Author: caseyreiteresq

Criminal Defense, Legal Blog, Probation, VOP

Florida VOP Arrests

caseyreiteresq

Miley Cyrus made news this week when she brought an allegedly homeless man as her date to the MTV Video Music Awards.

Unfortunately, after the VMAs, research has revealed that the man has a troubled past, including warrants for his arrest and probation violations. One report reveals that the district attorney in Oregon filed a motion to revoke the man’s probation after he allegedly failed to report to his probation officer, used controlled substances, failed to submit to a urine test, and failed to complete his court ordered classes and community service hours.

In Florida, similar results will stem from a Florida probation violation. Florida Violations of Probation typically occur when someone has not timely completed the terms of their probation (such as community service hours), when someone fails to report to their probation officer when scheduled or when requested, when someone tests positive for a controlled substance during random alcohol and drug testing that is a term of their probation, or when someone is arrested for a new crime while they are already on probation.

Palm Beach County probation officers can have a person arrested in their office for a positive drug test. If the person stops reporting to the probation officer, the probation officer can request the judge to issue a warrant for that person’s arrest. Once arrested, the defendant could be held no bond, depending on the judge and the charge.

Florida VOPs will usually require either one or two hearings, depending on the reason for the violation. The court will ultimately have to determine if the reason for the alleged violation was substantive (such as being arrested for a new crime) or technical (such as a positive drug test or failure to report). The sentence for a violation of probation could be up to the maximum penalty under the original charge from which the probation stems.

A Florida criminal defense attorney can review a violation of probation case and determine the proper steps to be taken in defending the VOP. Sometimes, attorneys are able to file motions for in court surrender to avoid jail, or to negotiate with the state attorney to have the terms of probation reinstated. Each case is different. Anyone facing a probation violation in Florida should contact a Florida criminal defense lawyer.

 

Casey Reiter is an associate attorney at Stuart R. Manoff & Associates, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida, practicing in the areas of Criminal Defense and Marital Law.

Criminal Defense, Drug Charge, Legal Blog, Marijuana

Florida Drug Schedules

caseyreiteresq

Florida Statute 893.03 categorizes controlled substances into different schedules: Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. 

Pursuant to the statute, the drug schedules are as follows:

Schedule I: Schedule I drugs are controlled substances with a high potential for abuse and/or addiction and no legally accepted medical use. Substances in Schedule I include, but are not limited to: heroin, ecstasy, cannabis, mescaline, LSD, and peyote.

Schedule II: Schedule II drugs are controlled substances that also have a high potential for abuse/addiction but have severely restricted medical use. Substances in Schedule II include, but are not limited to: cocaine, codeine, hydrocodone, methadone, methamphetamine, morphine, opium, and oxycodone.

Schedule III: Schedule III drugs are controlled substances that have less potential for abuse and addition, and have accepted medical use. Substances in Schedule III include, but are not limited to: vicodin, ketamine, anabolic steroids including testosterone (but not including estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids), and medicines with less than 1.8 grams of codeine per 100 milliliters, or with less than 300 milligrams of hydrocodone per 100 milliliters, or less than 50 milligrams of morphine per 100 milliliters.

Schedule IV: Schedule IV drugs are controlled substances with low potential for abuse or addiction but are mildly addictive when abused, and that have accepted medical use. Substances in Schedule IV include, but are not limited to: alprazolam (xanax), diazepam, and muscle relaxants.

Schedule V: Schedule V drugs are controlled substances with low potential for abuse and with accepted medical use. Substances in Schedule V include, but are not limited to: low amounts of codeine and stimulants.  

A complete listing of the substances in each schedule can be found in Florida Statute 893.03. Additionally, the potential penalties for unlawful possession of the various drugs can be found in Florida Statute 893.13. 

Anyone who is facing drug charges in Palm Beach County should contact a criminal defense attorney, as the penalties can be severe, depending on the amount and type of controlled substance allegedly possessed.

 

Casey Reiter is an associate attorney at Stuart R. Manoff & Associates, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida, practicing in the areas of Criminal Defense and Marital Law.

Battery, Burglary, Criminal Defense, Legal Blog

Invoking Rights During Questioning

caseyreiteresq

An interesting case from the 1st DCA was published this week and it provides a good discussion relative to my recent blog “Miranda Warnings – Infographic,” 

In the case of State of Florida v. Parker, the 1st DCA revisited the important issue of constitutional rights during an interrogation of a suspect. In that case, the suspect was being questioned by police in connection with a burglary with battery charge (in addition to other charges). Burglary-battery, or “burg-batt,” is a first degree felony in the State of Florida, punishable by up to life in prison, and found under Florida Statute 810.02.

During the questioning, the following questions and answers (at issue) allegedly took place:

Suspect: “Can you just tell me if I need to get a lawyer or something?”

Officer: “Listen, that’s your right. But what I’m interested in is the truth.”

At this point, the suspect allegedly made incriminating statements. 

 

Suspect “Is there a lawyer in the building?”

Officer: “No, you would have to call one.”

The suspect was ultimately placed under arrest. During his case, the suspect (now defendant) filed a motion to suppress his incriminating statements, arguing that the police officer had violated his constitutional rights by not giving him a straightforward answer. The law regarding this issue requires police officers to stop the interview when a suspect asks a question concerning his or her rights, and make a good-faith effort to give a simple and straightforward answer. Once the officer answers the question, appropriately, the officer can continue the interview unless the suspect invokes his her her rights (such as his or her right to remain silent and right to counsel). However, Florida courts have held that when an officer gives an evasive answer, skips the question, or talks over the suspect, the officer has violated Florida’s Constitution and the US Constitution, and any incriminating statements obtained as a result of the constitutional violations may be suppressed as coerced.

