The Wall Street Journal | Top Attorneys In Florida

Thank You. I Just received this award and as an Attorney / Lawyer and advocate in the criminal justice system, I am flattered to be honored in such a prestigious publication as The Wall Street Journal. Thank You to my peers and fellow attorneys that have recognized my Professional achievements in the nearly 20 years I have practiced trial law.

Casey Ebsary

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.
Attorney / Lawyer

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer


Tampa, Florida

July 26, 2011

813-222-2220

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

Defense Attorney on Cell Phone Search | Evidence Suppressed

Cell Phone Search Suppressed
Criminal Defense Attorney / Lawyer notes a recent Cell Phone Search ruling on a Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Search and seizure law can apply to cell phones. Lately cops have been searching the phones and calling them a Search incident to arrest. Sometimes cops claim they need to search a phone for the safety of the officer. One court just ruled that a cell phone seized incident to defendant’s arrest posed no risk to officer safety. The scope of a search has been limited, since a cellular telephone is not a container that could hold weapon. Sometimes police justify a search claiming that evidence will be destroyed. A court just ruled that once a phone was seized, there was no longer risk that defendant could destroy evidence in phone. The court concluded that a warrantless search of contents of cell phone was unlawful and a Motion to Suppress was granted.

Cell Phone Search Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Defense alleged an unlawful search of the Defendant’s cellular telephone including: texts, pictures, the call history, and/or observations made by Officer. Testimony showed cop “found the Defendant’s cell phone while searching his person at the scene, but then later examined the cell phone further at the police station while the Defendant was still being processed. Officer Clark testified that he found text messages regarding the sale of cocaine while he was looking through the Defendant’s phone.”

Court ruled, “When an officer arrests someone who has a cell phone in their possession, here may very well be reason to suspect that the phone contains valuable information, particularly in drug-related arrests. The call logs and address books could help link a defendant to a particular drug transaction and could provide the identities of other persons involved in the illegal activity; however, these are exactly the types of situations where probable cause could be used to obtain a warrant. The reality is that most information stored on a cell phone will remain there long enough for a warrant to be secured and that numbers “lost” from recent call lists are readily obtainable from the service provider. Cell phones are outside the ambit of the search incident to arrest exception‘s reach because of their capacity for storing vast quantities of intimately personal data. If courts continue to allow the unfettered exploration of this personal data, then courts are permitting the government to execute an unwarranted search of the cell phone user’s life and habits. This intrusion cannot reasonably be justified by the rationales of officer safety and evidence preservation; therefore, a simple seizure of the cell phone must suffice until a warrant can be procured.”

The Court’s Ruling on the Cell Phone Search is Here.

Cell Phone Search Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Source: FLWSUPP 1805GLAS


Criminal Defense Attorney / Lawyer

Florida Cybercrime Unit Tampa

Tampa Defense Attorney CybercrimeA new CyberCrime Unit was officially opened in the Bay area Wednesday. The Jacksonville unit opened last year. The Tampa unit will perform online investigations of potential child predators. Other offices are in Orlando and Fort Lauderdale. The unit will expand to 56 people throughout the state. The program hopes to provide support for local law enforcement agencies for investigating, arresting and prosecuting Internet predators and child pornographers.

Fort Myers, Tallahassee and Pensacola are also scheduled to open in the next several months.

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, an expert, available to help in these complex computer cases at 1-877-793-9290.

Tampa RIAA USF Music-File-Sharing Case Update

A Tampa federal judge has refused to dismiss a counterclaim filed in federal court by a USF student who accuses the recording industry of using deceptive tactics against USF students named in music downloading lawsuits.

The Tampa students accuse the RIAA, the recording industry of hiring private investigators to invade private computer networks. They also accuse the industry of using the court system as an investigative arm and then extorting money from people, using private information gained from the courts to force settlements.

The record companies have sued more than a dozen University of South Florida students, accusing them of illegal downloading. The RIAA suits and the threat of suits have caused at least 64 USF students to pay off thousands of dollars to settle music piracy complaints with record labels.

Tampa Attorney RIAA File Sharing

Ratings and Reviews

yelp
Google +