Tampa Attorney W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr.

Criminal Defense Attorney – Fighting for You

AV, AV Preeminent, AV Preeminent Rating, Avvo, Board Certified Criminal Trial Law, Criminal Defense Attorney,
Criminal Defense Attorney

Qualifications of Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.


Busted on Social Media – Police Video

facebook, youtube, social media, crime, busted, criminal defense, criminal defense attorney, witnesses
Busted on Social Media
Gang busted on Social Media. According to police: The gangs were taunting on Facebook, bragging about shootings online. The gangs allegedly used social media to intimidate witnesses and others, calling them snitches and stating that if they cooperated with law enforcement  they would be “taken care of.” Possible 25 year penalties for the 25 that were busted using social media. Social media led to their demise, as cops monitored and befriended the suspects.

Federal Pretrial Diversion Update

Criminal Defense Attorney, Federal Pretrial Diversion, Middle District Florida, Pretrial Diversion, Pretrial diversion (PTD), PTD,
Federal Pretrial Diversion
Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney has  previously covered the Federal Pretrial Diversion here: Federal Pretrial Diversion Eligibility Criteria  According to the Feds, “Pretrial diversion (PTD) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by U.S. Probation. 

We just obtained their manual that details the processes used in evaluating these cases for eligibility. The Federal Pretrial Diversion Manual describes the assessment procedure, which is helpful to know in deciding how to help get a defendant into pretrial diversion.

Excerpts From the Manual

Defendants and Offenders Subject to the Procedures

Subject to this policy is any person identified, prior to or subsequent to the formal filing of charges, by the United States Attorney’s Office or pretrial services or probation office as a candidate for diversion and who meets the eligibility criteria identified in the United States Attorneys’ Manual, Title 9, Criminal Division, Chapter 22, Pretrial Diversion Program.  The person identified as a candidate for diversion may seek advice of defense counsel and must sign a pretrial diversion agreement.
Impact on a Defendant’s Job and Employment

The officer should obtain details about the candidate’s work history spanning the previous 10 years.  The officer may ask the candidate for a resume to help establish employment history or gather pay stubs and tax records to help verify previous employment.  If documents relating to past employment are not available, the officer should contact collateral sources or former employers to verify past employment.  After investigating and verifying past employment, the officer should ascertain whether employment program referrals are appropriate. If the candidate’s current employment would be jeopardized by an employer’s knowledge of the candidate’s participation in the diversion program, the officer should use pay stubs or other means of verification. The officer also should conduct employment contacts if such contacts will not jeopardize the candidate’s continued employment.

Federal Pretrial Diversion Eligibility Criteria

Federal Pretrial Diversion , Pretrial Diversion, Pretrial diversion (PTD), PTD, Middle District Florida, Criminal Defense Attorney,

Federal Pretrial Diversion

The Eligibility Criteria for the DOJ Pretrial Diversion Program have been updated.  The disqualifier for having a history of substance abuse (alcohol or drugs) has been removed.

Federal Pretrial Diversion Eligibility Criteria

According to the Feds, “Pretrial diversion (PTD) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by the U.S. Probation Service. In the majority of cases, offenders are diverted at the pre-charge stage. Participants who successfully complete the program will not be charged or, if charged, will have the charges against them dismissed; unsuccessful participants are returned for prosecution.”
The four disqualifiers are now — The U.S. Attorney, in his/her discretion, may divert any individual against whom a prosecutable case exists and who is not:
1.  Accused of an offense which, under existing Department guidelines, should be diverted to the State for prosecution;
2.  A person with two or more prior felony convictions;
3.  A public official or former public official accused of an offense arising out of an alleged violation of a public trust; or
4.  Accused of an offense related to national security or foreign affairs.

Federal Pretrial Diversion a Possibility? Call 813-222-2220 .

Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/22mcrm.htm#9-22.100/s/Jeff

Criminal Defense – Florida Employee Drug Testing Unconstitutional

Employee Drug Testing, Drug Testing, Criminal Defense, Criminal Defense Attorney, Criminal Defense Lawyer
Drug Charge Defense 813-222-2220
Criminal Defense Attorney has just obtained the full text of a Florida Federal District Court ruling on employee drug testing. The court found where there is no legitimate safety concern, drug testing without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.
Case Excerpt:
Great news for Employees subjected to Florida Employee Drug Testing  – Unconstitutional Court says, “The [employee’s] Union here asks for a permanent injunction, which requires three elements: 1) there was a legal violation; (2) there is a serious risk of continuing irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted; and (3) there are no adequate remedies at law. (citation omitted). Here, the Court finds that the EO [Executive Order 11-58], as applied to current employees at the covered agencies, is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and that these employees will suffer irreparable harm if subjected to it.” Defense Attorney Courtesy Copy of Complete Employee Drug Testing Opinion is here.

