Tampa Criminal Defense Attorneys - (813) 228-7095
Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney gets Marijuana Charge Dismissed
- E-mail this Article
- Print this Article
- Text Size: A A
Editor: Tampa Criminal Attorneys
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys
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.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://myblog.clarislaw.com/usa/mt-tb.cgi/1678