In the state of Florida, Disorderly Conduct, also known as Breach of the Peace, is a criminal offense defined under § 877.03 of the Florida Statutes. To secure a conviction for this offense, the State must establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt, which vary based on the specifics of the case: (Defendant) committed an act or acts that (a) was (b) were of a nature that corrupted the public morals; or (c) outraged the sense of public decency; or (d) affected the peace and quiet of persons who witnessed the act or acts; or (e) engaged in brawling or fighting.

Iconic Disorderly Conduct Arrests Video

The flexibility of these elements allows for a broad range of behaviors to be considered Disorderly Conduct, ensuring that the law can be applied in various situations where public order and safety are threatened. It encompasses actions that disturb the peace, challenge public decency, or result in public disturbances through brawling or fighting.

Disorderly Conduct cases in Florida can lead to convictions that carry legal consequences, making it essential for both defendants and legal professionals to understand the intricacies of the law. There are some critical aspects and considerations related to Disorderly Conduct in Florida:

1. Constitutional Concerns:

The Disorderly Conduct statute in Florida can raise constitutional concerns, particularly when individuals claim that their actions constitute protected speech. In such cases, it may be necessary to provide a special instruction to the jury to ensure that individuals are not convicted for exercising their constitutional rights. This ensures that freedom of expression is upheld while still maintaining public order and safety, as established by the law. The case of Chandler v. State in 1999 highlighted the importance of this balance.

2. Self-Defense:

Defendants charged with Disorderly Conduct may have the option to assert self-defense as a legal defense, especially if they did not initiate a fight and acted to protect themselves from an attacker. This legal precedent was established in the case of S.D.G. v. State in 2006, where it was recognized that individuals have a right to defend themselves when facing aggression or harm. This provides a way for individuals to justify their actions in situations where they were forced to defend themselves or others.

3. Lesser Included Offense:

In the legal framework of Disorderly Conduct in Florida, there are no lesser included offenses defined in Category One or Category Two, as indicated by FLA. STAT. INS. NO. None. This means that the charges are relatively straightforward and do not have lesser offenses that can be used as alternatives.

Recent Changes:

It’s important to note that the current instruction for Disorderly Conduct in Florida was adopted in 2018, indicating the relevance and importance of keeping up with legal updates and changes in the law to ensure accurate legal representation.

In summary, Disorderly Conduct in Florida, as defined under § 877.03 of the Florida Statutes, encompasses a wide range of behaviors that disturb public peace, decency, and safety. While constitutional concerns and the potential for self-defense as a defense strategy are notable aspects, it’s crucial for individuals facing these charges and legal professionals to stay informed about any changes in the law to ensure a thorough understanding and effective representation in court.

Jury Instruction for Disorderly Conduct

29.5 [DISORDERLY CONDUCT] [BREACH OF THE PEACE]
§ 877.03, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of [Disorderly Conduct] [Breach of the Peace], the State must prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:

(Defendant)

Give a–d as applicable.

a) committed an act or acts that [was] [were] of a nature that corrupted the public morals; [or]

b) outraged the sense of public decency; [or].

c) affected the peace and quiet of persons who witnessed the act or acts; [or]

d) engaged in [brawling or fighting].

Comments

The statute often raises constitutional concerns. When a defendant claims that his or her conduct constituted protected speech, a special instruction will likely be necessary to ensure the jury does not convict a person for exercising a constitutional right. See Chandler v. State, 744 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

A defendant who does not initiate a fight and acts to protect himself from the attacker may assert self-defense to the charge of Disorderly Conduct. S.D.G. v. State, 919 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

This instruction was adopted in 2018.

Text of Chandler v State

CHANDLER v. STATE (1999)
District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.
Donna R. CHANDLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 98-3248, 98-3315.
Decided: September 17, 1999

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Steven H. Malone, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Donna R. Chandler appeals her conviction for disorderly conduct, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s refusal to permit defense counsel to question the venire and to instruct the jury regarding the First Amendment protections afforded her speech. We reject Chandler’s contention that she was entitled to a judgment of acquittal with respect to the disorderly conduct charge, but find merit in her other claims and reverse.

