More and more recently, we have spoken with clients and read DUI arrest reports where it appears that police officers make the decision early on that a person is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and the DUI investigation is just a formality leading to a certain arrest. In other words, police officers put the same information on every DUI arrest report (odor of alcohol, slurred speech, swaying, mumbling or stuttering, and failed field sobriety exams) and decide to arrest a person for DUI regardless of whether or not there are any actual signs of impairment. As a result, it is important to know your rights if a police officer stops you and asks questions about alcohol or drugs. Ideally, you would call a DUI lawyer who is available at all times and ask questions immediately. If you are unable to speak to a DUI lawyer when stopped, understand that you do not have to answer the question about whether you have had any alcohol or drugs or how much you have had. You can also refuse the field sobriety exams. Keep in mind that if a police officer has it in his/her head that you are guilty of DUI, he/she will request that you submit to a field sobriety exam for the sole purpose of giving him/her and the State more evidence to convict you of DUI. Very few people, if any, get out of a DUI arrest by submitting to the field sobriety exams, even if they are perfectly sober.

Many people do not know their rights, or do not exercise their rights, during a DUI stop. If you have been arrested for DUI in the Jacksonville, Florida area or have any questions about how to handle a DUI stop, feel free to contact us any day, any time for a free consultation.

Like many police officers do, particularly specialized DUI police officers, this officer had a video camera in his vehicle designed to record encounters with suspects. In DUI cases, the cameras are particularly helpful to judges and juries because the evidence supporting a DUI arrest is so subjective and based on the observations of alleged impairment by the police officer. In just about every DUI arrest since the history of time, police officers say that the defendant had slurred speech, had bloodshot eyes, was swaying and failed the field sobriety exams. In-vehicle cameras can help a judge or jury determine whether those routine claims by police officers that appear in every arrest report are true in a particular case.

In this DUI case, the officer had a camera in his vehicle but did not turn it on to record his DUI investigation and subsequent arrest. When asked, the police officer merely said he chose not to turn it on. No other reason was given. The policy of his police department provided that the camera should have been turned on. Because the police officer failed to comply with the department policy for no apparent reason, and the defendant was deprived of video evidence of the DUI, which is often a good source of information for the defense, the judge dismissed the DUI charge.

It is important to note that this DUI case did not take place in Jacksonville, Florida and Duval County judges are not bound by this decision. However, it is instructive to see the importance of the DUI video and arguments that can be made when police officers fail to turn on the video camera when they should. We have seen countless videos where a person arrested for DUI looks fine on the video although the police officer's report tells a much different story. Because of that, the DUI video is often a very effective tool for the DUI defense. When a DUI video is not available, we always argue that a video would have been beneficial to the defendant, but there also may be more that can be done to protect the rights of someone arrested for DUI when important evidence is missing.

However, it is not clear from reading the failure to register as a sex offender statute whether the State has to prove that the defendant knew he/she was obligated to register. In other words, at trial, can the State simply present evidence that the defendant was a sex offender required to register and did not, or does the defendant's state of mind come into play? In some cases, the defendant can argue that he/she did not know he/she had to register or that he/she thought he/she did register. In most cases, when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a sex offense that requires registration, he/she will be forced to read and sign paperwork that explains the registration requirement. The probation officer will also explain it to him/her. However, if that is not done, the defendant can argue that he/she did not know about the registration requirement. Likewise, we read of one case where the defendant's probation officer came to see the defendant around the time he was required to re-register. Based on the comments of the probation officer during that visit, the defendant thought his re-registration requirement for that year was satisfied, and he did not go to the registration office. He was charged with failing to register as a sex offender and was able to use the evidence of the visit from his probation officer and those discussions as a defense to the charge based on his impression that his registration requirement was satisfied.

We believe that the prosecution of a failure to register as a sex offender case is not as simple as proving that the defendant was required to register and failed to do so. Where those elements are proven but there is an argument that the defendant did not know either that he/she had to register or that he/she did not register, there is a valid defense to the crime.

Police in Jacksonville and other areas of Florida use the reverse sting technique to make various drug arrests involving cocaine, marijuana and other illegal narcotics. The plan often begins when police make an arrest of someone who provides information on another suspect and then work undercover to make a drug purchase, ior in the case of a reverse sting, make a drug sale. When the suspect arrives to buy or sell the illegal drugs, the undercover officer makes an arrest of uniform officers staioned nearby come to make the arrest.

However, these cases are not always as open and shuit as they seem. Although the police are in control of setting up the sting, criminal drug cases that result from these incidents are often lacking in evidence. One might expect to hear audio recordings of conversations between the undercover police officer and alleged drug buyers or sellers. One would also expect to see video of the actual drug deal since the police set up the meeting in advance. However, this evidence is often missing for some reason. In a case where the police set up a drug buy or sale in advance, it is not always clear to everyone the purpose of the meeting and who is involved. Without the proper evidence of criminal activity, one should not assume that each person arrested was involved in a drug deal.

