Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Tampa Criminal Attorneys
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Tampa Criminal Attorney discusses Dismissal of Resisting and Public Intoxication Charge

Category: Recent Wins

The client was charged with Resisting without violence and disorderly intoxication. He was attending his own wedding at the Tradewinds Hotel at St. Pete Beach, Florida when things got out of control. The client became intoxicated at one of the hotel bars and became belligerent. He was asked to leave by hotel security, but initially refused. He eventually left after a brief verbal altercation with the manager. As he exited the hotel lobby he was confronted by St. Pete Beach Police and more hotel security.

This particular hotel is quite large, and is not unfamiliar with these situations. It is a destination for beach goers and many tourists. In this particular case it appeared that the Hotel overreacted to a situation that had already subsided. As we pointed out the client had left the bar and was posing no threat to anyone. Despite that fact he was confronted by St. Pete Beach Police and more security. The client was an imposing figure to security. A former college football player. While his size should be unimportant to these facts we feel it played a large role in his arrest. Before he left the bar he mouthed off to the manager. This disrespect led to more police intent on putting our client in his place.

As the client was simply returning to his room he was confronted with the St. Pete Beach Police and hotel security who ordered him to get on the ground. The client refused because he had done nothing wrong. This fact becomes very important in the resolution of this case. While the client was arrested for Resisting a Police officer Without Violence you cannot be convicted for resisting an unlawful arrest without violence. In other words if the law enforcement officer is unlawfully arresting a suspect he can lawfully resist, as long as he does so without violence. This same rule does not apply in regards to resisting an officer with violence. You can never resist a law enforcement officer with violence. Even if his arrest is unlawful.

Nonetheless, when the police arrived they immediately drew their tasers. The police claimed that the tasers were drawn because our client clinched his fist. This fact was disputed by our client and his witnesses. When the client refused to get on the ground he was tased. He was eventually arrested for Resisting an officer without violence and disorderly conduct.

The disorderly conduct charge also proved difficult for the state to proceed on in that the charge requires the defendant's conduct to cause a disturbance which causes other's to gather. The disturbance in this case never caused anyone to gather, and was triggered by the law enforcement officer's handling of the situation.

To learn more about resisting without violence or disorderly conduct call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

Criminal Attorney in Tampa Discusses Early Termination of Probation

Category: Recent Wins

We were able to convince the Court to terminate our client's probation recently. He was originally sentenced to fifteen years of probation for Driving Under the Influence with Serious Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Most Courts will consider terminating supervision once the probationer has completed all the conditions and has reached the half-way point. However, every case is different. A judge may terminate someone's probation even earlier if the probationer's performance has been exceptional.

Here, the client paid the victim back all the restitution, and completed every other condition on probation. The victim was opposed to terminating the client, but we were able to convince the Court that further probation was pointless.

The client's probation was terminated. Link to our website to learn more about violations of probation in Tampa or call us at 813-228-7095.

Criminal Attorney in Tampa discusses Dismissal of Battery Charge Against Security Guard

Category: Recent Wins

The client operated a security company that was employed to secure an apartment complex at 302 Tinsley Circle in north Tampa. He retired from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's office and had an extensive background in law enforcement. Earlier this month, at around 8 pm, our client was confronted by an unknown Hispanic male in the parking lot of the apartment complex. The unknown male acknowledged he didn't live in one of the apartments and refused to give his name. When our client (defendant) asked the unknown male to leave the complex he moved towards him. The client pushed him away. Police arrived on scene and took statements.

Many times police are unsure about making an arrest. When they are unsure whether they have probable cause to arrest the police can collect witness statements and other evidence and supply it to the State Attorney's Office. Once they receive the evidence the prosecutor can evaluate the facts and decide on whether to file a criminal charge. In this case the state attorney filed a battery charge against our client. It is always beneficial to contact a criminal attorney as soon as possible. Many times it is easier to resolve a criminal charge before it is filed as opposed to after the State Attorney makes a formal filing decision. The prosecution had already filed a battery charge when the client retained our office.

In this case, we set the client's case for trial. The State Attorney was unable to move forward and the charge was dismissed. If you need more information about the criminal offense of battery or domestic battery you can reach us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Discusses Dismissal of Child Abuse and Domestic Violence Charges

Category: Recent Wins

A recent case involving a client suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder was dismissed after the State examined the underlying facts. According to law enforcement our client pushed his wife against the wall and grabbed her by the upper arms after a verbal argument over other family members. The mother/victim fled the scene with their 15-month-old baby. The police claim that the client then jumped on the vehicle and opened the driver side door and ripped his wife's purse from her in an attempt to get her keys.

Child protective services were called to investigate, and the police forwarded a report to the state attorney's office to determine if domestic battery charges should be filed against the client. We were retained by the client and began our defense of the case. No child abuse charges were filed, and after discussing the circumstances surrounding the domestic battery charge with the State Attorney they were also "No Filed".

For more informaiton on Domestic Violence or Child Abuse call us at 813-228-7095 or link to our website at TampaDefenseAttorney.com.

Criminal Attorney in Tampa Discusses Fraud Charges

Category: Recent Wins

The client was charged with grand theft in the second degree and uttering a forged instrument. She was potentially facing 15 years in Florida State Prison on the grand theft charge alone. According to law enforcement the client was given power of attorney by a client that she worked for as a real estate agent. During the purchase of a number of properties, she forged checks from the title company and deposited them in her personal bank account. The checks totaled over $30,000.00.

Proving a fraud charge is never easy. The State had a multitude of problems with witnesses and evidence. Consequently, the State agreed to reduce from a 2nd degree felony charge to a 3rd degree felony and offer probation. The State also agreed to a withhold of the conviction pursuant to plea negotiations. The withhold prevents the client from receiving a criminal conviction on her record, and eventually allows her to seal the charge from public view.

To find out more about theft and/or fraud charges contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampadefenseattorney.com.

Tampa Domestic Violence Lawyer Pushes State Attorney to Dismiss Charges in Clearwater

Category: Domestic Violence

Our client went out with his daughter and his son-in-law to dinner. After having a number of drinks both he and his daughter engaged in a verbal altercation that escalated to physical violence. After they got home his daughter insisted on taking the car. Her father (our client) refused to let her have the keys. When the daughter tried to start the car her father reached in and took them out of her hands. The fight continued in the home when the father struck his daughter in an attempt to get the keys. When the police arrived they interviewed all the parties. They chose to arrest the father. During our representation the daughter (victim) was willing to acknowledge that she was the aggressor, but it did not deter the Clearwater Prosecutor from pursuing the charge to trial. He claimed he could prove the case with the testimony of an independent witness that called 911 that night. We requested the 911 tape in discovery. The caller was unable to adequately identify the father as the person who struck the victim while she was in the car.

We told the prosecutor we were happy to take the case to trial. On the morning of trial the prosecutor offered the client a plea to the lesser of disorderly conduct. We rejected it. The prosecutor talked to his supervisor, and the case was dismissed. Domestic violence charges follow the same pattern whether they occur in Clearwater, Tampa, or anywhere else. There are numerous obstacles every prosecutor must overcome before they can successfully prosecute domestic violence charges.

To learn more about the questionable tactics some criminal attorneys use to advance domestic violence charges in tampa or anywhere else call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

Criminal Attorney Tampa- State Dismisses Possession Charges After Illegal Stop

Category: Criminal Law

We represented a USF student that was arrested by a detective from the USF police department for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of paraphernalia . Other students had claimed the client was selling drugs out of his dorm room. The USF detective conducted surveillance on our client before watching him leave his dorm room. The detective followed him to the parking lot and conducted a stop of his vehicle on the pretense that he committed a traffic infraction.

As the client left the parking lot he stopped at a stop sign. The detective then followed him in his vehicle. The client backed his car up and stopped 5-10 feet from the front bumper of the detective's car. He then left the parking lot and was stopped by the detective on a nearby street. The officer cited the client with an improper backing infraction. We filed a Motion to suppress.

The detective acknowledged that the only reason for the stop of the vehicle was for the improper backing traffic infraction. Section 316.1985(1) of Florida's "Limitation on Backing Statute" reads as follows:

The driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic.

A case out of the Second District Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue in State v. Nelson. The court first recognized that in order to lawfully stop any vehicle for a traffic infraction there must be probable cause to believe the traffic violation actually occurred. In Nelson the defendant was backing his vehicle down an alley and eventually stopped two feet from the bumper of the officer who ended up arresting him for drug possession. Like the detective in our case, the officer claimed that he was almost struck by Mr. Nelson, but he conceded that he was never forced out of his path of travel and never had to swerve his vehicle. The testimony in deposition from the USF detective was almost identical to the police officer in the Nelson case. In light of the factual similarity between the cases the State Attorney Nolle Prossed (DISMISSED) all the charges against our client. Where the client is stopped based on a traffic infraction it is always prudent to exam case law that defines what might be probable cause for the infraction.

If you want to learn more from a tampa drug attorney contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

Domestic Violence Attorney in Tampa: Making a Mountain out of a Molehill

Category: Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a serious crime. It should be prosecuted whenever someone chooses to use force to settle a dispute with someone else. However, there are times when the force is so slight it does not warrant the involvement of the police or state attorney's office. Many times it is the vicious nature of the verbal argument that has more to do with the 911 phone call than the actual contact. In other words, the police are used to win the argument, rather than prevent further violence.

We recently defended a man for poking his wife's chest during an argument. There was no injury, and the event was isolated. The charge was eventually dismissed, but that did not prevent the client from being arrested and incarcerated in Tampa's county jail. The threat of prosecution also forced him to hire our office.

Unfortunately, when the police leave the scene of a domestic incident without making an arrest they have concerns about the actions of both parties after they are gone. However, if one of the parties goes to jail the potential for further violence is eliminated. But what if police arrest the wrong person. Everyone involved in the rest of the process has to be convinced of the mistake before the charges will be dismissed or dropped. The political nature of this type of charge cannot be understated. Everybody involved in the prosecution of a domestic violence charge have an interest in avoiding the appearance of looking soft on domestic violence. Regrettably, even a domestic violence charge that involves minor contact can have a long-lasting impact on someone's future. The situation is magnified when the victim files a domestic violence injunction against the defendant. A minor incident turns into major incident in a hurry and legal representation becomes critical.

To find out the proper steps to take when defending against a domestic violence charge call our office at 813-228-7095 or link to tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Domestic Violence Attorney: Weighing the Options Short of Trial

Category: Domestic Violence

I have been involved in defending the falsely accused in Tampa and the outer lying counties for over 15 years. Justifiably, most people who have been falsely accused carry a tremendous amount of anger. They typically have a desire, born out of principal, which pushes them toward trial. A trial is the only thing that will settle the dispute because it is the only way the accuser can be exposed. On the surface, this mentality may sound more like "an eye for an eye", but in reality this approach is somewhat necessary. Is there a part of almost every person who has been falsely accused that wants the accuser to feel what they have felt, and want it to play out in a public forum? Absolutely. When you consider the suffering a false arrest creates its hard to disagree. Make no bones about it; even a false arrest for a minor criminal offense is an attempt by the accuser to destroy the defendant's life in some way.

The Fallout of the False Arrest

For no reason at all you are taken into custody, and incarcerated at the local jail. This public embarrassment is a very painful attack on anyone's character. The arrest can also affect your employment in both the short and long term. Worst of all is the threat of possible punishment.

For anyone who has been falsely accused exoneration in a public forum is the closest thing to restoring his or her former life. Why? It removes all of the fallout that comes with a criminal conviction. When a Hollywood actor is libeled in a publication, they sometimes pursue the litigation to trial despite receiving a large settlement offer prior to trial. It's worth it to the actor to send the message to others that they will "stop at nothing" to punish the party responsible for the false accusations. In the end, the message is more important than the money. On a much smaller scale, you see a similar scenario play out when a criminal client is made a terrific offer on very serious criminal charges. Sometimes the answer is "no thanks". Why should anyone agree to an intervention program when they did nothing wrong?

Exoneration in a public forum to some degree does a number of things for the defendant. First, it restores their character in the public's eye. When the defendant is found "Not Guilty" in a public forum, it sends a message that the charges were false. The threat to the defendant's future is also, in large part, wiped away. If acquitted, the threat of punishment through incarceration or probation is also removed.

The process (jury trial) of restoring the character of the falsely accused can mean pointing a finger and exposing the accuser as a liar. However, for many of the falsely accused their character is only restored to the extent their accuser is exposed as a liar. Most lawyers (not just criminal) appreciate this mindset. I only wish the trial was as embarrassing for the accuser as it was for the defendant when he or she was arrested for the wrong reasons. If it was it might create a better deterrent to those who would waste the court's time and the taxpayer's dollars with frivolous charges.

All the above being said, it is important to realize that while our justice system is the best in the world, it is not perfect. In a recent case we represented a client who was accused of domestic battery in Tampa. Shortly after his girlfriend had him incarcerated for domestic battery she filed a domestic violence injunction against him. All the allegations were frivolous. We believe she was using the criminal charge and the injunction as a weapon to force our client to change. After hearing the facts of the case it was obvious that he didn't need to change, she did. Using the court system to affect someone else's behavior seems far-fetched. Unfortunately, this conduct is not uncommon.

When Trial is Not the Answer (Even for the Falsely Accused)

The boyfriend's first reaction was to force the injunction and the battery charge to trial (After discussions with the prosecutor the domestic battery charge was eventually "no filed" or dismissed by the prosecutor). He had been through a lot, and he was not interested in making the process any easier for her. After discussions with the girlfriend's lawyer, we arranged a resolution that involved avoiding the trial, and resulted in a dismissal of the injunction. Why was negotiation the better alternative, even after all the client had gone through? In a word, it "guaranteed" a result. It was less costly and took less time, but more importantly, the dismissal of the injunction through negotiation assured us that the injunction would be dismissed. We have great judges in Tampa, but it would be stupid to force any judge to weigh facts in a case at trial if you could guarantee a dismissal short of trial. When the victim is going to lie and refuse to cooperate, then you must go to trial. However, there are times when removing the "human factor" (judge or jury) out of the equation and creating a definite result is the far better tact.

When Trial is the Only Option

We represented another client whose former girlfriend was so unbalanced that even after petitioning the court for a domestic violence injunction and losing she insisted on pursuing the battery charge to trial. As is often the case the domestic violence injunction and the battery charge involved the same allegations. While preparing the case for trial the client provided us with a tape of an angry phone call from (petitioner/victim) her shortly before her arrival at his home on the night of the incident. She threatened to break into his home if he wasn't there. She also threatened in another message that, "We will not break-up tonight". The taped phone calls would embarrass and humiliate most people, and clearly proved she was in an angered state shortly before their altercation. She petitioned the Plant City Court for a domestic violence injunction. The tape was played and the judge dismissed the injunction.

Amazingly, it didn't stop her from pursuing the domestic battery charge in front of Judge Nazaretian in our Domestic Violence Court in Tampa. The tape was played again, and the client was found "not guilty". The victim in this case was so vindictive about the breakup she refused to act reasonably. She was going to pursue the false allegations even if it meant lying under oath more than once.

In both of the above instances you have a so-called victim abusing our court system. Each one requires a different approach. If you are interested in learning more about domestic violence link to us at tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Tampa Probation Attorney: Pay Your Restitution or Lose Your Driver's License

Category: Criminal Law

Every probationer needs to be aware of his obligations to the court. A failure to comply with those obligations can not only result in a violation of your probation, but also a loss of your license. The 5th DCA ruled that once the clerk notifies the DHSMV of the defendant's failure to pay restitution they are required to suspend her license. The defendant drove after notice was sent, and received a new charge of DWLS. On appeal the defendant complained that she had never received notice. Under 322.251(2) an entry onto a driving record shall constitute proof that notice was given. Anderson v. State, (5th DCA, 2010)

When a defendant fails to meet financial obligations arising from a criminal case pursuant to a payment plan, the DHSMV must suspend the defendant's license upon receipt of notice from the clerk of court. § 322.245(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). To learn more about probation violations in tampa call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Domestic Violence Attorney: Consider Your Own Conduct Before Calling Police

Category: Domestic Violence

A recent client was pulled into an altercation with his wife. The altercation led the wife to make a 911 call. The police showed up and took statements from both the husband and wife. Each filed a cross-complaint against the other. At the scene the husband was arrested and taken to jail. We contacted the State's Attorney about the husband's involvement and asked for a dismissal of the charge. Meanwhile, the wife filed an injunction preventing her husband from returning to the home. Negotiations were entered into and the wife ultimately agreed to dismiss her domestic violence injunction against her husband (our client). During a hearing on the husband's criminal charge the State Attorney announced he was dropping the charge against our client. The husband's cross-complaint against his wife was still under investigation by the State's Attorney at the time of the hearing.

At the time of the alleged incident the wife/mother had both children in the home. We believe the children's presence prompted law enforcement's decision to arrest the husband instead of his wife. It is important to realize that while you may appear innocent and deemed the victim at the scene it does not mean that you cannot end up the defendant at a later point in time. The prosecutor makes the ultimate filing decision on every criminal charge that comes through their office.

To learn more from a tampa domestic violence attorney you can call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Domestic Violence Attorney: Disorderly Conduct Requires More than a Bad Attitude

Category: Domestic Violence

A recent case out of the Second DCA reminds us that yelling profanities at police, while very stupid, does not constitute a crime. Some juveniles poured out onto the street shortly after a dance at the Boy's Club in Lakeland. One young girl was asked to disperse by law enforcement. When she refused the police officer grabbed her. She pulled away, and was eventually arrested. The officer arrested her for disorderly conduct and resisting without violence.

The Court ruled that commit disorderly conduct by words alone the evidence must show that the words caused a crowd to gather which caused a safety concerns, or that the words incited the crowd to engage in an "immediate breach of the peace". No evidence introduced at trial indicated the actions of the juvenile caused the crowd to gather, or resulted in other juveniles fighting. The court reversed the conviction of both the disorderly conduct and the resisting arrest charge. If the officer had no grounds to arrest the juvenile for disorderly conduct then he was not engaged in a lawful duty when she pulled away (resisted arrest). C.N. v. State, 2nd DCA.

To learn more about crimes of violence or domestic violence link to tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Tampa Domestic Violence Attorney: False Imprisonment and Battery Charge Dropped Once Victim Exposed

Category: Domestic Violence

Every criminal lawyer is familiar with the prosecutor that puts too much faith in his victim's credibility. Some victims especially those romantically involved with a defendant will go to incredible lengths to get what they want. Sometimes the court system is a method by which they believe they can get their boyfriend or husband to behave a certain way: "If he knows I can have him arrested he will start responding to me the right way". On the other hand, sometimes pure vindictiveness leads to criminal charges.

In a recent case our client was engaged in some behavior that his girlfriend didn't like. She told him that she was going to call the police if he didn't stop. An argument ensued and the police showed up. The client was charged with False Imprisonment and domestic battery. During depositions (sworn statement) the victim admitted that she destroyed the defendant's clothes and other property during their altercation. She also admitted to provoking our client, and misrepresenting a number of other facts. Shortly after depositions both the False Imprisonment and Battery charge were dismissed.

To learn more about domestic violence in tampa link to tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Tampa Injunction Attorney talks about the Risk of Self-Representation or the Pro Se Respondent

Category: Domestic Violence

We are currently engaged in the representation of another client who made the terrible mistake of representing himself at his domestic violence injunction hearing. He walked into the injunction hearing with the mindset that, "This isn't that big of a deal. It's not a criminal offense. I did nothing wrong, and never threatened my girlfriend. My justice system (the judge) will figure this out and DISMISS the injunction because my girlfriend is lying". As I mentioned these ideas to the client at a recent office meeting he nodded his head, and said, "That's exactly what I thought".

There are only two scenarios that warrant a respondent (defendant to a petition for an injunction) moving forward at an injunction hearing on his or her own.

First, your economic situation prevents you from retaining an attorney experienced in the area of domestic violence injunctions. Many people cannot afford to retain legal counsel in today's economy. If you cannot afford the services of an experienced attorney I would suggest calling Bay Area Legal Services.

Second, you truly do not care about the outcome of the hearing. In other words, you are willing to let the judge enter the injunction against you knowing all the repercussions that flow from having an injunction imposed against you. The following are just a few:

1) If the Petitioner is motivated by revenge, you must endure the precarious and uncertain feeling of being unaware whether the petitioner will call police in an effort to have you arrested for violating the injunction. Violating a domestic violence injunction can result in jail or prison (depending on the nature of the violation).

2) If you believe your spouse or the parent of your child is filing the injunction to gain an advantage in a custody battle IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that you retain legal counsel. The entry of a Domestic Violence Injunction or a Sexual Violence Injunction will have a tremendous impact on your ability to receive the appropriate time sharing with your child.

3) The entry of the injunction is public record. Anyone conducting a background check could find it on the Clerk's website in Tampa. It cannot be removed through the sealing or expungement process.

4) The stigma of being labeled a violent person.

5) Mandatory domestic violence classes (if you refuse to complete them you could be found in contempt of court)

6) Lose right to possess a firearm

7) Lose the ability to seek employment in a law enforcement capacity. It is necessary to carry a firearm to be employed as a law enforcement officer.

If you are willing to accept the consequences listed above then there is probably no reason to even have a hearing in the first place. Just tell the judge you have no objection to the entry of the injunction.

On the other hand, if you want to fight the injunction and you have the financial means to hire an attorney I would strongly suggest retaining an experienced Tampa injunction attorney to handle your case. We handle too many cases by client's who failed to recognize the seriousness of the hearing they were about to participate in. I do not mean to suggest that the entry of an injunction cannot be undone. It can. However, that road is much longer and costlier than retaining legal counsel prior to the initial hearing.

To learn more contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Injunction Lawyer.

The Admissibility of Prior Acts of Child Molestation and Section 90.404 (2) (b)

Category: Firm News

Some tampa criminal attorneys might assume that Section 90.404 (2) (b) of Florida's Evidence Code has opened the floodgates to any prior acts of child molestation on the part of their client. The statute reads":

In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.

From a trial standpoint the introduction into evidence of prior bad acts (what many criminal attorneys commonly refer to as "Williams Rule evidence") has the potential to destroy even the strongest defense. It is vital to recognize the significance of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in McLean v. State. While the statute seems to make admissible any prior act of molestation without regard to its similarity the charged facts, that is not the case. The Florida Supreme Court set out the procedural steps that should be taken by the trial court when determining whether prior acts of molestation will be admissible under 404(2) (b):

The trial court's gatekeeping function is critical. In every case, the trial court must conduct the weighing required by section 90.403. As the Ninth Circuit noted, "[b]ecause of the inherent strength of the evidence that is covered by [Rule 414], when putting this type of evidence through *1262 the [Rule 403] microscope, a court should pay careful attention to both the significant probative value and the strong prejudicial qualities of that evidence." LeMay, 260 F.3d at 1027 (alterations in original) (quoting Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1268 (9th Cir.2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To guide the trial courts in deciding whether to admit evidence of prior acts of child molestation when it is offered to corroborate the victim's testimony, we discuss the steps that the trial courts should take.

Of course, before even considering whether to allow evidence of prior acts to be presented to the jury, the trial court must find that the prior acts were proved by clear and convincing evidence.

In assessing whether the probative value of evidence of previous molestations is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court should evaluate:

(1) the similarity of the prior acts to the act charged regarding the location of where the acts occurred, the age and gender of the victims, and the manner in which the acts were committed;

(2) the closeness in time of the prior acts to the act charged;

(3) the frequency of the prior acts; and

(4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances.

This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case.

Factors other than the potential for unfair prejudice are also pertinent in a section 90.403 analysis. The trial court must determine whether the evidence of the prior acts will confuse or mislead jurors by distracting them from the central issues of the trial. Also necessary is an assessment whether the evidence is needlessly cumulative of other evidence bearing on the victim's credibility, the purpose for which this evidence may be introduced. Further, in accord with our precedent, the trial court must guard against allowing the collateral-crime testimony to become a feature of the trial. Finally, if requested, the trial court shall give an appropriate cautionary instruction both at the time the evidence is presented and in its final charge to the jury.