During the proceedings below, Donna Chandler was charged with battery of a law enforcement officer and disorderly conduct. These charges stemmed from Chandler’s alleged reaction to the arrest of her sister, Carmen Chandler, on February 26, 1998, at the Government Center in Palm Beach County. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, when officers attempted to arrest Carmen Chandler a struggle ensued and both Carmen Chandler and Detective Griffin, the arresting officer, wound up on the floor. According to Griffin, while on the floor struggling with Carmen, he heard a scream and the pounding of feet coming from behind him. He looked up and saw Donna Chandler running toward him. Before Donna Chandler could reach Griffin and her sister, however, another officer, Deputy Samuel, intercepted her. Samuel testified that, although he ordered Donna Chandler to stop, she continued toward him and, ultimately, crashed into him. According to Samuel, he ordered Donna Chandler to back away, but, despite his instructions, she continued flailing, struggling, and kicking in an attempt to get around him. During this physical struggle, Samuel testified that Chandler continued to scream and to shout things like “you’re not taking my sister” and “you don’t have a warrant.” The State also put on evidence that Chandler’s actions created a ruckus which was disruptive to the offices of the clerk of court. A jury found Chandler not guilty of battery of a law enforcement officer, but guilty of disorderly conduct. Chandler appeals that conviction.

Disorderly Conduct & Speech

The verbal conduct which can support a conviction for disorderly conduct pursuant to Florida Statutes section 877.03 has been severely curtailed by the Florida Supreme Court in order to prevent the statute from being found unconstitutionally over broad. In fact, following the supreme court’s opinion in State v. Saunders, 339 So.2d 641, 644 (Fla.1976), there are only two instances where words can amount to disorderly conduct: “fighting words” and “words like shouts of ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”

[W]e now limit the application of Section 877.03 so that it shall hereafter only apply either to words which “by their very utterance ․ inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” or to words, known to be false, reporting some physical hazard in circumstances where such a report creates a clear and present danger of bodily harm to others. We construe the statute so that no words except “fighting words” or words like shouts of “fire” in a crowded theatre fall within its proscription, in order to avoid the constitutional problem of overbreadth, and “the danger that a citizen will be punished as a criminal for exercising his right of free speech.” With these two exceptions, Section 877.03 should not be read to proscribe the use of language in any fashion whatsoever. To this extent, we modify our previous decisions construing the statute.

Id. (emphasis added) (citations and footnote omitted).

Requested Jury Instruction

Returning to the case presently before this court, defense counsel sought to have the following special instruction read to the jury:

However, verbal conduct is protected by the First Amendment. Mere words cannot amount to disorderly conduct unless they are fighting words or words, known to be false, reporting some physical hazard where such a report creates a clear and present danger of bodily harm to others, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

“Fighting words” are those which are likely to cause the average person to whom they are addressed to fight.

If in your consideration of the issue of protected speech you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether or not the defendant did nothing more than what is protected by the First Amendment, you must find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did more than what is protected by the First Amendment, you should find her guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The State objected and the trial court refused to read the instruction. “Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an instruction in the absence of a prejudicial error that would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Lewis v. State, 693 So.2d 1055, 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 700 So.2d 686 (Fla.1997). In the context of criminal cases, appellate courts have reviewed the trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction to determine “whether there was a reasonable possibility that the jury could have been misled by the failure to give that instruction.” Cronin v. State, 470 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Bowen v. State, 655 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We find that such a possibility exists in the instant case.

With respect to the disorderly conduct charge, the jury was instructed only as follows:

Before you can find the defendant guilty of disorderly conduct, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable [doubt], number one, that Donna R. Chandler committed an act; and two, the nature of that act was to affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engaged in brawling or fighting, or engaged in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace.

