Federal Court - Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr

Cell Phone Searches History Updated 2025

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:22:58 GMT

Cell Phone Searches and Your Rights: Florida Law and Supreme Court Precedents

Introduction: Understanding Cell Phone Searches in Criminal Cases

Cell phones are more than communication devices—they hold a detailed record of our lives. In Florida and across the United States, courts have recognized the sensitivity and depth of this information. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we stay at the forefront of privacy law developments, especially those concerning cell phone searches in criminal investigations.

🎥 Featured Video: Expert Defense When Police Search Your Phone

Click the video above to watch a breakdown of why to choose an expert to protect your rights during a phone search.

If your phone has been searched, it may have been done unlawfully. This landing page explores the legal landscape of cell phone searches, Florida and federal rulings, constitutional protections, and what defenses may be available to you. To speak directly with Attorney Casey Ebsary, visit our contact page or view his biography to learn more.

🔎 Frequently Asked Questions About Cell Phone Searches

FAQ

Can police search my phone without a warrant in Florida?

No. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, police generally need a warrant to search a cell phone, even if it was seized during an arrest. Florida courts also support this principle, recognizing that mobile devices carry vast amounts of personal data. A search without a warrant may be subject to a motion to suppress. View Riley on Justia.

What did the Supreme Court say in Riley v. California about phones?

The Court ruled that cell phones differ from other objects due to the volume and sensitivity of data stored on them. It held that the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to digital content on cell phones. The opinion emphasized the need for a warrant before conducting a phone search. Read the full opinion on Justia.

What types of evidence can be found on phones?

Phones may contain photos, messages, location data, voicemails, emails, browsing history, and cloud-stored content. Courts now recognize this content as private and subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Evidence obtained without a proper warrant may be excluded from trial.

Does Florida law allow warrantless cell phone searches?

No. Florida courts have rejected warrantless cell phone searches under both federal and state constitutions. For example, in Smallwood v. State, the Florida Supreme Court found a search invalid where no warrant was obtained. View Smallwood v. State on Justia.

What is a motion to suppress, and how can it help?

A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of your rights. Under Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense attorneys may challenge warrantless phone searches. This can result in key evidence being thrown out, possibly weakening or dismissing the prosecution’s case. Read Rule 3.190(h).

Can police access data stored in the cloud?

Generally, police must obtain separate warrants for cloud-stored data. This includes data synced through apps like iCloud or Google Drive. Courts distinguish between data on the device and remotely stored content.

What if I gave consent to search my phone?

If consent is given freely and knowingly, the search may be valid. However, officers sometimes pressure or trick individuals into consenting. A skilled attorney can challenge the validity of the consent.

Can location data from my phone be used against me?

Yes, but only if properly obtained. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that accessing historical cell-site location information (CSLI) requires a warrant. Read Carpenter on Justia.

What should I do if my phone was searched without a warrant?

Contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. You may have grounds to suppress the evidence or seek dismissal of charges. Attorney Casey Ebsary can file motions to suppress based on unlawful phone searches. Schedule a consultation.

Are inventory searches of phones legal?

No. Courts have ruled that inventory searches do not extend to the digital contents of a cell phone. Law enforcement must obtain a warrant even if the phone is part of an impounded vehicle or personal property.

📈 Chart: Warrant Requirements for Cell Phone Data Types

Data Type	Warrant Required?	Key Court Case
Text Messages	Yes	Riley v. California (2014)
Photos/Videos	Yes	Riley v. California (2014)
App Usage Data	Yes	Riley v. California (2014)
Cloud-Backed Content	Yes	Carpenter v. United States
Location (Historical CSLI)	Yes	Carpenter v. United States
Inventory Search of Phone	No	Florida v. Smallwood

✉️ Call to Action: Protect Your Digital Privacy Now

Have your digital rights been violated by law enforcement? Was your phone searched without a warrant? You may be able to fight the charges and suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. Let W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Florida Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, evaluate your case. Contact us now or learn more about Casey here.

🌐 Legal Resources and Statutes

Meta Description : Florida attorney explains cell phone search laws, warrant rules, and digital privacy rights after Riley v. California and Carpenter.

Learn More About Cell Phone Searches

Cell Phone Tracking(Opens in a new browser tab)

Defense Attorney on Cell Phone Search | Evidence Suppressed(Opens in a new browser tab)

Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest(Opens in a new browser tab)

Search Warrant | Cell Phone Update(Opens in a new browser tab)

Cell Phone Searches – Supreme Court to Rule on Warrant Requirement(Opens in a new browser tab)

Original Post From 2014

Cell Phone Search Warrant, Cell Phone Search, Search and Seizure

Cell Phone Search Warrant

Up until quite recently, there were exceptions to the general requirement that police get a Search Warrant for a cell phone. Cell phones have been a window into suspects’ activities, as police used these exceptions to get their hands on information found inside mobile devices. Obtaining a Search Warrant for a cell phone is not that hard to do. You can review a Search Warrant for a Cell Phone here: Here is an actual iPhone Search Warrant. GPS or Global Positioning Satellite information found in mobile phones has also been used by police.

Up until around 2014, police could and did search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who was arrested. Defense Attorneys would frequently challenge such searches. These searches were frequently based upon “helping” arrested citizens by making sure their property was properly inventoried by the arresting officers for safekeeping by jail personnel or by the evidence unit at the arresting agency’s office. This rationale remains a frequent flier in broad invasive “inventory” searches of automobiles during traffic stops.

Phone Search, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant

Phone Search Warrant

Florida had outlawed warrantless phone searches before the US Supreme Court. That ruling is discussed here. Now prohibited will be mobile device and cell phone searches without a warrant. Before the 2014 United States Supreme Court ruling here was another Court’s Ruling on a Phone Search. Searches Incident to a lawful arrest were previously justified by cops using issues of police officer safety and prevention of destruction of evidence.

Now under Florida law, a Motion to Suppress Evidence can be filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Illegal Search and seizure now applies to phones and the Courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence including, photographs, video, text messages, directory and location data, voice mails, and emails.

Case Summary: The US Supreme Court’s ruling is that a properly obtained and issued search warrant is generally required before search of a phone. Here is some language from the Court’s ruling.

“Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person. The term “cell phone” is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras,video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”

“The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeledwith dates, locations, and descriptions; the same cannot besaid of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet.”

“To further complicate the scope of the privacy interests at stake, the data a user views on many modern cell phones may not in fact be stored on the device itself. Treating a cell phone as a container whose contents may be searched incident to an arrest is a bit strained as an initial matter.”

“[T]he search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones . . . .”

Some Excerpts from Florida Cell Search Cases:

“However, we express great concern in permitting the officer to search appellant’s cell phone here where there was no indication the officer had reason to believe the cell phone contained evidence.”

“We are equally concerned that giving officers unbridled discretion to rummage through at will the entire contents of one’s cell phone, even where there is no basis for believing evidence of the crime of arrest will be found on the phone, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”

GPS Tracking Requires Search Warrant

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:48:02 GMT

“police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches by tracking his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a valid warrant”

Why You’re Here: Can Police Use a GPS Tracker Without a Warrant?

GPS Trackers – Have you discovered you were tracked by law enforcement using a GPS device? Did police use cellphone location data or even shoot a “dart” GPS onto your vehicle?

The answer is clear: Prolonged GPS tracking by police is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and usually requires a warrant.

GPS Trackers and Search Warrant

GPS Trackers have become powerful tools for tracking vehicles, assets, and even people — but when law enforcement uses them, serious Fourth Amendment questions arise. In Florida and across the United States, police must often obtain a valid search warrant before secretly placing a GPS tracker on your vehicle. Without one, evidence gathered through this method could violate your constitutional rights and may be thrown out in court. As a Tampa criminal defense attorney experienced in GPS tracking cases, I help clients fight back when illegal GPS surveillance is used in drug charges, conspiracy cases, and other serious criminal investigations. If you believe you’ve been tracked without a warrant, call me today at (813) 222-2220 or contact me for a free consultation.

Illegal GPS Tracking

Illegal GPS tracking by law enforcement is a growing concern in Florida criminal cases. When police secretly attach a GPS tracker to your car without a valid warrant, they may violate your Fourth Amendment rights. This illegal surveillance tactic is often used in drug trafficking, conspiracy, and other serious charges — but the evidence may be thrown out if challenged. As an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney, I help clients fight back against illegal GPS tracking and unlawful searches. Call me at (813) 222-2220 or contact me if you believe your rights were violated.

GPS Search Warrant Florida

In Florida, law enforcement must generally obtain a GPS search warrant before placing a tracking device on your vehicle. Without proper judicial approval, GPS surveillance can violate your Fourth Amendment rights, making the evidence inadmissible in court. If you’ve been arrested based on GPS tracking data, an experienced Tampa criminal defense lawyer can challenge the legality of the search. Contact me today at (813) 222-2220 or reach out online to protect your rights.

Police GPS Tracker Defense Lawyer

If police placed a GPS tracker on your vehicle without your knowledge or consent, you need an experienced defense lawyer who understands the complex laws surrounding GPS tracking and the Fourth Amendment. In Florida, police must usually obtain a warrant before using a GPS device to monitor your movements. As a Tampa criminal defense attorney, I help clients fight charges built on illegal GPS surveillance. Contact me at (813) 222-2220 or schedule a consultation today.

FAQ GPS Trackers

What is the Fourth Amendment, and how does it relate to GPS tracking?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection extends to your reasonable expectation of privacy. The key question in GPS tracking cases is whether using a GPS device to monitor your movements constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.