The Florida Supreme Court made it clear that the similarity between the charged offense and the prior acts of molestation continue to be a necessary part of the trial court's analysis in order to satisfy the relevance requirement of 404(2) (b):

Accordingly, the similarity of the prior act and the charged offense remains part of a court's analysis in determining whether to admit the evidence in two ways. First, the less similar the prior acts, the less relevant they are to the charged crime, and therefore the less likely they will be admissible. Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403.

It appears that much of the same analysis that was required in the past continues to be necessary today. Whenever William's Rule evidence is introduced there is a danger that the jury will convict on that basis of the prior act and not the evidence of the charged offense. To find out more contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa sex offense attorney.

Character Evidence of the Accused in the Context of Sexual Offenses

Category: Firm News

As you might expect clients charged with sex crimes are very adamant about not only proving their innocence (technically no one has to "prove their innocence" but client's with these charges are often forced to offer some evidence of their innocence), but also defending their reputation. Because the facts of many sex charges come down to the credibility of the victim versus the credibility of the accused, defendants are usually anxious to have an army of close friends and loved ones testify on their behalf that they are not the type of person who would commit such a heinous act.

In a recent case out of Duval County a defendant attempted to present evidence to a jury through witnesses that "they knew the defendant's reputation in the community for being sexually moral and that it was 'excellent'". Hendricks v. State, 34 So.3d 819 (1st DCA 2010). The trial court refused to admit the evidence claiming that sexual morality is not a character trait that could be proven by reputation evidence. The 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed his decision ruling:

In short, we agree with the point in Alvelo, Russ, Jackson, and Spencer that because a person's tendency, or lack thereof, to commit acts of child molestation is not something that a community tends to have knowledge of, testimony concerning a person's reputation for having such a trait is inherently unreliable and distinguishable from traditionally admissible reputation evidence. For this reason, we find no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of such evidence in the instant case. To the extent Appellant attempted to introduce evidence only of his reputation for having appropriate sexual relationships with adults, it was within the trial court's discretion to exclude it as either irrelevant or substantially more likely to confuse the issues than to offer probative value. Cf. Russ v. State, 934 So.2d 527, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that the defendant's reputation "for respectfulness toward women" had no bearing on whether he committed lewd or lascivious exhibition or sexual battery on a child); see § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence").

Child Protective Services and the Domestic Relations Court

Category: Domestic Violence

If you have been arrested for a charge involving domestic violence it is critical that you contact a criminal attorney as soon as possible. If the facts and circumstances surrounding your case involve children contacting a Tampa domestic violence attorney with experience in dealing with not only the prosecutor's office, but also child protective services is essential.

Most child protective investigators will coerce the mother into pursuing a domestic violence injunction against the father. Their standard line to the mother is, "If you don't pursue a domestic violence injunction against your husband we are taking your children to foster care". This threat creates great stress in the mother who wants to reconcile with her husband, but doesn't want to lose her children. Navigating your way through this minefield (Child Protective Services and the Criminal Courts)isn't easy, but it can be done.

Contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

The Injunction Against Sexual Violence, and the "Finger Pointing Statute" - A Parent's Worst Nightmare

Category: Criminal Law

I have been practicing criminal law for 15 plus years. I have seen a lot of bad things. I have represented a lot of people that were falsely accused. Talk to any sex crimes detective and he or she will tell you that false allegations are very prevalent in that area. The reason is somewhat obvious to many. If you want to hurt someone by falsely accusing them of a crime what's the best choice? Clearly, the sex crime. No criminal allegation is more devastating to another human being's life than an allegation that involves molesting a child.

I have seen many unscrupulous parents use a false allegation of sexual violence against their child to destroy the other parent's rights. You do not have to practice very long in criminal and/or family law courtrooms to realize that the Domestic Relations Court is many times used by Petitioners to win a custody battle in front of the Family Law judge. The routine usually plays out this way:

1) One parent falsely claims the father or mother of the child (these allegations are usually made against the father) sexually molested the child. Another alternative is to allege the other parent battered them in front of the child. These allegations also strike a cord with a family law judge its just not as powerful as sex allegations.

2) The Domestic Relations Judge grants the Injunction against the Respondent,

3) The Petitioner then waives the injunction in front of the Family Law Judge in the hopes of gaining an advantage..

The Florida legislature became wise to this ploy and enacted 784.046(4)(a)(1)(2). This statute applies to injunctions of sexual violence, repeat violence, or dating violence. Some call it the "finger pointing" statute, and it serves a very vital purpose. If you are the mother or father of a child petitioning the Domestic Relations Court for an Injunction Against Sexual Violence claiming the other parent molested your child you must have some very powerful evidence to receive the injunction.

If you claim that the other parent has molested the child in some way you must have "...an eyewitness to, or have direct physical evidence or affidavits from eyewitnesses of, the specific acts and circumstances that form the basis upon which relief is sought...".

I discovered this statute while preparing for an injunction hearing against sexual violence. I represented the father (respondent). The mother was claiming that father forced their daughter to engage in oral sex. We knew the mother possessed none of the evidence necessary to support the allegation. When we moved the Domestic Relations judge to DISMISS the petition for the injunction, she was dumbfounded. Initially, she thought I had misread the statute. She had interpreted subsection (2) to mean that the only necessary evidence was a "reasonable cause to believe" that the child was the victim of sexual violence. When I made her aware that subsection (2) only applied "if the party against whom the protective injunction is sought is a person other than a parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of the minor child" she was again stunned. The courtroom went completely silent for what felt like an eternity while the judge read and re-read the statute.

I have to admit the fist time I read the statute I was also stunned. I was stunned because of the nature of the domestic relations court, and frequency with which I had seen people try to abuse it. When you consider the nature of sexual allegations and the firestorm (no matter how ridiculous the allegation, a detective specialized in sex crimes along with child protective services is going to conduct a very thorough investigation) that is set off when one of these allegations is made you are even more stunned. I do not mean to imply that law enforcement and Child Protective Services should not be forced into action every time this type of allegation is made. Whenever a threat of harm is posed against a child the police must investigate. As a parent, even if we have to waste money investigating allegations that ultimately wind up being frivolous it's worth it. Even if their time and our taxpayer dollars end up being wasted on frivolous allegations the police should still be called into action for one simple reason. Children have no real way to protect themselves from an adult who means them harm.

I am only commenting on the rush to judgment many take when approaching these allegations. Let's face it that's why so many unscrupulous parents use the allegations as a tool affect custody in the first place. Its also important to realize the Court's refusal to grant such an injunction does not necessarily mean that the offending parent might continue to victimize the child. Granting or denying this injunction has no impact on whether law enforcement or Child Protective Services will continue their investigation. If the offending parent is charged with a sexually related crime, the judge will certainly impose a "no contact" order as a condition to any pretrial release. If convicted, and the parent avoids prison, the condition will remain in place while the parent is on probation.

If child protective services and the attorney generals office believe the allegations have merit they will petition the Dependency Court to deem the child dependent or terminate the parent's rights altogether. It only takes a preponderance of evidence for the Dependency Court to deem a child dependent.

However, when you consider that the statute only applies when one parent is accusing another parent of sexual abuse. Its function seems vital. Custody battles between parents are many times very vicious. How many times have I heard a parent involved in a custody dispute describe the other parent as "the worst human being on the face of the earth"? Are they usually exaggerating? Yes. What you have to remember is that this statute wasn't even designed for that type of parent. This statute wasn't created for the ugly custody dispute. It was created for the "no holds barred" battle royal involving a mother or father with a very twisted sense of what it means to be a parent. This statute was created for the parent that has no problem lying under oath, or the idea that these false allegations could land the other parent in prison for the rest of his or her life. The statute also recognizes the tremendous impact that granting such an injunction (without sufficient evidence) could mean for the innocent parent who might never see their child again. To learn more call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Possession of Child Pornography over Pier-to-Pier Network - Search Upheld

Category: Criminal Law

Many people viewing child pornography over the web feel the privacy of their home will shield them from law enforcement. The fact is that the ease with which someone is able to download child pornography over the internet is almost matched by the ease with which law enforcement can investigate and charge someone for engaging in the conduct.

The popular practice amongst people viewing and sharing these materials is to go on a pier-to-pier network such as Limewire and others and request images. Once the request is made, a list of images is sent to the user. The user can then download the material. What many on the internet are not aware of is that the moment you open a video on your computer it is saved on a temporary hard drive even if you do not attempt to save onto the hard drive.

Law Enforcement's Software

Over the years law enforcement has amassed millions and millions of pornographic images relating to children. Each one of these images (whether they are a still photographs or video images) has a SHA-1 value. This SHA-1 value is unique to each pornographic image. Law enforcement is currently armed with software that is able to track these unique SHA-1 values every time someone shares the images through a pier-to-pier network. As this article is being written law enforcement is able to see in real time computers downloading child pornography. Based on the nature and number of images the detective will make a decision as to whether the investigation of a particular computer is worthwhile. If so, he will send a subpoena to the internet service provider to determine the identification of the IP holder. The detective then drafts an affidavit for a search warrant. As long as the affidavit contains the necessary information, the judge will sign the warrant. The detective then executes the warrant, and enters the home with a number of other officers trained to collect these images off the computer. Typically, they will attempt to take a statement from the suspect acknowledging ownership of the computer and the images found on its hard drive.

Legal Search

The First District Court of Appeal, in State v. Williams, recently upheld the execution of a warrant in Bay County where the detective followed the above procedure. The Court found that while the warrant may have been vague as to the particular times the pornography was downloaded; it contained enough evidence to satisfy the probable cause requirement. In support of its ruling, the First District cited the following law:

When attempting to secure a valid search warrant, an applicant is not required to provide a magistrate with direct proof the objects of the search are located in the place to be searched. See State v. Weil, 877 So.2d 803, 804 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 889 So.72 (Fla. 2004). Rather, the applicant must supply a sworn affidavit setting forth facts upon which a reasonable magistrate could find probable cause to support a search. Id. The issuing magistrate will then analyze the information contained in the affidavit, consider the type of crime being investigated, examine the nature of the items sought, and make a "practical, common-sense decision" as to whether there is a "fair probability" evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-239 (1983).

If you have been arrested for possession of child pornography contact our office at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Domestic Violence Nightmare Over

Category: Domestic Violence

FACTS: After client finds out his wife is cheating on him he pulls out a gun and threatens to kill himself. He continues to argue with wife and then fires one round into the ground. He quickly throws the gun away, and it appears the parties reconcile. The wife continues her relationship with the "other man" and client finds out about her infidelity. While at home with his wife the "other man" continued to call police claiming the wife was being abused by the husband. The police reported to the client's home and confronted the wife. The client and his wife were separated by police officers before they gave a statement. According to the wife she was coerced by Tampa Police to state that she was falsely imprisoned by her husband in her home. The client was arrested for false imprisonment, and taken to jail. The client bonded out of jail and went home. He was then served with a domestic violence injunction, and was forced to leave the home.

After discussions with the State Attorney the false imprisonment charge was dropped (dismissed). Unfortunately, the client came home after his wife convinced him it was permissible. The client failed to call us and was under the false impression that the wife (petitioner) had the authority to allow her husband (respondent) back to the home in violation of the temporary injunction that was in place at the time. Child Protective Services became involved in the case because of an anonymous phone call about the incident with the gun. The day after the client came back to his home a child protection investigator came to the house. When she found the client there in violation of the injunction she called police. The police arrived on scene and arrested the client for violation of the injunction (another criminal offense). Another bond hearing was conducted and the client was released in light of the counselor's recommendation to the court. Further discussions with the wife led to the dismissal of the injunction and dismissal of the client's new violation of injunction charge. Child Protective Services remained involved in the case to ensure the safety of the children.

It is very important to realize the role of Child Protective Services whenever a domestic violence incident occurs and children are involved. In order to find out more information contact us at our office at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Prosecution Unable to Prove DUI Where Driver Found Outside Vehicle

Category: DUI

Our client drove his car into a TECO power pole causing $30,000.00 worth of damage. Luckily, he received minor injuries as a result of the crash. The client was asked to perform field sobriety testing and according to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy he showed a number of clues of impairment. After being arrested for DUI he was transported to the Hillsborough County Jail where he submitted to a breathalyzer exam. His results were .121 and .128. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. During depositions the officers who first encountered the driver acknowledged that he wasn't in the driver's seat. It is not impossible for the State Attorney to prove someone was driving a vehicle where they are found outside the car, but the fact that the driver was found outside the vehicle can create problems. Here, he admitted driving before the officer actually started conducting his DUI investigation. In Florida, there is an accident report privilege which allows driver's to answer the officer's questions about a crash without it being used against them later. Usually the officer notifies the driver that he is switching hats from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation. What is more critical than notifying the driver that you are switching hats is notifying them of their Miranda rights. Here, there was no admission of driving after the Miranda rights were read to the driver. He spoke to the police officer about other things, but not about driving. This small fact made prosecuting our client for DUI impossible. If you have been arrested for DUI and you have any questions about whether the officers followed proper procedure you can call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Out of State Violation of Probation Warrant Dismissed Through Payment of Restitution

Category: Criminal Law

Thousands of people convicted of crimes in Tampa and around Florida choose to leave the state some point after they are put on probation. Usually absconding (willfully avoiding your probation conditions) while on probation is triggered by a lack of money, or a place to live. Lack of money is many times the issue surrounding the reason for committing the crime that led to the probation. Any theft or fraud crime that involves a monetary loss to the victim can be resolved to a large degree by paying that money back to the victim. Many out of state clients have called me about an outstanding warrant from Florida that they want to get rid of. I am by no means saying this is always the case, but making the victim whole again is many times the goal of the State Attorney and the Probation Office. Many old warrants based on a violation of probation can lead to a dismissal upon payment of the restitution to the victim. It is important to retain counsel to ensure that the proper steps are taken to remove the warrant if the State Attorney agrees. If you have questions about a Florida warrant for your arrest or extradition please call our office at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Possession of Firearm on School Property by a Juvenile

Category: Criminal Law

The client was a juvenile attending Hillsborough High School. He had aspirations of enlisting in the armed forces when he was arrested by a Hillsborough County Sheriff's deputy for possession of a firearm on School Grounds and Minor in possession of a firearm. He received a call from his cousin at Franklin Middle School. His cousin asked him to come pick him and his friend up because they were almost jumped by two other kids. When the client picked up his cousin he had his friend with him. His cousin's friend got into his car with a backpack. The client noticed that both his cousin and his friend were toying with two guns (Kahr MK9 pistol containing 5 hollow point 9 millimeter rounds; and a .44 magnum Ruger, super Blackhawk pistol with two .44 caliber rounds loaded in it) in the back seat of the car. He told the boys to leave the guns in the car, and he drove to school. Law enforcement became aware of the altercation at Franklin Middle School and tracked down our client's car in the Hillsborough High School parking lot. Once they connected the car to our client they conducted a search which revealed the guns.

Cooperation with Law Enforcement Sometimes a Good Thing

The State Attorney realized that we were about to file Motions to Suppress the Firearms as evidence in the case. A number of possible illegal search issues surrounded the police officer's investigation. The prosecutor chose to nolle prosse (dismiss) the charges against our client in the hopes of receiving his cooperation. It worked and the client testified against the other two co-defendants. Everyone subpoenaed to testify in court is required to attend and obviously testify truthfully. However, many times the non-appearance of a witness is not going to allow the State to continue the case. It usually means they will go without the witness at trial. Sometimes that witness is critical to their case. Here, our client was cooperative from beginning to end and only held the guns to keep them away from the younger boys. While his testimony was not critical it was extremely important to the State. If you have any questions about gun charges or the legality of a search conducted by the police you can call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Video of Field Sobriety Tests Not Enough Without Audio

Category: DUI

A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy followed the client for over a ½ mile with his overhead lights on before he stopped. After the stop the driver (client) admitted to having a beer and a drink before driving. When the client was pressed by the officer he told him that the passenger could drive him home because she had a valid driver's license. The Deputy observed the passenger to have a ½ filled margarita on the passenger floor board next to her. The deputy then observed an open container of Cognac Salignac 200 ml. 40% alc/vol next to the driver door on the floor in plain view.

A Critical Mistake for the Prosecution

A special DUI Task Enforcement Officer was called to the scene. Before he exits his vehicle to begin a potential investigation the DUI officer usually turns on a video camera that is fixed inside his vehicle. He also turns on his mic so the encounter between himself and the suspect can be recorded. If he arrests the suspect it is going to be important for the officer's report to mirror the events on the video. Here, the officer failed to turn on his mic so while you could visually watch the defendant (client) perform tests you could not hear the deputy's instructions or any statements the defendant made.

Why is this a critical mistake for the prosecution? Field sobriety exercises require proper instructions. You can't judge someone's performance unless you know whether he has been properly instructed. What you can see of the client's performance does not indicate impairment per se. The audio may have revealed slow, slurred responses to the deputy's instructions or it may have revealed quick accurate responses. Without the audio it is impossible to know. There are many steps involved in conducting a thorough investigation of a DUI charge. Any mistake can create a hole in the investigation that would force any jury to find in the defendant's favor. The ultimate resolution of this case was greatly affected by this mistake. If you have questions about whether the police officer took the proper steps in your criminal investigation call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Air Force Veteran with High Security Clearance Found Not Guilty of Domestic Violence (Domestic Violence Injunction Dismissed)

Category: Domestic Violence

Our client was a retired military veteran who held a high security clearance with Central Command. He was employed by a private company that worked closely with the military. His wife received injuries to her arm during a verbal altercation that turned violent. She claimed that the defendant (our client) took her to the ground and struck her in the face. The client also received scratches on his neck and an injury to his face where she struck him with a bible cover.

According to the client his wife suffered from mental health issues that created a number of severe mood swings. Hours after this altercation occurred the client went to take a shower. During that time his wife came into the bathroom to pray with him. Shortly after his shower he found his wife in the living room despondent. For no apparent reason she got up and ran outside and asked the neighbors to call police.

Domestic Violence Injunction

Before the police arrived the defendant left the home and hired us to fight the charge. The wife also filed a petition for a domestic violence injunction. This case was long and arduous because it required preparation for two separate trials. First we addressed the wife's allegations in front of the Domestic Violence Injunction Court. During the hearing the wife conceded that after the supposed physical abuse on the part of her husband she not only stayed in the home, but also went to the bathroom to pray with her husband. These facts contradicted the idea that she was abused and in fear of her husband. Despite a much lower standard of proof in the domestic injunction court the judge dismissed the wife's petition for injunction.

Criminal Trial for Domestic Violence

The same contradiction raised in front of the Domestic Injunction Judge was also brought to the attention Judge Artemus McNeal in Plant City. Based photographs that also contradicted the wife's testimony and other evidence the Court found the client not guilty. For more information about domestic violence in tampa link to tampa criminal attorney.

DUI Involving Death Dismissed in Clearwater

Category: DUI

Whenever someone is killed as a result of an car accident the first question law enforcement makes an effort to answer is whether the drivers involved in the accident were intoxicated in any way. Even where a drunk driver is not at fault for the accident serious steps will be taken to determine whether a dui manslaughter charge could be filed against him or her. In this case the client was driving his motorcycle down U.S. 19 and Tampa Road in Palm Harbor, Florida. That particular day he had his girlfriend sitting behind him on his bike. An older gentleman drove his car onto US 19 without seeing the client on his motorcycle. His motorcycle drove right into the front driver's side quarter panel. Both my client and his girlfriend were catapulted over the hood of the car. They both hit the pavement traveling about 45 mph and traveled over 100 feet before they finally came to rest. My client was severely injured, but his girlfriend was much worse. She received fatal injuries and died at the scene. The client was bay-flighted to the Bayfront Medical Center from the scene of the crash.

Evidence of Impairment

The driver of the vehicle was clearly at fault for the accident. He was eventually cited for violating our client's right of way. A blood draw was taken from our client. Whenever a traffic accident results in a fatality law enforcement is permitted to draw your blood without your consent. It was determined that the client's blood contained both alprazolam (xanax) and oxycodone. The blood sample was taken to the Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory. The trooper requested the lab to conduct a quantitative analysis to determine the amount of xanax and oxycodone that was in our client's blood. According to the Forensic Toxicologist the normal therapeutic range for Oxycodone is 100 ng/ml. The results of the analysis indicated that the client had 400 ng./ml. in his blood. The Forensic Toxicologist stated that the client was 4 times the therapeutic range. It appeared to her that the dose could have been lethal. As a result of this analysis the defendant was charged with Driving Under the Influence almost a year after the accident. In this particular situation the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office made a decision not to file DUI Manslaughter because the older gentleman was clearly at fault for causing the accident. However, the State Attorney's Office felt the lab results forced them to file a DUI charge.

Proving Intoxication Based on Drugs (prescribed or controlled substances)

Proving someone is impaired by alcohol can be accomplished in two separate ways. One way is to prove the alcohol content of their blood was above the legal limit at the time of driving. As you are probably already aware the legal limit in the state of Florida is .08. Another way of proving impairment is accomplished by offering evidence, usually in the form of a video, which proves someone's normal faculties are impaired.

Here, you have a situation where the prosecutor must prove that my client was impaired because of the level of oxycodone in his blood. This can be problematic. In order to prove impairment based on the ingestion of a prescribed drug you must first show that the prescribed drug is one that can cause impairment. For instance, there are some drugs that are not listed as controlled substances even though they can cause impairment. Ambien can affect your ability to walk, talk, and judge distances, but it was not listed as a controlled substance that can cause impairment under our DUI statute. Second, if you have been charged with DUI and your charge is based on the impairment of a drug listed in the statute, then the prosecutor must determine whether the drug affected your normal faculties or whether there is a quantifiable amount of drugs that would cause impairment. For instance, theoretically you could be pulled over and arrested for DUI based on a urine sample that shows heroin in your system. This urine sample would not give you a quantifiable amount, but the prosecutor may not need to quantify the amount of heroin, where your video shows you failing all the field sobriety tests. On the other hand, in our case no field sobriety tests could be administered because my client was air lifted to the hospital. The only way the State Attorney could prove intoxication in this case was to call a toxicologist to the witness stand to testify that my client had 4 times the therapeutic level of oxycodone in his system.

The Unique Nature of Pain Killers

Oxycodone is a pain killer. People that are forced to take pain killers over an extended length of time develop a tolerance to them. In order to relieve their pain they inevitably have to take higher and higher doses of the medication. Our client had been through serious neck surgery and another motorcycle accident before the fatal accident in December of 2008. As a consequence, he was on an aggressive therapeutic pain management treatment program for a considerable length of time prior to the accident occurring on 12/10/08. Narcotic analgesics have an extremely large tolerance potential resulting in patients becoming tolerant to potential side effects including motor performance impairment over a long dosing history. In other words, the therapeutic level for oxycodone for my client was much higher than the average person who had never taken pain medication. The level of oxycodone in the client's system would certainly affect the normal faculties of a person who had no pain management history. However, Our client's normal faculties would not have been affected by the amount of oxycodone that he had in his system.

The Prosecution

Our client's medical history was supplied to the prosecution. Once we cross-examined the State's expert about the logic surrounding the tolerance of pain killers the State decided to dismiss the charge. To find out more about DUI contact us at 813-228-7095 or link to tampa criminal attorney.

If Possible File That Motion in Limine Long Before Trial

Category: Criminal Law

As a criminal trial lawyer you learn very quickly that certain pretrial rulings from the Court can have a dramatic impact on a jury's ultimate decision. As a public defender I was forced because of time constraints (over burdened with files) to file motions-in-limine (this is a motion directed at preventing the state attorney from introducing or mentioning evidence, which you believe, is inadmissible at trial) shortly before trial. I hated it. A ruling from the court on pivotal evidentiary issues long before trial is imperative to making an informed decision about taking the case to trial or not. Certainly there are evidentiary issues that can arise in such a way that force you to make this motion last minute. There may also be strategic reasons for waiting to file a motion-in-limine shortly before trial. However, filing these motions early on in the litigation can be very beneficial to the lawyer and his/her client.