Drug Testing Problem? Call Casey at 813-222-2220 .

Accidental Smuggler | Junk in the Trunk

Nerd Smugglers Key Codes

Federal Criminal Defense Source has supplied us with an Affidavit from Federal Law Enforcement that outlines how drug smugglers would obtain electronic key codes using the Vehicle Identification Numbers. They would then use the keys to open the trunk to stuff drugs in the trunk outside of the United States, and retrieve them from the vehicle after it had returned to the United States.

Drugs in the Trunk? How Did That Get in There?

“The FBI has uncovered an elaborate drug smuggling scheme along the U.S., Mexican border. It involves G.P.S. devices, duplicate keys, duffel bags stuffed with drugs and regular commuters used as mules” according to a television news report, see video below.

A Doctor and several other unsuspecting people were arrested at the border after cops found some vehicles to have the drugs in the trunk. All the drivers claimed to not know there was 200 pounds of weed in the trunk. Charges are pending against the smugglers. Excerpts from the Affidavit are below. Smugglers call these unsuspecting folks “blind mules.”
Accidental Smuggler | FBI Arrests Marijuana Blind Mules

The affidavit details the use of blind mules to run drugs from Juarez to El Paso. It’s public record in a case out of El Paso, Texas and was filed July 1, 2011.

Electronic Key Codes and Smuggling Excerpts From FBI DEA Agent Affidavit:
Based on the information provided by [Confidential Source] CS-1, the locksmith [they] were using was specifically identified. Throughout the remainder of this Affidavit, this locksmith is referred to as LOCKSMITH A.
13. On 06/17/2011, we interviewed an El Paso, Texas-based licensed locksmith, {not LOCKSMITH A). This licensed locksmith informed us that there were several “key code source” companies that have the capability to provide vehicle key cut codes to licensed locksmiths based on the provision of the VIN by the licensed locksmith, This licensed locksmith further informed us that, as a result of differing standards and policies amongst vehicle manufacturers, “key code source” companies have varied abilities to provide key cut codes depending on the vehicle make and model. For example, this locksmith stated that most “key code source” companies had very limited access to key cut codes for most XXXX key cut codes, but had widely available access to XXXX key cut codes.
14. Texas Department of Public Safety records indicate that LOCKSMITH A is a licensed Texas locksmith with a license expiring on 12/31/2011. Based on the information described in this paragraph and in paragraph 13 above, I believe that LOCKSMITH A has access to one or more “key code source” companies and therefore has the ability to obtain vehicle key cut codes for vehicles, especially Ford vehicles, solely by providing a VIN to one or more of these “key code source” companies.
I have reviewed the information from this database with respect to a single user account (hereafter referred to as USER ACCOUNT A) from a XXXX Dealership located in Dallas, Texas. This information indicates that the following vehicle key codes were pulled by USER ACCOUNT A:
27. Per XXXX Motor Company, USER ACCOUNT A has pulled/accessed 5,321 vehicle key codes in the last 18 months, approximately 10 key codes per day. Also based on my review of this information, USER ACCOUNT A has pulled vehicle key codes for XXXX vehicles which are registered all over the United States, not just in Dallas, Texas. Based on the high volume of key codes pulled, as well as the geographic dispersion of the registered locations of the associated vehicles, I believe that USER ACCOUNT A is being utilized to provide vehicle key codes to one or more “key code source” companies as described in paragraph 13 above,
28. In order to corroborate CS-l’s information with respect to LOCKSMITH A, and to confirm the link between LOCKSMITH A and USER ACCOUNT A, we tasked an Individual to go to LOCKSMITH A and request that LOCKSMITH A make a copy of a XXXX vehicle key, solely based on the provision of the VIN for that . . . .  vehicle.
LOCKSMITH A employee informed the Individual that the key would only work to get in to the car, but would not start it.
30. On 06/27/2011, we received confirmation from [the manufacturer’s] Global Investigations Department that on 06/24/2011, at approximately 12:22 PM (10:22 PM Mountain Time), USER ACCOUNT A pulled/accessed the TEST VIN for the 2006 [vehicle]. The TEST VIN was therefore pulled/accessed by USER ACCOUNT A during the relevant timeframe that the Individual provided the TEST VIN to the employee at LOCKSMITH A.
[B]y utilizing keys made by LOCKSMITH A and by victimizing individuals whom they have caused to unwittingly smuggle drugs, have violated Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, Possession with Intent to Distribute a controlled substance, namely 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and Conspiracy to possess with the intent to Distribute controlled substance, namely 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
Did Someone Hide Drugs in Your Car? Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Loud Car Stereo Law Silenced | Defense Attorney | Complete Opinion Here