This instruction allows for the possibility that the jury convicted Chandler of disorderly conduct based solely on her screaming and shouting and the disruption which it apparently caused to some workers in the Government Center-a result clearly contrary to the dictates of Saunders, which holds that words can form the basis for a disorderly conduct conviction only where they are “fighting words” or “false [words] reporting some physical hazard.” See Saunders, 339 So.2d at 644. Simply yelling and screaming is insufficient. See, e.g., T.S.S. v. State, 696 So.2d 820, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that trial judge erred in failing to grant a m otion for judgment of acquittal on disorderly conduct charge where deputy testified that, although he could not hear what either T.S.S. or T.J. was saying in particular, they were “hoot[ing] and holler[ing] and carry[ing] on and scream[ing] at us” and did not testify that the boys said anything to incite the others at the party, which was being held behind an apartment building); L.A.T. v. State, 650 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(holding that defendant’s shouting in a Publix supermarket “Is everybody watching this, police brutality, ․ Rodney King style” and screaming and cursing at the top of his lungs was insufficient to support a conviction for disorderly conduct).

Voir Dire

Earlier in the trial, during voir dire, defense counsel attempted to question the jury regarding the First Amendment and the charge of disorderly conduct. Specifically, the following colloquy occurred:

Defense: Ms. Casserino, you know that Donna Chandler’s also accused of disorderly conduct. How do you feel about where words are the basis for disorderly conduct, do you-

State: Objection.

Court: Let me hear the question first, please.

Defense: Where words are alleged to be the basis for the disorderly conduct-you know, we all have a First Amendment right to speak. In fact, we can say very disturbing and upsetting things. If you hear that evidence that-what Ms. Chandler said was protected by the First Amendment, is that something that you would take into consideration?

State: Objection.

Court: Sustained. Counsel, move on to another line, please.

Chandler contends that it was error for the trial court to refusal to permit her lawyer to inquire of the jury regarding First Amendment protections. We agree.

[A] meaningful voir dire is critical to effectuating an accused’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair and impartial jury․ What is a meaningful voir dire which will satisfy the constitutional imperative of a fair and impartial jury depends on the issues in the case to be tried․ Thus, where a juror’s attitude about a particular legal doctrine (in the words of the trial court, “the law”) is essential to a determination of whether challenges for cause or peremptory challenges are to be made, it is well settled that the scope of the voir dire properly includes questions about and references to that legal doctrine even if stated in the form of hypothetical questions.

Lavado v. State, 469 So.2d 917, 919-20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Pearson, J., dissenting), quashed, 492 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1986)(adopting Judge Pearson’s dissent as the majority opinion of the supreme court). Here, the disorderly conduct charge was founded upon both Chandler’s act of screaming and shouting in a place of government business and her physical contact and struggle with police in a place of government business, and both theories were argued to the jury. Because Chandler’s words formed a basis for the disorderly conduct charge, First Amendment protections and limitations were relevant. Although defense counsel’s questions could have been more artfully crafted to avoid any claim that defense counsel was attempting to “pre-try” the factual issues in the case, defense counsel should have been permitted to inquire of the venire to ascertain whether potential jury members could, and would, apply the law regarding this issue if instructed to do so by the trial judge.

Conclusion

In sum, in light of the fact that defense counsel was denied the opportunity to question the venire regarding the First Amendment protections afforded speech and the possibility that, as instructed, the jury may have convicted Chandler of disorderly conduct based solely on her screaming and shouting, we reverse and remand for a new trial on count II, the disorderly conduct charge.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STEVENSON, J.

WARNER, C.J., and KREEGER, JUDITH L., Associate Judge, concur.

Full Text of SDG v State

S.D.G. v. State

Opinion
No. 5D05-2156.

February 3, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Flagler County, Sharon Atack, J.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert E. Wildridge, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

LAWSON, J.

S.D.G. timely appeals from an adjudication of delinquency that was withheld for the charge of disorderly conduct. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in rejecting her defense of self-defense. We agree and reverse.