I was on the phone recently with a much respected, well-known criminal attorney who had been practicing for a long time. His client wanted a second opinion about his case and he encouraged him to talk to me. The issue arose as to whether a crime he pled guilty to previously would be admissible at the trial on his new charge. This particular case involved sexual allegations, and the sanctions he would receive at sentencing were severe if he went to trial and lost. I suggested filing the Motion in limine and have the judge decide the issue as soon as possible. When a jury hears evidence of prior bad acts or crimes, a defendant's case can go from very winnable to "maybe the State's offer isn't so bad after all". The client's lawyer told me, "I usually file those types of motions right before trial". I don't mean to second guess another lawyer. In his defense, he had been dealing with the case much longer than I had, and maybe had other reasons for waiting to file the motion. My only point is that deciding an issue so pivotal to the outcome long before trial could save the defense attorney from meetings with the client speculating about whether the judge will allow the evidence in right before trial. It also helps the defense attorney in that he knows what he or she is up against long before he starts the jury selection. It makes the judge happy in that a major decision (that involves a lot of argument by the lawyers, and consideration on her part) is decided long before trial. Nothing upsets a judge more than being forced to make a decision "on the fly" that could result in an appeal one way or the other. After practicing law for over 15 years I can tell you that even the most state-oriented judge is a hell of a lot more interested in being right on the law than being reversed. Having this hearing long before the trial gives the judge an opportunity to give the motion all of his/her consideration without having to be concerned about how much longer the jury panel is going to be waiting outside while he/she decides the motion. This may seem like obvious logic to many but filing these motions on the eve of trial is more the norm than the exception. To find out more link to Tampa Criminal Attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Tampa Felon in Possession of Firearm Gets Fair Shake From Jury Despite Overwhelming Evidence

Category: Recent Wins

My client was arrested for Felon in Possession of a Firearm in Tampa. Under normal circumstances this offense doesn't look too ugly. Yes, it's a level 5 second degree felony, and the maximum sentence you could receive is 15 years in Florida State Prison, but it only scores probation without a prior record or any aggravating factors. This case involved some aggravating factors that prompted the State Attorney to charge my client with Felon in actual possession of a firearm. The "actual" possession obviously means that the State has evidence that will prove that the firearm was at some point not just in the felon's vehicle or in his house, but on his person. The "actual" possession is a characteristic that carries a 3 year minimum/mandatory sentence in Florida State Prison.

FACTS: The client was cruising Ybor City at about 3 a.m. on a Saturday night. Many kids are exiting the clubs at this hour because of a city ordinance. Ybor City has a reputation for crime, and especially at this hour. As a consequence, the City of Tampa stations a number of police officers in the parking lots outside these clubs to keep order. My client was driving westbound near the parking lot outside Club Empire. His passenger had an altercation with a passer-by that caused him to exit his vehicle. According to the police report the defendant (my client) exited the driver's side of his vehicle and pulled out a Tech-9 from his trunk. A tech-9 is a light weight uzi-type firearm that can be easily modified to fire automatically. It can also hold a large clip of ammunition. The police report states that an anonymous bystander told the police that the driver "just pointed an uzi at us".

Upon hearing this information from the bystander seven or eight police officers chased the vehicle on foot through the parking lot behind the Tropicana Restaurant. My client, believing the group of people from the first encounter was still chasing him, moved quickly through the parking lot avoiding a number of other drivers. The main investigating TPD officer made a number of representations in his police report about the chase. He claimed that our client stopped his vehicle in the parking lot. According to the investigating officer, he ran up to the vehicle which was stopped in the parking lot and ordered the driver to stop. His report states that the driver and passenger both turned, and made eye contact as he yelled, "STOP, POLICE". The driver then reached for something under his seat, and accelerated out of the parking lot. Almost all of these statements were directly contradicted by his fellow officers who were running right behind him. The client's statement, which was confirmed by the other officers testimony, was unaware that the officers chasing him through the parking lot. Upon exiting the parking lot he passed a number of other officers on horseback and drove north against traffic. Once the client saw overhead lights flashing behind him he pulled over immediately. After he was stopped, the client was arrested for fleeing and attempting to elude police. During a search incident to that arrest the police gained access to my client's trunk. Law enforcement was able to recover the following contraband from a book bag in the trunk:

1) .22 revolver
2) Box of .22 ammunition
3) 2 boxes of 9 millimeter ammunition
4) A 30 round clip of 9 millimeter ammunition (that fit the Tech 9)
5) A machete
6) A bullet-proof vest

One thing the police failed to recover initially was the Tech 9. The client and the passenger were questioned about the Tech 9, and both denied having it in their possession. At some point during the search of the vehicle Tampa Police Officers found a 30 round clip that could easily fit a Tech 9. At that moment law enforcement was convinced that the Tech 9 had been in there possession. They let the passenger go, and arrested my client. A crime scene technician was asked to retrace the vehicle's path of travel with a metal detector looking for the Tech 9 in bushes on the median.

My client was questioned about the circumstances surrounding his earlier altercation, and he stated that once he saw his passenger get into a fight he got out of the car and "attempted to pull out the revolver in the trunk" to scare them. Based on that information, and the fact that our client had a prior felony conviction, the police also charged him with felon in possession of a firearm. Some time later the tech 9 was found in some bushes on the median down the same path of travel taken by the client.

Prior to trial we filed a motion to prevent the State Attorney from mentioning any of the contraband found in the book bag (except for the .22 revolver), and the Tech 9. While Florida case law gives the State Attorney a lot of latitude to modify their charging document before and sometimes even during trial depending on the circumstances, the State's charging document only listed one felon in possession of a firearm charge. The charging document only stated "a firearm" (it never specified whether the firearm was the tech 9 or the .22 revolver). The state has the ability to file one charge of felon in possession of a firearm and fashion the charging document in such a way that allows the jury to choose whether the defendant was in possession of either one of the firearms. The State never modified their charging document in this way. For strategic reasons which would take too long to discuss in this article we did not file a Motion for Statement of Particulars before trial. Sidenote: The State never listed the co-defendant as a witness. He was critical to proving the Tech 9 was in my client's possession. Any attention drawn to that fact, i.e. A Motion for Statement of Particulars could have caused the State to list the co-defendant as a witness. Nevertheless, we objected to the admissibility of the Tech 9 and the rest of the contents of the book bag. Our argument was three-fold:

First, despite the circumstantial evidence showing the Tech-9 was in the vehicle, there was not enough evidence to prove our client was ever in possession of the Tech-9. Second, the State filed a charging document that specified only one felon in possession of a firearm charge. Third, the Tech 9 was not listed in the charging document, and therefore should not be mentioned or introduced into evidence during the trial. The State should not be entitled to enter two guns into evidence to prove one charge. The Court over our objection, allowed the State to introduce most of the contents of the book bag (ammunition, clips), and the Tech-9 into evidence.

For the benefit of the lay person the purpose behind filing a motion-in-limine prior to trial is to prevent mention or the introduction of what you believe to be inadmissible evidence at trial for various reasons. In this case we felt the prior bad acts, or crimes that are not included in the charging document, should not be permitted into evidence (remember the charging document listed one charge of felon in possession of a firearm). We also argued that the ammunition found in the book bag, that was also not included in the charging document, amounted to another crime (felon in possession of ammunition). The Court ordered that everything except for the machete, and the bullet proof vest could be mentioned and/or introduced into evidence at trial. However, the Judge cautioned the State before trial by saying, "I am assuming you will be able to offer evidence that the defendant was in fact in possession of this firearm (Tech 9) during this trial".

During trial the State offered circumstantial evidence that the Tech 9 was in my client's vehicle prior to his stop. However, as expected, they never offered enough evidence to prove he was "in possession" of the Tech 9. At the close of the State Attorney's case we moved for a Judgment of Acquittal as to the Tech 9. The Court granted our motion for judgment of acquittal (essentially a motion to dismiss during trial). The granting of the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal prompted another defense motion. Because the Court allowed the State to introduce the Tech 9 into evidence, over defense objection, and there was no evidence of possession, we felt the Court should grant a mistrial. This evidence was highly prejudicial, and prevents a jury from fairly weighing the evidence during their deliberations. The Court denied our motion for mistrial, but instructed the jury to disregard all mention of the Tech-9 during trial. No defense attorney on the planet feels this type of curative instruction will ever have its desired effect during jury deliberations.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but I would like to describe what goes through the criminal defense attorney's mind when the judge is instructing the jury on this issue:

You mean you want the jury to forget the machine gun the State Attorney paraded around the court room when he introduced it into evidence? You mean you want the jury to forget the testimony about the 30-round clip found in the book bag in the car that just happened to fit perfectly into the Tech-9 that was eventually found in the bushes on the exact path of travel that my client took before he was pulled over by police?

Needless to say I wasn't bursting with confidence that the jury would follow the Judge's instruction and erase the evidence they heard about the Tech-9 from their minds. Thankfully, I was wrong. The jury did just that. If you want to find out more information about firearm charges call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at tampa criminal attorney.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN TAMPA

Category: Domestic Violence

A domestic violence charges requires special considerations. Before a domestic violence charge is resolved it travels through two different courtrooms. A domestic violence charge starts out in First Appearance Court, and then it is shifted to the specialized Domestic Violence Court. The First Appearance judge will address the issue of a bond within 24 hours of every type of criminal arrest. However, the unique concerns created by a domestic violence charge require the First Appearance Court judge to utilize a special protocol when addressing the issue of bond on this type of crimnial charge.

BOND?

Every defendant, understandably, has the same question after their arrest. When am I getting out? Every criminal defendant is entitled to have a reasonable bond set within 24 hours of their arrest. Some criminal charges have bond amounts assigned to them automatically, and it is possible to bond out before first appearance court. However, the Florida Legislature has mandated that every defendant arrested for an act of domestic violence be held in custody until he is brought before the first appearance judge that will set his/her bond.

VICTIM'S APPEARANCE AT FIRST APPEARANCE COURT

If your spouse or significant other is interested in seeing you released from the County Jail it is important for them to attend your bond hearing at first appearance court. Judge Walter Heinrich oversees first appearance court. If the alleged victim appears at first appearance court Judge Heinrich will be interested in asking her or him a number of questions. First, he warns the victim of the consequences of misrepresenting the truth when answering his questions. The judge is very aware that many victims come to court to recant their statement in the police report in an effort to get the defendant out of jail. Judge Heinrich will notify the victim of the dangers of lying to him (perjury, filing false police report). Once Judge Heinrich is confident that the victim understands his/her rights he will question the alleged victim about the facts of the case, and any concerns he might have about the victim's safety. If Judge Heinrich is confident that the defendant can be released without posing any danger to the alleged victim, then he will set a reasonable bond. However, usually the Judge will impose a number of pretrial conditions to the defendant's release. First, typically the judge orders the defendant to have "NO CONTACT" with the victim. This order is very important because of its impact on the defendant. If the defendant is married or resides with the victim (which is commonly the case) it means he cannot return to the marital home. The defendant is also prohibited from having any verbal or written contact with the victim. As long as this condition of pretrial release is in place it raises a number of other issues. Where does the defendant reside? How can he get some clothes and other items from his home while this condition of release is in place? There are a number of ways to address these issues, but the first step we take is to set a Motion to Modify Pre-Trial Release in front of Judge Nick Nazaretian in order to modify this particular condition to "No Violent Contact". Judge Nazaretian is the judge who will ultimately resolve the domestic violence charge, and he will take a deeper look into these issues. Remember, Judge Heinrich's courtroom has one purpose: To set a reasonable bond, and order conditions of pretrial release. He is not there to decide the facts of the Domestic Violence charge. If Judge Nazaretian feels the situation warrants the removal of the "NO CONTACT" condition he will permit the defendant to have contact. Usually it takes a few days to arrange this hearing. In the meantime we will counsel our client on what steps to take to stay in compliance with the Judge Heinrich's order and address their needs at the same time.

All things considered however, it is very important to have the alleged victim attend the defendant's bond hearing in front of Judge Heinrich? It prevents the judge from having to speculate about the facts of the case, or his concerns for the victim's safety. I do not mean to say that the victim's attendance in First Appearance Court is necessary to get a reasonable bond. It isn't. Judge Heinrich can set bond without hearing from the victim. Either way Judge Heirich will also ask the State Attorney questions about the defendant.

Does the defendant have a criminal past? If so, for what?

Does the defendant have a prior arrest for domestic violence? If so, did it involve the same victim?

DIVORCE OR BREAKUP WITH CHILDREN

If you have been arrested for a domestic violence charge and you are married or have children with the alleged victim there are a number of critical issues that need to be addressed immediately. This criminal charge may be a pre-emptive strike in a custody dispute that will be filed shortly after the defendant's arrest for domestic violence. If so, the decision to call the police may have been the result of a much more a premeditated plan than a call for help. A factor considered by every family law judge to determine custody or visitation is whether one of the parents has committed an act of domestic violence. F.S. 61.13. Likewise, another factor considered by the family law judge is whether "either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence..." Your spouse or former lover may have hired a lawyer before the arrest. The contrived domestic violence charge could have been at the direction of a divorce attorney. Shortly after the arrest the former spouse/alleged victim will file a Petition For a Domestic Violence Injunction in the Domestic Relations Court. If the Domestic Relations Judge gives the alleged victim an injunction against the husband you can be sure her lawyer will go running to the family law judge to complain that the father is a violent man who should have limited contact with his children. In addition, the imposition of a domestic violence injunction is another obstacle to returning to your home. A "no contact" order that flows from first appearance court, and domestic violence injunction are two separate court orders that must be overcome before you can return to your home.

If your spouse has fabricated a criminal charge in the interest of gaining an advantage in Family Court it becomes imperative to prevail not only on the criminal charge, but also on the petition for domestic violence injunction. This type of situation, unfortunately, is more common than you would think.

CAN MY CHARGE BE DISMISSED?

Can my domestic violence charge be dismissed? It depends on the nature of the facts. A number of questions need to be answered:

Is the victim cooperating? While the victim's cooperation with the defense is helpful, it does not necessarily mean that the problem is solved and a criminal lawyer is unnecessary. The State Attorney decides when, and when not to file charges. The victim might be confronted by Victim Assistance and/or the State Attorney assigned to the case to explain why their story has changed since the night of the incident. That is why it is critical to hire an experienced criminal attorney to address the sensitive issues surrounding this situation. Whether the victim is interested in going forward or not is in many ways a minor issue for the State Attorney (prosecutor). What matters most to the prosecutor is whether he or she feels they can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is our job to convince the State Attorney and/or the Judge that the charge cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the victim is cooperating or not you must address a number of other issues before you can determine whether the domestic violence charge will be dismissed short of trial

1) Was alcohol involved?
2) Who called 911?
3) Were there any injuries?
4) Were photographs of the injuries taken?
5) What is victim's motive to falsely accuse?

Domestic violence charges can be more complicated than they at first appear. Moreover, if you fail to vindicate yourself the ramifications (domestic violence injunction/custody dispute) can be far reaching.

For more information on domestic violence call us at 813-228-7095 or link to us at Tampa Criminal Attorney.

Juvenile Grand Theft Charges Resolved Through Motion to Suppress

Category: Firm News

Representing juveniles is always interesting in that juvenile cases can many times raise a number of Fourth Amendment Issues. A recent case we resolved involved not only Fourth, but also some 5th Amendment issues. It doesn't take long to figure out the common theme of almost all juvenile crime. It is, without question, co-defendants. The more people involved in the commission of a crime the more difficult it is to defend. What usually makes matters worse in these cases is the fact that once juveniles have been caught they will usually give a statement to law enforcement that implicates themselves and their friends (co-defendants). Most prosecutors will tell you a good portion of their juvenile cases are made by offering a deal to a co-defendant in exchange for in-court testimony against another co-defendant(s). This strategy can sometimes lead to all the co-defendants entering pleas in their cases. However, in a number of instances you have situations where law enforcement may have acted prematurely by either detaining a juvenile too soon, or taking a statement from a juvenile without taking the proper steps in order to ensure the statement was voluntarily made. In this case the officers failed in both regards.

This case starts with a number (5) of juveniles breaking into a cart barn at a local golf course. Fifteen golf carts were stolen damaged ($30,000.00 worth of damage). Some were found in the lakes surrounding the golf course. Our client was one of two of the juveniles found walking nearby shortly after the break-in. Initially, they were confronted by golf-course security. When police arrived they stopped the two juveniles and questioned them about the break-in. One Hillsborough county sheriff deputy talked to the co-defendant, and the other spoke to our client.

Had the deputies spoken to the golf course security before approaching the juveniles they may have been armed with the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a temporary detention of my client. Many officers approach juveniles much differently than adults. They expect to encounter a frightened juvenile that is not only terrified of going to jail, but also of what their parents are going to do to them (at least when you are in an upscale golf community). Ultimately, they expect a lot of cooperation. Juveniles share the same privacy rights as the rest of us, but because of age, and an expectation of cooperation, law enforcement gives less consideration to their rights. The Deputy only knew that a burglary had occurred at the golf club. He didn't know the age of the suspects, what they looked like, or what they were wearing. This lack of information made the detention of my client illegal. We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the client, and another motion to suppress the statement he gave law enforcement.

Shortly after he was stopped the Deputy read Miranda to him. According to the Deputy the juvenile chose to waive his Miranda rights and answer the officer's questions. There is no bright-line rule that renders a confession by a juvenile involuntary, but the burden is much higher when determining a juvenile's waiver of Miranda as opposed to an adult's waiver of the Miranda rights. Here, the officer claimed that my client made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. However, when you look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement the Court decided the waiver of Miranda was not voluntary. Some issues the Court considers in making that determination are the following:

1) The manner in which the Miranda rights were administered, including any cajoling or trickery.
2) The suspect's age (in our case he was 15 years old), experience, background, and intelligence.
3) The fact that the suspect's parents were not contacted, and the juvenile was not given an oppurtunity to consult with his parents before questioning
4) The fact that the questioning took place in the station house, and
5) The fact that the interrogators did not secure a written waiver of the Miranda rights at the outset

In our case the parents were contacted, but the juvenile was never given an opportunity to consult with them. During his statement to the Deputy our client did admit involvement in the crimes.

We filed two motions claiming the stop of our client was unlawful and another motion claiming that the juvenile's statement to police should be suppressed because he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights.

After Judge Campbell heard the State's evidence as to the stop of our client she granted our motion to suppress the evidence emanating from the stop. Because the granting of our motion to suppress the stop was dispositive of the case, the Court had no reason to address our second motion.

If you should have any questions about unlawful stops and/or how law enforcement should legally take someone's statment call us at 813-228-7095 or link to Tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Criminal Attorney-CHILD HEARSAY STATEMENTS in a Sexual Abuse Trial

Category: Firm News

The Florida Legislature has balanced the need for reliable out of court statements from child abuse victims and the rights of the accused. Florida Evidence Rule 90.803(23) sets out the foundational requirement that must be laid in order for these hearsay statements to be admitted into evidence. The rule is broken down into three sections.

Section (a) describes the basic threshold requirements that must be present before the Courts will even consider the introduction of this testimony. Unless there are some indicators of untrustworthiness a statement from a child with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 11 or less describing an act child abuse or neglect, any act of sexual abuse against a child, the offense of child abuse, the offense of aggravated child abuse, or any offense involving an unlawful sexual act, contact, intrusion, or penetration performed in the presence of, with, by, or on the declarant child, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:

1. Subsection 1 sets out the procedural requirements that the Court must adhere to in order for the statement(s) to be admitted into evidence. The Court must conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making that determination the Court can consider the following:

a. Mental and physical age of the child
b. Maturity of the child
c. The nature and duration of the abuse or offense
d. Relationship of the child to the offender
e. The reliability of the assertion
f. The reliability of the child victim
g. Any other factor deemed appropriate; and

2. The child either:

a. Testifies; or

b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the Court that the child's participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to 90.804(1).

The rule requires an additional finding of corroborative evidence of the abuse only if the child is unavailable. The rule requires other "corroborative evidence" where the child is unavailable to ensure that no defendant is convicted solely on hearsay evidence. If the child is testifying the court does not need to determine the additional factor of corroborative evidence. However, it is important to appreciate what qualifies as "corroborative evidence" in any child abuse/sex crimes charge because if there is corroborative evidence of the child's allegation it could determine two very critical issues at trial:

1) Will the child hearsay statements of an unavailable child be admitted at trial? And

2) Will there be enough evidence for the State to get passed the defense's motion for Judgment of Acquittal?

Typically, it is impossible to prove someone's guilt based solely on a prior inconsistent statement. Prior inconsistent statements by themselves are not substantive evidence. It takes substantive evidence for a jury to rule beyond all reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. Corroborative evidence becomes a critical issue in sexual abuse cases because impeachment standing alone is not sufficient evidence to convict someone. The Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Appellate Courts have addressed this issue in a number of cases. It has been determined that a prior inconsistent statement by a child with additional corroborative evidence could make the statement substantive for evidentiary purposes. This could lead to a lawful conviction in the eyes of our Courts. (See Florida Supreme Court decisions in Baugh, and Beber).

What qualifies as "corroborative evidence"?

1) The defendant's own statement to law enforcement.

2) Physical evidence that a child has been abused

3) Even denials can have inculpatory details that qualify them as "corroborative".

4) Similar fact evidence (William's Rule Evidence).

What doesn't qualify as "corroborative evidence"?

1) The child's own statements can never qualify. (the "other corroborating evidence" within the meaning of the hearsay exception denotes evidence derived from a source other than the child victim's own statements).

2) Statements of future intent (that a person wants to have sexual contact with a child).

3) A counselor's subjective belief in the veracity of a child's hearsay statement.

The other aspects of the rule require the State to notify the Defense within 10 days of trial that a statement which qualifies as a heasay exception pursuant the Child Hearsay Rule will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice must contain the content of the child's statement, the time at which the statement was made, and the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability. The Court must make specific findings of fact, on the record under this rule.

If you would like to find out more about "child hearsay" and its impact in court call us at 813-228-7095 or link to Tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa Criminal Attorney- Successfully Completing Probation

Category: Criminal Law

Many Jurisdictions in the State of Florida are creating criminal courtrooms that are specialized in a number of different areas. For instance in Tampa we have courtrooms focused solely on Drug Rehabilitation, Domestic Violence, Violations of Probation, and Post-Conviction Relief. These courtrooms address a number of challenges faced by our court system. First, judges that would normally be required to deal with a wide array of different criminal charges are no longer forced to address what would be a much larger docket. Second, while no two cases are exactly alike, judges addressing one area of the law become very knowledgeable about the particular legal issues regularly faced in their specialized courtroom. Addressing many of the same factual scenarios also leads to uniformity in the resolution of similar cases.

Tampa has also decided to consolidate violations of probation that occur in Circuit/Felony court. As long as your violation of probation does not involve a new felony law offense or emanate from another specialized division your felony VOP will be directed to this division. The judge presiding in this courtroom is Daniel Perry. He is reasonable and fair, but it is important to understand that neglecting the conditions of probation in this courtroom can lead to prison. Unfortunately, many people put on felony probation are unaware how precarious their situation can become when and if they violate. It is important to understand that probation is an opportunity for a defendant to avoid incarceration so violating the conditions of probation is a serious offense. If your probation officer files an affidavit claiming you have violated and issues a warrant for your arrest it is extremely important to contact an experienced criminal attorney to guide you through this process. You might be able to avoid turning yourself in on the warrant at the jail. Your lawyer should also make you aware of what you should expect based on your violation and the circumstances surrounding your case. Many times Judge Perry will want to address you directly. Obviously, the answers to his questions go a long way to determining the outcome of your hearing. Your lawyer's advice in this regard is critical. If the judge permits you to stay on probation it is important to listen to his advice. Judge Perry is very conscientious about spending time explaining to probationers the error they have made and what they can do to successfully complete the conditions of probation. He will let you know what will and will not be tolerated by the Court.

If you would like more information about violations of probation in Tampa you can call us at 813-228-7095 or link to tampa criminal attorney.

Clearwater Prosecutors Remove Rape Charge

Category: Criminal Law

Our client was charged with Rape or Sexual Battery on his step-daughter at a beach motel in Clearwater. Sexual Battery means:

The oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bone fide medical purpose.

Rape charges vary in degree and exposure to prison based on the aggravating circumstances surrounding the allegations. This particular rape charge was a second degree felony punishable by a maximum of 15 years in Florida State Prison.