Criminal Defense | Noise Law Struck
Defense Attorney / Lawyer in Tampa, Florida has completed a review of the recent declaration by a Florida Appeals Court that  Florida Statute 316.3045(1)(a) was unconstitutional. The Traffic law made operation of radios or other mechanical sound making devices or instruments in vehicle plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the vehicle illegal.

The Feds have written a 50 page Manual on how to enforce laws like the Florida Statute that has been invalidated. You can check that tome about Car Stereo Law Enforcement out here.

The court found the statute unconstitutional. The statute exempted business and political speech and the exemptions do not serve a compelling state interest, the statute is not content-neutral, and is an unconstitutional suppression of protected speech.

The complete Noise Ordinance Decision is available here from a Criminal Defense Attorney as a Free Download.

Is the Law in your Traffic Case Valid? Call Me Toll Free to Discuss. 1-877-793-9290 .

Case Excerpts:
[S]ection 316.3045, Florida Statutes (2007). . . restricts the volume at which a car stereo system may be played on a public street, but it exempts vehicles being used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices. “
The statute provides: “Operation of radios or other mechanical soundmaking devices or instruments in vehicles; exemptions — 
(1) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical soundmaking device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is:
(a) Plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the motor vehicle; or (b) Louder than necessary for the convenient hearing by persons inside the vehicle in areas adjoining churches, schools, or hospitals.
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any law enforcement motor vehicle equipped with any communication device necessary in the performance of law enforcement duties or to any emergency vehicle equipped with any communication device necessary in the performance of any emergency procedures.
(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices. The provisions of this subsection shall not be deemed to prevent local authorities, with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power, from regulating the time and manner in which such business may be operated.
(4) The provisions of this section do not apply to the noise made by a horn or other warning device required or permitted by s. 316.271. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall promulgate rules defining “plainly audible” and establish standards regarding how sound should be measured by law enforcement personnel who enforce the provisions of this section.
(5) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.”
“The circuit court carefully considered each argument and concluded that the issue ruled on by the two district courts was essentially the same, i.e., whether the “plainly audible” standard was too vague and overbroad to pass constitutional scrutiny. “
“Additionally, while recognizing our agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the circuit court, we note that section 316.3045 suffers from a more fundamental infirmity.  “

“A case that is directly on point, and was cited favorably in Cannon, is People v. Jones, 721 N.E.2d 546 (Ill. 1999).  In that case, the court held that a sound amplification statute, which prohibited the use of sound amplification systems in motor vehicles that could be heard from a specified distance away from a vehicle and which contained an exception for vehicles engaged in advertising, was a content-based regulation of speech, in violation of the First Amendment.”

“Turning our attention to the Florida statute at issue, on its face it is not content neutral.  The statute excepts from its provisions “motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices.”  § 316.3045(3).  In other words, an individual using a vehicle for business purposes could, for example, listen to political talk radio at a volume clearly audible from a quarter mile; however, an individual sitting in a personal vehicle that is parked next to the business vehicle is subject to a citation if the individual is listening to music or religious programming that is clearly audible at twenty-five feet.  Clearly, different forms of speech receive different treatment under the Florida statute.  That is, the statute in question does not “apply equally to music, political speech and advertising,” which is what the Supreme Court requires in order for the statute to be deemed, “content-neutral.”  See City of Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 428.”

“Additionally, we conclude that the statute is a content-based restriction on free expression which violates the First Amendment.”

Is the Law in your Traffic Case Valid? Call Me Toll Free to Discuss. 1-877-793-9290 .

Source: 36 Fla. L. Weekly D991a
Criminal Defense Attorney | Lawyer

Ratings and Reviews

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
Google +