Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

In this case the police officer was responding to a call regarding a missing juvenile. He went to a facility where juveniles stayed and spent time playing games and meeting with others. When he arrived, he saw the juvenile defendant in this case sleeping in the common area. There were some clothes and a bag near the defednat. Antoehr girl was sleeping near the defendant. A pipe was partially visible in the bag and close to the defendant and the girl. The police officer rertrieved the pipe from the bag which had marijuana resideu in it. The defendant admitted the pipe was his and arrested the juvenile.

Normally, when the police want to search someone or something, the police officer needs a search warrant. However, one exception to the seaarch warrant requirement occurs when the police officer sees something in plain view which is obviously evidence of a crime. This does not mean the police officer can walk into someone's house or open someone's bag and then seize a bag of marijuana that is in plan view at that point. One requirement of the plain view doctrine is that the police officer has a right to be where he/she is when the police officer sees the illegal item in plain view.

In this case, the judge threw out the evidence of the pipe and the marijuana inside because there was insufficient evidence to believe the partially concealed pipe was obviously illegal drug paraphernalia at the time the officer saw it. The officer could not see the entire pipe so it could have been something else. Even it was clearly a pipe, the officer did not see the marijuana resideu inside. It could have contained regular tobacco which is not illegal. Beause it was not clear that the pipe was evidence of illegal activity when the officer first saw it, the police officer did not have a right to take it from the juvenile's bag. As a result, that evidence was thrown out and the possession of marijuana charge was dropped.

As criminal defense lawyers in the Jacksonville, Florida area who handle all criminal cases in state and federal courts, we have seen how people convicted of crack cocaine crimes can receive much higher sentences than those convicted of powder cocaine crimes where the amount of powder cocaine was similar to or even less than the crack cocaine in the related case. The unfairness of these sentencing rules, which disproportionately punished people involved with crack cocaine over those involved with powder cocaine, has been discussed by prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, federal judges and even the Congress and the president.

Finally, new rules bringing sentences for crack cocaine cases and powder cocaine cases closer together have been enacted. The Fair Sentencing Act, which will permanently become the law next year, is now in effect.

The old federal sentencing guidelines would provide that a person caught with as few as 5 grams of crack cocaine would receive a five year minimum mandatory prison sentence. However, it would take at least 500 grams of powder cocaine to get the same minimum mandatory sentence. That was quite a disparity. With the new law and federal sentencing rules, it will now take 28 grams of crack cocaine to trigger the five year minimum mandatory prison sentence. The threshold for the ten year minimum mandatory prison sentence has been increased from 50 grams of crack cocaine to 280 grams of crack cocaine.

Under the new federal criminal sentencing rules, the sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine crimes are not equal, and not really close to being equal. However, they are now much more similar than they were in the past prior to the Fair Sentencing Act.

The federal government recently obtained an indictment against a St. Augustine woman claiming she was running a Ponzi scheme through her investment company in St. Augustine, Florida, according to an article on News4Jax.com. The woman was charged with 14 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida for allegedly stealing more than $100 million from investors. The federal government claims that the suspect told investors they were investing money in high interest loans and would be assured of a 15% - 20% return on their money. The federal government alleges that she was actually running a Ponzi scheme with the investment funds.

A Ponzi scheme involves a person soliciting funds from investors and promising that the money will be allocated into legitimate investments. The person also typically promises unrealistically high returns. Once the investments start coming in, the person will pay the prior investors with some of the new money coming in and call the payments the returns which ostensibly confirm the promise of the great investment. Ultimately, when new investors run out, there is not enough money to pay off the existing investors and the people start asking questions.

In a recent marijuana case out of South Florida, the court threw out the evidence of the defendant's marijuana possession because the police used an unreasonable show of force to gain access to the defendant's residence. In this case, six police officers went to the defendant's home because he had several recent encounters with the police. The police officers showed up at the defendant's home without a search warrant. The officers knocked on the door and told the defendant they had a tip that he was cultivating marijuana in the residence. They asked the defendant if they could search his house for marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. The defendant consented, and the police officers found marijuana growing in his garage.

The defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and other related charges. However, in court his criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress, or throw out, all of the evidence of the marijuana because the police used an unreasonable show of force in getting him to consent to the police search.

In general, if the police ask to search something (i.e. a person, vehicle, home) for illegal drugs and the subject agrees, the police have a right to conduct that search without a search warrant. However, the police are not permitted to use intimidation, force or the threat of force to obtain that consent to search. Therefore, consent may become invalid not just due to actual force by police but also based on circumstances that make a person feel like he/she has no choice but to consent. In this case, the fact that several police officers confronted and surrounded the defendant was evidence of an unreasonable show of force and invalidated his consent. If the police had a justifiable reason to believe the defendant had marijuana in the house, they should have taken the appropriate steps to obtain a search warrant prior to searching the house.