The original article we wrote in over 10 years ago mentions a case where police used a GPS tracker without a warrant. What case was that, and what did the court decide?

The case was United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that the attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court’s reasoning was based, in part, on the idea that the long-term, continuous monitoring provided by GPS reveals a wealth of private information. The original text accurately quotes the appellate court decision, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Does this mean police always need a warrant to use a GPS tracker?

Generally, yes. Jones established that prolonged GPS tracking typically requires a warrant based on probable cause. However, there might be exceptions, such as:

Exigent Circumstances: If there’s an immediate threat to life or evidence is about to be destroyed, police might be able to justify warrantless tracking for a very limited time. This is a narrow exception.
Consent: If you voluntarily consent to having a GPS tracker placed on your vehicle, a warrant is not required.
Plain View: This isn’t directly related to GPS, but if evidence is in plain view (e.g., illegal items visible inside a car), it can be seized without a warrant. This doesn’t justify the placement of a GPS tracker, however.
Short-Term Monitoring: While Jones dealt with long-term monitoring, some courts have grappled with whether very short-term GPS tracking (e.g., a few hours) might be permissible without a warrant. This is a gray area and depends heavily on the specific facts and jurisdiction. It is best practice for law enforecement to obtain a warrant.

What about “dart” GPS trackers that police can shoot at a car?

The use of “dart” trackers, as described in the original text, still falls under the Fourth Amendment. The act of attaching the dart to the car, even without physically entering it, is likely considered a trespass and, when combined with the subsequent tracking, constitutes a search under Jones. A warrant would generally be required.

What if the police use cell phone location data instead of a GPS tracker?

This is a separate but related issue. The Supreme Court addressed this in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). In Carpenter, the Court held that obtaining historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from a wireless carrier, which reveals a person’s past movements, is a search under the Fourth Amendment and generally requires a warrant. This is because, like GPS data, cell-site location information CSLI can reveal intimate details about a person’s life over time.

What if I’m in California? Does California have any specific laws about GPS tracking?

Yes. The original article we wrote years ago (see below) correctly mentions that California has laws restricting the use of GPS trackers. California Penal Code Section 637.7 PC makes it illegal for a private party (i.e., someone other than law enforcement) to use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person without that person’s consent. Law enforcement is generally exempt from this state law, but they are still bound by the Fourth Amendment requirements discussed above (warrant requirement).

What should I do if I believe the police illegally tracked me with a GPS device or obtained my cell phone location data without a warrant?

Do not make any statements to the police. Immediately contact a criminal defense attorney. An attorney can:

Investigate the facts: Determine how the tracking was conducted and whether a warrant was obtained.
File a motion to suppress evidence: If the tracking violated your Fourth Amendment rights, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the illegal search. If the motion is granted, that evidence cannot be used against you in court.
Negotiate with the prosecutor: Depending on the strength of the case and the nature of the violation, your attorney may be able to negotiate a plea bargain or even get the charges dismissed.
Represent you in court

Home » GPS Tracking Requires Search Warrant

GPS Tracking Takeaways:

Long-term GPS tracking of a vehicle by law enforcement generally requires a warrant based on probable cause.
Obtaining historical cell-site location information (CSLI) also generally requires a warrant.
If you believe your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, contact a criminal defense attorney immediately.

GPS Trackers and the Fourth Amendment

Tampa Drug Charge Defense Lawyer, Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. reviewed an interesting appeals court decision where police put a GPS Tracking Device on a car and followed him for weeks. The defendant was arrested for Federal cocaine charges. Specifically, “conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.” The court summarized a case involving evidence obtained from GPS Device. and commented: “conviction is reversed because it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Technology Got You Down? Tell Me Your Story – Call Me (813) 222-2220.

On a side note, California, has made it illegal for anyone except law enforcement to use a GPS to determine the location or movement of a person. In some jurisdictions, GPS tracking of a person’s location without that person’s knowledge is a violation of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” Some law enforcement agencies use “darts” a miniaturized GPS receiver, radio transmitter, and battery embedded in a sticky compound material. Cops shoot the darts at a vehicle and it sticks to the target tracking begins.

The Court further held “the whole of a person‘s movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person‘s hitherto private routine.”

The appeal centered on defense arguments that “his conviction should be overturned because the police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches by tracking his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a valid warrant. We consider first whether that use of the device was a search and then, having concluded it was, consider whether it was reasonable and whether any error was harmless.” The court ruled that tracking with GPS was a search. A Search Warrant was required.

The Government used the GPS data to show a pattern of travels by the defendant. The Court mentioned, “This case itself illustrates how the sequence of a person‘s movements may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is composed. Having tracked Jones‘s movements for a month, the Government used the resulting pattern — not just the location of a particular ― stash house or Jones‘s movements on any one trip or even day — as evidence of Jones‘s involvement in the cocaine trafficking business. The pattern the Government would document with the GPS data was central to its presentation of the case . . . .” The court further noted, “The GPS data were essential to the Government‘s case. By combining them with Jones‘s cell-phone records the Government was able to paint a picture of Jones‘s movements that made credible the allegation that he was involved in drug trafficking.”

The Court also stated, “A reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination, and each place he stops and how long he stays there; rather, he expects each of those movements to remain ― ‘disconnected and anonymous’.” In closing the Court held, “Society recognizes Jones‘s expectation of privacy in his movements over the course of a month as reasonable, and the use of the GPS device to monitor those movements defeated that reasonable expectation.” The court concluded its forty-one page opinion stating the cocaine trafficking defendant’s, “conviction is reversed because it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

The complete opinion is a free download here.

Technology Got You Down? Tell Me Your Story – Call Me (813) 222-2220.

Computer Search Warrants

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:45:41 GMT

Facing a computer search warrant in Tampa can be a daunting experience, potentially leading to serious legal repercussions. Understanding your rights and navigating the complexities of digital evidence is crucial. When law enforcement targets your electronic devices, you need an experienced advocate who comprehends the intricacies of computer-related investigations. William F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., a Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney and former Prosecutor, offers unparalleled expertise in this field. As your trusted Tampa Computer Crimes Attorney, Casey Ebsary brings a deep understanding of high-tech litigation and electronic discovery. He’s dedicated to protecting your rights and ensuring a fair legal process. His proven track record, demonstrated by his AV rating and Super Lawyer recognition, makes him the ideal choice when facing computer search warrants and related legal challenges.

“Government cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine in cases where the investigators rely on the intermingling of computerized records”

Navigating the Digital Minefield: Understanding Computer Search Warrants in the Modern Legal Landscape – 2025 Update

Computer Search Warrants – In today’s interconnected world, digital evidence plays a crucial role in criminal investigations. From emails and text messages to cloud storage and social media activity, computers and electronic devices hold a wealth of information that can be pivotal in building a case. However, the complexities of digital data present unique challenges to law enforcement and the courts, particularly concerning the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Key Q&A on Computer Search Warrants:

What is a computer search warrant?

A computer search warrant is a legal document issued by a judge that authorizes law enforcement to search computer systems, electronic devices, and digital storage for evidence related to a crime.

Why are computer search warrants different from traditional search warrants?

Digital evidence is often intermingled, making it difficult to separate relevant data from irrelevant data. This creates challenges for the “plain view” doctrine and requires specialized procedures to protect privacy.

What is the “plain view” doctrine, and how does it apply to computer searches?

The “plain view” doctrine allows law enforcement to seize evidence in plain sight during a lawful search. However, courts have recognized that this doctrine is problematic in digital searches due to the intermingling of data. Therefore, the plain view doctrine has very limited use in digital evidence cases.

What are some key requirements for computer search warrants?

Warrants must be specific, detailing the data to be seized.
Searches should be conducted by trained personnel.
Procedures must be in place to prevent the disclosure of non-relevant information.
Search methods must be designed to uncover only the information with probable cause.

What is “probable cause” in relation to a computer search warrant?

Probable cause is the legal standard that must be met before a judge can issue a search warrant. It means that there is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime is located in the place to be searched. In the case of computer searches it means that there is reason to belive digital evidence of a crime exists on the devices being searched.

What are some of the Fourth Amendment concerns related to computer searches?

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Computer searches raise concerns about overbreadth, as warrants may authorize the seizure of vast amounts of personal information.

Computer Search Warrants

As the legal landscape evolves to address these challenges, individuals facing criminal investigations involving digital evidence need experienced legal counsel who understand the intricacies of computer search warrants. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we recognize the critical importance of safeguarding our clients’ rights in the digital age.

If you’re facing a computer search warrant in Tampa or dealing with any computer-related legal issues, don’t hesitate. Contact William F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. at (813) 222-2220 for a free initial consultation or submit your request for help through our Call For Help web submission. Protect your rights and ensure expert legal representation. Learn how to navigate the complexities of computer search warrants and digital evidence by reading our detailed blog post: /blog/tampa-criminal-defense-attorney-computer-search-warrants/

The Evolving Landscape of Computer Search Warrants

The case of United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc., 9th Cir. (en banc), No. 05-10067 (8/26/09), highlighted the severe limitations placed on computer search warrants and searches. This landmark ruling emphasized that the government cannot rely on the “plain view” doctrine when investigating digital evidence. The court recognized the inherent difficulty in segregating relevant data from irrelevant information within complex computer systems.

The “plain view” doctrine, traditionally applied to physical searches, allows law enforcement to seize evidence that is in plain sight if they are lawfully present. However, the court in Comprehensive Drug Testing recognized that this doctrine is ill-suited for digital searches. The intermingling of electronic records makes it impossible to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant data without a thorough examination, which can easily exceed the scope of the original warrant.

