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.
Tag: Palm Beach Criminal Defense Lawyer
How to Expunge Florida Criminal Charges
Having a criminal record can greatly hinder multiple aspects of a person’s life – from job searches to apartment searches, records of criminal charges can come back to haunt you and hurt you. Criminal records, no matter how insignificant the charges may seem, are especially harmful for those in public service type jobs, such as teachers, law enforcement officers, or child care providers. Employers in those areas almost always require background checks, and any criminal record found could destroy a chance for employment.
Fortunately, when a person meets certain requirements, he or she may be eligible to expunge or seal criminal a criminal record to help alleviate some of the adverse effects.
What is the difference between sealing and expunging?
- Expunging:
- Expungements are typically done where the charges in a case were either dismissed by the judge or dropped by the State Attorney. In other words, the person was not convicted of any crime.
- A record that has been expunged is supposed to be physically destroyed and unavailable for anyone to review without a court order.
- Sealing:
- Sealings are typically done where a person either plead no contest or was found guilty after trial, and adjudication was withheld.
- In the case of a sealing, in order to be eligible, the person must have met all probationary terms, completed all parts of the sentence (such as fines or community service), obeyed all court orders, and had no subsequent criminal offenses.
- A record that has been sealed will be is available only to the defendant, the attorney, judges, criminal justice agencies (such as the FBI), and certain other agencies such as DCF and the Department of Education.
A knowledgeable expungement lawyer can file a petition on a person’s behalf requesting a record be expunged or sealed if certain criteria are met. A successful expungement may open the door to new opportunities for someone whose criminal record was holding them back.
When is a person NOT eligible for sealing or expungement?
- First, a person who was convicted of a crime (meaning that the court adjudicated the person guilty) is ineligible to seal or expunge a criminal record.
- Having ANY convictions on a person’s record, including felony, misdemeanor or traffic crimes, makes that person ineligible to seal or expunge a criminal record.
- Already having had a case sealed or expunged makes a person ineligible for another sealing or expungement.
- Additionally, certain crimes cannot be sealed or expunged, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld. These crimes include offenses listed in S. 907.041, F.S., to wit: Arson, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Battery, Illegal use of explosives, Child abuse or aggravated child abuse, Abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult, or Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult, Aircraft piracy, Kidnapping, Homicide, Manslaughter, Sexual Battery, Robbery, Carjacking, Lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years, Sexual activity with a child, who is 12 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age, by or at solicitation of a person in familial or custodial authority, Burglary of a dwelling, Stalking and Aggravated Stalking, Act of Domestic Violence as defined in s. 741.28 F.S., Home-invasion Robbery, Act of Terrorism as defined by s. 775.30 F.S., Manufacturing any substances in violation of chapter 893, Attempting or conspiring to commit any of the above crimes.
Ever wonder how to seal or expunge a criminal charge in Florida? In general, the process goes as follows:
- First, fingerprints need to be taken and an application from FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) needs to be filled out by the applicant and the State Attorney’s Office.
- Once the application is completed, it is provided to FDLE who then does a criminal record search.
- Once that is finished, FDLE will send a Certficate of Eligibility if the applicant is eligible for sealing or expunging, and if not, FDLE will send a letter explaining why.
- Then, assuming the person is eligible, a sealing or expungement attorney will file a Motion to Seal, an Affidavit, and a proposed Order, and will appear for a hearing on the matter.
- If the judge grants the motion, the case will then be sealed or expunged.
- The entire process can take several months.
- There are also various costs associated with the process, including application and filing fees.
Anyone who is seeking to have a criminal record sealed or expunged in Palm Beach County should contact a Palm Beach Criminal Defense Attorney who is familiar with the process.
For the Florida statute regarding record expungement, see Florida Statute §943.0585.
For the Florida statute regarding record sealing, see Florida Statute §943.059.
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.
Oscar Pistorius – Sentencing
Blade Runner, Oscar Pistorius, will begin serving his 5 year prison sentence today stemming from the 2013 killing of his model-girlfriend Reeva Steencamp. South African law requires a defendant to serve at least one-sixth of his sentence before being eligible to request to serve on house arrest in lieu of jail. Pistorius will be eligible to make the request in 10 months.