The term "overcriminalization" refers to the government creating laws that make certain conduct a crime when that conduct is more appropriately addressed with less serious sanctions such as a fine, or perhaps not at all. A recent article on the Miami Herald's website discusses this overcriminalization issue and provides a very good example. In 1999, Abner Shoenwetter, a 64 year old seafood importer with no prior criminal record, was charged with smuggling and conspiracy after he agreed to buy lobsters from a supplier he had used many times in the past. Apparently, these particular lobsters were caught in violation of regulations in Honduras, even though it was later determined that the Honduras regulations did not apply to the lobsters. The alleged violations related to how the lobsters were packaged and the size of the lobsters. In any case, Mr. Shoenwetter served six years in federal prison for agreeing to buy these lobsters.

The article notes that there are more than 4,450 federal crimes in existence to go along with more than 300,000 federal regulations for which one can be punished with criminal sanctions. Between 2000 and 2007, Congress created 452 new crimes, an average of more than one per week. One problem, it seems, is that our reactive government has a natural tendency to get bigger, with new laws, but no one seems to take the time to assess the state of the old laws to eliminate those that may be unnecessary, out of date, too ambiguous or just plain wrong.

As criminal defense lawyers in the Jacksonville, Florida area, we have noticed that local police and prosecutors are significantly increasing their attention towards the pain clinics that have been opening up in the area over the last couple of years. Sheriffs in Duval County, Clay County, St. Johns County and Flagler County have taken notice as drug cases involving pills have gone up exponentially as opposed to the more traditional drug cases involving cocaine, crack, marijuana and methamphetamine. As police make more and more arrests of people illegally using or selling pain pills and other pills that require a valid prescription, law enforcement authorities are increasingly going after what they think is the source of these pills. The police believe that some pain clinics are giving out huge amounts of pills for a relatively low price to people who ultimately sell them individually for a much higher price. And they think the people running some of the pain clinics are aware of this practice.

Pain clinics can certainly be legal. There are a lot of people with various painful conditions who need to see a doctor quickly, whether they have health insurance of not, and have a right to be treated with medication to alleviate their pain. Of course, pain clinics can also be illegal if they are not run properly and in accordance with the laws and regulations, which are constantly changing. If you have a question about a pain clinic or any of the legal issues involved with running or working with a pain clinic, whether in Florida or anywhere else, feel free to contact us to discuss any relevant legal implications.

A woman was arrested for DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol) after she allegedly crashed into a police car in St. Augustine, Florida according to an artidle on FirstCoastNews.com. Apparently, the suspect's mother called the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office out of concern for her daughter. When the St. Johns County police arrived, they saw the suspect speeding down the road. She ultimately crashed into a St. Johns County police car. Apparently, no one was injured, but the vehicles did sustain damage.

When the police have sufficient evidence that a person is driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol, they normally charge the person with DUI. While a first DUI is a misdemeanor, it comes with potentially serious penalties such as a license suspension, a large fine, community service and the possibility of jail time. These penalties get worse as a person gets more DUI's. When an accident is involved, the charge becomes DUI with property damage, assuming no one is injured in the accident. This is also a misdemeanor but often comes with greater penalties. If there is an accident with a serious injury, the person will likely be charged with a felony. In this case, the possibility of doing some jail or prison time increases. Finally, if there is an accident with a death, the charge is DUI manslaughter, and if the state can prove its case, significant prison time becomes more likely.

A federal grand jury recently indicted a group of people based on prosecutors' allegations that they participated in a scheme to defraud mortgage brokers out of $1.8 million in thirteen different real estate transactions. The charges allegedly involve Access E-Mortgage, Inc., a company out of St. Augustine, Florida. Based on a recent article, the prosecutors are using the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to charge the individuals. The indictment charges a total of sixteen individuals allegedly involved in the scheme. According to the indictment, the scheme involved recruiting straw buyers who would give false information to the mortgage brokers to obtain loans. The loaned funds would then allegedly be stolen by the people involved in the scheme.

We have handled several recent cases involving alleged mortgage fraud over the last several months. As we discussed on our website before, the federal government has taken a greater interest in these cases and attributed more time, manpower and other resources to make mortgage fraud cases. This appears to be a reaction to the publicity the failing housing market and numerous foreclosures have had over the last couple of years. With the federal government, and the state and local government to a lesser degree, it seems like prosecutions in a particular area often follow the news of the day. As the housing market and foreclosures have become more of an issue in the media, the number of mortgage fraud cases have increased. Sometimes, this reaction to newsworthy issues can result in people being arrested and charged with crimes who have little to no involvement in the criminal activity. When the government casts a wide net, some innocent people often get caught.

A man in St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida was arrested after he allegedly hit and killed a pedestrian with his vehicle and fled the scene of the accident according to an article on News4Jax.com. The article indicates the suspect struck Brian Stevenot near U.S. 1 and killed him. The suspect then allegedly drove away from the scene to try and remove the evidence of the accident from his vehicle. A friend later went to the police and reported the fact that the suspect hit the man and then was attempting to clean his vehicle and remove the parts that showed damage from the crash. Based on the friend's statement to police, the suspect was arrested for vehicular homicide and tampering with evidence.