Key Principles for Computer Search Warrants

The Comprehensive Drug Testing case established crucial procedural safeguards for computer searches:

Rejection of the Plain View Doctrine: The government cannot rely on the plain view doctrine to justify a broad seizure and examination of electronically stored records.
Specialized Personnel and Procedures: Searches must be conducted by specialized personnel with established procedures to prevent the disclosure of information beyond the scope of the warrant to investigators.
Targeted Search Methods: The government’s search methods must be designed to uncover only the information for which probable cause exists, avoiding the seizure of extraneous data.

These safeguards aim to prevent “fishing expeditions” where law enforcement indiscriminately sift through vast amounts of digital data, potentially infringing on individuals’ privacy rights. The court’s ruling underscores the need for precise and narrowly tailored search warrants that clearly define the scope of the search.

The Importance of Experienced Legal Counsel in Computer Search Cases

The complexities of computer search warrants demand the expertise of a seasoned criminal defense attorney. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we understand the nuances of digital evidence and are committed to protecting our clients’ rights throughout the legal process.

Our approach includes:

Thorough Examination of Search Warrants: We meticulously review computer search warrants to ensure they comply with the Fourth Amendment and the principles established in Comprehensive Drug Testing. We challenge warrants that are overly broad or lack sufficient particularity.
Expert Forensic Analysis: We work with experienced computer forensic experts to analyze seized digital evidence and identify any irregularities or violations of our clients’ rights.
Strategic Defense Strategies: We develop tailored defense strategies based on the specific circumstances of each case, leveraging our knowledge of digital evidence and computer search warrants.
Vigorous Advocacy: We advocate zealously for our clients’ rights in court, challenging unlawful searches and seizures and seeking to suppress illegally obtained evidence.

Why Choose the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

When your digital life is under scrutiny, you need an attorney who understands the complexities of computer search warrants and the evolving legal landscape. We offer:

Extensive Experience: With years of experience in criminal defense, we have a proven track record of successfully representing clients in cases involving digital evidence.
In-Depth Knowledge: We stay abreast of the latest developments in computer forensics and search warrant law, ensuring that we provide our clients with informed and effective representation.
Personalized Attention: We understand that every case is unique, and we provide personalized attention to each client, tailoring our strategies to their specific needs.
Commitment to Client Rights: We are dedicated to protecting our clients’ Fourth Amendment rights and ensuring that they receive a fair and just legal process.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

The Digital Age Demands Specialized Legal Expertise

The increasing reliance on digital evidence in criminal investigations necessitates specialized legal expertise. Attorneys must understand the intricacies of computer systems, data storage, and search warrant procedures to effectively represent their clients.

If you are facing a criminal investigation involving computer search warrants or digital evidence, do not hesitate to seek legal counsel. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today for a confidential consultation.

Tell Me Your Story – Toll Free (813) 222-2220

We understand that facing criminal charges can be a daunting experience. Let us help you navigate the complexities of the legal system and protect your rights in the digital age. Your story matters, and we are here to listen and provide the legal expertise you need.

The law office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is here to help you navigate the increasing amount of digital evidence and associated legal issues. Do not hesitate to call and get your case evaluated.

Original 2009 Post Computer Warrants

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney reports severe limits in Computer Search Warrants and Searches – Another court has laid out detailed procedures for issuance and execution of search warrants for computers that contain files outside the scope of a search warrant. The court ruled that the Government cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine in cases where the investigators rely on the intermingling of computerized records to justify a broad seizure and examination of electronically stored records. United States v.Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc., 9th Cir.(en banc), No. 05-10067 (8/26/09).

The court states, “The process of segregating electronic data that is seizable from that which is not must not become a vehicle for the government to gain access to data which it has no probable cause to collect.” The plain-view doctrine is an issue courts have been struggling with.

Detailed Procedures for Searches of Computer Electronic Data:

1. The government must not rely on the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases.

2. Search must be either done by specialized personnel with a procedure to prevent disclosure investigators of information that is not the target of the warrant.

3. The government’s search method must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause.

When Computers Land in Court, We Can Help – Tell Me Your Story Toll Free – (813) 222-2220.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney on Computer Forensic Searches and Warrants

Source: pub.bna.com

Criminal Defense Attorney in Apollo Beach, Florida? Meet Casey Ebsary! Criminal Attorney in 33572

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:33:07 GMT

Are you facing a legal challenge in Apollo Beach, Florida, and need expert legal guidance? Look no further! Casey Ebsary is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer who is here to help with your legal needs in and around Apollo Beach. His office is conveniently located just a stone’s throw away from the Hillsborough County Courthouse.

Ready to Get Started?

If you’re in need of legal assistance or guidance, don’t hesitate to reach out to Casey Ebsary and his experienced team. They are here to help you navigate your legal journey with expertise and care.

Why Choose Casey Ebsary?

Casey Ebsary is not just any lawyer; he’s a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer. What does that mean? It means he’s exceptionally skilled and experienced in handling criminal cases. Whether you’re dealing with a legal issue or need expert advice, Casey is the professional you want on your side.

Convenient Office Location

Finding Casey’s office is a breeze. It’s situated near the Courthouse, which is just a short drive from Apollo Beach. The best part? They offer free parking, so you won’t have to stress about finding a parking spot. This means you can focus on what’s most important: your legal concerns.

Tell Us Your Story

Your unique situation is important, and Casey Ebsary wants to hear your story. To discuss your legal matters or get the guidance you need, call his team at (813) 222-2220. They’re approachable, understanding, and ready to assist you.

Summary

When it comes to legal challenges in Apollo Beach, Casey Ebsary is the attorney you can rely on. He’s an expert in handling criminal cases and is dedicated to helping you with your legal needs. Don’t hesitate to reach out to him at (813) 222-2220 for support or advice. Casey and his team are here to listen and assist you on your legal journey.

Ready to Get Started?

Structuring Charges in Criminal Law: A Case Analysis

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 23 Aug 2023 17:39:49 GMT

Introduction

Tampa Federal Structuring Defense Attorney

In criminal law, structuring currency transactions to avoid reporting requirements has become a subject of intense scrutiny. A recent case highlights the complexities surrounding such charges, shedding light on the evidentiary standards, jury instructions, and the legal nuances involved. This post delves into the case, analyzing the evidence, jury instructions, and the implications for convictions under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).

Video

Secrets Behind Structuring: Don’t Get Caught! ????️ | #Shorts

Transcript:

Let’s talk about structuring under the United States code, an individual who engages in a transaction involving currency and structuring the transaction in an attempt to avoid reporting requirements can be indicted for structuring. By the way that’s United States district court house behind me that’s where you’ll end up if you are indicted for structuring.

Questions and Answers – Structuring Charges

What is “structuring” in the context of federal law, and why is it a criminal offense?

Structuring, as defined under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), involves conducting currency transactions in a manner designed to evade federal reporting requirements. Specifically, it refers to the act of breaking down larger sums of cash into smaller deposits or withdrawals below the $10,000 threshold that triggers mandatory reporting. This is a criminal offense because it undermines the integrity of financial reporting systems designed to combat money laundering and other illicit activities.

What are the key elements the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction for structuring?

A: According to the case analysis and jury instructions, the prosecution must establish three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Knowing Engagement: That the defendant knowingly engaged in a financial transaction.
2. Currency Involvement: That the transaction involved currency.
3. Intent to Evade: That the defendant structured the transaction with the specific intent to evade reporting requirements.

In the case discussed in this article, what evidence did the prosecution present to demonstrate the defendant’s intent to evade reporting requirements?

The prosecution relied on the pattern of cash deposits. The defendant made a series of numerous deposits, all below $10,000, over a short period and then continued similar deposits over several months. This consistent pattern, with each deposit strategically kept below the reporting threshold, was presented as evidence of a deliberate attempt to evade reporting requirements.

The defendant argued that referring to Form 4789, which was no longer in use, was irrelevant. How did the court address this argument?

The court maintained that even though Form 4789 had been replaced, the underlying intent to evade reporting requirements remained the core issue. The specific form was not the central concern; rather, it was the defendant’s intent to circumvent the law by structuring transactions to avoid any reporting obligation.

What does the federal government, specifically 31 CFR 1010.100 (xx), say about the definition of structuring?

According to 31 CFR 1010.100 (xx), structuring involves conducting or attempting to conduct currency transactions, alone or with others, at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for the purpose of evading Currency Transaction Report (CTR) filing requirements. This includes breaking down a single currency sum exceeding $10,000 into smaller amounts below that threshold. Importantly, the transactions do not need to exceed $10,000 at any single bank on any single day to constitute structuring.

What is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), and how does it relate to structuring?

A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is a form used by banking organizations to report known or suspected criminal violations of federal law, including suspicious transactions related to money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). It’s a key tool in detecting and preventing financial crimes, including structuring. If a bank suspects a customer is structuring transactions, they are required to file a SAR.

Where can one download the Suspicious Activity Report Form SAR 6710-06?

Here is a direct, secure link to the official SAR form. https://www.fdic.gov/formsdocuments/6710-06.pdf

What are the implications of this case for individuals facing structuring charges?

This case emphasizes that even seemingly subtle patterns of financial behavior can lead to serious legal consequences. It underscores the importance of understanding and complying with currency transaction reporting requirements. It also demonstrates that the courts will focus on the intent behind the transactions, not just the technicalities of reporting forms.

What should someone do if they suspect they are under investigation for structuring?

