amendment come into play when police officers search people, their vehicles, their homes and other belongings. Of course, this protection applies to people as they work in government jobs, but it does not extend to searches conducted by private employers in the private sector.

In this case, the Court found that the search was reasonable because the search was for a legitimate work-related purpose. This opinion establishes that the Fourth Amendment does protect public employees from unreasonable searches and seizures by employers and supervisors. It also establishes that a search of one's allegedly private text messages or emails may be reasonable and valid if the employer has a policy against using a government-issue pager, cell phone or computer for personal reasons.

As criminal defense lawyers in Jacksonville, Florida, we can see how this ruling may have an effect on criminal cases. If a person works at a government job, that employee may be susceptible to having his/her computer, cell phone or pager searched if the employer suspects the employee of violating office policies regarding the use of those items. We have seen cases where such a search becomes the beginning of a criminal case depending on what is found on that equipment. If incriminating evidence is found and an arrest results, the criminal defense attorney can still file the appropriate motion to suppress to have any such evidence illegally obtained thrown out of court.

The federal government recently announced the results of a concentrated effort to arrest, prosecute and seek financial penalties from people across the country for financial crimes, including a specific emphasis on mortgage fraud cases. As we have stated several times on our criminal defense lawyer blog, the federal government (and the local state attorney's office to a lesser extent) has significantly increased its focus on mortgage fraud and other financial crimes cases in light of the drastic decline in the value of real estate and the bailouts of financial companies. According to the government's press release, the government's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (which is responsible for criminal investigations and civil enforcement of mortgage fraud and other financial crimes cases) has made 485 arrests over the last few months that relate to more than $2.85 billion in losses.

Based on comments by the Obama administration and the fact that mortgage fraud, real estate issues and bank problems continue to be hot topics in the news, we can expect the government to continue to focus its efforts and resources on mortgage fraud and other financial crime cases.

A couple from Fleming Island in Clay County, Florida was arrested for allegedly throwing a party with underaged kids and alcohol according to an article on Firstcoastnews.com. According to law enforcement, the Clay County couple threw a graduation party at their home at which underaged kids were drinking. Pictures of the party and the kids drinking were apparently posted on Facebook which helped lead to the arrests.

As litigation lawyers who handle all types of litigation cases including criminal defense, personal injury/wrongful death and business litigation, we have seen how people can get themselves into trouble by divulging information over the internet that is later used against them. People need to understand that an emails, a text messages and anything posted on a website are not private. If another person can access it, that can later be used against the person by police and in court by the other party. Whether it is a picture of a plaintiff in a personal injury case engaging in some activity that his/her injuries were supposed to preclude or a statement that incriminates the defendant in a criminal case, any such thing sent out over the internet can become critical evidence.

The best course of action is to consider whether you would want a police officer, an employer, a prosecutor, a judge or any other person(s) to see the information before sending it in an email or text or posting it on a website.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that legal immigrants should not be automatically deported after being convicted of minor drug crimes, although federal authorities may classify a second minor drug offense as an aggravated felony. Under federal law, legal immigrants are supposed to be deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony. The question then is: what is considered an aggravated felony? In the past, under federal immigration law, federal authorities were able to characterize a second minor drug crime like possession of marijuana or possession of a small amount of pills as an aggravated felony, and deportation proceedings were initiated. However, the USSC has ruled that minor drug crimes where defendants typical receive probation or a minimal jail sentence were not intended to be aggravated felonies. Felonies are defined as more serious crimes for which a person can be imprisoned for at least one year.

This Supreme Court ruling does not mean that no legal immigrant convicted of relatively minor drug crimes will be deported. What it does mean is that deportation proceedings should not be automatic for minor drug convictions because a second minor drug conviction should not be characterized as an aggravated felony. However, it is certainly still possible that a legal immigrant convicted of a drug offense, whether misdemeanor or felony, may be deported.

In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, the case was thrown out of court after it was determined that the police obtained incriminating medical records about the defendant in violation of the law. In this DUI case, the defendant was involved in an accident and ultimately went to the hospital for treatment. The police officer who responded to the accident noted some signs of impairment from alcohol about the defendant and then went to the hospital to continue his DUI investigation. By the time the police officer arrived at the hospital to observe and question the defendant, the defendant had left the hospital against the doctor's orders.

