Articles Posted in Search and Seizure

Published on:

In Florida, when police search something, such as a vehicle, and find drugs or other evidence of illegal activity, the defendant can normally file a motion to suppress the evidence based on an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. However, not every defendant has a right to challenge every search by police that results in an arrest. A defendant must have standing to challenge a search by the police. In other words, the defendant must have some possessory or ownership interest in the thing that was searched to be able to challenge the search. More specifically, the defendant must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing that was searched to be lawfully permitted to challenge the search. That is the standard for standing to challenge an allegedly illegal search.

In a case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was stopped in a vehicle for running a red light. The police ultimately searched the vehicle and found oxycodone, cocaine and other drugs inside. The defendant was arrested for possession of various drugs. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of all of the drugs arguing that the search was illegal. The state responded by arguing the defendant had no legal right to challenge the search because the vehicle was a rental car, and the defendant was not listed as an authorized driver on the rental car contract nor had he paid for the rental car.

The trial court agreed with the state based on a Florida case which said the driver of a rental car does not have standing to challenge the search of that rental car if he is not authorized to drive the car by the owner, the rental car company, even if the person who did properly rent the car gave the driver permission to drive the rental car. However, several years later, the United States Supreme Court decided the issue differently. The United States Supreme Court is controlling. The Supreme Court ruled that a person in lawful possession of a rental car does have standing to challenge a search of the rental car even if he isn’t listed as an authorized driver on the rental car contract. Just because a person is not listed as an authorized driver does not mean it is unlawful for him to drive it. It may be a violation of the rental car agreement and might have implications for insurance if there is an accident, but being an unauthorized driver according to the rental car agreement does not make a person an illegal driver. However, if a person steals a car and is stopped by the police who search the vehicle and find drugs or evidence of the theft, that defendant would not have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle as he would not be in lawful possession of the vehicle.

Published on:

In Florida, when the police search a person or any location and find drugs or other evidence of illegal activity, the defendant can challenge the search as illegal under the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. However, not every defendant can challenge every search. There is a concept in search and seizure law called standing, which means that a defendant must have some possessory or ownership interest in the thing that was searched to be allowed to challenge the search in court. For instance, if the police search your house that you own, you are going to have standing to challenge that search because you have an obvious interest in your home. On the other hand, if you leave something on the bus and the police search that bus and find incriminatory evidence against you, you probably cannot challenge the search of that bus because you have no interest in the bus. And then there is a lot of situations in between that implicate the standing issue that will depend on the circumstances and the case law.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police were looking for a suspect due to an active arrest warrant. They went to a hotel room and found the subject and arrested him. After the arrest, the police saw what they considered suspicious activity in the nearby hotel room, entered the room, found cocaine and marijuana inside and arrested the occupant of that room for possession of illegal drugs as well. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs arguing that the police did not have a legal right to enter and search the hotel room without a warrant.

The state presented evidence that the occupant of the hotel room had rented the room as a juvenile and by using a false name so he had not validly rented the room. Since it was not his room, he had no standing to challenge the search of that room.  The court disagreed with the state. The issue is not who rented or paid for the room. The issue is whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room or whatever is searched. Hotel guests, whether they paid for the room or are just staying in the room, have an expectation of privacy in those hotel rooms. This is fairly obvious as if you are sharing a hotel room with a friend who paid for them hotel room, you would expect that room to be private from intrusion from others. The state also argued that the defendant lost his expectation of privacy in the room because he occupied it illegally because he was a minor and gave a false name to rent the room. However, the state could not provide any law that says it is illegal to rent a hotel room as a minor. Nor is it illegal to rent a hotel room under a false name. The state was correct that the defendant would have no expectation of privacy in a hotel room that was occupied illegally, but being a juvenile or using a false name was not illegal. If the hotel had learned that the defendant used a false name or was a juvenile and then told the defendant to leave the room, then the defendant would have been a trespasser if he stayed. Under those circumstances, he would no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy and would lose his standing. But, as long as he was a legal occupant, he had standing and could challenge the search of the hotel room.