In Florida, it is illegal to be involved in any sort of traffic accident that results in property damage or injury and then fail to remain at the scene for the police to investigate the crash and provide information. If a person does leave the scene after such an accident, he/she can be charged with anything from a misdemeanor to a serious felony depending on the severity of the crash. The purpose of the law, of course, is to avoid situations like this where it becomes very difficult for police to determine how the accident occurred if the person involved in the accident does not stay around to speak with police. Additionally, breath and blood tests to determine if the driver was impaired are not effective if they are done too long after the crash.

The tampering with evidence charge addresses a person who attempts to conceal or alter evidence that would be helpful to the police in proving the crime. If a person commits a crime and then takes steps to conceal or alter evidence of the crime, he/she can be charged with the additional crime of tampering with evidence. Of course, the tampering with evidence charge also serves to help the state prove the underlying crime. It is easier for the state to prove a person committed a crime when there is evidence that the same person took steps to tamper with the evidence.

Federal authorities arrested a Gainesville, Florida man for allegedly creating a Ponzi scheme and stealing approximately $30 million from people who thought they were investing their money with the suspect in foreign exchange markets, according to an article on News4Jax.com. According to the article, the suspect solicited funds from people in Florida that he would purportedly use to invest in foreign currency markets and return up to 10% per month to the investors. He is charged with taking the money and spending the majority of it rather than investing it for the investors. The suspect is expected to be charged with wire fraud in federal court.

The term "Ponzi scheme" has become more mainstream ever since the highly publicized Berni Madoff case, and the federal government is usually very interested in these Ponzi schemes as a result. It generally refers to a scheme where someone or a group of people will pretend to have the ability, and intention, to invest large amounts of money in a great investment that will produce incredible returns. Ten percent per month would certainly qualify as incredible returns.

However, in a true Ponzi scheme, the person does not invest the money or only invests a portion of it. On the contrary, when the so-called investors are expecting returns on their investments or principal payments, the suspect will use the money from new investors to pay what appears to be profits and/or principal back to the old investors. This does two things to further the scheme. It satisfies the investors who are seeing what they believe is proof of their great investment. It also creates good publicity for the suspect which attracts new investors whose money can be used to pay the old investors. One problem with the Ponzi scheme is that it constantly requires new investors to pay off old investors. People want to see their profits, they want advances, they need their money back to pay for an emergency, and the suspect needs to come up with that money from some source. And the bigger the scheme gets, the harder it is to manage. In any case, when someone gets charged with being involved in a Ponzi scheme, it is often a federal case and very serious, particularly when the suspect does not have a lot of the money left to return to the victims.

Harry Shorstein, recently the five term State Attorney for the Jacksonville, Florida area (encompassing Duval County, Clay County and Nassau County) and General Counsel for the City of Jacksonville, has been in private practice now for almost two years with Shorstein & Lasnetski. He has handled a wide variety of criminal defense matters but with a concentration on white collar crime cases and pain clinic cases in state and federal courts.

Shorstein & Lasnetski is excited to announce that Harry Shorstein was recently named by the U.S. News & World Report Best/Best Lawyers as their White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer of the year for 2011 for Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. News & World Report/Best Lawyers chooses only one lawyer per specialty area per major city. U.S. News & World Report/Best Lawyers conducts many surveys from other attorneys in the area to determine who wins the Best Lawyers honor for the community. This award signifies the respect and admiration Harry Shorstein has received from his peers in this area for his work in white collar crime criminal defense in the Jacksonville, Florida area.

Eight employees of the U.S. Postal Service were arrested by federal agents for opening and stealing mail, according to a recent Jacksonville news article. The postal employees were accused of opening the mail and stealing the contesnts such as gift cards, debit cards and other items of value. Because the U.S. mail comes under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Inspector General, a federal department, the suspects were all indicted for mail theft and other charges in federal court. Mail theft in federal court carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison for each count.

It seems like every year after the annual Florida v. Georgia game in Jacksonville, Florida, we see an article in the news about the many arrests the Jacksonville police make of people allegedly drinking while under-aged. In most cases, the police officer will only give the person a citation, or notice to appear in court, which leads people to believe it is not a crime and is not serious. However, a citation for under-aged drinking can be serious in terms of a person's permanent record.

Even where the police officer merely gives the person a citation, the incident still shows up on the person's record as an arrest. Additionally, under-aged drinking is not a civil infraction; it is an actual misdemeanor crime. Now, it is very unlikely that a person will be sentenced to jail time for an under-aged drinking conviction. However, if the case is not handled properly the person will likely get a conviction for the crime. A conviction for under-aged drinking will stay on the person's criminal record permanently. Some people may not be too concerned over such a conviction on his/her record. However, Florida law states that a person cannot get any crime sealed or expunged from his/her record if he/she is convicted of any crime. What that means is that if the same person gets another, more serious charge down the road and wants that sealed or expunged from his/her record, the under-aged drinking conviction will prevent him/her from sealing or expunging any criminal record in the future. For that reason, the under-aged drinking charge can really cause a person a lot of problems in terms of his/her record and the job interview process in the future.

If you have been given a citation, or been arrested, for under-aged drinking in the Jacksonville, Florida area or have questions about sealing or expunging your record, feel free to contact us for a free consultation about how best to handle the case to keep your record clean.