If you suspect you are under investigation for structuring, it is crucial to seek immediate legal counsel from an experienced federal defense attorney. Do not attempt to explain or defend your actions to law enforcement without legal representation. An attorney can help you understand your rights, navigate the complexities of the legal system, and build a strong defense.

Case Background

The case at hand involves a defendant who made a series of cash deposits below $10,000 over a span of seven days, which were intended to fulfill the first payment due on a land-sale contract. Subsequently, the defendant continued to make multiple cash deposits, each below $10,000, over several months to satisfy the second payment. The question before the court was whether these transactions were indicative of structuring intended to evade reporting requirements that are triggered for transactions exceeding $10,000.

Evidentiary Basis for Structuring

The prosecution relied on the pattern of cash deposits to build its case. A total of 22 deposits were made within a week to meet the initial payment, and an additional 38 deposits were made over several months for the second payment. These deposits were consistently kept below the $10,000 threshold. The prosecution argued that this consistent pattern of deposits, each falling just under the reporting threshold, demonstrated a clear intent to evade reporting requirements.

Jury Instructions and Elements of Conviction

The jury instructions in this case were crucial in guiding the jury’s deliberations. The court properly informed the jury of the three elements required to sustain a conviction under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3):

1. The defendant knowingly engaged in a financial transaction.
2. The transaction involved currency.
3. The defendant structured the transaction with the intent to evade reporting requirements.

Replacing Form 4789 and Intent to Evade

A noteworthy aspect of this case involves the defendant’s alleged intent to evade Form 4789, the currency transaction report that had been replaced at the time of the defendant’s transactions. The defense argued that any reference to Form 4789 was irrelevant since it was no longer in use. However, the court maintained that this did not undermine the soundness of the verdict.

What Do the Feds Say About Structuring?

“The definition of structuring, as set forth in 31 CFR 1010.100 (xx) (which was implemented before a USA PATRIOT Act provision extended the prohibition on structuring to geographic targeting orders and BSA recordkeeping requirements), states, “a person structures a transaction if that person, acting alone, or in conjunction with, or on behalf of, other persons, conducts or attempts to conduct one or more transactions in currency in any amount, at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for the purpose of evading the [CTR filing requirements].” “In any manner” includes, but is not limited to, breaking down a single currency sum exceeding $10,000 into smaller amounts that may be conducted as a series of transactions at or less than $10,000. The transactions need not exceed the $10,000 CTR filing threshold at any one bank on any single day in order to constitute structuring.”

What About Suspicious Activity Reports SAR?

Suspicious Activity Report Form SAR 6710-06

“In April 1996, a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) was developed to be used by all banking organizations in the United States. A banking organization is required to file a SAR whenever it detects a known or suspected criminal violation of federal law or a suspicious transaction related to money laundering activity or a violation of the BSA.”

Download Suspicious Activity Report Form SAR6710-06

Conclusion

The case exemplifies the complexities involved in proving structuring charges in criminal law. The evidentiary trail of consistent cash deposits below $10,000, combined with accurate jury instructions and the recognition of intent to evade, led to a conviction under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3). This case serves as a reminder that even subtle patterns of behavior can have significant legal implications. As the landscape of financial reporting continues to evolve, courts continue to prioritize the intent behind transactions when assessing structuring charges.

By analyzing this case, we gain insights into the legal considerations that underpin convictions related to structuring currency transactions to avoid reporting requirements. As regulations and circumstances change, the core principles of intent and evidentiary support remain crucial in upholding the integrity of the financial system.

Shocking Incident at Tampa Airport: Vacation Stunt Leads to Arrest!

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Tue, 15 Aug 2023 00:28:06 GMT

Tampa Airport Arrest – Want to go to jail in Tampa come on vacation bring a firearm into the air side have the firearm be found by security at the airport the airport gets evacuated and you get arrested Don’t try this at home!

Unbelievable turn of events at Tampa Airport as a daring vacationer’s stunt takes a disastrous turn, resulting in an arrest. Stay informed with expert legal guidance from Centrallaw.com. Remember, safety should always be a priority – never attempt such actions at home or during your travels!

Importance of Criminal Defense Counsel After Airport Weapons Incidents

After incidents involving weapons at Tampa International Airport, the importance of seeking criminal defense counsel cannot be overstated. Navigating the legal aftermath of such incidents requires expertise in both aviation and criminal law. An experienced defense attorney can provide guidance, ensuring your rights are protected and a strong defense strategy is developed. From understanding FAA regulations and Florida statutes to building a case tailored to your situation, legal counsel is essential. They can negotiate with prosecutors, aiming for reduced charges or alternative penalties. Facing weapons charges after an airport incident is a serious matter, and having skilled legal representation can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.

Weapons Arrests at Tampa International Airport: Ensuring Traveler Safety and Compliance

Introduction:

Tampa International Airport, a bustling hub for travelers, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of safety and security. However, incidents involving weapons at airports continue to raise concerns. This article delves into the issue of weapons arrests at Tampa International Airport, highlighting the importance of adhering to FAA regulations and Florida statutes to ensure traveler safety and compliance.

Unveiling the Challenge of Weapons Arrests at Tampa International Airport

Weapons-related incidents at airports pose a significant challenge to airport authorities and law enforcement agencies. These incidents not only jeopardize the safety of travelers and airport staff but also disrupt airport operations and instill fear among passengers.

FAA Regulations: Stricter Measures for Air Travel Safety

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has implemented stringent regulations to prevent the transportation of weapons and dangerous items onto commercial aircraft. These regulations aim to maintain the security of air travel and prevent potential threats.

Bullet Points on FAA Regulations:

The FAA strictly prohibits passengers from carrying firearms, explosives, and other hazardous materials in their carry-on or checked baggage.
Passengers with a valid firearm permit may transport firearms in their checked baggage if they are properly declared and securely packaged according to FAA guidelines.
Ammunition must also be declared and properly stored in accordance with FAA regulations.
Violations of these regulations can result in severe penalties, including fines and potential criminal charges.
Citation to FAA Regulations: (FAA Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1540.111)

Florida Statutes: Legal Framework for Weapons Possession

Florida statutes play a crucial role in shaping the legal framework for weapons possession within the state, including at its airports. Understanding and adhering to these statutes are imperative to avoid legal complications.

Bullet Points on Florida Statutes:

Florida law outlines various restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, including firearms, knives, and other dangerous weapons, without proper authorization.
Possession of certain weapons, such as firearms, in restricted areas of an airport, can lead to immediate arrest and legal action.
Travelers are advised to familiarize themselves with Florida’s concealed carry laws to prevent unintentional violations.
Citation to Florida Statutes:
(Florida Statutes, Chapter 790, Weapons and Firearms)

Ensuring Compliance and Safety: Collaborative Efforts

To address the issue of weapons arrests at Tampa International Airport, a collaborative approach involving airport authorities, law enforcement agencies, and travelers themselves is essential.

Airport Security Measures: Tampa International Airport employs advanced security screening technologies and well-trained personnel to detect prohibited items effectively.
Awareness Campaigns: Regular awareness campaigns, both online and at the airport, educate travelers about prohibited items and the importance of compliance.
Law Enforcement Vigilance: Local law enforcement agencies work closely with airport security to promptly respond to and address weapons-related incidents.

Conclusion: A Safer Journey for All

As the gateway to the world for countless travelers, Tampa International Airport prioritizes the safety and well-being of its passengers. Adhering to FAA regulations and Florida statutes is not only legally mandatory but also crucial for ensuring a safe and seamless travel experience. By working together, passengers, airport authorities, and law enforcement agencies can contribute to making air travel from Tampa International Airport secure and worry-free for everyone.

3 Scary Ways Florida Judges Can Use AI

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:58:28 GMT

Lawyer Reacts: 3 Scary Ways Judges Can Use AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized numerous industries, and the legal system is no exception. Judges now have access to powerful AI tools that can assist them in making crucial decisions. While these technological advancements have their merits, there are some aspects that give lawyers like me pause. Here are three scary ways judges can use AI:

Risk Assessment: Judges can employ AI tools that assess the risk of recidivism or flight risk for defendants. These tools take into account various factors, such as criminal history, personal characteristics, and social environment. While this can aid in bail and parole decisions, there are concerns about the potential biases encoded within the algorithms.
Case Prediction: AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of past case data to predict the likely outcome of a current case based on similar precedents. This can help judges make more informed decisions, but it also raises concerns about the potential for relying too heavily on past outcomes, potentially overlooking unique aspects of each case.
Sentencing Guidelines: AI can assist judges by providing recommendations for appropriate sentencing based on factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant’s criminal history, and demographic information. This has the potential to promote consistency in sentencing decisions. However, there are concerns about the fairness and transparency of these algorithms, as they may perpetuate existing biases within the criminal justice system.

AI and the Future of Criminal Justice

While AI has the potential to improve efficiency and consistency in the legal system, it is crucial to tread carefully. Lawyers and judges must ensure that these tools are used ethically and transparently, taking into account the limitations and potential biases of AI algorithms. As a criminal defense lawyer, I believe it is essential to continuously monitor and evaluate the use of AI in the legal system. By staying informed and engaging in discussions about its impact, we can work towards a fair and just implementation of AI in our judicial processes. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought significant advancements to the legal system, enabling judges to leverage its power for making informed decisions. However, as a lawyer, I have concerns about certain applications of AI that could have unintended consequences.