 

In this case, the Court found that the officer had in fact made a good-faith effort to appropriately answer the suspects questions regarding his rights. As a result, the incriminating statements the suspect made about himself were admissible in trial.

Interestingly, the Court also mentioned in its ruling that the suspect’s question about “whether there was a lawyer in the building” was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to an attorney. That is an example of why it is extremely important for anyone being questioned by police to know his or her rights so that he or she can properly invoke them if he/she chooses to do so. Many people do not know their rights or the steps they have to take to invoke them. An unclear question regarding a suspect’s rights will not be sufficient to invoke them. A person who wants to stop the interrogation to speak with a lawyer has to clearly make the request. Anyone who has questions regarding their rights during a police interrogation should contact a criminal defense attorney.

 

Casey Reiter is an associate attorney at Stuart R. Manoff & Associates, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida, practicing in the areas of Criminal Defense and Marital Law.

 

Criminal Defense, Legal Blog, Search and Seizure

Consensual Encounter – Consent to Search

caseyreiteresq

An interesting case recently came out in the 2nd DCA regarding consensual encounters with police officers.

In the case, a police officer initiated a consensual encounter (or, an encounter with a person who is free to leave at any point) with an 18 year old high-schooler. The officer asked the student for his identification, which the student handed to the officer. The officer placed the student’s ID card and wallet on the hood of his patrol car. The officer then asked if the student would consent to a search as an “officer safety” method to ensure the student had no weapons, which the student permitted. The officer ultimately found four hydrocodone pills in the student’s pocket, for which the student had no prescription. the student was placed under arrest for possession of hydrocodone, a felony in the State of Florida.

The student filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence (the hydrocodone pills) found by the officer, arguing that the pills were found during an unlawful search. The student argued that the encounter with the police officer transformed from a “consensual encounter,” where he was free to leave, into an illegal detention, where he was no longer free to leave, when the officer placed the student’s ID and wallet on the hood of his patrol car. The motion to suppress was denied.

In denying the motion to suppress the evidence, the court reiterated the rule of law that police officers are not required to tell people that they are free to leave during a consensual encounter. However, the 2nd DCA reversed the ruling, and held that the evidence should have been suppressed because the student was clearly being detained and not free to leave when the officer held onto his ID and wallet. Therefore, when the student allegedly consented to the search, the student’s consent was not voluntary – he felt compelled to comply with the officer’s requests as a result of the improper detention. As a result, the evidence obtained as a result of the subsequent search was found to be unlawful. The 2nd DCA ruled that the student’s case should be dismissed.

Cases where law enforcement officers conduct searches are often wrought with Constitutional issues. This case (Lane v. State of Florida) is a perfect example. However, it is important to remember that just because evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search may be suppressed, the case will not always necessarily be thrown out all together as a result. The outcome of each case will depend on the specific facts of that case.

Anyone who has been arrested as a result of a search by a police officer should contact a criminal defense attorney to discuss the particular facts of the case and review any potential constitutional violations.

 

Casey Reiter is an associate attorney at Stuart R. Manoff & Associates, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida, practicing in the areas of Criminal Defense and Marital Law.

Criminal Defense, InfoFriday, Legal Blog

Miranda Warnings – Infographic

caseyreiteresq

We see police officers give Miranda Warnings to people they are arresting on television all the time, but what are they really?

Miranda Rights were developed after the landmark Supreme Court Case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. In that case, the defendant, Miranda, was arrested for kidnapping and rape. After being interrogated for two hours by police officers without being advised of his rights, Miranda signed a confession. Miranda’s lawyer argued that the confession was not voluntary as a result, and should have been excluded as evidence from the trial. The US Supreme Court ultimately agreed, and found that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer had been violated. Interestingly, Miranda was later retried and convicted.

In its ruling, the US Supreme Court stated that prior to interrogation, a person who is in custody must be clearly informed that he/she has (1) the right to remain silent, (2) that anything he/she says can and will be used against him/her in a court of law, (3) that he/she has the right to consult with an attorney prior to and during any questioning, and (4) that if he/she cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for him/her at no cost. 

Subsequent to the Miranda decision, it became necessary for police officers to “Mirandize,” or read a person’s Miranda Rights to them, prior to an interrogation. Although we commonly see police officers reading Miranda Rights on tv, it is not always necessary for them to do so. There are only certain, limited scenarios in which an officer has to warn a person of his/her rights, specifically: when that person is in custody and being interrogated. Many people believe that their criminal charges can be “thrown out” because an officer didn’t read Miranda. However, if a person voluntarily answered questions during a consensual encounter with police officers (for example, an officer walked up to the person on the street and asked them what they were doing), those answers can be used against them later. A person who is arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail does not have to have their rights read to them unless the officer begins asking that person questions. If the arrested person starts talking on his/her own in the back of the police car, without being asked questions, all of those statements can be used against the arrestee. Further, suspects who are informed they are free to leave and not under arrest do not have to be Mirandized, and any confession that person gives can usually be used in court. Finally, even if a person has been read Miranda Rights, that person can still waive those rights and have any subsequent confession used against them.

A person who IS placed under arrest and interrogated without being read Miranda Rights may be able to have his/her statements suppressed (or thrown out). However, that does not mean the case has to be or will be dismissed. Anyone who has questions regarding their particular case, or Miranda rights in general, should contact a criminal defense attorney.

The infographic below provides a colorful layout of Miranda Rights as they are typically read.

Miranda Warnings

 

Casey Reiter is an associate attorney at Stuart R. Manoff & Associates, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida, practicing in the areas of Criminal Defense and Marital Law.