Was this a proper search of the defendant's property and seizure of the marijuana? No. Police officers are permitted to approach someone's home, knock on the front door and ask questions about possible drug or other illegal activity. However, if no one answers, the police cannot just violate a person's right to privacy in his property by entering his backyard. A person's 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is strongest in his/her home. Police officers cannot just enter a person's home or backyard without specific evidence of illegal activity and a search warrant in most cases.

In this case, the criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the marijuana that was found in the defendant's backyard. At the hearing, the police officers testified that it is common in rural areas for residents to accept visitors at their back door and the police officers had some reason to believe someone was inside the house. These two points are irrelevant. It really does not matter what the custom may be for receiving visitors in this area or that the police thought someone was home but just not answering the door. What does matter is that the defendant has a Constitutional right to privacy that protected him from the police entering his property without a search warrant beyond walking up to the front door to knock.

This case resulted in the judge throwing out the evidence of the marijuana and dismissing the drug charges.

The establishment of juvenile courts was founded upon the belief that minors are unaware of their original intent in committing a crime. A five-year old who has committed a robbery or has stabbed someone does not yet have the moral capacity to understand that what he/she has done is not only ethically wrong, but also against the law. The ethics of children hardens by the time they are 18, although many states have deemed it necessary to try juveniles convicted of capital murder in adult courts, thereby exposing them to sentences in adult prisons. With the prison system the way it is, we are simply sending these children to a breeding ground of crime where they will be exposed to atrocities which they would otherwise have avoided in a juvenile detention center.

Juvenile centers were put into place in order to dissuade courts from sending minors to prison facilities, but also to keep an eye on offenders in an attempt to rehabilitate them before they reach the age of 18. The use of these centers is essential to swaying many teens from a life of crime, with over half of the teens admitted never returning to court. The goal is to get this number up closer to 100 percent. Many states have concluded that trying children in adult courts is more effective to deter them from returning to these courtrooms later in life; however, it has also been proven that by sending them to adult detention centers, this may only increase their odds of becoming a repeat criminal offender. The political decision in the mid-1990’s to combat what many thought was a rise in juvenile crime has turned out to be counter-productive and has instead led to an influx of adult prisoners who were sent to adult centers as minors.

This was a quick fix of a deeper problem which politicians did not delve into at the time. It has now become necessary to develop a more comprehensive method that involves more rehabilitation and counseling, rather than the growth of criminal masterminds. Children have no place in an adult courtroom, regardless of the gravity of their crimes. This may be a bold statement when compared to extreme cases such as the two boys at Columbine, but Progressive Era reformists believed it to be true, amidst evidence of other types of child-killers.

Revamping the juvenile systems in the U.S. is one of the first steps toward securing a better future for children who commit crimes. Placing kids who have frequently been late or absent from school with kids who have violently attacked someone is never a good blend, and can only lead to increased amounts of crime from both groups. The system needs to be reconditioned so that kids who have minor offenses are properly punished and kept away from the influence of kids who commit violent crimes; the kids who have committed minor offenses should have a separate system in which to receive rehabilitation and counseling. Juvenile centers have increasingly become structured to resemble prisons, but feature many other amenities and programs which help kids address issues that may have driven them to commit certain crimes. It is up to politicians to determine what can be amended to juvenile centers to make them more efficient towards both deterring future criminals and not producing new ones, without forcing minors to be sent to state prisons around the country.

Under Florida search and seizure laws, a police officer does not need to have probable cause and a search warrant or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a knock and talk. There are cases which allow a police officer to approach a house, knock on the door and ask for consent to search for drugs based on only a hunch or educated guess. The theory is that if a sales person or stranger is allowed to knock on a person's door and ask a question, a police officer can too.

When a police officer conducts a knock and talk to look for illegal drugs or other evidence, the issue is whether the owner or occupant gives consent to search freely and voluntarily. Even where the owner or occupant agrees to a search, that consent may not be considered free and voluntary under the law if certain factors are present such as a prolonged detention by the police officer(s), repeated requests to search, a threat that the police officer(s) will get a search warrant if consent is refused or any sort of show of force or intimidation by the police officer(s) to obtain consent. If police do anything more than simply ask for consent to search the house, the consent may not be valid under the law.

It is important to understand what your rights are in a situation like this. The main thing you need to understand is that if a police officer is asking for consent to search your house, car, clothing or anything else, you have a Constitutional right to say no. Understand that the request to search is usually not a simple, clear question such as, "Do you mind if I search your house/car/person?" The question is often more of a leading question or not a question at all, such as "I'm going to search your house, ok?" or "Since you have nothing to hide, then I guess you don't mind if we search your house." Failure to clearly assert your rights and refuse may be interpreted by the police officer (and written in his/her report) and the judge as consent. It can be a scary thing to say no to a police officer in such an encounter, but understand that the U.S. Constitution affords you the right to refuse consent to search your property and only you can assert that right.