Published on:

One reason police are often against the full legalization of marijuana is that marijuana illegality gives police officer perhaps the easiest excuse to search people and vehicles. Likewise, marijuana arrests are about as easy as it gets for police officers. They smell marijuana, they search and they arrest. No real work, thought, diligence or investigation required. And while marijuana arrests obviously do nothing to make anyone safer and needlessly cost time, money and resources, they count as arrests on the stat sheet all the same. And I suppose it beats having to investigate real crimes that actually have real victims.

Florida has been slow to work its way into the 21st century and legalize marijuana, but at least medical marijuana is legal. Now, some people (those with a valid medical marijuana card) whose vehicle or other property may smell like marijuana may not be doing anything illegal.  Since that is the case, should police still be allowed to stop and search people based on the odor of marijuana when marijuana is not necessarily illegal depending on who has it?

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, police officers stopped a vehicle at night for a headlight violation. They approached the vehicle and smelled burnt marijuana. They searched the vehicle and arrested the suspect for possession of cannabis. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of marijuana arguing that the police unlawfully searched the vehicle because the odor of marijuana does not necessarily indicate illegal activity.

Published on:

We wrote a blog post several months ago about a case where a police officer in Florida stopped a driver because some of the unnecessary letters on the license plate were obscured. In other words, the letters and numbers that make up the unique information on a license plate that identified the vehicle and owner were perfectly visible. However, in Florida, there is often other wording on the license plate. It might say “Sunshine State” or provide the website “MyFlorida.com” on the plate. Obviously, these words/letters are irrelevant to the purpose and requirement of a license plate. In the prior case, the driver had a border around his license plate that obscured some of this other wording, and the police officer pulled the driver over as a result and arrested him for an unrelated crime. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress claiming the stop was illegal, and kind of ridiculous, but the defendant lost because the Florida statute said none of the wording can be concealed on a license plate.

It looks like there has been a new case on the matter. This is an important issue because a lot of people have license plates where some of the letters are concealed. Many people have license plate frames that are advertisements or display their favorite sports teams. These often conceal part of the license plate in Florida. This may give the police free reign to pull the driver over, which often gives the police reign to search the vehicle. Remember, if the police want to search your vehicle, that is probably what they are going to do regardless of whether they are permitted to do so under the Fourth Amendment.

This new case occurred south of Jacksonville, Florida. A police officer stopped a driver who had a border around his license plate that was an advertisement for the place where he purchased the vehicle. It partially obscured the words “Sunshine State”. The important letters and numbers of the license plate were perfectly visible. The police officer found cocaine in the vehicle and arrested the driver for possession of cocaine. The criminal defense attorney moved to suppress the evidence of the cocaine arguing that the stop was invalid. The question comes down to whether these license plate frames or borders are illegal and a basis for the police to make a traffic stop when they conceal superfluous wording on the license plate.

Published on:

In Florida, many criminal arrests begin as traffic stops.  Most DUI’s begin this way along with other, more serious charges. As a result, a criminal defense lawyer should always look at the initial stop and how it occurred to see if there might be a search and seizure issue that could be the basis of a motion to suppress.  Police can normally stop a driver for violating a traffic law such as speeding or running a red light. However, it is not uncommon for the police to stop a driver for more vague traffic infractions like the failure to maintain the lane, particularly in driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) cases.

In a recent case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was pulled over for failure to maintain her lane on two occasions. The police officer ultimately searched the vehicle and found marijuana inside. The defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana. The criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana based on the argument that the police officer did not have a legal basis to pull the defendant over.

The court agreed with the criminal defense lawyer. At the motion to suppress hearing, the police officer testified that the defendant did not impact any other vehicles, pedestrians or anyone else when she veered out of her lane two times. The relevant Florida statute says that when a roadway has been divided into two or more marked lanes, the driver should drive entirely within a single lane as nearly as practicable and shall not move from that lane unless it is clear such movement can be made safely. The courts in Florida do not find that a driver has violated this statute unless there was evidence that the driver or any other person was endangered. Therefore, if a driver crosses over a solid white or yellow line periodically but no other driver or person was impacted, it would not likely be a violation that would warrant a traffic stop. The police must establish some sort of safety concern caused by the driver crossing the solid line.