3 Scary Ways Judges Can use AI

Here Are Three More Scary Concerns When Judges Use AI:

Biased Data and Algorithms: AI systems heavily rely on data, and if the data used to train the algorithms is biased, it can perpetuate and amplify existing inequalities within the legal system. Judges must be cautious about the sources and quality of the data used in AI tools to avoid discriminatory outcomes.
Lack of Accountability: When AI algorithms are responsible for making decisions, it becomes challenging to hold them accountable for errors or biases. Judges must take an active role in understanding the underlying mechanisms of AI tools and ensure transparency and accountability in their usage.
Ethical Dilemmas: AI can face ethical dilemmas where it is difficult to strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness. For example, an AI tool that optimizes for reduced caseloads may prioritize speed over thorough analysis, potentially compromising justice. Judges must be mindful of these ethical challenges and use AI as a supporting tool rather than relying solely on its outputs.

Conclusion:

It is crucial for judges, lawyers, and policymakers to work together in establishing guidelines and regulations to address these concerns. Transparency, explainability, and regular audits of AI systems are necessary to ensure they align with legal and ethical standards. As AI continues to evolve, legal professionals must stay updated on the latest developments, engage in ongoing discussions, and advocate for responsible AI practices in the courtroom. By leveraging AI technology thoughtfully, we can enhance the legal system while safeguarding the principles of justice and fairness.

Sources:

“Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making” – Journal of International Arbitration Volume 36, Issue 5 (2019) pp. 539 – 573. Available at: kluwerlawonline.com

“The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Law” – Forthcoming chapter in Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, 2020 U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-29. Available at: papers.ssrn.com

How Can Judges Use AI? – Case Prediction

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 22 Jun 2023 22:19:47 GMT

Judges can use AI algorithms to analyze past case data and predict the likely outcome of a current case based on similar precedents, helping them make informed decisions. ORDER in the Court – How can Judges use AI? Case Prediction Case prediction, Judges, AI, Lawyers #CasePrediction #Judges #AI #Lawyers

Enhancing Judicial Predictions: Harnessing AI for Case Outcome Projections

Introduction:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed various sectors, and its potential to assist judges in predicting the outcome of a case is gaining attention. By leveraging AI technologies, judges can make more informed decisions, enhance efficiency, and promote fairness in the legal system. While human judgment remains essential, AI tools can provide valuable insights and aid in the decision-making process.

Data Analysis and Pattern Recognition:

Judges can utilize AI algorithms to analyze vast amounts of legal data, including court precedents, statutes, and relevant case documents. AI-powered systems can identify patterns and correlations, enabling judges to evaluate the strength of legal arguments and anticipate potential outcomes based on historical data.

Legal Research and Analysis:

AI tools can streamline legal research by swiftly searching through extensive legal databases, identifying relevant cases, and extracting pertinent information. Judges can then utilize this comprehensive analysis to assess the merits of a case, identify potential legal issues, and predict potential outcomes.

Risk Assessment:

AI algorithms can assist judges in evaluating the risk associated with various case factors, such as the credibility of witnesses, the presence of specific legal arguments, or the complexity of the legal issues. By considering multiple variables simultaneously, AI can provide judges with an objective risk assessment, aiding in the prediction of case outcomes.

Supporting Decision-Making:

AI systems can generate predictive models that present judges with possible outcomes based on a range of inputs. These models can be continuously refined and updated to adapt to changing legal dynamics. Judges can use these projections as supplementary information, helping them consider different scenarios and make well-informed decisions.

Ethical Considerations and Human Oversight:

While AI can be a powerful tool, it should not replace human judgment or undermine the principles of justice. Judges must exercise caution in relying solely on AI predictions and instead treat them as valuable resources. Human oversight is crucial to ensure that the use of AI in the legal system remains fair, transparent, and accountable.

Conclusion:

The integration of AI in the judicial process has the potential to revolutionize the legal landscape. By leveraging AI algorithms, judges can access a wealth of legal knowledge, identify patterns, and make more accurate predictions about case outcomes. However, it is essential to recognize that AI should be used as an aid to human judgment rather than a substitute for it. As technology continues to advance, judges can harness the power of AI to promote efficiency, enhance fairness, and improve the overall quality of legal decisions.

Tips for Appearing in Court by Telephone or Video, Zoom, or Skype

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:04:07 GMT

Camera, Lighting, and Microphone for Virtual Client Consultations and Virtual Court Appearance

Many hearings are now conducted byTelephone or Video, Zoom, or Skype. Some Florida Courts have strict rules for appearing.

The year 2020 generated a lot of changes for us all. Chief among them are how to appear safely court proceedings. To that end, some Florida courts have initiated formal rules of procedures and electronic hearings. While many courts have not overflow of this, these new Federal rules have some common sense tips that we all can find useful.

Some judges have noted that parties have not dressed appropriately for court. Business casual or a suit and tie seems to be the preference for most judges.

Ask yourself, would someone really expect you to be on a beach in Hawaii

while you are involved in an possibly life changing matter in court?

In addition, some software packages allow for changing backgrounds, make sure in the background is appropriate to the formality of the court. Ask yourself, would someone really expect you to be on a beach in Hawaii while you are involved in an possibly life changing matter in court?

Some judges prefer and some courts prohibit appearing from your vehicle.

Make sure your phone and video connection is stable.

Some courts require only one speaker for each party to speak on behalf of their cause. When you’re not speaking try not to interrupt. Make sure you identify herself each time you speak.

Tips for Appearing

We use a headset, external microphone, studio lights, and a plain white background. Generally, we also use this equipment for our virtual meetings with clients, witnesses, and other lawyers.

Here are the actual rules that for one court that will be in effect starting in early 2021.

Chief United States District Judge, Timothy J. Corrigan encourages litigants to “Please visit the Court’s website for more information about the changes to the Local Rules, including a video presentation (that will qualify for CLE credit) and bullet point summary explaining the changes.”

Florida District Court Rules on Appearing in Court by Telephone or Video, Zoom, or Skype

If a judge conducts a proceeding by telephone or video, a participant:

(1) must dress in professional attire and use a professional background if either is visible,
(2) must use a landline if available,
(3) must designate one speaker for each party or interested person,
(4) must not participate from a vehicle,
(5) must use the mute setting when not speaking,
(6) must try to avoid background noise or other interference,
(7) must wait for the judge to address the participant before speaking and must not interrupt a speaker, and
(8) must start each distinct presentation by saying “this is [name]” or the equivalent.

Immigration and Criminal Defense Consequences

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:19:00 GMT

Immigration, ICE, Deportation

Criminal Convictions, Immigration, ICE, and Deportation

Here is an outline titled “Crimigration: The Marriage of Immigration and Criminal Law.” Friend of the site and author, Terry Christian is a former Immigration Judge and is also Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law. Complete text for download is avaivaible below for Immigation Consequences of Criminal Convictions and Conduct.

In Memoriam: Aug 4, 1952 – Oct 20, 2011 (Age 59) Judge Clifton died a little more than a year after giving this now highly useful seminar and presentation. Terry Clifton Christian was born the son of a coal miner in Welch, West Virginia on August 4, 1952. One of Terry’s signature accomplishments was the honor of being appointed as a Federal Immigration Judge by the Attorney General of the United States in 2003.

Questions about the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Conduct? Call Me Toll Free (813) 222-2220.

The topics include:

Definition of a Criminal Conviction

Criminal Conduct Incurring Immigration Consequences

A. Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
B. Crimes of Violence
C. Drugs and Trafficking Crimes
D. Aggravated Felonies
E. Other Crimes and Criminal Conduct Proscribed in the INA

Consequences of Criminal Convictions and Criminal Behavior

A. Inadmissibility
B. Deportability

Motion to Vacate See Padilla v. Kentucky, Case No. 08-651, S.Ct., Argued October 13, 2009-Decided March 31, 2010.)

Order of Vacatur

Special Thanks to guest contributor Terry Christian.

Feds Cannot Bypass Android Security Pattern Screen Lock!

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:01:00 GMT

Android, Android Security Screen, Screen Lock

Android Security Pattern

Feds cannot Bypass Android Security Pattern Screen Lock! After too many failed attempts phone is locked. Forensic software apparently cannot read a locked Samsung Android phone. We have just posted the FBI application for the search warrant issued to Google to tell Feds how to retrieve data here: Android Phone Search Warrant

Easy to Bypass Security Screen Lock on iPhone Wired has published a “quick method to circumvent an iPhone’s passcode-protected lock screen: tap the “Emergency Call” button, then enter three pound signs, hit the green Call button and immediately press the Lock button. That simple procedure gives a snoop full access to the Phone app on the iPhone, which contains the address book, voicemail and call history.”

Thanks to Wired Story here: m.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/fbi-android-phone-lock/

Search Warrant For a Phone? Call Casey at (813) 222-2220

Sample Target Letter | Federal Criminal Case

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 09:00:00 GMT

Target Letter

What Is a Target Letter?

In short a target letter is sent to, “a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative federal criminal defendant.” A Federal Criminal Defense Attorney has training in how to respond to such a letter. It is probably best to allow your attorney to respond to the letter. Sometimes the cases are complex and involve defending wire and bank fraud charges. Drug crimes, tax crimes, computer fraud and abuse, and money laundering are also frequent flyers. These types of investigations are numerous and ongoing in the Middle District of Florida. Below is the text of a typical target letter sent by Federal Prosecutors prior to seeking indictment of a “target.” A target has been defined as: “a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” United States Attorney’s Manual § 9-11.151. Proceed cautiously if you have received one of these letters.