While adjudication of delinquency on the charge of disorderly conduct against Appellant was withheld and while Appellant has most likely already completed her sentence of six months of probation, the order appealed is reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(B).

At trial, the State called only one witness, Officer John C. Murray, who had responded to a reported fight on January 8, 2005. Upon his arrival, Officer Murray observed a large crowd disbursing from the area where a fight had presumably taken place. When another altercation started outside of his view, Officer Murray moved toward the noise and found Appellant and another juvenile “locked together . . . grabbing hold of each other and fighting.” The officer instructed the two to separate “several times” to no avail. When his partner “tasered” the other juvenile, Appellant then immediately backed away.

The only other witnesses were called by the defense. These two witnesses testified that the other juvenile attacked the Appellant, who only fought back in self-defense. This testimony was uncontroverted. On this record, Appellant was found delinquent for disorderly conduct.

While section 877.03, Florida Statutes (2005), defines “disorderly conduct” to include “brawling or fighting,” self-defense is a defense to the charge “provided that the person charged did not provoke the fight.” D.M.L. v. State, 773 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Where a defendant did not initiate the fight, and was acting to protect herself from her attacker, the defense of self-defense applies. Id.

Once Appellant produced evidence supporting her claim of self-defense, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant’s actions were not taken in self-defense to sustain a finding of guilt. See, e.g., Hernandez Ramos v. State, 496 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because all of the evidence supported Appellant’s self-defense theory, the State’s proof of guilt was clearly insufficient as a matter of law. D.M.L., 773 So.2d at 1217.

The State attempts to distinguish D.M.L. by arguing that because there was evidence that Appellant and her assailant were exchanging “fighting words” during the altercation, the evidence of her verbal conduct should be sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt. A careful review of the record, however, reveals that the State’s sole witness “couldn’t tell . . . exactly who was hollering.” The only defense witness who was asked, testified that it was Appellant’s assailant who was “yelling” and “screaming.” Therefore, there was no evidence that Appellant created a disturbance with her words.

Even if there was record evidence of “yelling” by Appellant, we would be unwilling to hold that an individual must defend herself silently in order to prevail on a theory of self-defense.

The State also argues that the trial court’s finding is supported by Appellant’s failure to immediately withdraw from the altercation upon Officer Murray’s command. However, it is not clear from the evidence that Appellant heard the command or that she could have safely withdrawn prior to the disabling of her assailant. Therefore, even if the failure to respond to an officer’s command to withdraw from a fight undertaken in self-defense could constitute disorderly conduct under some circumstances, the finding of guilt clearly cannot be sustained on this record.

We reverse and remand with directions to discharge Appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, W., and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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

The Gasparilla Pirate Festival, also known as the Gasparilla Pirate Invasion, is an annual event that takes place in Tampa, Florida. The festival is known for its pirate-themed parade and festivities, which attract thousands of people from all over the country. However, with such a large crowd and an abundance of alcohol, it’s not uncommon for people to get arrested at the event. In this article, we will discuss the number of arrests that occur at the Gasparilla Pirate Festival and the reasons behind them.

Arrest Numbers at the Gasparilla Pirate Festival

According to data from the Tampa Police Department, in 2019, a total of 57 people were arrested at the event. (Source: Tampa Police Department)

In 2020, police arrested 69 people during the parade and related events. (Source: Tampa Police Department)

Common Reasons for Arrests

• Alcohol-related offenses, such as disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, and possession of open containers of alcohol.
• Disorderly conduct, such as fights or other altercations.
• Possession of illegal drugs.