After a night of heavy drinking the defendant, his wife, and his step-daughter returned to their motel room on Clearwater Beach. At some point the client's stepdaughter passed out in the bathtub with the shower head running. She woke up, turned off the water, and went back to sleep. When she woke up a second time she claimed our client was on top of her in the tub. The Clearwater Police Report goes on to state the following:

While lying in the tub with her eyes closed, she felt someone getting on top of her. She opened her eyes and observed the suspect on top of her. She yelled for him to get off of her and began pushing him. He proceeded to try and kiss her face and neck. She continued yelling at him to get off of her as she struggled to get him off. However, he was able to forcibly spread her legs apart and vaginally penetrate her with his turgid penis. Elizabeth said it was painful and she continued to yell. She said the suspect eventually stopped and got off of her. She was unsure why or how long he was on top of her. She was also unsure if he ejaculated, but said he was not wearing any type of protection.

In light of the victim's statements she was directed to submit to a sexual assault examination. The results were inconclusive in some ways and revealed facts that were not consistent with the victim's story. Consequently, we had our client submit to a polygraph examination. Polygraph examinations can be extremely helpful in a number of different ways. Once the sexual assault examination revealed no direct physical evidence of rape the State's rape charge eventually came down to a war of credibility. This is where polygraph examinations can be extremely useful. As most people know the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible in a court of law in almost every circumstance. As long as a polygraph examination is done confidentially the results are of no consequence when they are negative and very beneficial when they are positive. In other words, submitting to a confidential polygraph examination can only help a charged defendant. However, it is important to recognize that the results of a polygraph can vary among examiners. Some examiners are so heavily respected by the State Attorney that their results are given a lot of weight (which can sometimes to a dismissal of a criminal charge).

In this particular case we never revealed the results of our polygraph examination to the State (they were not positive). Ultimately, we argued to the State Attorney that the victim's story was not credible based on some critical facts. The State agreed and took steps to remove the rape charge against our client.

To learn more about the facts of this case link to tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Tampa Jury Questions DNA Despite Overwhelming Evidence

Category: Criminal Law

A recent jury trial reaffirms the confidence we should all have in our jury system. We represented a client charged with Lewd and Lascivious Battery and Lewd and Lascivious Molestation x2. Both of these molestation charges are second degree felonies that are punishable by 15 years in Florida State Prison. However, because lewd and lascivious battery involves more egregious sexual contact, it carries more points on a guidelines score sheet than lewd and lascivious molestation. Lewd and lascivious battery is defined by the age of the victim and the acts: A person who engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age.

This definition in turn begs the question what is "sexual activity". "Sexual activity" means the oral, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bone fide medical purpose.

The less serious offense of lewd and lascivious molestation requires much less in the way of sexual contact:

A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.

The victim alleged that he engaged in a sexual relationship with our client over a two year period. It ended when he revealed the relationship to his father. When law enforcement arrived they interviewed the victim. The victim told the police that he had a sexual encounter with our client the night before. This prompted the detective to instruct the victim to submit to a sexual assault examination. A swab from the victim and a swab from the inside of the client's mouth were eventually sent to the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) for a DNA comparison.

These DNA samples that are transported and analyzed for comparison are very vulnerable to cross-contamination. This vulnerability has led to stringent procedures that must be followed when handling DNA samples. There are numerous ways in which a DNA sample can become contaminated. For example, cross-contamination can occur whenever swabs from separate DNA samples contact each other. Cross-contamination can also occur when one swab is placed in the same area as the other during testing. Cross-contamination will usually lead law enforcement to conclude someone's DNA is present when it is actually absent. According to the FDLE our client's DNA was found in an area that confirmed our client had penetrated the victim, and the likelihood it was someone else's DNA was 1 and 39 quadrillion. For obvious reasons, the power of this evidence is hard to overstate.

We challenged the DNA by claiming cross-contamination. A number of facts arose that made this argument plausible. During trial the lead Detective claimed that he transported both DNA samples (the victim's and the defendant's) to FDLE. The FDLE lab technicians testified that the DNA samples were received from a different member of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. This conflict in the evidence caused concerns about the handling of the samples and their exposure to cross-contamination. As a consequence, during deliberations the jury asked the judge to answer the following question:

How does the law define penetration?

Many would surmise, based on the verdict that the jurors were questioning the validity of the DNA results in light of the contamination argument. The State disputed the idea that the DNA results were the result of cross-contamination of the two swabs. However, there were questions about the State's DNA evidence that went unanswered. The jury refused to accept the argument that there was only a 1 and 39 quadrillion chance that the defendant didn't commit the offense of lewd and lascivious battery where there was a question of cross-contamination.

Most trial attorneys shy away from making predictions on a verdict based on questions from a jury to the Court. Unfortunately, it's impossible to stop your mind from speculating when you're waiting on the verdict. Our concern was the strong emotions that are usually associated with sex cases and how those emotionis can cause some jurors to ignore the law and/or the facts when deliberating over charges like these. As a defense attorney, the last thing you want to hear is a juror say that they found someone guilty based on a "gut feeling". No juror has been convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt when the decision is made on a "gut feeling". Getting rid of jurors with this mentality during jury selection (especially in a sex case) is obviously very important. Fortunately, the jurors selected in this case applied the law to the facts. Instead of clinging to the 1 and 39 quadrillion argument and finding our client guilty as charged they followed the law without the emotion usually associated with these charges.

To find out more about this case please link to tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Tampa Criminal Attorney - Illegal Stop for DUI Leads to Problems For Prosecutor

Category: Criminal Law

The Client was found passed out behind the wheel at the Flying J Truck Stop at Highway 579 and Sligh Avenue in Tampa. A Hillsborough County deputy was notified about our client's condition by a store employee. Deputy Angelo walked out to his car and knocked on his window in an effort to wake him up. When he awakened the Deputy smelled an odor of alcohol and demanded his car keys. A DUI enforcement officer was called and reported to the scene. Our client attempted to perform field sobriety tests and failed. Shortly after his arrest he was transported to the Orient Road Jail where he refused to submit to the breathalyzer.

A deposition was conducted of Deputy Angelo. She acknowledged that she hadn't smelled an odor of alcohol until she ordered our client out of the vehicle. The issue then became whether our client was legally parked in the gas station parking lot. If so, the deputy's actions would be illegal. We filed a motion to suppress the stop of our client. The State Attorney ran into a number of difficulties bringing forth the proper evidence to prove our client was illegaly parked.

To find out more information about this case link to tampa criminal attorney or call us at 813-228-7095.

Client Narrowly Avoids 15 Years Prison on Violation of Probation in Tampa

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S.; Judge: Daniel Perry

We have represented this particular client on a previous violation of probation which was also dismissed. His gambling problem, however, persisted. The gambliing led to a drug addiction which made complying with probation extremely difficult. The cilent was alleged to have violated his probation by failing to appear at the probation office on 4 different occassions. He was also required to pay the victim restitution for his crime. The client's parent's kicked him out of their house and the client was forced to live on the streets. This prevented him from attending his probation meetings. Before he was arrested he voluntarily entered himself into a gambling treatment program. See our website for background on how this case was resolved before the Court. While our Courts our interested in seeing many of the defendants become productive members of society, every judge will tell you that there is a point at which the defendant cannot be helped. Battling a gambling and drug addiction is very difficult, and the Courts recognize the obstacles. The Court in this case was willing to give our client another chance to prove that he could successfully complete his supervision.

Tampa DUI Charge Reduced to Reckless Driving

Category:

State v. C.G., Judge: James Dominguez

Facts: Our Client, a prominent local business owner, was pulled over a few blocks from his house under suspicion of DUI. After submitting to roadside field sobriety exercises, the client was arrested and transported to central breath testing at the Hillsborough County Jail. He later refused to take the breath test.
After reviewing all of the evidence in the case, we determined that there was very little evidence that our client was too impaired to drive safely. Due to the fact that the client refused the breath test, the evidence of impairment was limited to the officer's observations at the time of the arrest and the video of our client's performance on the field sobriety exercises. Although the officer reported that the client appeared to be clearly intoxicated, the video told a very different story. The client's demeanor and behavior was consistent with a person who was very tired, not drunk. His performance on the FSE's was not perfect, but it was far better than the officers report reflected.
Result: After setting the case for trial, the prosecutor reduced the charge to reckless driving and offered to withhold adjudication. The client was not convicted and his record was sealed.

Hillsborough Judge Dismisses Malicious Domestic Violence Injunction

Category:

K.L. v. E.V., Judge: Raul Palomino
Our client and his fiancé were living together for over a year before he discovered that she having a romantic relationship with another man. Upon hearing this information, our client immediately broke off the engagement. His fiance abrubtly left the house and moved in with the other man. She left behind many of her belongings as well as her dog. Our client attempted to call her on numerous occasions to address these issues, but she did not answer his calls.. After hearing the story, several of their mutual friends began turning against her. Eventually she responded by filing an injunction against our client. In the injunction, she alleged that the phone calls our client made were harassing and threatening.
Result: At the hearing, Judge Palomino rocognized that our client was totally justified in his repeated attempts to contact the ex-girlfriend/fiance. The calls were neither threating nor harrassing. The injunction system is designed to address situations where people are in legitimate fear of actual violence, not to be used as a tool for intimidation. After a short hearing, the injunction was dismissed.

Tampa Felony Drug Charge Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. B; Judge: Tom Barber

Tampa Police Department recieved a citizen's complaint about several black males selling drugs in front of the vacant apartment located at 2908 E. 22nd Avenue in Tampa. The QUAD squad (division of the tampa police department responsible for deterring drug activity) of the Tampa Police Department received the information and responded to the call by conducting surveillance in front of the apartment complex in the hopes of arresting the dealers and anyone who purchased from them. Our client (defendant) drove to the apartment complex and brought cocaine from a dealer. The officer surveilling the complex believed he witnessed a hand to hand transaction between our client and the dealer, so he radioed other officers waiting outside the area, and our client was followed for about a mile and a half before being pulled over. Shortly before he was pulled over the officers saw the client briefly open his car door and then shut it while the car was moving. The officers stopped his vehicle, and cited him for opening a car door while it was moving. While they wrote the client a ticket the officers asked him for consent to search his vehicle (feeling he had just purchased cocaine from the dealer). He agreed, and the officers found a baggie of cocaine in the middle console. The client (defendant) was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. The tampa police officers felt the stop of the client's vehicle was justifiable on two separate grounds. One, the officer conducting surveillance believed he saw a drug transaction take place between our cient and the dealer. Two, even if the officer did not witness a "drug transaction", the defendant committed a traffic infraction, which easily justifies the stop of his vehicle. The consent to search the vehicle was voluntary, so the only way to attack this case was by disputing the validity of the stop. We filed a motion to suppress the legality of the stop of our client's vehicle, and the State Attorney eventually agreed to DISMISS the possession of cocaine charge. Find out how the tampa criminal attorney successfully defeated the charge by challenging the legality of the client's stop.

Injunction For Protection Against Dating Violence Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

The client (respondent) confronted her boyfriend after she found out he was cheating on her. They had been dating off and on for a number of years when she found out about his infidelity on his facebook site. She drove over to his home and confronted him in the doorway. The verbal argument escalated, and she struck him in the face. She left and her boyfriend called the tampa police department. After investigating the incident the police decided not to arrest our client, but suggested that the boyfriend file an injunction. The boyfriend (petitioner) filed a petition for an injunction against dating violence. Find out how the tampa criminal defense attorney negotiated a DISMISSAL of this injunction.

Military Officer Cleared of Capital Sexual Battery Charge in Tampa

Category: Criminal Law

The client was a coast guard officer accused of molesting his step-daughter when she was 12 years old. His accusor claimed that he touched her inappropriately on a number of different occasions before he molested her in a motel room. The step-daughter attempted to contact the client through the mail years after the alleged incident. A week later Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office Detectives knocked on the client's door and asked him to come down to the station. The client cooperated, and gave the detectives a statement. Whenever you are questioned by law enforcement it is critical that you request a tampa criminal lawyer before giving the police any information. After leaving the Sheriff's station the client drove straight to our office, and we began investigating the case. For more detail on the resolution of this case go to our website at tampadefenseattorney.com.

Felony Drug Charges and 4th Violation of Probation Dismissed in Tampa

Category: Recent Wins

State v. S; Judge: Tom Barber

The client (defendant) was on felony probation for a number of theft related offenses. Like many people with a serious drug problem, he turned to theft to support his drug habit. He made strides while on probation, but continued to run with friends who dealt in drugs. The night of his arrest the client was actually driving in his father's van with a dealer who was being surveilled by the Tampa Police Department's QUAD SQUAD (a specialized division of the tampa police department focused solely on drug detection and prevention). The client noticed that he was being followed by the police department and dropped off his friend. The Tampa Police continued to follow the van and eventually stopped the client at a gas station. They searched his vehicle and found drugs. The client was arrested for the drug charge and for violating his probation. He was taken into custody and given no bond on his violation of probation. Find out how the Tampa Criminal Lawyers got the defendant out of jail, and brought about the dismissal of the drug charge and the client's 4th violation of probation.

Tampa Teacher Avoids Sex Charge

Category: Criminal Law

The client, a highschool teacher in the local area, was alleged to have engaged in a sexual relationship with one the students. Part of the allegations alleged that the teacher sent revealing pictures to the student over the internet. The teacher and the student denied the allegations, but others insisted it had taken place. Find out how the tampa defense attorneys prevented the filing of any criminal charges in this case.

Felony Battery Charge Dismissed in Tampa

Category: Recent Wins

State v. B; Judge: Daniel H. Sleet

The client (defendant) was accused of striking his girlfriend several times after they became involved in a verbal dispute over his son. The victim told the Tampa Police Department that our client got up off the couch without warning and started hitting her in the face. She called 911, and When police arrived they found the victim crying and upset. They took photographs of her injuries, and arrested the defendant for felony battery. The battery charge was aggravated to a felony due to the client's prior convictions for battery. See how the tampa criminal attorney brought about a DISMISSAL of this charge through investigation and the discovery process.

Bradenton Man Involved in Brawl Avoids Battery Charges and Conviction

Category: Recent Wins

State v. H; Judge: Douglas Henderson (Manatee County)

The Bradenton Police Department alleged that our client became intoxicated at the Old Main Pub on 12th Street in Bradenton. According to the report when management instructed him to leave the premises he left and came back. An verbal altercation between the client and the bar owner ensued which escalated into a fight. Numerous witnesses testified that the defendant (client) attempted to strike one of the patrons. The stories told by the bar patrons were inconsistent and the defendant (client) ultimately pled to a trespass without probation or conviction. Get more detail on how the tampa criminal lawyers resolved this case.

Naples Woman Has Drug Charges Dismissed

Category: Recent Wins

The client was driving with her headlights off when she was spotted by the Tampa Police Department. The officer stopped her vehicle and asked her to perform field sobriety tests after she exited her car. When she successfully passed these tests the officer asked her if he could search her vehicle because he suspected that she might be under the influence of marijuana. Initially, the client did not respond, but eventually decided to consent to the search. We filed a motion to suppress the marijauna found by the officer. The Motion to Suppress was granted, and the charges were dismissed. See how the tampa criminal defense attorneys addressed the 4th Amendment issues surrounding this drug charge.

Domestic Violence Injunction and Domestic Battery Charge Dismissed

Category: Recent Wins

State v. P; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

The client (defendant) was arrested for domestic battery after he got into an altercation with his girlfriend. It started out as an argument over a $1,700.00 cell phone bill. At one point his girlfriend grabbed a knife and ran into the client's bedroom. HIs bedroom contained a safe that held 32 firearms. At some point during the argument the girlfriend believed our client might try to grab a gun out of the safe. She took a bottle of nail-polish remover and threw it in his eyes. The police report indicates that the defendant then pushed the victim to the ground. Tampa Police were called and our client was arrested for domestic battery. A short time later the girlfriend filed a Petition for a Domestic Violence Injunction with the Domestic Relations Court in Tampa. Even when a victim decides to recant her story and drop charges a Tampa Criminal Attorney is going to face obstacles before he/she will be able to bring about a dismissal of the battery charge. In short, a cooperative victim does not mean that your case will be dismissed. The state will go forward on a case whether the victim wants to or not if they feel that they can prove the defendant's guilt. In order to bring about a dismissal of a charge in this situation the prosecutor must be convinced that pursuing the charge is pointless because the case would be very difficult to win. Here, we contacted the prosecutor and made him aware of the circumstances that supported our client's self-defense argument, and we also filed our own waiver of prosecution (not the form waiver handed out by victim's assistance) with the Court. The State eventually dropped the charge. The Domestic Violence Injunction was dismissed by the Domestic Relations Court after a hearing revealed that our client did not intentionally strike the victim.

Foreign Student's Domestic Violence Charge Dismissed in Dade City

Category: Recent Wins

A criminal charge can have serious implications on any person's life. In the case of foreign citizens, the consequences can be even more severe. Our client was a resident alien attending graduate school at USF. One night our client was arguing with his wife and he lost his temper and pulled her off the bed by her leg. The following morning, the client's wife called the police to inquire about domestic violence counselling services. She had no intention of pressing charges, but the State chose to prosecute anyway. Despite the wife's refusal to cooperate with the State Attorney's Office, the prosecutor insisted on pursuing the charges based on her recorded call to the police. Eventually we were able to get the charges dismissed prior to trial, and our client was able to maintian his student visa. Review the detailed steps taken by the tampa criminal lawyer that brought about a DISMISSAL of this charge.

Tampa Criminal Attorney- Domestic Violence Charge Dismissed Despite Facts

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. K; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

The client and his girlfriend began arguing over his employment problems. The girlfriend through a phone across the room and broke a window when she found out our client was lying to her. She attempted to lock him out of the house, but he came back in through a window. When he got inside he grabbed her by the hair and dragged her through some glass. Violent arguments continued to occur for days before the Tampa police were called. When the Tampa Poilce arrived they photographed a number of bruises over the victim's body. The client initially handled this case on his own and attempted to complete an intervention program. He was removed from the program and the Court put a warrant out for his arrest. In this case the tampa criminal attorneys removed the warrant before taking the necessary steps to DISMISS the domestic violence charge.

Domestic Battery Charge Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. A; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

Our client got involved in an argument with his girlfriend, and pushed her into a wall. After the client elbowed her in the chest the victim punched our client in the face. The victim eventually called 911, and the police arrived on scene. The victim had numerous contusions and abrasions on her body fromt he incident. Get more detailed information on how the tampa criminal defense attorneys forced a DISMISSAL of this case.

Clearwater Criminal Attorney- Juvenile Receives Intervention Program Despite Multiple Charges

Category: Criminal Law

State v. K; Judge: Raymond Gross

FACTS: The client was 17 years of age. He was arrested for selling marijuana in school and possession of alcohol by a minor on separate occasions. As a highschool student the client was excelling. He was enrolled in an honors program, and set to attend a prestigious engineering college on an acedemic scholarship. Unfortunately, his mother decided to allow him to move in with his father a few months before his graduation. The juvenile began to associate with the wrong kids at school and eventually ended up with these charges. For a more detailed account of how the tampa criminal attorneys entered these cases into an intervention program; which should ultimately dismiss the charges.

Tampa DUI Attorney Analyzes the Accident Report Privilege and the Insignificance of the "Changing of Hats"

Category: Criminal Law

There aren't very many events in life that rival the terrible feeling of being arrested for Driving Under the Influence. When an accident is involved this experience can many times become even worse. Most lawyers engaged in defending these cases are very familiar with the "Accident Report Privilege" and its repercussions. This article is designed to give some guidance to non-lawyers who have very little knowledge on this law and how it operates.

The accident report privilege springs from every driver's statutory duty to answer questions posed to him/her by law enforcement when they have been involved in an accident. When someone is involved in an accident and law enforcement suspects them of being intoxicated it presents a special problem. The duty to report compels the DUI driver to answer all the officer's questions about the accident, but in the process the answers to those questions could lead to very incriminating statements about a potential criminal charge of DUI. Every person suspected of committing a crime also has a right to be notified of their fifth amendment rights (usually before a "custodial interrogation" or a formal arrest) prior to law enforcement questioning them about the alleged criminal conduct. To address the problem of compelling possible incriminating statements from driver's involved in accidents that could flow from criminal conduct the Florida Legislature enacted the "Accident Report Privilege" (See Florida Statute 316.066(7)). The statute states that statements by a suspected driver to law enforcement during the accident phase of the officer's investigation are privileged and inadmissable against the driver in any trial civil, or criminal. The only exception to that rule involves statements made by the driver to the officer that do not violate the driver's privilege against self-incrimination (this exception can arise when the driver's statment qualifies as an "excited utterance"). In response to this statute law enforcement officers investigate an accident that could involve a criminal traffic charge in a different way. They initially ask questions of the driver during the "accident phase" of their investigation (like they would after any traffic accident). If they become suspicious during the accident phase of their investigation that the driver was involved in criminal conduct (DUI, vehicular manslaughter), they begin the "criminal phase" of their investigation.

The critical question for anyone suspected of being involved in any criminal traffic charge is when does the "accident phase" end, and the "criminal phase" begin. The answer to this question will determine which statements, made by the accused, are admissable. Florida Courts have debated the proper procedure to follow when notifying a driver involved in an accident that the investigation is changing from the accident phase to the criminal phase. For years many courts felt that the "changing of hats" method properly notified the suspected DUI driver involved in a crash that the officer was moving from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation. The "changing of hats" amounts to an officer notifying the driver that, "Mr. Smith, I am now changing from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation, will you answer my questions". The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the "changing of hats" is an insufficient approach to notify the suspected driver that he or she is no longer compelled to answer the officer's questions pursuant to Florida's duty to report statute. The Florida Supreme Court's position is simple. The focus should be on whether the driver's Fifth Amendment Rights were violated. The only way to adequately notify someone that their duty to report information regarding the accident is over, and they have a right to remain silent is by reading them their Miranda Rights. In their holding the Florida Supreme Court stated the following:

"We hold that the privilege granted by section 316.066 is not applicable in this case where Norstrom was not told that he had to respond to the questions asked by the officers and where Norstrom was given his Miranda rights. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court on this issue. Furthermore, we also disapprove its prior decision in West v. State, 553 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA1989). To clarify our decision, we emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.066 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is *441 now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted."

Some prosecutors read the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Norstrom v. State literally, and believe that Miranda is only required when the officer notifies the driver that he/she has a duty to report. The holding in the Norstrom case is clarified in the third district court of appeals decision in State v. Marshall. In a footnote the 3rd DCA gave a clearer meaning to the Florida Supreme Court's statement that a "changing of hats" must occur, and Miranda must be read when the officer proactively notifies the suspected driver that they must answer the investigating officer's questions. In their footnote the 3rd DCA stated the following,

"In so holding, the court pointed out that not only had Norstrom been given his Miranda rights, but also "Norstrom was not told that he had to respond to the questions asked by the officers...." 613 So.2d at 440. The court also stated: Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that "this is now a criminal investigation," followed immediately by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted.

Id. at 440-41. As we interpret it, the court is addressing the situation which would exist if, during the accident investigation phase, the investigating officer administered Miranda warnings but then at some point also told the reporting person that he or she was required to respond to questions concerning the investigation of the accident. Telling the reporting person that he or she must answer questions during the accident investigation would undo any earlier-administered Miranda warnings. It would be then necessary at the conclusion of the accident investigation to advise the reporting person that the criminal investigation was beginning and to administer new Miranda warnings."

The problem is that many prosecutors feel the only time that Miranda is necessary is when the officer proactively notifies the suspected driver that he or she must answer questions pursuant to the "duty to report" statute. However, the 3rd District Court of Appeals interpretation of the Norstrom holding in Marshall should be accepted by all courts in the State of Florida because the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Marshall opinion. This in effect makes Marshall, and the third district's interpretation of the holding in Norstrom the law in the State of Florida.

Link here for more information on what steps a tampa criminal attorney takes when assessing a DUI, and what stop issues might be present in your case.

Tampa Man Cleared of Sexual Abuse on Child

Category: Recent Wins

Our Client was falsely accused of child abuse by his brother's wife during a bitter divorce. In an effort to gain primary custody of their young children, the wife made false allegations that her daughter had been sexually abused by our Client, the young girl's uncle. The wife made a tape recording describing the alleged abuse and sent it to DCF. Eventually we were able to expose her lies, and have the charges dropped.