Sample Target Letter:

Re: Grand Jury Investigation, USAO No. 20XXXXXX

Dear Target:

This letter is to advise you that you are now a target of a Federal Grand Jury investigation in this District involving your activities with others related to [Charges and Activities] fraudulent mortgage transactions, in violation of the conspiracy, wire and bank fraud statutes [Statutes Here] (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1343 and 1344), as well as other possible violations of federal criminal laws. The United States is prepared to proceed before a Federal Grand Jury to seek charges against you. Should you desire to discuss the matter with us before we proceed to bring formal charges against you, please have your attorney contact Assistant United States Attorney [Name Here] (813) 555-5555, so that we may schedule an appointment. If you do not have an attorney and would still like to discuss the matter, please contact Special Agent [Name] at (813) 555-5555 to arrange an appointment. If we do not hear from you or your attorney on or before [Deadline Date], we shall assume that you do not wish to discuss the matter and will proceed accordingly.

Sincerely,

Assistant United States Attorney

If You have received a letter like this, we can fight for you. Get advice from an expert – Call (813) 222-2220

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer

Is the Lie Detector | Polygraph Admissible in Federal Court?

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:05:37 GMT

Judge says OK to Polygraph

Polygraphs & Lie Detectors in Florida Courts

“In law school and on the street everyone knows that lie detectors are not admissible in court. Wrong!”

A crew member of a ship claimed he did not know drugs were on board the ship. He was indicted in the Middle District of Florida’s Tampa Division. They indict them all, let the jury sort them out indictment charged many aboard with knowing the ship had drugs on board. This is not a rare claim where smugglers tend to minimize the need to know that 10-100 million dollars of cocaine is on board the vessel. Judge says let them use the polygraph. The best way to understand the polygraph case is to read it here.

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Court Ruling on Polygraph

Update – Comments from Lead Defense Counsel

“There were three important lessons learned from this experience: 1) it is important to have the testimony of a qualified scientist, such as Dr. David Raskin, to testify in the Daubert hearing as the polygraph examiners are usually not well-versed enough in the scientific studies supporting the technique; 2) using a highly qualified examiner with extensive prior government experience is also critical, and 3) the relevant questions must be simple enough but carefully constructed so the results of the exam are indisputably meaningful.”

“[I]it helped to submit Dr. Raskin’s declaration in advance of the Daubert hearing so that all of the detailed support for the polygraph’s admissibility was on the record in advance, making the actual hearing go much more smoothly.”

Lead Defense Counsel Contact Information isChristophir A. Kerr,13801, Walsingham Rd. /#A-154,Largo, FL 33774,727-492- 2551 .

Facts in Federal Drug Case

“Defendant Angulo-Mosquera, a 53-year old deckhand and cook, was indicted onSeptember 4, 2014 in the Middle District of Florida on charges related to the seizure of 1,700kilograms of cocaine concealed on board a freighter known as the “Hope II” in August 2014.Defendant Angulo-Mosquera is a Colombian national with no known criminal record in anycountry. He has never before been in the United States. Defendant Angulo-Mosquera denies anyknowledge of the drugs found concealed on the Hope II and any involvement of any kind in theillegal drug trade.”

Is the Lie Detector | Polygraph | Admissible in Federal Court?

Yes. A United States District Judge in Florida’s Middle District, Judge Honeywell ruled in this Order that the court would allow admission of a polygraph performed by a former FBI agent on a defendant at trial. The defendant will testify at trial and has passed a pretrial polygraph. Here are the relevant questions:

1. Did you know those drugs were on that ship before the Coast Guard boarded the ship? Answer: No.

2. Did you know those drugs were on the Hope II before the Coast Guard boarded that
ship? Answer: No.

3. Did you know those drugs were on that ship before the Coast Guard found them in
August? Answer: No.

Polygraph Case Excerpts:

“Defendant Angulo-Mosquera plans to testify in his own defense at trial and requests that the results of the polygraph examination be admitted into evidence to corroborate his testimony. The Government objects arguing that polygraph examinations are just “one step above” junkscience and are “not suitable for juror consumption.” TR at 46:15-24, 49:16-17. The results of the polygraph examination, if admitted at trial, would be presented through expert witness testimony.”

“[T]the Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the polygraph evidence and expert testimony regarding same, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). At the hearing, Defendant Angulo-Mosquera presented the testimony of Dr. David C. Raskin, who for 44 years has conducted laboratory and field research on polygraph techniques for the detection of deception, taught university courses about polygraph techniques, trained government and lawenforcement polygraph examiners, and published extensively on polygraph techniques, regardingthe reliability of polygraph examinations in general and the examination in this case specifically.”

Junk Science Claim

“Defendant Angulo-Mosquera plans to testify in his own defense at trial and requests thatthe results of the polygraph examination be admitted into evidence to corroborate his testimony.The Government objects arguing that polygraph examinations are just “one step above” junk scienceand are “not suitable for juror consumption.” TR at 46:15-24, 49:16-17. The results of thepolygraph examination, if admitted at trial, would be presented through expert witness testimony.”

“Thus, in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, courts mustengage in a rigorous three-part inquiry, determining whether:(1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends toaddress; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions issufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and(3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific,technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a factin issue.”

“Some factors that bear on this inquiry are:1) whether the expert’s theories, methods or techniques can be or have beentested;2) whether the technique, method, or theory has been subject to peer reviewand publications;3) whether the known or potential rate of error of the technique when appliedis acceptable; and4) whether the technique, method, or theory has been generally accepted inthe scientific community.”

Polygraph Ruling

“Thus, the Court finds the polygraph evidence to be admissible at trial to either impeach orcorroborate witness testimony. Further specifics regarding the admission of the polygraphevidence will be determined at the time of trial. Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing on Admission ofPolygraph Evidence (Doc. 67), construed as a motion to determine the admissibility of thepolygraph evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, is GRANTED. The Defendant maypresent the polygraph evidence, through expert testimony, to corroborate or impeach witnesstestimony at the trial in this matter.”

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Reviews DOJ Memo (Video)

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:22:00 GMT

Tweets From The Feds

United States Attorneys improperly concealed evidence – the U.S. Department of Justice ordered prosecutors to turn over information to criminal defense lawyers – here are their marching orders courtesy of a Tampa federal criminal defense attorney

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney notes that tweets are now discoverable in federal criminal cases. Because the Feds (United States Attorneys) were caught hiding evidence, the DOJ (United States Department of Justice) has written a memo on information to provide criminal defense attorneys. After 3 years, the memo has been released. Potential Sources of Discoverable Information include: Agency Files, Confidential Informant Files, Evidence, Gathered Information, Emails, Tweets, Text Messages, Memoranda, and Notes, etc.

Just obtained an internal memo from the Feds discussing all aspects of what the police and prosecutors must disclose to targets of federal prosecutions, including a warning that some tweets and social media use must be disclosed by Prosecutors in criminal cases. In short: Feds were caught hiding the ball and now must follow the rules in this detailed memo.

“tweets are now discoverable”

The new guidelines come from an investigation of case where United States Attorneys ( not in the Middle District of Florida ) were improperly concealing evidence. The memo may have been the result of prosecutors that improperly with held evidence in the case of a United States Senator who was convicted by a jury. Days later the Justice Department dropped the charges. After the Senator’s wrongful conviction, to cure these improprieties, the U.S. Department of Justice ordered prosecutors to draft memos on information to provide criminal defense lawyers – here are their marching orders.

Discover tweets: the Feds have

We initially received a tip from the Federal Defender, Eastern District of California. A complete copy of the United States Department of Justice Discovery Memo is available here. A video including the Attorney General’s statements on the problems with handling of evidence and the solution is included at the bottom of this post.

“The biggest problem is that nobody outside the prosecutor’s office actually knows what those policies are.”

The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) ultimately released 73 individualized manuals for many federal district offices. There are links to the other Florida Federal Districts located at the end of this post. Florida has three districts. They are the Middle District, the Southern District, and the Northern District.

The Point: Feds were caught hiding the ball and now must follow the rules in this memo.

In the State court system, most prosecutors have a “open file” policy that ensures that whatever information is contained in the prosecutor’s file is available to defense attorneys. The lone exception has been state cases where police and prosecutors want to protect the identity of confidential sources. In police reports these frequently appear as “CS” for confidential source or “CI” for confidential informant.

“written and unwritten statements are discoverable in federal criminal cases”

Discovery Sources Bullet Points

Investigative Agency’s Files
Confidential Informant Files
Evidence and Information Gathered During Investigation
Documents or Evidence Gathered by Civil Attorneys
Emails, tweets, text messages, memoranda, notes
Personnel and Disciplinary Files
Handwritten Notes of Agents
Presentence Reports

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on Discovery Practices

In 20 or so years of Federal Criminal practice in the Tampa Bay area the best course of action considered the fact: “rules for what prosecutors must share and when remained almost entirely secret. . . .” USA Today, filed a Freedom of Information Act request that forced the hand of the Federal Prosecutors to pull back the curtain on what must be provided to defense attorneys under the Constitution and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

“it took the department nearly three years to release the policies”

“The biggest problem is that nobody outside the prosecutor’s office actually knows what those policies are.” said Timothy O’Toole of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). According to USA Today, “it took the department [U.S. Department of Justice] nearly three years to release the policies from 74 U.S. attorneys’ offices . . . .”

Overview of the Federal Prosecutor Manual

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16 (b)

“Most criminal defense attorneys immediately request that evidence be produced at the initial appearance”

As a starting point, “To trigger the government’s reciprocal discovery rights defined in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16 (b), the defendant must request discovery.” says a footnote in the document. The manual defines the scope of persons including law enforcement agencies and staff from whom investigative information should be obtained. Most criminal defense attorneys immediately request that evidence be produced at the initial appearance or arraignment or detention hearing. The manual puts in writing the types of information available to defend federal criminal defendant by an exhaustive listing of what constitutes “discovery” or “discoverable information.”