The Role of Law Enforcement at the Gasparilla Pirate Festival

The Tampa Police Department and other law enforcement agencies are responsible for maintaining order at the Gasparilla Pirate Festival. They enforce laws and regulations and make arrests when necessary to keep the event safe for everyone. A strong police presence is established at the festival to deter criminal activity and quickly address any issues that may arise.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the number of arrests made at the Gasparilla Pirate Festival varies from year to year, but it’s not uncommon for people to get arrested. The most common reasons for arrests at the festival are related to alcohol, disorderly conduct, and drugs. The Tampa Police Department and other law enforcement agencies are responsible for maintaining order at the event and make arrests when necessary. It’s important to remember that the goal is to have a good time, but also to be aware of the laws and regulations to avoid getting arrested. Familiarize yourself with the local laws and regulations, be aware of your surroundings, drink responsibly, respect the police and other authority figures, don’t bring prohibited items and know your rights. With these tips in mind, you can enjoy the Gasparilla Pirate Fest safely and responsibly.

This information was generated using assistive intelligence technology AI.

Street Racing “the operation of two or more motor vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other”

A Brief History of Street Racing

In light of the tragedy that occurred in Tampa as reported by the Saint Petersburg Times, We will review the history of street racing and law enforcement in Tampa Bay. Two drivers and a passenger face criminal street racing and homicide charges for killing a mother who was pushing her baby across the street.

Of the 130 ways you can go to jail for Criminal Traffic charges in Tampa, unlawful racing on the highway is one of them. Some jurisdictions have destroyed race cars used in street races and one Court in Florida has even chosen to declare the drag racing statute unconstitutional.

Drag racing on Gandy Boulevard, specifically on the bridge has been a Troublesome area for law enforcement in Tampa. Racers gather at 4th Street in Pinellas County and Stage there street races on Gandy Boulevard. When the racers exit the bridge they are in Hillsborough County and police attempt to stop cars involved in allegations of drag racing.

Prison for street racing has been imposed by courts in Tampa where a death has been involved. Sometimes police who do not witness the actual crash used video cameras from surrounding buildings to reconstruct what has occurred.

The Courtney Campbell Parkway has been the site of Street Racing incidents in the past years.

Usually police impose charges for misdemeanor racing. Those charges can result in an arrest and we have provided the racing statute Below in its entirety. Police have even given parking tickets to spectators for watching street racing.

The essence of a drag race is a competitive attempt to outdistance another vehicle. Sometimes that is difficult to prove. The police must establish that in fact what was underway what was a race. There is no requirement rent there is no requirement for a predetermined course just that the court or jury can reasonably interpret the driving event to be a race.

Spectators Can also be charged since it is an affirmative choice to attend or participate in the race. Courts are to look at the relationship between the race driver and the individual. Gambling or betting on the outcome of a race can be used to establish That a spectator was criminally involved in a race.

Vehicles used in street races can be forfeited by the state if the driver has been convicted within the past 5 years for street racing.

There are 130 ways to go to jail for traffic charges in Tampa. dui2go.com/130-ways-to-go-to-jail-in-traffic-court-florida-criminal-traffic-charges-complete-list/

Seizure and Destruction of Street Race Cars

Florida and California have seizure laws for street race cars. When the whoosh went out of the tires the street racer sighed, as glass exploded and rained down it all became real – the cops had crushed his car. The destruction was part of a smackdown on illegal street racing in Southern California. Cops crushed six race cars. A 350-horsepower 4 cylinder engine on which the racer spent at least $10,000 to get into top shape. The car would top out at 160 mph, the racer said, swearing it could beat a Corvette or even a Ferrari.

Prior Street Racing Cases in Florida

Drag Racing Statute Unconstitutional

Catching Street Racers just got a little tougher. Cops lost a valuable tool in the war on wheels. The street racing statute is unconstitutional according to the Fourth District Court of Appeals.

The court cleared a Broward teen who was driving 130 mph in a 65 mph zone. Officers couldn’t determine who was racing, and who was just passing another car that was also speeding. “You could have two people driving down the turnpike next to each other at the same rate of speed, and based on the way the statute is written, this is what the court said, that they both could be charged with drag racing,” says Elizabeth Parker with the State Attorney’s office.

70-people have been busted for drag racing in Palm Beach County in the last year. The penalties are harsh – Up to a year in jail and an automatic license suspension.