Read much more about how this case and other child abuse cases are resolved by tampa criminal lawyers.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Forces Dismissal on Juvenile's Felony Marijuana Charge

Category: Criminal Law

The Tampa Police Department responded to a fight near Jesuit Highschool on the night of Gasparilla. Our client's brother was involved in an altercation at a nearby park. During the altercation our client's boyfriend was struck with a beer bottle. In an effort to defend himself he mistakenly struck our client's brother and law enforcement was called out to the scene. Tampa Air Patrol apparently witnessed our client and her boyfriend flee when the crowd scattered. They reported both suspects to patrol units on the ground. When law enforcement came into contact with our client she was walking eastbound on Osborne from Himes Avenue. Based on the information transmitted to them from the helicopter our client and her boyfriend were stopped by ground units and searched. The search of our client revealed a felony amount of marijauna, and a scale. We took the stopping officer's sworn deposition, and filed a motion to suppress the drugs collected by Tampa Police, claiming the temporary detention was unlawful. The State Attorney stood silent on our Motion To Suppress and all the charges were dismissed. To find out what circumstances caused the unlawful detention of our client link to the tampa criminal defense lawyers that resolved this case.

Tampa Sexual Violence Injunction Attorney Forces a Dismissal of Petitioner/Mother's Injunction (Plant City)

Category: Criminal Law

We defended the client from criminal sexual battery charges supposedly perpetrated against his 6 year old daughter. False charges are more common in sex cases than any other type of criminal offense. Unfortunately, just a criminal investigation for a sex crime can have a dramatic impact on the accused's life. This particular case involves a scenario that we see quite often. A former spouse or alienated parent attempts to file an injunction of some type to destroy the parent's relationship with his/her child. This case involved a petition for an injunction against sexual violence against the father where the mother claimed the father, "Put his penis into his daughter's mouth on more than one occassion as a form of punishment". During the criminal investigation it was revealed that the mother/petitioner was coaching her daughter to make these false allegations.

No Formal criminal charges were filed against our client. After resolving the criminal case we moved the domestic relations court in Plant City to Dismiss the injunction against sexual violence. Learn from a tampa criminal defense attorney of the powerful defenses available to the respondent/parent when another parent petitions the court for an injunction against sexual violence.

Tampa Man Cleared of Rape Allegations

Category: Recent Wins

Our client was accused of sexually assaulting his son's girlfriend. The client's son had been dating the girlfriend for several months. She worked at their family business, and was treated as a member of the family. The alleged assault reportedly took place after a funeral, when the client had offered the girlfriend a ride home. There was no physical evidence and our client adamantly denied the allegations. The family suspected that the girlfriend had ulterior motives related to the business. Through further investigation, it was discovered that she had made false allegations against another man in the past. By communicating this information to the State Attorney's office and law enforcement, we were able to ensure that no charges were formally filed against out client.

Learn more about the details of this case from a tampa criminal lawyer.

Burglary Charges Dismissed in Juvenile Court-Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Recent Wins

The client was implicated by co-defendants during an investigation of a rash of burglaries by the Tampa Police Department. Cooperating co-defendants can make the defense of any client difficult. However, in this case Tampa Police still had difficulty connecting our client to many of the crimes involved in their investigation. Get more information from tampa defense attorneys regarding how this juvenile case was resolved.

Aggravated Assault With a Firearm Charge is Dismissed at Pre-Filing by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

The client was confronted by a Tampa Police Detective after an altercation at a local gas station. He was driving a vehicle when a co-defendant jumped in and started firing a pistol in the air. The client initially refused to talk to the police, but became extremely nervous when the police began to threaten him with criminal charges for assisting the shooter. He told his father, and our office was retained to resolve the case. As is many times the case, the police detective told the young man that retaining a criminal lawyer was not necessary. Some criminal suspects choose to believe police. They sit down and discuss their entire case with law enforcement without counsel. It is never a good idea to trust a police officer when he claims the hiring of a lawyer is unnecessary. It may sound obvious, but we find ourselves constantly reminding people of a very simple fact:

If your being confronted by law enforcement about your involvement in a criminal offense you need a criminal defense attorney.

Many people do not realize that law enforcement has no obligation to be honest with you regarding your culpability in a criminal investigation, or your possible exposure to incarceration.

Link to our website if you would like to review more details about this case, and when to hire a tampa criminal attorney.

Tampa DUI Attorney gets Reckless on Refusal in Orlando

Category: DUI

The client was arrested for DUI in Orlando. She, and her sixteen year old daughter were on their way home from a rock concert when the trooper stopped her vehicle for erractic driving. The client had no familiarity with Orlando, and became very lost when she tried to read her mapquest directions backwards on the ride back to Tampa. After the initial stop the client performed field sobriety tests, was arrested for DUI, and then transported to the jail. When she was asked to perform the breathalyzer she refused. Read a summarized version of the tampa criminal defense lawyer's letter to the prosecutor. The letter requests the prosecotor to reduce the charge to reckless driving. While our client's performance on the field sobriety tests was poor, the letter gives you insite into how her performance could be affected by the conditions of the area that the trooper chose to administer the tests.

RESULT: She plead to reckless driving, and the conviction was withheld. In other words, she received no points on her driving record.

Tampa Man Wins DV Battery Trial

Category: Recent Wins

Our client was accused of choking his wife during an argument. The allegations against our client were false, and were being used to gain leverage in a pending divorce. Our client had no criminal history and no history of violence. His wife, on the other hand, had ongoing mental health issues and a history of substance abuse. The State refused to drop the charges due to photographs that allegedly showed bruises consistent with the wife's story. At trial, the State was unable to introduce the photos. The credibility of the wife was called into question, due to inconsistencies in her testimony. The client was eventually found not guilty.

To read more about this case and others like it visit out website.

Domestic Violence Charges "No Filed" Through Investigation by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Domestic Violence

The Client/defendant became very intoxicated and struck his wife. She received a number of bruises, and his children witnessed the incident. The situation was very serious for our client, in that he was currently on felony probation when the domestic battery allegedly occurred. Just an arrest could have put him in jail for a new law violation while on probation. After contacting his wife's divorce attorney, and conducting more investigation we were able to convince the State to "No File" the charges. To find out more about the pre-filing process and why it is important to retain your tampa criminal lawyer as soon as possible.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets Reckless on .166 and .167

Category: DUI

The client was driving his vehicle on Channelside Drive when he was pulled over for failing to maintain a single lane. According to the tampa police officer our client's vehicle continued to drift from lane to lane before he finally stopped him at 19th Street and Adamo Drive. After exiting his vehicle he was asked to perform a number of field sobriety tests which the officer felt he failed. The client was transported to the Orient Road Jail where he agreed to submit to the breathalyzer. He blew .166 and .167. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. Find out how the tampa DUI attorney convinced the State Attorney to reduce this charge to a reckless driving.

Tampa Domestic Violence Injunction Attorney Forces Dismissal Where Petitioner Fails to Establish Jurisdiction

Category: Domestic Violence

The client/respondent was a United States Navy military police officer stationed out of Portsmouth, Virginia. Between 1999 and 2000 he had a relationship with the petitioner that resulted in the birth of his son. After a period of time the client separated from the petitioner and she took the child to California. As years past the x-girlfriend made it very difficult for the father to see his son, but eventually he was able to make contact. Although the client met someone else and got married, he remained devoted to his son. In August of 2008 the petitioner/x-girlfriend agreed that the child could fly up to Virginia to visit his father. Shortly after the boy returned the mother claimed that the father had sexually molested their son during his visit to Portsmouth, Virginia. The petitioner/x-girlfriend/mother filed a petition for an injunction against domestic violence on behalf of her son in Tampa, Florida. The findings made by a number of government agencies led us to believe that the mother coached her son to make these allegations when she learned how much the child enjoyed being with his father. Obviously, an injunction of this type would permanently destroy any relationship between our client and his son. We believe the intent of the x-girlfriend/ petitioner was to convince the judge in the injunction court to enter a permanent injunction to protect her son(involving these allegations of sexual abuse against the child), and then use it in a custody dispute in front of a different family law judge. This practice is far too commonplace in domestic violence injunction court. The issue is not a threat to the petitioner, but an attempt to get an advantage in a custody dispute. Unfortunately, many times family law/divorce attorneys play a major role in these types of frivolous actions. The facts of this case ultimately led us to file a motion to DISMISS which the Court GRANTED. Find out more about the questionable tactics that some tampa lawyers employ in an attempt to get the upperhand in a custody dispute.

Tampa Child Abuse Attorney Gets Charges Dismissed at Pre-Filing

Category: Criminal Law

The client was the victim's brother. His sister was in her senior year of highschool when the family started noticing a number of behavioral problems. She began disappearing after school, and made the rest of her family very concerned for her well-being. One day after school the client began arguing with his sister about her behavior. The verbal altercation eventually escalated into a fight. First, our client pushed his sister, and we she attempted to defend herself he began striking her with his belt. The client came to our office shortly after child protective services appeared at their home. After discussions with the client we addressed the State Attorney before formal child abuse charges were filed. Find out how this charge was dismissed, and why it is so important to retain your tampa criminal attorney as soon as you feel you have become the subject of a criminal investigation.

Tampa Criminal Attorneys Get Dismissal on Domestic Battery and Marijunana Charges

Category: Recent Wins

The client and his uncle started arguing after the air-conditioner went out in their home. The victim claimed that the client threw him on the ground, and then landed on him breaking his ribs. The police arrived after the victim went to a neighbors house to call 911. After our client gave a statement to police he was arrested, and transported to the Orient Road Jail. Unfortunately, before he left he put on a pair of pants that contained marijuana and he was charged with possession shortly after he arrived at the jail. A tampa lawyer can bring about a dismissal on many domestic violence battery charges if certain steps are taken during the discovery process.

Tampa DUI Attorneys Get Reckless Despite Blows of .217 and .226, and Crash

Category: DUI

The client was driving his vehicle in the area of West Linbaugh Avenue when he rear ended another motorist. Shortly after the accident a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy reported to the scene. Our client had been drinking heavily at a local bar before crashing into the other vehicle at a stoplight. When law enforcement arrived our client was standing outside the driver's side of his vehicle. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests, but was unable to complete them. He was arrested for his second DUI within a 5 year period and transported to the Orient Road Jail. After arriving at the jail he consented to the breathalyzer and blew .217 and .226. The legal limit in the State of Florida is .08. Get more details on how the tampa DUI attorney prevented the client from having to suffer through the following sanctions:

1) pleading to the DUI charge (charge reduced to reckless driving)
2) a mandatory jail sentence,
3) a five year suspension of his driver's license,
4) and a $1,000.00 fine

Child Abuse Charge is Avoided by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Recent Wins

The client was alleged to have beaten her grandson with a belt on numerous occasions. She was employed by the Hillsborough County School system which further complicated her situation. Before retaining our office she decided to cooperate with law enforcement and gave a statement. Despite the statement and photographs of the victim we were able to bring about a resolution which should lead to a dismissal of her charges. For more information visit our website.

Carrrying Concealed Weapon Charge Dimissed by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

The client was detained after she attempted to get through security at the Tampa International Airport. She was traveling home to New Hampshire and forgot about a knife that had been left in her purse. Her story is like many others that get arrested with these weapons coming through security. When security questioned her about the knife she could not deny owning the knife. All she could do was tell them that she forgot it was in her bag. To the Airport security personel that fact is unimportant, but to the criminal courts it is extremely important. If you have no knowledge of a weapon in your bag, you cannot be found guilty of being in possession of that weapon. Find out how knowledge plays a role in possession charges and how the tampa criminal lawyer forced a dismissal in this case.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Cocaine Charge Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

The client was a passenger in a vehicle when the driver was stopped for DUI. A Tampa Police officer claimed that he requested our client to exit the vehicle for safety reasons. Shortly after the client exited he was patted down for drugs or weapons. During the pat down the officer claimed that the client was holding his legs together. When he finally pulled his legs apart for the pat-down out came a plastic baggie which later tested positive for cocaine. A number of issues arose during this investigation surrounding not only the true owner of the cocaine, but also the actions of law enforcement. In almost every criminal case, all tampa criminal attorneys must first address the 4th amendment issues surrounding the stop and search of their client. If your lawyer files a motion to suppress in your drug case it could lead to a dismissal of the charges.

State Attorney "No Files" Sexual Battery Charges After Gainesville Criminal Defense Attorney Completes Investigation (Alachua County)

Category: Criminal Law

A six year old girl claimed our client committed sexual battery on her. Sexual Battery carries a life sentence in Florida State Prison if convicted. Our client was a day camp counselor, and it was alleged that he committed this offense during a field trip. Law enforcement continued to use the threat of these charges to try and convince our client to submit to a polygraph administered by them. We advised our client not to submit to law enforcement's polygraph examination due to the circumstances surrounding the case. The State Attorney eventually "no filed" the charges. Learn the pitfalls of submitting to law enforcement's polygraph examination from a tampa criminal attorney.

Naples Criminal Attorney Gets Probation Terminated (Collier County, Hillsborough County)

Category: DUI

The defendant was arrested in Tampa for DUI in July of 2007. His case was eventually reduced to a reckless driving and he was put on probation. During the period of probation he moved down to Naples, Florida where he received another DUI. He went on probation in Collier County and violated his probation. After he entered a treatment program in Naples he called us to find out whether we could resolve his probation violation in Tampa. We pointed out to the Court the conditions that were met by the client, and his reckless driving probation was terminated. Find out how the tampa criminal lawyer brought about the termination of the client's probation.

Lakeland Criminal Attorney Gets Three Drug Charges Dismissed Due To Police Misconduct (Polk County)

Category: Criminal Law

The client was arrested at his doorstep shortly after being confronted by sheriff's deputies from the Polk County Sheriff's Office. These deputies were attempting to execute an arrest warrant issued for his son. After putting our client in handcuffs the officers led him into his house. The client asked the officers about the warrant, and they eventually realized that he was not the subject of the warrant. Shortly after becoming aware of the mistake the deputies took the handcuffs off the client, and asked him if they could check to see if his son was in the house. The officers ultimately searched the residence and found three marijuana pipes. After the officers threatened to arrest his wife, the client told the deputies the pipes were his. A number of issues were raised by the officers entering and searching the home in this manner. First, if they felt they had the right person they should have taken him to the county jail without entering into the home. Second, an arrest warrant has certain limitations. The courts are very aware that law enforcement may abuse the authority to search for someone in the home and attempt to search for drugs during the execution of an arrest warrant. Third, even if consent to search was given, it only came after the officers asserted their authority by handcuffing our client and walking into his home. Find out 4th amendment suppression issue asserted by the tampa defense attorney that led to the DISMISSAL of the charges.

Domestic Violence Charge "No Filed" Against Tampa Man

Category: Criminal Law

State v. A

The client got involved in a shoving match with his wife after a short verbal altercation. This domestic violence charge, like many others, was sparked by alcohol consumption. After law enforcement reported to the scene they took statements from both parties. Despite the wife's pleas the police arested her husband, and he was transported to the Orient Road Jail. During our initial interview our client wondered whether retaining a lawyer was even necessary. Why hire an attorney when the contact was minor, and the victim is not interested in pursuing the case against you? These factors do not play a role in how the State Attorney's Office approaches these cases. The state has the ability to force the victim into court over their objection, and if they decide to change their story it could create major problems for the victim. Find out how the tampa criminal lawyers convinced the prosecutor to "no file" (dismissed) the domestic battery charge without creating any unnecessary problems for the victim.

Despite 4th DUI Arrest, Sarasota DUI Reduced to Reckless Driving by Tampa Criminal Attorney (Sarasota County)

Category: Criminal Law

The client was stopped for speeding by a sarasota sheriff's deputy at 2:17 a.m. He was arrested, and transported to the county jail shortly after he failed the field sobriety tests. When the handcuffs were placed on the client he stated, "I know I messed up, but do you have to arrest me?" Despite the officer's opinion we approached the State about our client's performance on the field sobriety tests. We felt he performed well on the tests, and they were critical to the State's case since the client refused to blow into the breathalyzer. Consequently, the only real evidence of intoxication was the client's performance on the FST's. Eventually, the State agreed to reduce this charge on the day of trial. Get more information on how the tampa dui attorney resolved this case and what role the field sobriety tests play in any DUI.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Re-Directs Child Abuse Investigation

Category: Criminal Law

The client was investigated by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office for child abuse. His child came home from daycare with a fracture to his skull. The daycare refused to accept responsibility and pointed the finger at the child's parents. After discussions with our client and a review of the child's medical records we contacted law enforcement. Eventually the detective was convinced to focus his investigation on the daycare. Learn the subtle distinctions between lawful corporal punishment and child abuse from tampa criminal attorneys.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Dismissal of Domestic Violence Charge

Category: Criminal Law

The client became angry at her boyfriend and threw a vase at him during a verbal altercation. She called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office the day after the incident in an attempt to have her boyfriend arrested. Inconsistent statements on her part led to her own arrest for domestic violence. Many people call the police in an emotional attempt to punish their significant other. Initially, the client's decision backfired, and she was charged. Once we met her in our office we were able to contact the state attorney and her charges were dismissed. Find out more about domestic battery, and how tampa attorneys resolve these charges.

Negotiations By Tampa Criminal Lawyer leads to Dismissal of Battery Charge Against Tampa Woman

Category: Criminal Law

Our client became very upset when her husband returned home from a night out with his friends. An argument ensued and she eventually struck her husband in the face. When Tampa Police arrived on scene they interviewed both parties and believed our client's conduct amounted to a battery. Unfortunately, there is an unwritten rule followed by many law enforcement agencies. That policy basically amounts to the following: "If someone calls 911 someone is getting arrested". The husband had visible scratches around his neck, and our client had none. This was enough in the officer's eyes to make an arrest. Luckily, our client wasted no time in seeking out a lawyer and retained our office immediately. We contacted the State Attorney conducting the intake on this case and explained how the husband was the initial aggresor. The charge was dissmissed. Find out more about the intake process, and why it is so important to retain the services of a tampa criminal attorney as soon as possilble.

Wesley Chapel Man Accused of Sexual Battery is Vindicated through Investigation and Polygraph (Pasco County)

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C

A vicious young girl decided to get rid of her step-father by falsely accusing him of sexual battery when her mother refused to let her move in with her biological father. After conducting our initial investigation we decided to have the client submit to a polygraph examination. The results were favorable, but more steps were necessary before the detective would end his investigation. Get more information on how tampa criminal attorneys utilize polygraph examinations.

State Attorney in Daytona Drops Open Container Charge (Volusia County)

Category: Criminal Law

State v. B. ; Judge: Dawn Fields

The client was a highschool honor roll student that decided to celebrate Fourth of July with friends in Daytona Beach, Florida. A Daytona Beach Police officer noticed our client standing near a picinic table with a number of beer bottles left on it. He ordered her to sit down at the table. Before she could explain that she was not with the group of people that was eating at the table earlier, the officer cited her for open container. The client's friends were also charged for possession. Instead of fighting the charge the client's co-defendants entered into intervention programs. After discussions with the state attorney the officer was contacted. Eventually, the officer agreed he may have cited her before finding out whether she was actually in possession of the beer. Find out how the Tampa criminal defense attorney convinced the Daytona State Attorney to drop the charge against our client.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Negotiates Dismissal of Drug Charges (3.9 Grams of Marijuana) in Plant City

Category: Criminal Law

Our client was stopped for speeding by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in Plant City. After conducting the stop the officer asked for consent to search the car. The search resulted in charges for possession of paraphernalia and possession of marijuana. 3.9 grams of marijuana was found in a plastic baggie in a pocket behind the driver's seat. Tampa criminal lawyers must analyze a number of issues before determining whether a suspects consent is voluntary. Our research in this case led to a dismissal of the charges.

Petitioner Agrees to Dismiss Injunction For Protection Against Domestic Violence

Category: Criminal Law

B. v. M. ; Judge: Cheryl K. Thomas

Our client became involved with an exotic dancer. She claimed our client threatened her when he came to her home and refused to leave. According to her, he also continued to harass her at work. Find out how the tampa defense attorneys brought about a dismissal of this injunction.

DUI Reduced To Reckless Driving After Motion To Suppress .163 Blood Draw (Pinellas County)

Category: DUI

State v. M; Judge: William Overton

The Client was involved in an accident after he failed to brake at a stoplight. The passenger in the other vehicle was pregnant. After admittng he had been drinking to police officers he was transported to Ed White Hospital in St. Petersburg. In an all out effort to collect evidence of DUI from our client the police ended up coercing a blood draw. The blood draw indicated he was over twice the legal limit, but the officers methods triggered us to file a motion to suppress. Further investigation of the facts set out in the motion resulted in reduction of the DUI charge to reckless driving. The blood draw revealed that the client's blood alcohol was .163 and .161. The "implied consent" law is applied differently when law enforcement draws blood from a DUI suspect as opposed to requesting a breath sample. Intense investigation of this case, and numerous depositions brought about a reduction of the DUI charge when the Tampa DUI attorneys exposed the inconsistent statements made by the Pinellas County Sheriff's deputies.

Tampa Court Grants Motion to Suppress Stop on DUI charge Where Client Blew .162 and .169

Category: DUI

State v. C; Judge: Thomas Barber

The client blew .162 and .169. The legal limit is .08. A special DUI officer from the Tampa Police Department claimed that the defendant veered from her lane and almost struck his vehicle as he was traveling on North Dale Mabry. As she continued north the officer claimed that she accelerated over the speed limit, and began to brake erratically. Shortly after she was removed from the vehilce she attempted the field sobriety tests and performed poorly. She was arrested and transported to the Orient Road Jail. The tampa criminal attorney was able to expose inconsistencies in the officer's testimony that ultimately led to the DISMISSAL of the DUI charge.

Sarasota Teacher Avoids Statutory Rape Charge, Prison, and Sex Offender Registration (Sarasota County)

Category: Criminal Law

State v. J; Judge: Deno Economou (Sarasota County)

FACTS: The client was charged with unlawful sexual activity with certain minors. This charge is commonly referred to as "statutory rape". The charge is a second degree felony carrying a maximum of 15 years in Florida State Prison. According to police reports a 17 year old student was questioned by law enforcement about having sex with one of the geography teachers in her school. Initially, she denied the relationship, and then eventually told police that she had sex with our client on a number of occasions at his apartment. Sworn depositions with law enforcement led the tampa criminal defense lawyer to set the case for trial. Shortly before trial the Sarasota State Attorney reduced the charge.

Tampa Attorney Gets State to Drop Charges of Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Category: Criminal Law

The client was found in a motel room with two other co-defendants. The police responded to a call, and were permitted into the room by the renter. While a lot of drugs and paraphernalia were found, the cilent avoided prosecution. Learn how the tampa defense lawyers forced a DISMISSAL of these charges.

Tampa Defense Attorney Convinces State to Drop Felony Charge of Resisting a Police Officer With Violence

Category: Criminal Law

The police found the client unconscious on the street. When he was awakened he attacked the officer. After negotiations with the State the charges were reduced and the client avoided prosecution. Find out how the tampa criminal lawyers were able to force the State to DISMISS the criminal charge.

Police Misconduct Results In Reduction of DUI Where Tampa Defendant Blows .208 and .205

Category: DUI

The officer began to follow our client when he noticed the rear bumper of his vehicle was about to fall off. When he questioned him our client was unable to respond to the officer's questions, and gave no explanation for the damage to his vehicle. After failing field sobriety tests he was transported to the Orient Road Jail in Tampa where he blew .205 and .208. The legal limit in Florida is .08. The Tampa DUI attorneys were able to file a motion to suppress the stop, which led the State to reduce the charge to reckless driving.

Girlfriend Strikes Boyfriend on Head with Cell Phone; Domestic Battery Charge Dismissed at Trial

Category: Criminal Law

On the night of the incident, while her boyfriend was asleep, our client found evidence on his cell phone that he was cheating on her for the second time. She then proceeded to wake him up by hitting him over the head with the phone, followed by an attempt to kick him out of the house. Police were called and charged our client with domestic battery. However, the charge was eventually dropped at trial. Get more information on how the tampa criminal attorney brought about a DISMISSAL in this and similar cases.