Additionally, Judge Masipa gave Pistorius a suspended sentence of three years for the associated weapons charges.
Prior coverage of the Pistorius trial can be found here.
Florida Supreme Court Reverses Drug Conviction
On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court should have suppressed evidence obtained by Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) when officers went beyond the scope of a search warrant by tracking the real-time movements of a defendant’s cell phone.
BSO had obtained a search warrant for the cellphone of Sean Alvin Tracey. The warrant permitted BSO to obtain phone numbers sent or received by Tracey’s phone. However, the warrant did not permit BSO to track the phone’s location. BSO’s tracking of the real-time movements of Tracey’s phone, based on pings from cell towers, led to polcie surveillance of Tracey, and the ultimate confiscation of a kilo of cocaine and $23,000 in cash.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained from the cell tower tracking of Tracey’s phone should have been suppressed. The case was remanded to the trial court, which means that the prosecution will either have to go forward without the evidence, or dismiss the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Labarga, states:
“We conclude that Tracey had a subjective expectation of privacy in the location signals transmitted solely to enable the private and personal use of his cell hone, even on public roads, and that he did not voluntarily convey that information to the service provider for any purpose other than to enable use of his cell phone for its intended purpose.”
Essentially, it was the Court’s decision that the scope of a warrant shouldn’t be expanded to include the location of a person just because that person turned on his or her cell phone:
“… Because cell phones are indispensable to so many people and are normally carried on one’s person, cell phone tracking can easily invade the right to privacy in one’s home or other private areas, a matter that the government cannot always anticipate and one which, when it occurs, is clearly a Fourth Amendment violation. The Supreme Court noted in Riley that “modern cell phones . . . are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of the human anatomy. A smart phone of the sort taken from Riley was unheard of ten years ago; a significant majority of American adults now own such phones.” . . . This real risk of “inadvertent” violation of Fourth Amendment rights is not a risk worth imposing on the citizenry when it is not an insurmountable task for the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause when such tracking is truly justified.”
The full decision can be found on the Florida Supreme Court’s website here: Tracey v. State
Red Light Camera Update
A significant ruling from the Fourth District Court of Appeal this week may have a large impact on the red-light cameras, not only in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, but throughout the State of Florida.
The 4th DCA issued a 9 page opinion on Wednesday, dismissing a traffic ticket issued in 2011 as a result of a red-light violation. In its ruling, the court held that the city of Hollywood, Florida cannot delegate its legal authority to issue traffic tickets to a private, for-profit third party – in this case, American Traffic Solutions (ATS). ATS is a Phoenix, Arizona company that administers a majority of the red light cameras throughout the State of Florida. Basically, after someone runs a red light, the red-light camera sends the picture and video of the violation to ATS, who then reviews the video to determine if a violation occurred and then sends the information to the applicable Florida Law Enforcement agency.
In its ruling, the Court said:
“For all practical purposes, it is the vendor that decides which cases the TIEO [Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officer] gets to review; it is the vendor who initially determines who is subject to prosecution for a red light violation; it is the vendor that obtains the information necessary for the completion of the citation; it is the vendor that creates the actual citation; it is the vendor that issues the citation to the registered owner of the vehicle; and, it is the vendor that eventually transmits the traffic citation data to the court. . . . Although the City may have some input into who eventually is prosecuted, that decision is wholly dependent upon the vendor’s initial determination.
. . . Florida Law does not grant the City any authority to delegate to a private third-party vendor the ability to issue uniform traffic citations. The City also lacks the lawful authority to outsource to a third-party vendor the ability to make the initial review of computer images of purported violations and then use its unfettered discretion to decide which images are sent to the TIEO, and which ones are not. The City improperly delegated its police powers when it contractually outsourced its statutory obligations to a for-profit, non-governmental corporation.”
The full decision can be found on the 4th DCA’s website, here: 4D12-1312-City of Hollywood, a political subdivision of the State of Florida v. Eric Arem
Casey Reiter 