Drag Racing on Gandy Boulevard

Living around the Fourth Street/Gandy area is a drag for residents who adore peace and quiet. Drag racing in the area has been going on forever. Someone recently wrote the Saint Petersburg Times, “This stretch of road, from the Gandy/Roosevelt/Fourth Street intersection down to the Howard Frankland Bridge turnoff, has become a speedway. My safety concern is not only personal, but for the numerous families with children who live in the area.”

Cars regularly reach speeds well over 80 mph on Fourth Street N and drag racing on the weekends that starts on Friday and Saturday nights about midnight and goes until 2 or 3 a.m. “Cars with amplified motors and mufflers meet near the 7-Eleven at 115th Avenue and Fourth Street and drag race down the stretch of road and turn around at the last U-turn before the Gandy bridge. They often use the 7-Eleven as a turnaround as well,” a witness said.

The Pinellas County Sheriff”s Office said law enforcement is stymied by an organized underground group determined to break the law and evade police. One Deputy said, “Part of what makes it difficult is that the racers use the same technology we have. They use lookouts and radios and cell phones to communicate . . . We have undercover people in the crowd with cameras, documenting the crowds that gather there and we sometimes catch the spectators and have issued citations, but the citations have been dismissed by traffic court judges.”

Prison for Street Racing

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney notes in a case where someone else was the defense attorney – Street racing in a Nissan 350Z, plus death of a bystander, plus a jury conviction equals vehicular homicide, reckless driving and unlawful racing, plus at least 15 years in prison.

As for the other racer – leaving the scene of the accident, plus testimony at the 350Z trial (to avoid a 30-year sentence) equals three years in prison.

The bystanders were making a U-turn when the 350Z slammed into them, according to published reports. Traffic Homicide investigators estimated speed at over 100 in a 45 mph zone. The defensee argued that what happened was nothing but a tragic accident. In a twist, the St Pete Times reported that “Prosecutors used video surveillance from a carwash . . . that captured the two cars racing.”

Tampa Street Racers and Spectators Need Lawyer

Tampa Traffic Lawyer notes an area cops cracked down on street racers and fans along Fourth Street N. Everyone began a dash for their cars when cops came down the I-275 interstate ramp. Cops blocked off the street to prevent escaping to I-275 or Gandy Blvd. Another target for traffic law enforcement is the Courtney Campbell Parkway.

The stretch of Fourth from I-275 to the Inlet Bay at Gateway apartment complex is flat and straight, four lanes surrounded by nothing but grass and water.

Earlier officers have arrested four people on misdemeanor racing charges. Cops videotaped license plates of racers and fans alike. A few days later, 130 drivers got $30 parking tickets in the mail. It’s now clear that fans are targets too. A $151 ticket and three points can be placed against a driver’s license. According to the media, the last ticket was written at 4:40 a.m. 31/2 hours, 221 citations, and a DUI arrest.

Tampa Street Racing Defense Attorney Penalties

Definitions of Street Racing in Florida:

(a) “Conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

(b) “Drag race” means the operation of two or more motor vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other, or the operation of one or more motor vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, for the purpose of comparing the relative speeds or power of acceleration of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles within a certain distance or time limit.

(c) “Race” means the use of one or more motor vehicles in competition, arising from a challenge to demonstrate superiority of a motor vehicle or driver and the acceptance or competitive response to that challenge, either through a prior arrangement or in immediate response, in which the competitor attempts to outgain or outdistance another motor vehicle, to prevent another motor vehicle from passing, to arrive at a given destination ahead of another motor vehicle or motor vehicles, or to test the physical stamina or endurance of drivers over long-distance driving routes. A race may be prearranged or may occur through a competitive response to conduct on the part of one or more drivers which, under the totality of the circumstances, can reasonably be interpreted as a challenge to race.