Domestic Battery Charges Dropped Once Police Learn Our Client was the Victim

Category: Criminal Law

On the day of the incident, our client called police in response to an argument in her home, but was unable to stay until they arrived due to the conditions inside the home. Once police arrived, her boyfriend told them that she in fact was the aggressor, causing our client to be charged with domestic battery. The charges were eventually dropped. Find out more details on how the tampa criminal lawyer forced the State to drop this charge.

Felony Possession of 2.1 Ounces of Marijuana Lowered to Misdemeanor

Category: Criminal Law

On the night of the incident, our client was out on his boat, about 9 miles offshore. Due to a bitter falling out, our client's previous business partner contacted a Marine Interdiction Agent ("MIA"), informing the agent that our client was out on his boat and was in fact a drug smuggler. The client turned over 2.1 ounces of marijuana that were on the boat when approached by the officers. In the end, this case resulted in a misdemeanor possession charge against our client. See how the tampa criminal defense attorney addressed the jurisdictional issues in this case.

DUI Lowered to Reckless Driving Despite Failed Field Sobriety Tests and Blow of .17

Category: Criminal Law

On the night of the incident, someone driving behind our client with access to police radio put out over the wire that he was swerving in his lane, crossing lanes, and almost crashed off the shoulder of the highway. Upon talking with our client, the responding officer claimed that he had slurred speech, watery and bloodshot eyes, had trouble getting out of the truck, and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. The client submitted to taking field sobriety tests, which he failed, and when arrived to jail he consented to a breathalyzer test, where he blew a .17. Find out how the tampa dui attorney forced the State to drop the DUI to a reckless driving.

Failure to Read Defendant's Miranda Rights Before Interrogation Leads to Dismissal of Possession Charge

Category: Criminal Law

On the date that our client was arrested for possession of less than twenty (20) grams of marijuana, police officers were originally responding to a domestic disturbance at an apartment complex. Upon their arrival, the officers made contact with our client and his girlfriend. During the officers' encounter with them, the officers asked both for ID, which the girlfriend had to retrieve from her apartment. While retrieving her ID, one of the officers that followed her to her apartment claimed to have smelled the odor of "burnt marijuana." When our client got to the apartment moments later, he responded to police questioning that the marijuana was in fact his. Despite this admission, the charge relating to the marijuana was dropped. Review the steps taken by the tampa criminal attorney who brought about the dismissal of this case. Many people think that your case is automatically dismissed when the police fail to read Miranda. This is not the case.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets State to Drop Charges of Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Category: Recent Wins

State v. M;
Facts: Defendant and two others were arrested in a motel room with cocaine and other drug paraphernalia. The Defendant was charged with Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Charges were eventually dismissed. Review the issues asserted by the tampa criminal defense lawyer in this case.

DUI Lowered to Reckless Driving for Underage Defendant Due to State's Lack of Proof

Category: Criminal Law

On the night of the incident, our client was involved in an auto accident with a tractor trailer truck on his way home from a concert. During a conversation with our client, the responding officer claimed to smell alcohol on his breath. After failing the field sobriety tests and blowing a .14, he was arrested for DUI. The charge was subsequently dismissed by the State. Get a more detailed explanation from a tampa dui attorney.

Drug Charges are Dismissed Despite Finding Marijuana in Truck

Category: Criminal Law

Our client's ex-girlfriend called the police to her house in response to an argument between her and our client. Upon arrival, the officers searched our client, but found nothing. However, while walking by his truck in the driveway of the home, one of the officers flashed their flashlight into the truck, locating a bag of marijuana on the passenger seat. Our client was then arrested for possession of less than twenty (20) grams of marijuana. In the end, our firm was able to point out the flaws in the State's case, and the charge was ultimately dismissed. Get more detailed information on the steps taken by the tampa criminal attorney in this case.

Underage Defendant Gets DUI Charge Dismissed After Police Fail to Follow "Fellow Officer Rule"

Category: Criminal Law

Our underage client was arrested and charged with DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Due to extenuating circumstances, the third officer to arrive at the scene made the arrest on information provided by two officers that were there previously. All charges were dismissed. Get more detailed information from the tampa dui attorney that resolved this DUI charge.

Despite Blow over .20, DUI Lowered to Reckless Driving

Category: Criminal Law

Our client was pulled over for weaving. Due to some difficulties in performing field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, our client submitted to have her blood taken. It was discovered her Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was over .20. The client was then arrested for DUI. In the end, our firm was able to have the charge dismissed. Get more information on the steps taken by the tampa criminal attorneys that resolved this case.

Probation continued for Tampa Defendant with New Charge

Category: Criminal Law

State v. M; Judge: Daniel Perry

FACTS: The client was placed on felony probation for Burglary of an unoccupied Dwelling in June of 2006. One of his conditions of probation was to successfully complete a drug treatment program. While on probation he was involved in an auto accident and was ultimately charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Shortly after the accident his truck was repossessed which forced him to miss his drug treatment program. His affidavit of violation of probation contained two violations. First, he committed the new law offense while on probation (leaving the scene of an accident), and second, he failed to successfully complete his drug treatment. We filed a motion to surrender our client to Judge Perry in an effort to avoid any jail time, and hopefully resolve his violation in front of the judge.

DEFENSE: The client had a very good job as a mechanic working on heavy machinery. The auto accident caused the loss of his vehicle and kept him from attending the drug treatment classes. He did have a good record of attendence before the accident occurred.

RESULT: The Court did not take the client into custody or violate his probation. He was continued on probation and given the oppurtunity to successfully complete probation. If you want more information link to the tampa probation attorney who resolved this case.

12 Felony Drug Charges Dismissed in Tampa Defendant's Case

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S.; Judge: Gregory P. Holder

The client initially received 11 counts of felony drug possession. Investigation of police misconduct led to negotiations with the State, and a dismissal of all but one charge. For more information link to

FACTS: The client was initially charged with 11 counts of Possession with intent to sell marijuana, 1 count of possession of controlled substance, 1 count of possession of marijuana, and 2 counts of possession of paraphernalia. He was pulled over on State Road 93 by the Florida Highway Patrol for speeding. After he was stopped the trooper allegedly smelled a strong odor of marijuana as he approached the client's vehicle. The trooper stood on the passenger side of our client's vehicel and asked him to roll down the window. The client was unable to roll the window down and the trooper decided to open the door himself. After he opened the vehicle he told the client he was going to conduct a search. He found 126 grams of marijuana packaged in numerous individual baggies, prescription pills, and $2,200.00 in cash.

DEFENSE: We immediately contacted the intake attorney at the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office and discussed charges. This led to the dismissal of all but three charges. We approached the prosecution about 4th amedment issues surrounding the search of our client's vehicle and an agreement was reached.

RESULT: The client pled to one charge and received no conviction on his record.

Learn more about drug charges from a tampa drug lawyer .

State's Inability to Prove Intoxication Leads to Dismissal of DUI

Category: DUI

State v. H; Judge: Lawrence Lefler

The defendant became very intoxicated drugs prescribed to him by his doctor. His driving led to a crash where law enforcement arrested him after determining he was unable to perform field sobriety tests. The DUI charge was ultimately dismissed. Find out how the tampa dui lawyer brought about a DISMISSAL of this charge.

Tampa Defendant's Charge of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. B; Judge: Lamar H. Battles

FACTS: The client was charged with Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (3rd degree felony), Resisting With Violence (3rd degree felony), and Disorderly Conduct. The incident occurred at the Seminole Hardrock Gaming Casino in Tampa. The client consumed too much alcohol, and became belligerent towards security and the Seminole Police. After a lengthy argument with the police she was handcuffed. As she was being escorted by police she kicked two officers. Eventually, the client was arrested, placed in hobble restraints, and transported to the Orient Road Jail.

DEFENSE: The client was forced to the ground when she was restrained by the officers. During this process her back was to the officers, and she experienced a tremendous amount which forced her to move her leg and strike the officer.

RESULT: The Battery on a law enforcement officer, and disorderly conduct charge were dismissed, and the client entered a plea that involved no conviction on her record.

Learn more about violent offenses from a tampa criminal lawyer.

Aggravated Battery on Pregnant Woman Charge Dismissed Against Tampa Defendant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. P; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

FACTS: Battery on a pregnant woman is a second degree felony punishable by maximum of 15 years in Florida State Prison. It is a level 7 offense that scores immediate prison for even a first time offender. This is another case that emphasizes the importance of retaining representation in criminal cases as soon as possible. The client was arrested after he had an argument with his girlfriend who had been pregnant for over 7 months. He became angry when he found out about a phone call that was made to his girlfriend's cell phone. The victim claimed that she was injured when he pushed her to the ground.

DEFENSE: The defendant admitted that there was an argument between the two of them, but he denied having any role in her injury. We argued at trial that the victim had slipped on clothes that were laying on the ground next to their bed.

RESULT: Our office addressed the felony charge with the State Attorney's Office the moment it was assigned to a prosecutor. The felony charge was reduced to domestic battery, and we tried the case in County Court. Ultimately, the Court found the client not guilty.

Learn more about domestic violence from tampa criminal lawyers.

Tampa State Attorney's Office Dismisses Witness Tampering and Domestic Battery Charges

Category: Criminal Law

FACTS: The client was charged with domestic battery and witness tampering by his sister. An argument ensued after the victim's boyfriend tried to run over our client's father in a truck. During the argument the victim (sister)claimed our client struck her in the face. His sister became very upset with him, and ultimtely tried to notify police of the incident. While the victim was attempting to contact law enforcement the client ripped the phone out of the wall.

DEFENSE: The victim was attempting to strike our client when he grabbed her. The victim eventually admitted she had been drinking that night. She also admitted that the defendant never prevented her from contacting the police.

RESULT: The witness tampering charge and the domestic battery charge were "no filed" (dismissed) by the State Attorney's Office.

Learn more about the resolution of this case and other violent offenses from a tampa criminal attorney.

Plea Deal in Felony DUI Case Raises Questions About the Legality of Many Stops

Category: Criminal Law

State v. L.; Judge: Gregory P. Holder; William Fuente

FACTS: The defendant was charged with his third DUI charge within a ten-year time span. This aggravates the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony with a possible maximum sentence of 5 years in the Florida State Prison System. The defendant was witnessed driving his vehicle toward the Dale Mabry entrance of Macdill Airforce Base. He approached at a high rate of speed, and swerved abrupty before he reached the gate. After he stopped at the gate he asked the Military Police Officers (MP) whether this was "the way to Gainesville". The military police officer claimed that he could smell a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage on the client's breath. He also observed that our client's eyes looked watery and bloodshot, and his speech was very slurred. The MP then ordered the client to turn off the vehicle and hand him the keys. After he received the keys the MP placed spike strips behind the client's vehicle. A few moments later the client jumped from the driver's seat to the passenger's seat, and claimed that someone else had been driving. Pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15(10) the military police officer called the tampa police department, and filled out an affidavit describing his observations. A tampa police officer arrived on scene and arrested the defendant after he refused to perform all sobriety tests.

DEFENSE: There have always been discussions among attorneys in the tampa area about the legality of stops made by the military police at MacDill Airforce Base. Many believe that the military police can stop suspects pursuant to Florida Statute 901.15(10). However, 901.15(10) requires that the military police officer make his observations "on federal military property".

Initially, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge claiming that the initial detention of the client was unlawful because the stop occurred on federal property. What made this property special was the fact that it had been deeded to the federal government by the State of Florida in 1950. The federal government retains exclusive jurisdiction over any crimes that occur on property transferred in this way. In response to the Motion to Dismiss the State Attorney in his traverse, swore under oath that the Dale Mabry guard gate sits on municipal property owned by the city of Tampa. Our office in turn filed a second motion to suppress the stop of our client because Florida Statute 901.15(10) requires that the military police officer witness our client on "federal military property". Hillsborough County Circuit Judge William Fuente ruled on our Motion to Suppress. In deying the Motion for Re-hearing the Court stated that the military police officers had discretion to defer the investigation to civilian authorities, "regardless of the status of the property at the gate, be it city property or federal property". Subsequent to the Court's ruling we entered further negotiaitions with the State Attorney's Office. Ultimately, the State agreed to reduce the FELONY DUI charge to a MISDEMEANOR in exchange for a waiver of our right to appeal the jurisdictional issues involved in the above motions.

RESULT: The felony dui charge was reduced to a misdemeanor DUI occurring outside of a five year time span. As a connsequence, our client avoided not only a possible State Prison Sentence, but also a mandatory Hillsborough County Jail sentence. In our opinion all stops made by miilitary police officers at the Dale Mabry guard gate pursuant to 901.15(10) are unlawful, and should be challenged in the future.

Learn more about DUI from a tampa dui lawyer.

False Imprisonment and Domestic Violence Charges Dismissed in Tampa Defendant's Case

Category: Criminal Law

State v. B; Judge: Nick Nazaretian

FACTS: The client was charged with False Imprisonment, Domestic Battery, and 2 charges of Violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction. The client, and his wife had a dinner party with friends from out of town. After the party ended the client came into the bedroom and began to argue with his wife. She eventually went into the bathroom and he followed her. After they entered the bathroom the client's son opened the door and ran to his mother. The argument continued, and according to the victim our client struck her while she was holding their son. She also claimed that our client locked the door, and refused to let her leave the bathroom. The Tampa Police arrived on scene and arrested the client.

Days after his arrest the client was served with a domestic violence injunction. Despite the Court's order he made attempts to contact the victim through a third person, and then tried to send her flowers.

DEFENSE: We contacted the State attorney before the charges were formally filed and explained the circumstances surrounding altercation, and our client's position. As a result of the discussion, the false imprisonment charge (3 degree felony) and the injunction violation charge were both no filed(dismissed). The other violation of domestic violence injunction charge and the battery charge were filed in county court. We filed a demand for speedy trial in county court and the State Attorney was unable to bring forth the necessary evidence to prove the remaining charges.

RESULT: The false imprisonment charge; two (2) violation of domestic violence injunction charges; and the domestic violence battery charge were dismissed.

Learn how tampa criminal attorneys aggressively defend domestic violence charges.

Tampa Defendant's Charges Dismissed While He Awaits Extradition From Federal Prison

Category: Criminal Law

State v. N; Judge: Ronald Ficarrota; Date: January 3, 2008

FACTS: Our client was being held in Federal Prison awaiting extradition to Tampa, Florida. The case was initially prosecuted in March of 1999. Our client was arrested, and failed to appear at his arraignment. When he was convicted out-of-state the old warrant from Tampa held up his sentencing in Federal Court. We initially filed a motion to dismiss the warrant, and the charges based on Statute of Limitation grounds.

DEFENSE: Further investigation into the case revealed that the State would not be able to effectively prosecute.

RESULT: The Client was never extradited to Tampa, and his charges were dismissed.

Find out how a tampa criminal defense attorney resolves extradition cases.

4 DUI Charges are Dismissed for Pasco County Defendant

Category: DUI

State v. T.; Judge: William G. Sestak (Pasco County); Date: January 28, 2008

FACTS: The client was charged with four (4) DUI'S with personal injury; one (1) DUI; three (3) leaving the scene of an accident charges; and a traffic citation. The defendant (client) is a nurse at the Florida Hospital. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the client was traveling westbound on State Road 54 when his vehicle began weaving, and driving into oncoming traffic. Witnesses stated that our client eventually struck the rear of another SUV, and then fled the scene. A short time later the client collided with a second chevrolet, and left the scene of that accident. The client continued to have trouble controling his vehicle, and ended up colliding with a mailbox, and left the scene of that accident. The client then struck a ford truck, and left the scene again after the fourth collision. Eventually, the client came to rest on the shoulder of State Road 54 near Boyette Road. According to the witnesses the client exited his vehicle through the driver's side window. As he stood on the side of the road the client began staggering and having trouble maintaining his balance. When paramedics arrived on scene they recovered a hypodermic needle with fresh blood on the syringe from inside the client's vehicle.

Paramedics suspected the client had possibly overdosed and transported him to the Florida Hospital. After arriving at the hospital the trooper questioned the defendant about his condition. The entire time the defendant was incoherent and unable to respond. The trooper then read the defendant Florida's "implied consent law". Florida Statute 316.1932 (c) states the following:

Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided in this section if there is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. As used in this paragraph, the term "other medical facility" includes an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition is deemed not to have withdrawn his or her consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not the person is told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor.

When asked whether he would be willing to submit to a blood draw the client was "unable to agree or disagree" according to the trooper. Despite the fact that the trooper had the ability to order the medical staff to draw the defendant's blood, he did not. Instead, the trooper claimed that the defendant "refused" to submit to a blood test.

DEFENSE: The trooper's failure to draw blood created a major problem for the state prosecutor. The prosecutor could not argue that the defendant refused the test because the facts clearly contradicted that argument. In addition, the hypodermic needle with fresh blood on it wasn't relevant unless the prosecutor could prove that our client had some controlled substance in his system.

RESULT: The State DISMISSED three (3) DUI with personal injury charges; one (1) dui charge; ; three (3) leaving the scene of an accident charges; and a traffic citation. The fifth DUI charge was reduced to a reckless driving and the defendant received probation.

Burglary Charges Dismissed for Tampa Juvenile Defendant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S; January 15, 2008

FACTS: This juvenile client was charged with Burglary of an Unoccupied Residence, and Grand Theft in the first degree. Allegedly, he and two co-defendants, burglarized the home of the victim. The officer's report indicated that our client drove the co-defendants to the home of the victim where they broke in through a sliding glass door. Once in the home they took $30,000.00 from inside the master bedroom.

DEFENSE: The defendant never admitted to breaking and entering into the home, and the evidence placing him inside the home was lacking.

RESULT: The State "no-filed" (dismissed) the burglary charge and the grand theft charge.

Sarasota Defendant Pleads to Reduced Fraud Charge

Category: Recent Wins

State v. C; Judge: Charles E. Roberts, Sarasota County; January 16, 2008

FACTS: The defendant was charged with worker's compenation fraud totalling $81,000.00. The police report stated that the defendant had fraudulantly claimed that an accident had occurred at his place of business in sarasota county. The accident occurred when a marble slab fell on top of the client in his warehouse. The slab injured the client's wrist severely, but he was still able to drive to Tampa to be treated at St. Joseph's Hospital.

RESULT: The client pled to a reduced charge and received probation, without a conviction.

Tampa Habitual Traffic Offender Gets License Back

Category: Criminal Law

State v. T; Date: December 6, 2007

FACTS: Defendant (client) received three separate Driving While LIcense Suspended (DWLS) charges over a three year period. Many people do not understand that paying a DWLS ticket can qualify you for habitualization. When you pay a ticket for Driving While License suspended Without Knowledge you are adjudicated on the offense. An adjudication on that type of offense will qualify for habitualization even though it is a civil traffic infraction.

DEFENSE: Due to the nature of the client's plea agreements we were able to remove his past convictions for DWLS.

RESULT: The client's habitualization status was rescinded and he became eligible for a new license.

Extradition: Defendant Released from Tampa on Texas Fugitive Warrant

Category: Criminal Law

State v. G.; Judge: Walter Heinrich; Date: December 13, 2007

FACTS: The Defendant (client) became very intoxicated at a party in San Antonio, Texas and struck another man in the head with a full beer bottle. The injury was severe, and required a number of stitches. Shortly after he struck the victim, the client left Texas, and returned to Tampa, Florida. The Texas authorities investigated the case, and filed a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (bottle). Shortly after the charge was filed, a fugitive warrant was issued from the State of Texas. The Texas charge had a bond of $75,000.00.

The client was eating dinner at a local Tampa restaurant when he was approached by law enforcement. After confirming his identity, the police arrested the defendant on the Texas warrant, and transported him to the county jail in Tampa to await extradition.

We contacted a lawyer in Texas for the client. He arranged for a reduction of the bond to $20,000.00. We also contacted the prosector in Texas to arrange our client's release in Tampa. Negotiations with the Texas prosecutor led to the release of our client in Tampa. If the proper arrangements are made it is possible to avoid a very long extradition process! Our client manages a very successful business, and his release allowed him to fly to Texas and make bond, without having to be transported by bus. Extradition and the transportation process can sometimes take weeks.

Tampa Defendant's Battery on Law Enforcement Officer and Resisiting With Violence Charge Dropped

Category: Criminal Law

State v. G.; Judge: Ronald Ficarrotta; Date: September 17, 2007

FACTS: The Defendant (client) was charged with Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (3rd degree felony), and Resisting With Violence (3rd degree felony). He was already very intoxicated when the police arrived at his home on the night of the incident. During the investigation, conducted by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the client became upset because his girlfriend was being arrested. In an attempt to get to his girlfriend he pushed one of the deputies, and was arrested. During his arrest he struck struck the same deputy.

DEFENSE: While the State Attorney's Office takes all crimes involving violence very seriously; violent crimes against law enforcement officers are given even more attention. We provided evidence, through witnesses, that the contact with the deputy was inadvertant.

RESULT: The Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer was nolle prossed (dismissed), and the Resisting With Violence charge was reduced to a misdemeanor. The Defendant was placed into an intervention program on the misdemeanor. If successfully completed, that charge will also be dismissed.

Victim Wrongfully Accuses Tampa Defendant in Scam

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S; Judge: Artemus McNeal; Date: November 27, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was charged with two counts of worthless check. She experienced some financial problems, and a co-worker agreed to lend her $1,600.00. The co-worker asked his wife for the money and she gave it to her husband, who then lent it to the defedant. The client was unable to pay the money back as quickly as the agreement required which caused her co-worker's wife to become extemely upset. As a consequence, the client paid not only the money she borrowed, but a substantial amount of interest. After numerous angry phone calls from her co-worker's wife, the client was able to pay back the money in full. She agreed to meet her co-worker and his wife at a bank parking lot and give them the $1,600.00. The client showed up and paid them the $1,600.00. However, $1,300.00 of the $1,600.00 was paid back in cash, and the client never got a receipt from the victim. The victim (co-worker's wife) realized that the cash would be difficult to track, and claimed the debt was never paid. She took her bounced check from the client to the State Attorney's Office, and filled out all the proper paperwork.

DEFENSE: When the victim received the $1,300.00 in cash from the defedant she also received a check in the amount of $295.00. After receiving this money from the client she drove to her bank and immediately deposited the check, and the cash. We had trouble getting discovery evidence (copies of checks) from the State initially, but once we did the copy of the back of the checks exposed the victim's scam. The back of the $295.00 check not only revealed the date and time of the deposit, but also the additional $1,300.00 deposit made in cash. These records matched against our client's bank records showed the victim was lying about the payment.

RESULT: The Nolle Prossed (dismissed) all charges.

Tampa Defendant Avoids Prison on Possession of Child Pornography VOP

Category: Criminal Law

State v. M; Date May 8, 2007

FACTS: The defendant (client) was violated on his sex offender probation (Possession of Child Pornography, Use of Computer for Solicitation) for failing to make a full and truthful report about his income, and for failing to make his employer aware of his probation status. The client was hired to build a website for a customer. The customer was not happy with the website and wanted her money back. When she found out the client was on probation for a sexually related charge, she called his probation officer in an effort to get her money back.

DEFENSE: Designing the website for the customer did not involve accessing the internet. The actions of the disgruntled customer were an effort to use the Department of Corrections to solve her contract dispute with the defendant (client).

RESULT: The client was continued on his probation with the same terms and conditions.

Investigation Leads to Dismissal of Tampa Defendant's Aggravated Assault and Cruelty to Animals Charge

Category: Criminal Law

State v. F; Judge: Ronald Ficarrotta; Date: August 20, 2007

FACTS: The Client was charged with Aggravated Assault on a Code Inspector and Cruelty to Animals . The aggravated assault charge was a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in Florida State Prison. In September of 2006, animal control services (ACS) received a report regarding "loose dogs" at our client's place of business. After the animal control officer reported to the scene she asked the client where the dogs were being housed. The client led her to an area at the rear of the business where the dogs were chained to some fencing. During the investigation the officer ordered an employee at our client's business to move the dogs so she could take pictures. An arguement between the ACS officer and the client ensued. The defendant (client) picked up a wrench, called the ACS officer a "fucking bitch", and ordered her off the property. The ACS officer immediately called 911. Instead of leaving the property and calling police from the safety of her van, the officer stayed on the property, and antagonized the defendant.