Prior to the defendant leaving the hospital, the hospital staff had discovered some incriminating DUI evidence against the defendant that was documented in his medical records. When the police officer arrived at the hospital, he obtained a copy of the defendant's medical records without the defendant's consent and without a subpoena signed by a judge. Those medical records were used against the defendant in the DUI case.

In Florida, everyone has a strong privacy right to keep his/her medical records confidential. The general rule is that hospitals and other medical personnel cannot disclose one's medical records to anyone without the patient's permission. One exception to that rule allows government or law enforcement officials in a criminal case (or the other party in a civil case) to obtain copies of a person's medical records if they are relevant to the issues in the case. However, those records can only be released upon service of a valid subpoena.

In this case, the police officer probably told the hospital staff that he was investigating a DUI with an accident and had a need and a right to obtain the defendant's medical records. However, because those records were obtained without a subpoena and in violation of the law, they could not be used against the defendant in the DUI case, and the DUI case was ultimately thrown out of court.

Although he has been back in private practice for a year and a half with the law firm of Shorstein & Lasnetski, LLC in Jacksonville, Florida, people still ask what Harry Shorstein is doing these days. Most people in the Northeast Florida area know that Harry Shorstein was the State Attorney for Duval County, Clay County and Nassau County in and around Jacksonville, Florida for 18 years. However, since he decided not to run for re-election in 2008, some of the news agencies incorrectly reported that he was retiring. He didn't.

Harry Shorstein has been actively practicing law for Shorstein & Lasnetski, LLC in the areas of state and federal criminal defense, personal injury/wrongful death litigation and commercial litigation. He has represented clients in serious white collar crime cases in state and federal courts as well as clients in drug cases and serious violent crime cases. He also represents various companies who are involved in business disputes and litigation in Jacksonville and other parts of Florida. In fact, the law firm just finished a major asset forfeiture case in which approximately 90% of the funds seized from our corporate client was returned after the government seized just under $3 million from the company.

It is hard to imagine that anyone practicing criminal law and civil litigation in the Jacksonville, Florida area has the breadth of experience, contacts and resources that Harry Shorstein has. We feel it is important that people understand that he remains active in private practice handling all cases in the areas of criminal defense, personal injury/wrongful death and business litigation. Harry Shorstein can be contacted here for a free consultation about your case.

Several Employees of United Directories, a company located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, were indicted in federal court for allegedly defrauding businesses out of more than $400 million by allegedly sending fraudulent bills for Yellow Pages advertisements. Federal law enforcement officials said United Directories and its employees sent the false Yellow Pages advertisement bills of several hundred dollars each to more than 100,000 companies across the country over a four year period.

Two of the charges include mail fraud and money laundering. The federal government will charge someone with mail fraud any time a person is alleged to have used the mail to commit or facilitate fraud. Using the mail as part of a scheme to defraud confers jurisdiction upon the federal government in a criminal case. Money laundering involves taking money that is known to come from illegal activity or an illegal source and mixing it with legitimate money in an attempt to conceal the source of the money, or clean it. When this kind of money is involved in an alleged fraudulent scheme, the potential penalties can be quite severe.

Quite often, a major part of the state's case is a statement or a confession from the defendant either admitting the crime or admitting to certain damaging facts that reflect negatively upon the defendant at the criminal trial. However, in Florida, a defendant's confession that was lawfully obtained is not always admissible to prove the state's case.

In a criminal case in Florida, the state cannot admit a defendant's statement or confession until the state has presented other proof that a crime was committed. Because of this rule, a defendant can never be convicted of a crime based on his/her statement alone. A defendant's statement can certainly be used against a defendant to prove the state's case, however the state must present evidence independent of the defendant's statement first before seeking to admit the defendant's statement into evidence. If the state does not have sufficient independent evidence to establish that a crime occurred, the defendant's statement will not come into evidence and the criminal case will likely be dismissed.