Published on:

In Florida, the criminal laws are created by the state legislature. They are laws that prohibit certain conduct, and a violation of those laws can result in an arrest and jail time. Police are allowed to search a person after an arrest for a state crime. If the police find other or additional evidence of criminal activity during that search incident to an arrest, they can likely use that evidence against the defendant to support the arrest and/or add additional criminal charges. Cities in Florida can also enact laws that address certain conduct.  These laws can also come with penalties that include relatively short periods of time in jail.  For instance, fighting and loitering  are municipal ordinances in Jacksonville, and a violation of either ordinance can result in some jail time.

However, the same search and seizure rules do not apply to municipal ordinances as for state and federal crimes. In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, police found the suspect in a city park after it closed at 11:00 p.m. The police officer arrested the suspect for being in the park after hours. This was not a state crime but a municipal ordinance violation. After the arrest, as they always do, the police officer searched the suspect. The police officer found a concealed handgun, cocaine and marijuana. The suspect was then charged with felony and misdemeanor crimes based on the evidence found after the municipal ordinance arrest.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence based on the search incident to a municipal ordinance arrest. The court noted that the police are not allowed to go through a full custodial arrest and search for a violation of a municipal ordinance, like they can for actual criminal law violations. They can “arrest” or detain a suspect for a brief period of time in order to write a ticket or issue a notice to appear in court at a later date. However, the suspect is not taken to jail. As a result, the police are not permitted to conduct a search incident to an arrest in these cases. Therefore, the search of the defendant was unreasonable, and the charges related to the gun, marijuana and cocaine were thrown out.

Published on:

In Florida and elsewhere, people have a constitutional right to privacy, and this protection is greatest in one’s home. As a result, the police generally cannot search a person’s residence without consent from someone with authorization or a valid search warrant. If the police do get a valid search warrant signed by a judge, that does not give them free rein to search anything and everything belonging to the suspect. The search is limited to what is reasonable and the area identified in the search warrant.

In a recent drug possession case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police obtained evidence that the defendant had illegal drugs in his home. The police went to a judge and obtained a search warrant for the residence. The address of the residence was listed on the search warrant, and it was described as a single story residence. The search warrant authorized the police to search the residence, the curtilage of the residence (the area surrounding the home), any vehicles on the premises and any people at the premises. That is fairly common for search warrants. When the police arrived to the property, the saw an RV on the property and searched it. They found illegal drugs inside.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the RV arguing that police did not have authority to search the RV based on a search warrant of the permanent residence that did not mention the RV. The state pointed out that a search warrant of a residence and its curtilage often allows police to search enclosed areas around the house, such as a shed or a vehicle on the property. However, search warrants are limited to the place described in the search warrant. Police officers are not authorized to search separate dwelling units on the property that are not listed in the search warrant. So, the question becomes whether the RV is apparently being used as a separate dwelling. The court looked at where it was located, who owned it, whether it was affixed to the ground, whether there was a utility hookup, whether it was occupied and other factors. If it was reasonable to believe the RV was being used as a separate residence, the police could not search it since it was not mentioned in the search warrant. However, if it appeared reasonable to believe the RV was being used as a vehicle and was on the property mentioned in the search warrant, then the police probably would have been authorized to search it. In this case, the evidence indicated the RV was a residence so the search was unlawful, and the evidence found in the RV was suppressed.

Published on:

In a murder case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police identified a suspect and learned that he had multiple cell phones. They tried to use this cell phone information to determine the location of the defendant at the time of the murder. When people use their cell phones, the phones communicate with a tower.  Cell phone companies record this cell site location information on a mapping program that shows the locations of those towers. If the police are able to obtain this cell site information from cell phone companies, they can determine an approximate location of a person at a certain time based on cell phone usage. In this murder case, the police did obtain this cell phone information from the cell phone provider without a search warrant, and discovered that the suspect was near the site of the murder at the time. With this information and other evidence, the defendant was arrested for murder.

The criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the cell site information because the police did not obtain a search warrant to get it. In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed this issue and ruled that this historical cell site information is protected by the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. In other words, the police cannot just obtain this information without probable cause and a search warrant. Because they did so, the murder case was reversed.  That opinion noted that cell phone providers maintain this information on all cell phone users. If the police did not need a search warrant to obtain this information, the police would basically be permitted to run location surveillance on just about everyone with a simple request. People increasingly rely on portable electronic devices for work and many other aspects of life. Doing so and the fact that providers of these devices record information about the user does not mean the user relinquishes his/her private data to the government without oversight.

Published on:

In Florida, most DUI cases (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) cases start after a police officer pulls a driver over for a routine traffic violation. The police officer then approaches the driver, claims to observe signs of intoxication and then conducts a DUI investigation. If the police officer subjectively believes the driver is impaired from alcohol, or just does not like the driver’s responses or level of cooperation, the police officer will likely arrest that driver for DUI.

One traffic violation that gets people pulled over is having a license plate that is fully or partially obscured. Every vehicle in Florida is supposed to have a license plate, and the unique numbers and letters on that license plate are the numbers and letters that identify specific vehicles and their owners. Police officers use these numbers and letters to identify owners to check on suspended licenses, outstanding warrants, stolen vehicles and other information. If a person has a license plate where those numbers and letters are even partially concealed, the police officer may not be able to run the license plate in his/her system. This raises suspicion and is against the traffic laws of Florida. Whether a part of the numbers and letters are concealed or the license tag is faded or covered with some protector that makes it too hard to read, a police officer can pull a driver over for this and initiate a DUI or other criminal investigation if he/she observes evidence of a particular crime. Or, the police officer can just give the driver a traffic ticket for the problematic license plate.

The key information on license plates in Florida is the unique numbers and letters. However, license plates in Florida have other lettering as well. Some have the MyFlorida.com website on there or convey some message if it is a specialty license plate. Some have the name of the county. These numbers and/or letters have no value to a police officer trying to identify registration information on the vehicle. If the letters “ars” on a Jacksonville Jaguars specialty license plate are concealed, that obviously has no relevance to anything the police need to do their jobs and is not suspicious in any way.

Published on:

In a case that was recently decided by the United States Supreme Court, the issue was whether the police could go onto a suspect’s property and search a vehicle that was in the driveway under a partially enclosed portion of the house, likely something built to provide shade for the vehicle. In this case, the police were searching for a stolen motorcycle. They believed the motorcycle was located at the house in question. When they arrived, they saw what appeared to be a motorcycle under a tarp in the driveway. The police officer walked onto the property, looked under the tarp and ran the tag of the motorcycle.  After determining the motorcycle was stolen, the owner of the house was arrested.

The criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the stolen motorcycle because the police officer did not have a legal basis to search it on the defendant’s driveway.  There are a couple of legal principles involved here.  There is something called the motor vehicle exception in search and seizure law. Normally, if the police want to search the property of a person, the police have to get consent or a search warrant.  However, automobiles are different for two reasons.  One, there is less of a reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile because they are driven around and parked in public, and people can generally see inside of them through the windows.  Two, automobiles are easier to move from one place to another making it easier to dispose of evidence inside.  As a result, the automobile exception allows a police officer to search an automobile without a search warrant if the police officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle.

A competing issue in this case is the idea that people have a strong expectation of privacy in their homes and the immediate area surrounding their homes, i.e. the curtilage. The curtilage is generally defined as the immediate area surrounding the home along with a porch and any enclosed areas near the home.  This would also seem to apply to property that is enclosed by a fence that is clearly not open to the general public.  The police may not go into these areas to search without consent or a search warrant.