After making numerous efforts to get the ACS officer to leave his property the defendant decided to leave. The ACS officer claimed that the defendant attempted to run her over on two separate occassions as he was leaving his property. Before the police could arrive the client left the scene because he felt that the police would arrest him based solely on the ACS officer's story. This decision led to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest a few days later. The defendant then contacted our office where we arranged a court date to surrender the defendant to the Court. The Court set a bond which the client quickly posted.

Animal Control Services took a very active role in the arrest, and subsequent prosecution of our client. It is important to realize that Animal Control Services works hand-in-hand with law enforcement and the state attorney's office on a constant basis. This relationship can make defending these types of cases very difficult.

Shorlty after retaining our office we began taking depositions of the alleged victim. Her story was contradicted in a number of different ways by the police report itself and statements she made to the 911 operator on the day of the incident.

DEFENSE: It is necessary in any assault case that the victim be put "in fear" by the actions of the defendant. The conduct of the ACS officer contradictied the idea that she was ever put in fear by our client.

RESULT: The Aggravated Assault charge was dismissed.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CHARGE

FACTS: The above charge of aggravated assault was filed in November of 2006. The animal cruelty charges were filed in January of 2007. Based on statements made by the ACS officer during deposition it appeared that she was not interested in filing any criminal charges related to the animals before the verbal altercation between her and the defendant. Animal Control Services decided sometime after the investigation for assault that additional charges of animal cruelty should be filed.

DEFENSE: We argued to the state that the charges were based more on our client's disregard for the ACS officer's authority than the facts listed in the police report.

RESULT: The Animal Cruelty Charges were Dismissed.

Tampa man charged with Felony Battery avoids mandatory prison

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Emmett Battles; Date: June 2007

FACTS: Our client was walking through a public park when he got into an argument with a group of men over a stolen cell phone. The argument escalated into a physical altercation. Our client was surrounded, and repeatedly struck with a large stick. He was knocked to the ground, and sustained multiple injuries including broken bones. In an effort to defend himself and escape, our client punched one of the men surrounding him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth. Unfortunately, the man our client hit was actually an innocent bystander who had come over to break up the fight. By the time police arrived our client had fled the scene to seek medical treatment. After speaking with all of the other men at the scene the officer made the decision to charge our client with Felony Battery.

DEFENSE: Self Defense, Mistake of Fact: Our client reasonably believed he was justified in using force to defend himself from his attackers. Due to the circumstances our client had reason to believe that the man that he punched was one of the men attacking him.

Many times, when investigating violent crimes, law enforcement officers are forced to rely exclusively on witness statements to decide who to arrest. Usually these situations boil down to one person's word versus another's. In this case law enforcement took statements from all of the other men involved, before ever speaking to our client. Ultimately, there were six people pointing the finger at our client.

From the moment we were retained, it was obvious that there was a lot more to the story than was contained in the police report. We worked closely with out client and a private investigator to uncover additional facts and evidence to support our side of the story.

Unfortunately, our client had a significant criminal history. Although he had not been arrested for a violent offense in many years, his prior record was used by the State to calculate the sentencing guidelines for his case. In Florida, sentencing guidelines for felony cases are calculated using the Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet (FRCP 3.992). The State Attorney uses the scoresheet to calculate the minimum and maximum sentence allowed by law for each case. Due to his prior record, our client "scored" a minimum of 19 months prison.

RESULT: Through the use of our own private investigator, we were able to provide additional facts and evidence to the prosecutor supporting our defense. We were then able to negotiate client a "downward departure" plea agreement prior to trial, avoiding the mandatory prison sentence entirely.

Tampa Defendant Avoids Extradition From Tenessee on Violation of Probation

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: William Fuente; Date: August 6, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was put on felony probation for Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Fraud. The Court withheld adjudication (no conviction), and put him on 18 months drug offender probation. The Court agreed to transfer the defendant's probation because he lived in Memphis, Tenessee.

FIRST VIOLATION OF PROBATION:

The probation officer in Hillsborough County eventually became aware that the defedendant had been arrested for a drug charge in Tenessee. The charge was similar to the one he was put on probation for in Tampa. A warrant for the defendant's arrest was issued and the defendant was arrested in Tenessee.

When you are arrested on an out-of-state warrant it can sometimes take weeks before you are transported to the jurisdiction that put on probation; in this case, Hillsborough County. The client was able to make bond in Tenessee, and we filed a motion to surrender the client in Tampa. Shortly after he was released in Tenessee the defendant appeared in Court, in Tampa, to surrender himself.

RESULT: It was evident from the probation report that the client had been making efforts to successfully complete his supervision. After negotiations with the prosecution we were able to continue the defendant on probation. This allowed the client to return to Tenessee without serving any jail time.

SECOND VIOLATION OF PROBATION

FACTS: The client was arrested a second time for committing another drug related offense. He was taken into custody in Tenessee to await extradition. We contacted counsel in Memphis who arranged for the client to attend a drug treatment program in Tenessee. While the defendant awaited extradition in Tenessee we had discussions with the prosecution about the intesity of the treatment program, and his attendance.

RESULT: The prosecution agreed to dismiss the violation, and the client was never transported from Tenessee, or adjudicated for the violation of probation.

Defendant's Extradition From Pasco County Resolved When Ohio Sex Charge is Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. Y; Date: August 3, 2007

FACTS: The client was pulled over in Pasco County, Florida for speeding. During the stop of his vehicle the officer determined that there was a active out-of-state warrant for the client's arrest in Ohio. Unfortunately, the officer in that situation had to arrest our client, and transport him to the Pasco County Jail to await extradition to Ohio. The defendant had a very good job working with the government, and his incarceration in the Pasco County Jail was having a dramatic impact on his employment. Our office is typically retained to resolve warrants that emanate from Florida. However, many times it can be helpful to retain a lawyer in the jurisdiction that actually executed the out-of-state warrant.

Initially, the client retained our office and attempted to retain an attorney in Ohio. For some bizzare reason the attorney in Ohio refused to represent the defendant until he was actually transported to Ohio. This was extremely frustrating for the client and the client's family because it made it very difficult to resolve the criminal charge in Ohio without an Ohio criminal attorney to address the Prosecutor. Ulitmately, we contacted the Ohio prosecutor and had discussions about the merits of the charge and their desire to prosecute this sex charge from 1990.

RESULT: The Ohio prosecutor dismissed the warrant and the defendant was released.

Tampa Domestic Violence Case Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. B.; Date: August 2, 2007

FACTS: The wife of our client had been unfaithful and ultimately told her husband about the affair. As you would expect an argument ensued and the client ended up pushing his wife. The victim received no real injuries.

DEFENSE: After investigation into the case it appeared that this was a "mutual combat" situation where the wife and the husband (client) began pushing each other almost simultaneously.

RESULT: The State terminated the prosecution of the case.

Tampa Domestic Violence Case Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. S; Judge: Nick Nazaretian; Date: July 31, 2007

FACTS: The client got into a verbal argument with her husband over finances. Apparently, her husband went downstairs to avoid the argument, but his wife followed him and began hitting him in the face and chest area. The client then grabbed a knife and started slashing at her husband with it. The husband stated that his wife then tried to throw a pot of boiling water on him. Police arrived on scene and arrested our client (the wife), after speaking to her husband's brother about the incident.

DEFENSE: After investigating the victim's allegations it appeared that much of his story was exaggerated and contrived. He ultimately admitted that the contact between the two of them was accidental and unintentional.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the charge

Tampa DUI With .15 Breath Result is Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. B; Date: July 30, 2007

FACTS: The defendant (client) was driving southbound on North Palm Drive in Tampa when a Tampa Police Officer noticed that her headlights were off. The officer activated his emergency equipment and attempted to pull the vehicle over. As she pulled into a parking space the vehicle went up and over a curb. The officer noticed that the client's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He also noticed that she had a odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. During questioning the defendant admitted having a few drinks, and said she was the "soberest" one in the car.

The client then agreed to perform a number of field sobriety tests, which she failed. After she was arrested she was transported to Central Breath Testing at the Orient Road Jail. She agreed to submit to a breath test which indicated .152 and .137.

DEFENSE: We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the defendant's vehicle which led to negotiations with the State. The client's breath result was very high, but that breath result has no bearing or relevance to the issues surrounding the stop of someone's vehicle for DUI. No matter how ugly you might think the facts of your case are it is crucial that you retain an experienced attorney to represent you. Without an experienced attorney this particular case would of probably had a much different result.

RESULT: The State agreed to drop the DUI.

State Unable to Prove Tampa Defendant is an Accomplice to Theft

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Tom Barber; Date: July 27, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was walking through Sweetbay Supermarket on Dale Mabry Highway with his mother. His mother had just been through a recent divorce, and had no money to pay for any items. The Sweetbay manager saw the defendant, and his mother both loading the items from the grocery cart, into his car. The officer reported to the client's house after getting his tag number from the manager. After reading Miranda to the client and his mother the officer took their statements. According to the officer's report, "the defendant said he was unsure if his mother had paid for the groceries, but that he knew she did not have any money to pay for the items they selected." As a result of his statement, both he and his mother were arrested. The client's mother pled guilty to the theft, and her son pled not guilty.

DEFENSE: The law in the state of Florida with regard to principal or accomplice liability is fairly straightforward.

A defendant will be treated as if he did all the acts performed by the others involved in the perpetration of a crime if:(1) the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be done, and (2) the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and did incite, cause, encourage, or advise another person to actually commit the crime. Charles v. State, 945 So.2d 579, (4th DCA 2006). In our case, the State Attorney could prove that our client was present in the store, and that he wasn't sure if his Mom had money to buy the items. That is not enough. The State had no information proving that the defendant had the "intent" that the crime be done, and really no reliable information that the client incited or encouraged his mother in any way.

RESULT: The State dismissed the charges on the day of trial.

Felony Possession Charge Dismissed by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

State v. H; Judge: Lamar Battles; Date: July 17, 2007

FACTS: Our client's brother found a number of cigarette cartons, and decided to hide them at the client's home. It was illegal to be in possession of the cigarette cartons in that they didn't have the Florida Tax Stamp. A confidential informant became aware of the cigarette's when the defendant's brother tried to sell him a few hundred cartons. ATF agents along with the Tampa Police Department set up a buy and caught one the suspects involved in the actual theft of the cigarettes. The first suspect gave information to police, which in-turn led to the discovery of the cigarettes in our client's home.

DEFENSE: Our client had no knowledge of the illicit nature of the cigarettes, and was not involved in their sale in any way.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the charge shortly before trial.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney gets Marijuana Charge Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. P; Judge: Margaret Courtney; Date: July 30, 2007

FACTS: A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy was set up outside of an elementary school on Bearss and Haven Bend Road issuing tickets for speeding in a school zone. Between 7:30 and 8:15 a.m., Monday through Friday, the area in front of the Elementary school is a school zone. The speed limit at any other time is 45 mph. The cars are notified of the school zone by a flashing light on a sign that states, "school zone when flashing".

The client was traveling through the area at 8:15 a.m. The officer clocked his vehicle at 40 mph and gave him a ticket for speeding. When the deputy pulled the client over he smelled an odor of marijuana emanating from the truck. He asked him whether he had marijuana in the vehicle, and the client showed him where the marijuana was located. The client was then charged with possession of marijuana.

DEFENSE: The defendant claimed the light was not flashing at 8:15 a.m. and that he was driving below the speed limit when the officer lasered his vehicle. In this case, if the light was not flashing, it meant that the defendant was not only innocent of speeding, but that he would also have a very good motion to suppress the unlawful stop of his vehicle. We conducted further investigation by actually videotaping the flashing light in the morning. We determined from the video that the light actually cut off at 8:12:45 a.m. We supplied a copy of the video to the state attorney, and conducted a deposition of the deputy.

The deputy admitted under oath that he was between the two lights when he lasered our client's vehicle. He claimed that although he could not see the light when he lasered the client's car, all the lights stopped flashing at the same time, and that time was 8:15 in the morning. He also implied that our client was actually pulled over a few minutes before 8:15, because he had actually written the citation before 8:15. The speeding citation indicated the stop took place at 8:15 a.m.

We then made a public records request to determine if the flashing lights had been maintained by the county before the stop of our client's vehicle. The sworn deposition of the county employee revealed that the light had been maintained 4 times during the year preceding the stop of the client's vehicle. Each time it was maintained because the internal time clock in the light was not working properly.

All this investigation ultimately led our office to file a Motion to Suppress the Stop of the defendant's vehicle. The State Attorney had to concede that the "flashing light" was not activated by an accurate internal time clock. This meant that the Court would be unable to rule with certainty as to when the client's vehicle was pulled over.

RESULT: The State Attorney stood silent on the Motion to Suppress and the criminal possession charge was dismissed.

Coercion by Police Results in Dismissal of Tampa Drug Possession Case

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Tom Barber; Date: January 16, 2007

FACTS: The client was observed driving her vehice without headlights. The officer followed her for a half mile waiting for her to activate her headlights before he decided to pull her over. After the stop the officer did background checks on everyone in the car, and found a warrant for one of the passengers in the backseat. He questioned the suspect about his warrant for violation of probation, and then asked our client if he could search the vehicle. She responded by asking, "Do I have to let you search?" The officer said, " the decision is yours".

The officer then asked the suspect and our client, "Are you afraid of dogs?" Our client responded by saying, "No, but why do you ask?" The officer then told the defendant that he was going to get a dog to come to the scene. Eventually, the client consented to a search of her vehicle. A bag of marijuana and a pipe were found in the client's car.

DEFENSE: Whenever law enforcemet gains consent to search a home or vehicle it must be voluntary. The client in this case consented to the search of her vehicle only after she was threatened by the officer's claim that the "dogs were on the way". We set up depositions with the Tampa Police Officer to investigate the details of the conversation between he and our client. Further discussions with the State resulted in the dismissal of the charges.

RESULT: The State decided to dismiss the charge based on the circumstances surrounding the search of our client's vehicle. If we would have filed a motion to suppress, it would have been the State's burden to show the consent was voluntary.

Defendant Avoids Prison on Burglary and Resisting Charges in Tampa

Category: Criminal Law

State v. J; Judge: Robert Foster; Date: July 17, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was charged with Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Burglary of a Conveyance, and Resisting an Officer Without Violence. Juvenile priors, and the motor vehicle theft multiplier caused the client's criminal punishment code score to rise above 44 points. Any score above 44 points requires the defendant to serve a prison sentence, unless a mitigator or an exception applies to his case. In this particular case the defendant was 16 years of age and qualified as a youthful offender. The client was also undergoing psychological treatment to address some mental issues.

The Youthful Offender Statute can be found in Chapter 958 of the Florida Statutes. The purpose of the statue is to decrease the likelihood of young offenders returning to the criminal justice system. This is accomplished by forcing defendants sentenced as youthful offenders to attend vocational, educational, and counseling programs. These programs also prevent these young offenders from associating with older and more experienced criminals in the Florida State Prison system. The Youthful Offender Statute even allows the Court to go below the recommended prison sentence in the criminal punishment code, and sentence the defendant to probation. In order to be eligible to qualify as a youthful offender you must meet the criteria set out in Section 958.04 of the Florida Statutes.

DEFENSE: We requested the Court to sentence our client as a Youthful Offender because of his age, and the fact that he was overcoming a number of mental issues.

RESULT: The defendant was sentenced as a Youthful Offender, and received probation. He also avoided any conviction on his record.

Prosecution of Tampa DUI Falls Apart When Video is Lost

Category: DUI

State v. C.; Judge: Tom Barber; Date July 23, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by Tampa Police for running a stop sign and speeding. When the DUI enforcement officer arrived she noticed "bloodshot, glassy eyes, and slurred speech". When the officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle he stumbled, and then grabbed hold of his vehicle to steady himself. Our client was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests (specifically the walk and turn test), which he agreed to do. He was unable to maintain his balance, stepped off the line, and started performing before the instructions were read. Shortly after he performed the walk and turn, the defendant was arrested. When he arrived at Central Breath Testing the client refused the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: During the discovery process we determined that the prosecution was unable to locate the video of our client's performance. We then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that our client's due process rights were violated because the video would dispute the officer's opinion of how poorly he performed.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI charge.

Sometimes Even Lawyers Need to Know When to HIre a Lawyer

Category: Criminal Law

C. v. V; Judge: William Law; Date: June 21, 2007

FACTS: Our client was a defendant in a civil suit involving the sale of a medical waste disposal unit. Early in the law suit the plaintiffs petitioned the court for an injunction to prohibit the sale of the unit to buyers in Spain. During that hearing the plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Vance misled the Court in several ways in an effort to promote the sale of the unit without the consent of the shareholders. Plaintiff's counsel felt the representations were so misleading they motioned the Court to find Mr. Vance in Criminal Contempt. Initially, plaintiffs counsel's attempts to get the Court to grant the motion failed, but Judge Willard Pope eventually granted the motion because of the affadavits claiming to have knowledge of the falsity of the statements. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 (a).

Civil Attorney, John Schifino, of the Williams Schifino law firm represented Mr. Vance in the shareholder derivative suit. Once the Court issued the Order to Show Cause, and Mr. Vance was threatened with the possibility of being convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, Mr. Schifino called our office immediately. Opposing counsel, on the other hand, decided to prosecute the contempt charge without the assistance of a criminal attorney. Many of the plaintiffs in charge of the management of this civil suit were themselves lawyers, which made the decision to allow a civil attorney to prosecute this criminal charge even more surprising. It was a decision that turned out to be fatal to the prosecution of the charge.

After Judge Pope issued the Order to Show Cause the case was transferred to Judge William Law's court room. A couple of months after the arraignment of the criminal charge, opposing counsel withdrew from the case, and the shareholders retained another civil attorney. Months passed and opposing counsel made no efforts to set up depositions. Unlike criminal cases, it is not unusual for civil cases to last several years. Opposing counsel, probably because he is used to prosecuting civil cases, felt that his recent introduction into the case warranted a number of continuances to allow him to familiarize himself with the case. He refused to appreciate a right that all criminal defendant's share; the right to a speedy trial.

Mr. Vance, like any one else charged with a crime, has a right to a speedy trial. If the prosecution fails to try a criminal defendant's case within a specified period of time, and again fails to try the defendant's case within the recapture period, the defendant is entitled to discharge (dismissal) from the crime. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(p). In Mr. Vance's case the speedy trial eventually expired, and we filed a notice of expiration of speedy trial with the Court, and the prosecution. The prosecution, probably because he had no experience in criminal court, made no efforts to respond to the notice of expiration of speedy trial. His failure to act led us to file a Motion for Discharge (Dismissal). After hearing our argument at the Motion for Discharge hearing the Court turned to opposing counsel for rebuttal. During opposing counsel's argument he responded to the judge's questioning by saying, "I am not sure your honor, because I am not a criminal attorney".

I make this point to emphasize a theme that repeats itself in many of the criminal cases that we see at our office. That recurring theme is the failure of many people being investigated for criminal charges to hire a criminal attorney as soon as they have been contacted by law enforcement. Many people, probably like the lawyer who decided to prosecute this criminal contempt charge, feel that criminal matters are simplistic. They feel that they might be able to save themselves the fee paid to a criminal attorney if they resolve this criminal matter on their own. Tell that to the civil attorney who attempted to prosecute the criminal charges against our client. As an esteemed colleague of mine once said, "If you find out you have a heart problem, you don't go see a podiatrist".

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. A; Judge: Elizabeth Rice; Date: July 10, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy after her car remained stopped at a green light at 22 street North and 7th Avenue in Ybor City. The deputy detected slurred speech and red-watery eyes. When the DUI enforcement Deputy arrived he claimed there was an easily detectable odor of alcohol on our client's breath. After further discussions with the deputy the client admitted to drinking alcohol, and she was arrested for DUI. She was also arrested for Driving While LIcense Suspended.

DEFENSE: We had a number of discussions with the State about filiing a motion to suppress the stop of our client's vehicle which led to a negotiated agreement.

RESULT: The State reduced the DUI charge to reckless driving and the Driving While License Suspended charge was amended to No Valid Driver's License.

Defendant Avoids Prison on Probation Violations from Hillsborough and Pasco County

Category: Criminal Law

State v. S.; Judge: Mark Wolf & Pat Siracusa; Hillsborough & Pasco Counties; Date: July 6, 2007

FACTS: Our client was initally put on probation in Pasco County in August of 2006 for Possession of Methamphetamine; possession of marijuana; and trespass of a conveyance. He was then put on felony Driving While License Suspended (Habitual Offender) probation in September of 2006 in Hillsborough County. He was arrested in April of this year again for driving while license suspended (felony offense). This new charge violated the probations in both counties, and certainly meant he was facing prison time in both counties. Surprisingly, the defendant was arrested yet again for possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana when the officers attempted of serve the arrest warrant for violating probation. We motioned the Court for a bond in both counties and convinced the Court in Hillsborough to release the defendant because the new cocaine charge was based on a constructive possession issue. After being released on his Hillsborough County warrant the Defendant was transported to Pasco County. We then convinced the Court in Pasco that the defendant was a contributing member of society and that his pending charges in Hillsborough would be reduced or dismissed.

DEFENSE: The defendant was not in possession of the cocaine that was found in his apartment, and the stop surrounding his driving while license suspended charge was based on a bad stop.

RESULT: The new cocaine charge dismissed, the Driving While License Suspended was reduced and the defendant was eventually terminated from both Probations (Hillsborough & Pasco).

Exposure of Sexual Organs Charge Dismissed in Tampa

Category: Criminal Law

State v. F. ; Date: July 5, 2007

FACTS: The client was accused of exposing himself to children in his neighborhood at the front door of his home.

DEFENSE: During our discussion of this case with our client we became aware of the animosity between his family and a number of his neighbors. It appeared that some children may have been peering into the client's home and the exposure allegation was totally false.

RESULT: It is very common for these types of false allegations to escalate out of control. This client contacted our office right away, and we addressed the allegations with the State. Ultimately, the State "No Filed" the charges.

Tampa DUI Defedant has case dropped

Category: DUI

State v. W; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: June 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was pulled over because his radio was too loud. The officer claimed he could hear the radio 75 feet away. In the state of Florida, if your radio is audible within 25 feet, an officer can stop your vehicle, and give you a citation. Whenever someone is pulled over, they typically become nervous, even if it's just a speeding ticket. In this case, however, the defendant had a panic disorder, which made him appear extremely nervous on the video. His voice wasn't slurred and he never swayed while he spoke to the officer, but he also never stopped talking. He continued to tell the officer that he was too nervous to take the test. Once the officer realized the defendant was going to continue to repeat himself, he engaged the defendant in further conversation. The officer knows that someone who appears to be "stalling", or "making excuses" looks guilty.

Generally, the first officer who makes contact with a possible dui suspect radios for the assistance of a special "dui enforcement officer". The initial officer takes that step because he obviously believes the suspect is DUI. The moment the dui officer gets out of his cruiser to make contact with you, it is important to realize that the video camera is on and you are both, "on stage". As he approaches you the dui officer is presuming guilt because of his conversation with the officer who made the initial stop. The goal of the dui officer is to collect as much incriminating evidence (a poor performance on video) as possible. Sometimes what may sound like "friendly talk", is a method used by officers to document "admissions of guilt" on the video.

DEFENSE: Ultimately, we were able to point out to the state attorney that our client's performance on the video was the result of his panic disorder, not because he was driving under the influence. This was extremely important to the client because it was his second DUI within the past five years. If he had pled straight up to the DUI, he would have lost his license for five years, and done a minimum of 10 days in the Hillsborough County Jail.

RESULT: The Defendant's DUI was dropped, and he received no license suspension.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: DUI

State v. M; Judge: John N. Conrad; Date: May 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was a very respected school teacher in one of our county school systems. She was observed weaving in and out of her own lane, and traveling 60 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The officer conducted a traffic stop at Kennedy and Howard, and noticed our client had a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage. The officer also noticed that the client had watery, bloodshot eyes. Before performing the Field Sobriety Tests she was asked whether she had anything to drink. According to the officer she initially denied having any alcohol, but then admitted to having one drink post-miranda. The defendant was prepared to perform the walk and turn test when she asked the officer if she could have an attorney. The officer told her that she was not entitled to an attorney at that time. Ultimately, the client refused to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and was arrested for DUI. After arriving at Central Breath Testing she was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. The defendant refused that test also.