Information Helpful to the Defense

“regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal”

The memo specifically instructs Assistant United States Attorneys (Prosecutors) that “[a] prosecutor must disclose information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime.” USAM 9-5.001 C 1.

Limit Use of Reports in Court

“continue to object to use of the report”

Although the defense may get a report that includes witness statements, the manual reminds prosecutors to limit the use of statements in the reports. Especially when defense attorneys try to use the reports in cross-examination of witnesses in court. The memo states in part, “unless the witness has adopted the memorandum as his statement, AUSAs [Assistant United States Attorneys] should continue to object to use of the report in cross examination as if it were the witness’ statement.” See Page 9 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Disclose Written and Unwritten Favorable Information

“discussions cannot be avoided by failing to memorialize these events”

Sometimes police try to prevent helpful information from falling into the hands of the defense. To that end, the cops would not write down everything. They would fail to include helpful information in their reports. In a most remarkable requirement, the memo reminds prosecutors that, “[t]he duty to disclose to the defendant the substance of what a witness has said during interviews, debriefings, or informal discussions cannot be avoided by failing to memorialize these events. If any such events occur that are not memorialized in an interview report, the AUSA should determine what the witness said during the session and disclose the content of the witness’ statements to the defense. AUSAs should emphasize to agents the importance of memorializing all impeaching information.” See Page 10 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

The memo also extends prosecutors’ obligation to disclose to preparation of witnesses for trial. “The duty to disclose to the defendant the substance of what a witness has said during a pre-trial preparation session cannot be avoided by failing to memorialize it.” See Page 11 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Who is Part of the Prosecution Team?

“know which agencies have played a role in the investigation”

To prevent prosecutors from using claims that favorable information was not available to disclose, the memo explicitly describes who is a part of the prosecution’s team. “‘prosecution team’ is defined as including ‘federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant.’ The AUSA needs to know which agencies have played a role in the investigation and make all reasonable inquiries to ascertain what pertinent case information exists. When identifying members of the prosecution team, AUSAs should err on the side of inclusiveness . . . .” See Page 12 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Excerpts from the U.S. Attorney’s Manual

Responsibility of AUSA(s)

The responsibility to produce all discoverable information in a criminal case lies with the AUSA(s) assigned to the case. To fulfill this responsibility, AUSAs should consider several matters:

What & When: What are the policies, rules, statutes and case law that define what must be produced and when must it be produced? (See II. Laws, Rules and Policy Governing the Production of Discoverable
Information (What Must Be Produced and When?))
Who is part of the prosecution team: AUSAs are obligated to produce information that is within the possession of the prosecution team; thus, defining the scope of the prosecution team is critical. (See III. Who is Part of the Prosecution Team: Gathering and Reviewing Potentially Discoverable Information)
Where to look: Once the prosecution team has been identified, AUSAs must ensure that all discoverable information is located, reviewed and produced as required, including agency investigative and administrative files, CI files, emails, PSRs, law enforcement Giglio, etc. (See IV. Potential Sources of Discoverable Information)
How to produce and track: AUSAs must decide in what form to produce the discovery (bates numbered, hard copy, e-copy, available for inspection, redacted, etc), and must keep a detailed record of all discovery produced. (See V. Manner of Production and Recordkeeping) See Page 2 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Scope of Criminal Discovery in Federal Cases

“For the purposes of this memorandum, “discovery” or “discoverable information” is not limited to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 information, but also includes all information and materials the
government must disclose to the defendant pursuant to the Jencks Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2; Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); Brady, Giglio, USAM 9-5.001 and 9-5.100; any applicable local rules; and the any applicable standing discovery order in a criminal case.” See Page 3 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Memo Policies Must be Followed

“Deviation from the policy of production of reports of witness interviews requires Criminal Chief or Deputy Criminal Chief approval.” See Page 9 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Not All Witness Statements Are Created Equal

“Be careful not to characterize a witness interview as a Jencks Act statement in discovery letters or court pleadings”

“The Jencks Act defines “witness statements” as … “(1) a written statement made by [a] witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; (2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by [the] witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement; or (3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or a transcription thereof, if any, made by [a] witness to a grand jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (e).

“[U]nless the witness has adopted the memorandum as his statement, AUSAs should continue to object to use of the report in cross examination as if it were the witness’ statement.” See Page 9 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Helpful Information Must Be Disclosed – Written or Not

“Memorializing Favorable Information and the Duty to Disclose. The duty to disclose to the defendant the substance of what a witness has said during interviews, debriefings, or informal discussions cannot be avoided by failing to memorialize these events. If any such events occur that are not memorialized in an interview report, the AUSA should determine what the witness said during the session and disclose the content of the witness’ statements to the defense. AUSAs should emphasize to agents the importance of memorializing all impeaching information.” See Page 10 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo. (underlining in original).

Witness Interview and Preparation – Continuing Duty to Disclose

“The duty to disclose to the defendant the substance of what a witness has said during a pre-trial preparation session cannot be avoided by failing to memorialize it.” See Page 11 of the Federal Prosecutor’s Memo.

Video – Attorney General Holder on the Discovery Memo

Other Florida Federal District Court Discovery Manuals

Florida – Northern District

Florida – Southern District

Sources:

usatoday.com/story/news/

justice.gov/dag/

Deportation of Cuban Nationals From United States

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 11:26:00 GMT

Deportation of Cuban Nationals

Deportation of Cuban Nationals From the United States remains an open question for Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys in United States District Courts. One source says, “At this point we do not know how/when the normalization will impact the U.S.’s ability to deport Cuban individuals. At any rate, those who are in lawful status and not subject to any grounds of deportation (i.e. those who entered, obtained lawful permanent resident status, and do not have crimes that make them deportable) do not need to worry. The main impact will be on those who either fell out of status and can’t fix their status now (for example, those who were paroled in and then never applied for lawful permanent resident status, and who are not eligible for LPR status due to crimes) and those who already have deportation orders but were released from ICE custody on ICE orders of supervision because they could not be physically deported.”

Update – Deportation of Cuban Nationals

“The notice includes a warning: If you do not appear at a hearing, you may be ordered deported in your absence.”

Sample Notice of Hearing

There is at least one case where the deportation proceedings of a Cuban national was reset to 2019, almost four years after the initial notice from the Immigration Court. A sample Notice of Hearing is included in this article. The notice includes a warning that “If you do not appear at a hearing, you may be ordered deported in your absence.”

Furthermore the source advises, “At this point, I think it’s important to advise Cuban clients that deportation may be a reality soon and that they should be careful to avoid criminal activity and pleading to offenses that will bring them to ICE’s attention/subject them to criminal grounds of deportation. Basically, after years of not having to face full immigration consequences (physical deportation) of criminal convictions, they will now have to seriously consider those consequences.”

Source: immigrantjustice.org

Contribute to NIJC and provide critical legal services to families in the coming year!

immigrantjustice.org/donate

Wiretaps in Federal Prosecutions | Florida

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:16:00 GMT

Wiretaps

A friend at the Federal Defender’s Office in Florida just sent us this information on Wiretaps in Federal Prosecution and provided us with a new Congressional Research Service report entitled “Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping.” It is comprehensive and should be useful to anyone with a case in which wiretaps are an issue. Some excerpts are below and a download of the complete document is available below.:

“Unless otherwise provided, Title III/ECPA outlaws wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping; possession of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping equipment; use or disclosure of information obtained through illegal wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping; and disclosure of information secured through court-ordered wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping, in order to obstruct justice, 18 U.S.C. 2511. Elsewhere, federal law proscribes:

unlawful access to stored communications, 18 U.S.C. 2701;
unlawful use of a pen register or a trap and trace device, 18 U.S.C. 3121; and
abuse of eavesdropping and search authority or unlawful disclosures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1809, 1827.”

The report summarizes:

“At the heart of Title III/ECPA lies the prohibition against illegal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, 18 U.S.C. 2511(1), that bans:

any person from
intentionally
intercepting, or endeavoring to intercept,
wire, oral or electronic communications
by using an electronic, mechanical or other device
unless the conduct is specifically authorized or expressly not covered, e.g. one of the parties to the conversation has consent to the interception
the interception occurs in compliance with a statutorily authorized, (and ordinarily judicially supervised) law enforcement or foreign intelligence gathering interception,
the interception occurs as part of providing or regulating communication services,
certain radio broadcasts, and in some places, spousal wiretappers.”

The complete report is available here

How to Forfeit Most of Your Assets in Federal Court in 10 Easy Steps?

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:33:00 GMT

How to Forfeit Most of your Assets in Federal Court in 10 Easy Steps?

Many forfeitures of assets to the Federal Government are conditions included in standard plea agreements to criminal charges in the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division. So some have asked: How can someone Forfeit Most of their Assets in Federal Court? Let me walk you through an actual case we reviewed in Tampa. I did not represent this now broke person who now lives in a Federal Prison.

Ironically, after agreeing to give up everything he owned, the defendant filed a claim in Federal Court trying to retrieve his money, other assets and a rather nice Bentley automobile. Good luck with that claim. Here is how to lose all of your stuff through an agreement with the Federal Government.

How to Lose Everything in a Federal Forfeiture Case in 10 Easy Steps?