If you have been the victim of identity theft or suspect that your identity and/or financial information have been compromised, there are steps you can take to prevent the theft or limit the damage. Many people who have been victimized by identity theft will not know it until much later unless they actively check their credit status. You can learn more about the steps you can take to detect identity theft and limit your exposure here.

How exactly does this defense play out when a person is charged with a violent crime when that person believes he/she had a right to use the force that he/she used? In Jacksonville, Florida and other locations in the First District, the criminal procedure allows a defendant to file a motion to have the judge dismiss the charges against him/her. That motion, which is filed by the criminal defense attorney, does not technically characterize the defendant's justifiable use of force as a defense to the charges. The criminal defense lawyer's motion will properly indicate that his/her client's use of force renders the defendant immune from prosecution on the charges. Because the justifiable use of force defense is an assertion of immunity rather than what is referred to as an affirmative defense, the motion is made prior to the trial, and the judge will weigh the relevant evidence to determine if the defendant was justified in using such force. The defendant has the burden of proof, but the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. greater than 50%) rather than the typical beyond a reasonable doubt standard the State has in a criminal case.

The judge cannot refuse to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge(s) based on justifiable use of force on the basis that the evidence on each side conflicts. The judge is supposed to weigh the evidence and grant the defense motion to dismiss if the defense establishes the force used by the defendant was justified by a preponderance of the evidence. If the judge makes such a determination, the judge must then dismiss the charge(s) against the defendant without the case ever going to a trial before a jury.

Enacting laws that allow people who are sick and in pain to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms is a slow and incremental process. The laws typically have to be proposed and rejected several times before they are passed. In some states, like Florida and other states in the South, medical marijuana laws are much farther from a reality than they are in many states in the West. However, according to an article on www.Stopthedrugwar.org, medical marijuana is legal in 13 states and at issue this year in 19 other states. The article indicates that in 6 of those 19 states, the medical marijuana bill is favored to pass. Most of those 6 states are in the Northeast; none of them are in the South.

We do look forward to the day when nonviolent drug users, particular marijuana users, do not clog up the criminal justice systems, or worse, the jails and prisons, and drain the financial resources of the various states. Unfortunately, in the South, that day is still a long time coming.

According to the press release, the government is currently investigating more than 2100 mortgage fraud cases, which is an increase of 400% from five years ago, and the government has doubled the number of agents investigating such crimes.

The U.S. Supreme Court appears to have sided with the criminal defense lawyers. If a person is arrested for the federal crime of aggravated identity theft for possessing or using a fake social security card, the government must prove that the defendant knew the social security number belonged to another person. Now, for a person who has a specific victim in mind and obtains his/her social security number and/or other personal information, this ruling may not be of much benefit. However, for someone, such as an illegal alien, who comes into the country and purchases a fake social security card with nine random numbers on it with no conception of whether they form an actual, assigned social security number, this ruling makes it very difficult to convict that person of the federal crime of aggravated identity theft. It also makes it difficult for law enforcement authorities to charge illegal immigrants with a serious felony that makes it easier to deport them.

The difference in federal sentences for these two drug crimes has had a major effect on who has been going to prison for long periods of time as opposed to getting relatively minor sentences. For instance, a person convicted of the crime of distributing 5 grams of crack cocaine faces a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison while it would take the distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine to get the same mandatory sentence in federal court. Studies show that crack cocaine is more often used by lower income individuals and minorities. In fact, more than 80% of the people prosecuted for crack cocaine charges in federal court are African-American, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

No law has yet passed to address the difference in sentencing between crack cocaine crimes and powder cocaine crimes in federal court. However, there is clearly a shift in criminal and sentencing policies with the Obama administration and some indication that a new law will be passed to eliminate this difference.

Under the new law, a police officer can stop a driver and give him/her a traffic ticket for the seat belt violation alone. What implications does this have for criminal defense lawyers? Failing to wear a seat belt is not a criminal offense; it is a civil infraction, and this new law will not change that. However, as criminal defense attorneys know, traffic violations are often the starting point for criminal investigations into drug crimes and gun crimes. Police in Jacksonville, Florida and other parts of Florida will pull a driver over that they consider suspicious and use a traffic infraction as the basis for the stop. The police officer will then proceed to ask questions and initiate an investigation looking for illegal drugs or guns or other evidence of criminal activity. This new law may give police officers another basis to stop drivers who are driving appropriately but are not wearing their seat belts.

Of course, any time a police officer pulls a driver over and conducts a search for drugs, guns or other evidence, criminal defense lawyers will look closely into whether the police officer had a legal basis to stop the vehicle and conduct the search. But be aware that, assuming this law passes, there is one more good reason to wear your seat belt.