DEFENSE:: The offense occurred on January 21, 2007. The weather that night was particularly windy and cold. The defendant was not wearing the proper clothing and ended up shivering uncontrollably outside her car. While the Field Sobriety Tests appear very simple and straight forward to most people, they can be very difficult to perform in bad weather. For instance, before you begin to perform the walk-and-turn test you are asked to stand heal to to without moving, as the officer reads you the instructions. This is extremely difficult when you are shaking from the cold. Many times an officer will get upset if you decide not to perform the field sobriety tests. The reason for that is simple. You are refusing to give him the evidence he wants to prove your guilt. When our client refused to perform the Field Sobriety Tests without a lawyer, it created friction between the client and the officer. This friction led to the defendant refusing to submit to the breathalyzer also.

This chain of events is not uncommon. People refuse to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and the breathalyzer for many different reasons. In this case, we were able to persuade the State Attorney that the defendant's refusal was justified under the circumstances.

RESULT: The client's DUI was reduced to a reckless driving, and she received a withhold of adjudication, and court costs. A withhold means that the client was able to avoid a conviction on the reckless driving charge and she received no points on her driving record.

Sarasota Defendant Avoids Prison on Lewd and Lascivious Battery Charge

Category: Recent Wins

State v. Z; Judge: Rick Defuria; Date: May 21, 2007

FACTS: The Client (defendant) was charged with Lewd and Lascivious Battery and was looking at 15 years in Florida State Prison pursuant to the Florida Statutes. According to police reports, the client (35 years of age) met a 14 year old girl outside of his apartment, shortly after moving into the area. After a few visits to his home the girl engaged in consensual sex with our client. When the Client became aware of her age he ended the relationship immediately. This breakup greatly upset the victim. According to reports, the victim later broke into the client's home and stole a firearm, with the apparent intent to have him killed. The client became aware of the girl's plan and left the state.

During the course of their investigation, Law enforcement eventually requested that the client come into the station and give a sworn statement. The client agreed and was consequently charged with L&L battery. Unfortunately, this client never contacted our office prior to giving his recorded statement to police. This mistake was compounded by the client's lack of knowledge regarding Florida's statutory rape (sexual battery) laws. By failing to contact our office prior to questioning, the client potentially exposed himself to the much more serious charge of sexual battery.

In this situation the State Attorney's case hinged solely on the client's statement due the victim's lack of credibility. The victim had numerous prior juvenile arrests. In addition, she had burglarized the client's home in an effort to possibly have him killed.

It is important to remember that whenever you are approached by law enforcement to contact a lawyer immediately. Even if you feel your role or knowledge of a crime is minor, taking proper steps to contact an attorney immediately can have a drastic impact on your case.

RESULT: We eventually negotiated a deal with the The State that allowed the client to avoid prison.

Pinellas County Defendant Avoids Domestic Battery Prosecution

Category: Domestic Violence

State v. R; Date: May 9, 2007; Pinellas County

FACTS: Our client was alleged to have covered his wife's mouth during an argument. Shortly after he grabbed her, they both went to the ground, where a struggle ensued. The victim in this case called police months after the incident occurred because she felt her husband had lied to her about another woman.

Many times a spouse will decide they want to divorce their husband or wife and contact a divorce (family law) lawyer without telling the other party. During the initial interview the divorce lawyer will often inquire about instances of domestic violence during the marriage. Even where there is little to no justification, some divorce lawyers will often recommend that a victim contact the police and have a charge filed against their spouse in an effort to gain an advantage in the divorce proceedings. If they do they will typically also recomend that the wife apply for an injunction (preventing any contact).

Many x-husbands find themselves sitting in jail months after a domestic dispute has come and gone. After being released they find out that they cannot return home because there is an injunction in place preventing contact with their wife. If a defendant contacts a victim after an injunction is in place it could create an additional criminal charge. This is obviously a very frustrating turn of events that make it critical to hire a lawyer as soon as possible. The above scenario did not materialize in this case because of some steps we took to communicate with the victim.

DEFENSE: All contact with the victim was the result of the client trying to defend himself.

RESULT: The State Attorney decided not to pursue the prosecution, and the charge was dismissed.

Tampa Defendant Avoids Prison and Conviction - Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm)

Category: Criminal Law

State v. C; Judge: Robert A. Foster; Date: May 24, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was charged with Aggravated Battery (great bodily harm)(deadly weapon). The State filed the charge as a first degree felony. Initially, the client was looking at close to five years in Florida State Prison according to the criminal punishment code scoresheet. Under the Criminal Punishment Code, unless the defense convinces the State Attorney or the Court to apply a mitigator, the defendant must be sentenced, upon conviction, to the time described on the scoresheet. Our client was a patron at the Dallas Bull Bar on highway 301. After exchanging words with the victim, the defendant approached the victim, and struck her in the face with a beer bottle. The bottle knocked out several of the victim's front teeth and broke her nose. The victim's medical bills totaled close to $13,000.00.

DEFENSE: The defendant had no criminal history, and after much negotiation, we persuaded the State to go below the Criminal Punishment Code Guidelines and give the defendant a withhold of adjudication and probation.

RESULT: The client received no jail time or conviction on her record.

Tampa Battery Charge Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

State v. D; Judge: John Conrad; Date: May 10, 2007

FACTS: The client's daughter was approached by a young man who made a number of sexual inuendos during a conversation they had at work. Weeks later her father (client) visited her at work, and while they discussed the incident, the young man happened to walk nearby. The father was so angered by what happened he went outside and confronted the victim. Our client pushed the victim in the chest and then grabbed him by the throat.

DEFENSE: The remarks made to by the victim to our client's daughter were uncalled for and highly offensive on every level. The case was set for trial, and negotiations with the State followed.

RESULT: The State Dismissed the case.

Pinellas County Defendant Avoids Sexual Battery Charge

Category: Criminal Law

State v. R; Judge: R. Timothy Peters; Date: April 3, 2007

FACTS: The client was charged with Handling and Fondling a Female Child Under the Age of Sixteen (2nd degree felony). The defendant had allegedly molested his children and grandchildren in 1992. The victim of the offense had a falling out with our client shortly before he was arrested out of state and extradited to Florida. The age of the charge made it problematic for the State Attorney to move forward on the Fondling charge. As a result, We made the State Attorney aware that we were filing a motion to dismiss the Fondling charge due to a violation of the Statute of Limitations. In response, the State claimed they would amend the charge to Sexual Battery (1st degree felony), in order to avoid the statute of limitations problem.

DEFENSE: The State could have moved forward on the Sexual Battery charge, but there were some serious issues as to the credibility of the victim. These credibility problems led to negotiations with the State.

RESULT: The client did no jail time. He entered a plea to a probationery sentence on a much less serious charge, which carried no sex offender designation.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 20, 2007

FACTS: After spending the night in Ybor City, the client drove some friends home. She was pulled over after one of the passenger's in her car threw garbage out of the back window. Her car was pulled over at about 4 a.m., at the off ramp of I-75 and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. As the officer spoke to the client he smelled an odor of alcohol on her breath and her eyes appeared to be glassy. The client was also wearing nightclub arm bands on both arms. After she admitted to drinking the officer asked her to perform some field sobriety tests. The officer felt she failed the field sobriety tests and arrested her for DUI. When she arrived at the Orient Road Jail in Hillsborough County she refused to blow into the breathalyzer. The defendant was also an under age drinker.

DEFENSE: The defendant's performance on the video was much better than the description given by the Tampa Police Officer in his report. Again, a video can create a real doubt as to the defendant's guilt in a DUI case.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped.

DUI Gets Dropped By Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: DUI

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 19, 2007

FACTS: The client was driving a motorcycle at a very high rate of speed when he was observed by a deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. The defendant was passing erratically and unexpecteddly with no warning. He also caused other drivers to slam their brake as he was correcting and readjusting within his lane. After the defendant was stopped the officer noticed that the defendant's speech was slow and slightly slurred. He also noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant's breath. The client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and failed miserably, according to the police report. He was then arrested for DUI and booked at the hillsborough county jail. The defendant refused to blow into the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: There was a dispute as to whether the defendant had performed as poorly as described by the deputy. The video of our client can sometimes create enough of an inconsistency in the evidence to bring about a very positive result.

RESULT: The dui was dropped.

Tampa Defendant Gets DUI Dropped

Category: Recent Wins

State v. C, Judge: Tom Barber; Date: March 15, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped by a trooper for traveling 97 mph in a 65 mph zone on the Howard Franklin Bridge. As the trooper contacted the defendant he noticed he was disoriented and mumbling, with a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. When the client exited his vehicle he was unsteady and stumbling. The client believed he was heading to St. Pete when he was actually headed towards Tampa. The defendant was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, and failed, according to the trooper. There was no video of the defendant's performance of the field sobriety tests at the scene. Ultimately, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

DEFENSE: The video of the defendant at the Orient Road Jail contradicted the trooper's description of him at the scene. In addition, we were able to supply evidence to the State that the defendant was new to the area, and unfamiliar with the roads. It is also important to point out that the client's refusal of the breath test did not weaken the state's case. The State has the ability to argue that the defendant refused, "... because he knew he was intoxicated". However, in this particular situation we were able to provide the State with a reasonable explanation for the refusal.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Dropped

Category: Recent Wins

State v. O, Judge: James Dominguez; Date: March 12, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped at the light on highway 41 north and Florida Avenue. A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office deputy stopped at the light behind our client. According to the deputy the light cycled through twice before she activated her overhead lights and approached the defendant's vehicle. The deputy claimed that the defendant was incoherent, and unaware of her surroundings when she made contact with her at the driver's side door. At that point the stopping deputy called a special DUI enforcement deputy who conducted a DUI investigation. The second deputy asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, and claimed she had failed the tests. Much of what the deputy reported seemed to be confirmed by the defendant's breath result (the breath result was .146 and .129).

DEFENSE: After a number of attempts to negotiate with the State failed, we filed a motion to suppress the stop of the defendant's car. The State felt there was a safety concern that warranted the deputy stopping our client to determine the situation. We felt the deputy stopped our client's vehicle prematurely, and without reasonable suspicion.

RESULT: The State realized there were problems opposing our motion which led to a reduction of the charge to reckless driving for the client.

Two DUI Arrests Dismissed By Tampa DUI Attorney

Category: DUI

State v. P, State v. N; ; Judge: Joelle Ober; Date: February 22, 2007

FACTS: The defendants (clients) both left the Dallas Bull Bar near U.S. 301 and Interstate 4, at around 1:30 a.m. Before leaving the bar each had consumed 1-2 beers. As they left the clients decided to follow each other home. Both clients were unaware that a special DUI enforcement deputy was waiting in a nearby parking lot for patrons to leave. The deputy decided to follow them as they left. Shortly after falling behind the defendants the deputy claimed one was following the other too closely, and stopped his car to cite him for the infraction. After the stop, the deputy claimed he smelled an odor of alcohol and began a DUI investigation of the first client. Because she was concerned about her friend, the second client approached the deputy to find out why they were stopped. After making contact, the deputy claimed he could smell an odor of alcohol on her breath also, and investigated her for DUI.
The deputy claimed that both defendants failed their respective Field Sobriety Tests and arrested them both for DUI. Each client agreed to take the breathalyzer. One defendant blew a .031, and the other blew a .028. The deputy then started grasping at straws. He asked each defendant to drop a urine sample. Both defendants complied, and their urine results ultimately revealed nothing.

DEFENSE: The above scenario is a very common occurrence. The deputy involved in this investigation was a special DUI enforcement officer. These DUI enforcement officers (both at the HIllsborough County Sheriff's Office and the Tampa Police Department) camp outside bars and wait for people to drive away late at night. After the suspects leave the bar, many officers will use any excuse, no matter how weak, to stop the vehicle for some traffic infraction or less. This case is a classic example of a dishonest law enforcement officer using any pretext to stop someone, and arrest them for a crime. It is also points out the risk to law enforcement when they decide everyone leaving a bar at 1:30 a.m is intoxicated. While the officer has a lawful right to park his car outside of any bar and wait for people to leave, he shouldn't just stop vehicles unless his observations warrant the stop.
Here, the deputy stopped the clients claiming one was following too closely. Did the driver actually commit the infraction, or was the officer using it as a pretext to conduct a DUI investigation? When you look at the facts, and realize the driver blew well below the legal limit, it calls into question the validity of the entire investigation, and the lawfulness of the arrests.

It is important to realize that just because these defendants blew well below the legal limit, that does not mean that their DUI charges were automatically dismissed by the State Attorney's Office. In the state of Florida a breath result of .08 or above is prima facie evidence that the person driving was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(c). If someone's breath result is between .05 and .08, there is no presumption of impairment. Florida Statute 316.1934(b). If someone's breath result is below .05, it is presumed that the person driving was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(a).
In this case, there was a presumption that both drivers were not under the influence of alcohol to the extent their normal faculties were impaired (in short they were not DUI). However, any presumption can be rebutted by evidence. So it does not necessarily follow that you are automatically guilty of DUI if you are above the legal limit, and not guilty of DUI if you are below the legal limit. For instance, in some cases where defendants blow below the legal limit there can be proof that the defendant was driving under the influence of some intoxicant other than alcohol (prescription drugs, marijuana, cocaine...etc.). In addition, every person is affected by alcohol differently. As a consequence, whether you are above or below the legal limit, you should still hire an attorney. This case ultimately resulted in a dismissal of both DUI charges, but it is very unlikely the defendants would have received that result on their own. I have seen many unknowing pro se (self-represented) defendants plead guilty to DUI when they blew below the legal limit. Without an attorney you have no idea of the real strengths and weaknesses of your case.

RESULT: Both DUI charges were dismissed by the State Attorney.

Defendant Avoids 3 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence after Shooting

Category: Criminal Law

CASE #05-CF-018725; Judge: Robert Foster; Date: February 1, 2007

FACTS: The State Attorney filed three charges of Aggravated Assault with Firearm (discharge) against the client. This charge carries a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence in Florida State Prison if convicted. The three victims leased a small home from the defendant. After the victims failed to pay rent on numerous occasions the client went to the home to determine why they refused to pay. According to the victims the client was intoxicated and got into an argument with the mother of one of the victims. Before he left someone called the victims who were driving home. When the victims arrived on scene they began to argue with the defendant. The argument led to a number of threats by the victims. According to the victims the defendant pulled out a pistol and fired into the crowd that had gathered. After the defendant left the police were called and reported to the scene. Their investigation led to the defendant's arrest on the above charges.

DEFENSE: Thorough investigation of these types of charges is critical! At first glance the client's case appeared extremely difficult. The victims were surrounded by numerous people who claimed he fired his weapon right at them. The defendant's story differed from the victims in a number of ways. He admitted he fired his weapon, but not at the crowd of people, and not until he left the area. He claimed he only fired the weapon after the victims retrieved their own firearm and discharged it. Through investigation we located two witnesses who lived nearby and heard shots fired that night. Shortly after hearing the shots they saw one of the victims walk by, and claim that he was "going to jump the shooter, but he pulled out a gun". In addition, we learned from another witness that the crowd was preparing to attack our client.

RESULT: The State does not like to drop charges this serious without a very good reason. Ultimately, we were able to convince the State that its witnesses had no credibility after the discovery of these neutral witnesses.
Two of the three charges were dropped (dismissed) altogether, and the third charge was reduced to disorderly conduct. The client received a withhold of adjudication (withhold of the conviction) and court costs on
a misdemeanor charge.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Domestic Violence Charge Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

CASE # 06-CM-024034; Judge: Nick Nazaretian; Date: February 13, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was accused of grabbing his wife by the neck and throat after an argument in their home. According to the victim, he squeezed her neck so hard he was able to lift her off the ground. There were photographs taken of the victim's injuries.

DEFENSE: The victim was the aggressor and the defendant only grabbed her to avoid further violence.

RESULT: This case was resolved before trial after interviewing the victim. Our investigation led to a change in the victim's story and a dismissal of the charge.

Tampa Probationer Continued on Felony Probation

Category: Criminal Law

CASE # 05-CF-013726; Judge William Fuente; January 8, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was put on probation in October of 2005 for Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Fraud. After he moved to Tennessee he was arrested for two similar charges in February of 2006. He was arrested in Tennessee on a Florida governor's warrant for violating his probation in Hillsborough County. After certain steps were taken he was able to make bond in Tennessee for the Florida warrant, and returned to Florida for a court date we set. Based on the circumstances the judge agreed to continue the case until his Tennessee charges were resolved.

DEFENSE: The defendant's new charges in Tennessee were all reduced to misdemeanors, and the defendant had been compliant on his probation.

RESULT: Negotiations with the State led to the defendant being continued on probation without an adjudication for the violation.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia Dismissed

Category: Criminal Law

CASE #06-CF-00818; 06-CF-00817; 06-CF-00816; Judge Debra Behnke; Date: December 20, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was arrested for selling pipes for the specific purpose of smoking crack cocaine. It is legal to sell the pipes, but not for the purpose of smoking crack. Florida Statute 893.147 was designed to punish any person who promotes their smoking pipes for the purpose of using controlled substances. According to the statute, "It is ulawful for any person to deliver, possess with intent to deliver... drug paraphernalia, knowing or under circumstances where one should reasonably know, that it will be used to introduce a controlled substance into the human body". The undercover law enforcement officer entered a convenient store where the defendant was working the cash register. He approached the defendant and asked if he had any pipes to smoke crack for sale. Supposedly, the defendant pulled out a box of pipes and sold them to the undercover officer.

DEFENSE: The defendant is an immigrant that spoke very little english. There was a serious question as to whether understood the officer. Unfortunately, while the storeowner makes money from the sale of these items he assumes no risk of criminal charges.

RESULT: The charges were dismissed.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Gets Violation of Domestic Injunction Charge Dismissed

Category: Domestic Violence

Case #06-CM-026335; Judge Nick Nazaretian; Date: December 22, 2006

FACTS: The client had an injunction for protection against domestic violence with minor children entered against him on August 8, 2006. The petitioner had a child with our client, and was very intent on gaining custody. Apparently, even after the injunction was filed the petitioner continued to contact our client indirectly through some of his friends. Strangely enough the victim ended up claiming the defendant (client) had contacted her through someone elses "my space" account.
According to the victim she responded to a friend of our client's by sending her a message on her "my space" profile. At some point she went back to this person's profile and saw a message she believed was addressed to her from our client. The victim called the police and our client was charged with contacting the victim and violating the injunction. The defendant felt his x-girlfriend was simply using this criminal charge to convince the family court judge to award her custody of their child.
The Courts are often used by people for the wrong reasons. Many petitioners will get an injunction against their boyfriend or wife, and use it as a tool to achieve some goal in front of the family court judge who is presiding over a divorce or custody dispute. Unfortunately, both men and woman are equally guilty in this regard. No one seems to realize that the children are the only ones that suffer when the Courts are abused in this manner.

DEFENSE: There was no proof that the defendant had intentionally contacted the victim. The victim apparently found this message on someone elses "my space" account, not her own. Discussions with the State Attorney brought about a quick resolution to this case.

RESULT: The charge of violating the Domestic Violence Injunction was dismissed.

Tampa Criminal Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

Case #06-0034-DKT; Judge Marc Salton-Pasco County (New Port Richey); Date: December 18, 2006

FACTS: The client, a former police officer, was observed by law enforcement to be asleep behind the wheel of his car at a flashing yellow light. The client's engine was running and the vehicle was in drive. When the troopers pulled behind him the defendant woke up and pulled his vehicle to the side of the roadway. The troopers noticed that the defendant's face was pale, and his pupils were dilated. When the client exited the vehicle he leaned against the car to steady himself. Because the officer noticed some balancing problems he requested the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. Our client notified the trooper that he had a number of medical conditions that could create a problem in his performance (lower back, head, knees).
This is a recurring problem for law enforcement and defendants. The officer is going to ask most suspects of a DUI to perform the field sobriety tests despite the fact that they have physical disabilities. Their response is typically, "don't worry, I will consider your medical conditions in determining whether you performed the tests correctly". It doesn't matter how sincere the police officer is when he tells you he is going to consider your medical disabilities as you perform the field sobriety tests. The fact of the matter is that police officers are not doctors, and haven't the slightest idea how severe someone's injury is, or how it is affecting their ability to perform a field sobriety test. In this case the defendant attempted to perform a number of field sobriety tests and the officer failed him on all of them.
After the client was arrested for DUI the officer asked if the client was under any medication. The client indicated that he was taking a number of medications (zoloft, vicodin, and some sinus medication). The officer concluded that the client was under the influence of prescription medications, and asked the defendant to submit a urine sample. The defendant dropped a urine sample and the results indicated that he had a number of different drugs in his system. Some of the substances were break down products of valium and a mild stimulant.

DEFENSE: In this particular case we were able to hire an expert in Forensic Toxicology. The toxicologist report supported our client's story in terms of the timing, and amount of drugs that were ingested. Ultimately, the prosecution was unable to prove that the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. A urine sample by itself makes it very difficult to quantify the amount of drugs in someone's system. In addition, the urine sample cannot tell you when the drugs were taken.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped by the State Attorney.

Resisting Without Violence Charge Dismissed by Tampa Criminal Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

Case #06-CM-024478; Judge Lawrence Lefler; Date: December 14, 2006

FACTS: The client (a huge Bengals fan) came to Tampa to see the Cincinnati Bengals play the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. During the closing seconds of the game the Bucs threw a pass that seemed to be incomplete. Our client walked down a couple of stairs to celebrate a Bengals victory with another fan. At that point security personel ordered a tampa police officer to remove him. The police officer grabbed the defendant and removed him from the stadium. During his removal the defendant was handcuffed too tightly, which caused him to pull away from the officer. The officer felt the defendant was trying to resist and threw him against a concession stand in the stadium. As a result the defendant's face was bloodied and bruised.

DEFENSE: Most people are not aware that you can resist without violence an unlawful arrest. In contrast, you cannot resist with violence even an unlawful arrest. That became very important in this case because the officer was not lawfully arresting the client for a crime when the client pulled away from the officer. In addition, this case involved a situation where the law enforcement officer misunderstood why the defendent (client) was pulling away. In order to be found guilty of resisting without violence you must intend to resist the officer. Our client was simply reacting to the handcuffs when he pulled away.

RESULT: The Case was dismissed upon our motion.

Tampa DUI Attorney Gets DUI Win

Category: DUI

CASE #001-674-XAM; 007-179-ELP; 007-182-ELP; 004-209-EPL; Judge Tom Barber; Date: December 12, 2006

FACTS: The defendant was pulled over for failure to maintain a single lane and no tag light. When the officer approached the vehicle she claimed she smelled an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. The officer also noticed three open beer bottles in the defendant's vehicle. Based on her observations she called a DUI unit to conduct the investigation. The defendant told police he had taken several medications for depression and other illnesses. During the investigation the DUI officer administered a number of field sobriety tests. However, the incident report was unclear as to how he performed on the tests. This problem was aggravated by the fact that the officer had no video of the defendant's performance. One of the tests often administered by a police officer in a DUI investigation is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. The HGN test involves the officer simply moving a pen with a light on the end of it in front of your eye. The subject is required to keep their head still while the officer moves his pen across your field of vision. If your eye begins to shake when the pen is moved to a 45 degree angle then it is supposed to indicate impairment. It is important to realize that a nystagmus can be caused by a number of factors that do not involve alcohol (contacts, fatigue). Some people have a natural nystagmus. For some reason the officer in the defendant's case did not administer the HGN test. This seemed very strange since he indicated the defendant did not perform well on some other tests that require physical coordination. If the officer felt the defendant was too intoxicated to perform the physical tests (walk and turn, one-legged stand, ... etc.) then why didn't he administer a test that involves almost no physical performance on the part of the defendant?
The truth of the matter is that just about every DUI investigation includes an HGN test, and they fail almost everyone. For some reason the officer decided not to administer this test in our case.

DEFENSE: The police officer's report was very confusing and inconsistent with the facts. In addition, the State was unable to explain the inconsistencies without the DUI video.

RESULT: The defendant's DUI was dropped and his traffic infractions were dismissed.