Commit and plead to a federal indictment that includes forfeiture provisions that usually read like this: The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States immediately and voluntarily any and all assets and property, or portions thereof, subject to forfeiture, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), whether in the possession or control of the United States or in the possession or control of the defendant or defendant’s nominees. The assets to be forfeited specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: a forfeiture money judgment of at least $1,176,787.00. representing the total amount.
Have a list like this one included in your plea agreement: “Items Seized from the Defendant Approximately $118,275.00 stored on 143 Green Dot and Wal-Mart Money cards; 2005 Bentley GT, Baranato Green, VIN SCBCR63W25C026307; 18 Karat Gold Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day Date Watch with a Diamond Dial; 14 Karat Gold Necklace with “RS’Pendant with 703 Diamonds; 14 Karat Gold Double Cuban Link Chrome Chain; 14 Karat Gold Men’s Ring with 1 10 Diamonds; 14 Karat Gold and Diamond Men’s Bracelet with 2,420 Round Diamonds; 14 Karat Gold Men’s Square Ring with 54 Round Diamonds; KC Stainless Steel Men’s Watch with 57 Diamonds; KC Stainless Steel Men’s Watch with 33 Diamonds; and approximately $25,000.00 in U.S. Currency; approximately $22,580 in U.S. Currency.
Agree and Consent to the following: defendant “agrees and consents to the forfeiture of these assets pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, andfor administrative forfeiture action. The defendant also hereby agrees that the forfeiture described herein is not excessive and, in any event, the defendant waives any constitutional claims that the defendant may have that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine.
Agree that the property is related to the offense charged: “The defendant admits and agrees that the conduct described in the Factual Basis below provides a sufficient factual and statutory basis for the forfeiture of the property sought by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 32.2(b)(l), the United States and the defendant request that at the time of accepting this ptea agreement, the court make a determination that the government has established the requisite nexus between the property subject to forfeiture and the offense(s) to which defendant is pleading guilty and enter a preliminary order of forfeiture. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4), the defendant agrees that the preliminary order of forfeiture shall be final as to the defendant at the time it is entered, notwithstanding the requirement that it be made a part of the sentence and be included in the judgment.
Agree to help the feds find all of your stuff: “Defendant further agrees to take all steps necessary to locate property and to pass title to the United States before the defendant’s sentencing. To that end, defendant agrees to fully assist the government in the recovery and return to the United States of any assets, or portions thereof, as described above wherever located. The defendant agrees to make a full and complete disclosure of all assets over which defendant exercises control and those which are held or controlled by a nominee. The defendant further agrees to be polygraphed on the issue of assets, if it is deemed necessary….”
Agree that the feds can go after other stuff too: ” The defendant agrees that the United States is not limited to forfeiture of the property described above. If the United States determines that property of the defendant identified for forfeiture cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; then the United States shall, at its option, be entitled to forfeiture of any other property (substitute assets) of the defendant.
Agree to the Facts of the case like this: “Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth below are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt: . . . From at least in or about March 201 1, through the present, [The Defendant who was Indicted], in part through his car dealership known as “[Name of your Business here],” engaged in a scheme and artifice to defraud the U.S. Treasury Department, commonly known as “Turbo Tax Fraud,” by filing fraudulent income tax returns and negotiating fraudulent federal income tax refunds. During the summer of 2011, law enforcement received multiple tips that [Defendant who was charged with a federal Crime] was engaging in tax fraud at his business, [Your Business Name Here]. The sources stated that [Soon to be Broke Defendant who agreed to all this] sold automobiles to buyers who paid him with United States Treasury checks obtained from the filing of fraudulent federal income tax returns. The sources advised that the fraudulently obtained Treasury checks [Name Deleted} received were for a much higher value than the sales price of the vehicles sold. Simmons then negotiated the checks and laundered the proceeds through his business accounts. Sources also stated that [defendant] filed fraudulent tax returns from his computer located at his business, . . . and maintained a ledger that contained numerous personal identifiers associated with the filing of fraudulent tax returns such as names, dates of birth,and social security numbers of identity theft victims. The sources further stated that Simmons would frequently possess multiple Treasury checks or prepaid debit cards in names other than his own and would place the proceeds from the negotiated checks and debit cards into his business account(s).
Have your Buddy Cooperate with the Feds Like This: “On or about July 12,201 1, a cooperating defendant (CD) wearing a concealed digital audio recorder traveled to …the Middle District of Florida, and met . . advised the CD to bring him . . . Green Dot cards and he would take care of the rest.”
Get videotaped in your scheme; “Surveillance video captured . . . using a pre-paid debit card [and on another date] captured on video . . . making an ATM withdrawal using the card [and then] was captured on video using a money machine at at 1208 East Brandon Blvd, Brandon, in the Middle District of Florida.”
Have Zero Chance of Getting Your Stuff Back Later.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:00:00 GMT

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

What Is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Indictment Charging Criminal Violations of the Fcpa.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), if may be time to get acquainted.

The FCPA, found at Title 15 U.S. Code Section 78dd, prohibits “bribes” to any individual working in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of a foreign government in order to obtain or retain business. For years, business was done in certain foreign countries under a “pay to play” scenario- someone needed to get paid in order to get the deal done. Most often, when these arrangements were detected, the Department of Justice imposed civil fines and penalties and permitted the American company and its employees to keep doing business. That trend seems to have ended.

The DOJ and FBI have recently ramped up criminal enforcement of this law. Entire FBI squads as well as teams of DOJ lawyers are now assigned, full time, to identifying criminal violations and prosecuting alleged violators, individuals and companies. In addition to our very recent case in DC, on May 10, 2011, the government obtained convictions of Lindsey Manufacturing and two of its executives on charges of Conspiracy to violate the FCPA, arising out of an scheme to bribe Mexicans officials. Another criminal FCPA trial against employees of a California company, alleging bribes to a Chinese officials, will begin soon in Los Angeles. Do not think that these cases are limited to Fortune 500 companies and their employees- my client owned a mid-sized police equipment supply company in St. Petersburg . I must admit that I did not realize the full scope of the government’s efforts in this area until becoming involved in this case.

What happened in my case? After 9 weeks of trial and 6 days of deliberations, a mistrial was declared when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. They were hung 9-2 with one undecided for acquittal on the conspiracy, but closer on the substantive counts. We had raised many defenses available under the FCPA, including lack of business nexus between the payment and the contract, and absence of mens rea – the statute requires the government to prove both willfulness and corrupt intent. We also attacked, successfully, I believe, the method and integrity of the FBI’s investigation.

The bottom line here is that all clients and companies doing business with foreign governments must be made aware of this law. Although “bribes” are illegal, there are permissible ways to compensate foreign agents and foreign officials under limited circumstances. It is important to recognize the difference. Look for a lot more of these cases in the future.

Special Thanks to Guest Author.

What Is Entrapment?

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:47:00 GMT

What is Entrapment?

Sometimes law enforcement behavior can be so despicable that their conduct and method of investigation leads only to entrapped citizens. This form of entrapment is rare but not unheard of.

What Is Entrapment?

Entrapment occurs when criminal conduct is a product of law enforcement officials. In other words, a police officer can’t lure an innocent person to commit a crime then arrest them for it. When cops cross this boundary the defense of entrapment is available.

Florida Laws on Entrapment

Florida recognizes two theories of defense based on entrapment: subjective and objective entrapment. See 777.201, Florida Statutes; Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90, 99 (Fla. 1993). Subjective entrapment focuses on whether conduct by law enforcement induced, encouraged, or caused the defendant to commit a crime when he or she was not predisposed to do so. See § 777.201, Fla. Stat.; Jones v. State, 114 So. 3d 1123, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Subjective Entrapment

The test to establish a subjective entrapment defense includes:

1. whether a government agent induced the defendant to commit the crime charged;

Inducement has been defined as “any government conduct creating a substantial risk that an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense, including persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy or friendship” Farley v. State, 848 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

2. whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged;

Predisposition asks whether the accused was awaiting any propitious opportunity or was ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the offense. Munoz, 629 So. 2d at 99. Predisposition is not present when one has no prior criminal history related to the offense at issue. Nadeau v. State, 683 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

(3) whether the entrapment defense should be evaluated by the jury.

Where the facts and the law establish entrapment there is no need for the jury to make any findings of fact. Where facts are contested though the issue of entrapment will be decided by a jury.

Objective Entrapment

Objective entrapment occurs when egregious law enforcement conduct amounts to a violation of the defendant’s right to due process under article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. See Munoz, 629 So. 2d at 99.

Simply put, law enforcement behavior can be so despicable that their conduct and method of investigation leads only to entrapped citizens. This form of entrapment is rare but not unheard of.

Thanks to Guest Author Robson Powers of the Law Office of Michael P. Maddux, P.A.

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney – (813) 222-2220 – Video on YouTube

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:13:00 GMT

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney has a FREE fully searchable Pasco Drug Crimes Oxycodone defense database on Oxycontin and drug charges in Florida. Drug Crimes Data Base Click Here. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause in criminal cases and the possibility of drug charges being dropped or dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband. Casey reviews the Minimum Mandatory sentences that may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, a specialist who defends drug crimes in Pasco County, Florida.

Transcript: [Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day. You may be one of them. I spend most of my time defending cases in State and Federal Courts. Many times drug crimes arise from searches of motor vehicles. Sometimes police will stop a car and then search it. Sometimes we are able to attack these searches when police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the motor vehicle. In the event we can suppress the evidence, we may be able to have the drug charges dismissed, since there is no longer any evidence to be admitted against you in a criminal prosecution and evidence becomes unavailable for admission in a trial. I have arrived at my destination – one of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Criminal charges in State or federal Court? Let me help. Call me at (813) 222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you.[End of Pasco Oxycontin Defense Lawyer Narration]