(d) “Spectator” means any person who is knowingly present at and views a drag race, when such presence is the result of an affirmative choice to attend or participate in the race. For purposes of determining whether or not an individual is a spectator, finders of fact shall consider the relationship between the racer and the individual, evidence of gambling or betting on the outcome of the race, and any other factor that would tend to show knowing attendance or participation.

(2)(a) A person may not:

1. Drive any motor vehicle, including any motorcycle, in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, or exhibition of speed or acceleration or for the purpose of making a speed record on any highway, roadway, or parking lot;

2. In any manner participate in, coordinate, facilitate, or collect moneys at any location for any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition;

3. Knowingly ride as a passenger in any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition; or

4. Purposefully cause the movement of traffic to slow or stop for any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition.

Penalties Under Florida Law

Any person who violates any provision of this paragraph commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Any person who violates any provision of this paragraph shall pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000, and the department shall revoke the driver license of a person so convicted for 1 year. A hearing may be requested pursuant to s. 322.271.

(b) Any person who violates paragraph (a) within 5 years after the date of a prior violation that resulted in a conviction for a violation of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, and shall pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. The department shall also revoke the driver license of that person for 2 years. A hearing may be requested pursuant to s. 322.271.

(c) In any case charging a violation of paragraph (a), the court shall be provided a copy of the driving record of the person charged and may obtain any records from any other source to determine if one or more prior convictions of the person for violation of paragraph (a) have occurred within 5 years prior to the charged offense.

(3)(a) A person may not be a spectator at any drag race prohibited under subsection (2).

(b) A person who violates the provisions of paragraph (a) commits a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

(4) Whenever a law enforcement officer determines that a person was engaged in a drag race or race, as described in subsection (1), the officer may immediately arrest and take such person into custody. The court may enter an order of impoundment or immobilization as a condition of incarceration or probation. Within 7 business days after the date the court issues the order of impoundment or immobilization, the clerk of the court must send notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the registered owner of the motor vehicle, if the registered owner is a person other than the defendant, and to each person of record claiming a lien against the motor vehicle.

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the impounding agency shall release a motor vehicle under the conditions provided in s. 316.193(6)(e), (f), (g), and (h), if the owner or agent presents a valid driver license at the time of pickup of the motor vehicle.

(b) All costs and fees for the impoundment or immobilization, including the cost of notification, must be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased or rented, by the person leasing or renting the motor vehicle, unless the impoundment or immobilization order is dismissed. All provisions of s. 713.78 shall apply.

(c) Any motor vehicle used in violation of subsection (2) may be impounded for a period of 30 business days if a law enforcement officer has arrested and taken a person into custody pursuant to this subsection and the person being arrested is the registered owner or coowner of the motor vehicle. If the arresting officer finds that the criteria of this paragraph are met, the officer may immediately impound the motor vehicle. The law enforcement officer shall notify the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of any impoundment for violation of this subsection in accordance with procedures established by the department. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be applicable to such impoundment.

Lose Your Ride | Vehicle May Be Forfeited 316.191 Racing on Highways

(5) Any motor vehicle used in violation of subsection (2) by any person within 5 years after the date of a prior conviction of that person for a violation under subsection (2) may be seized and forfeited as provided by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. This subsection shall only be applicable if the owner of the motor vehicle is the person charged with violation of subsection (2).

(6) This section does not apply to licensed or duly authorized racetracks, drag strips, or other designated areas set aside by proper authorities for such purposes.

Previous Coverage:

Cops Crush Street Racer Cars

Jun 21, 2007

When the whoosh went out of the tires the street racer sighed, as glass exploded and rained down it all became real – the cops had crushed his car. The destruction was part of a smackdown on illegal street racing …

Tampa Street Racers and Spectators Need Lawyer

Tampa StPetersburg Pinellas Hillsborough Street Racing Tampa Traffic Attorney, Lawyer notes that area cops cracked down on street racers and fans along Fourth Street N. Everyone began a dash for their cars when cops came down the I-275 …

Racing on Gandy Boulevard

Living around the Fourth Street/Gandy area is a drag for residents who adore peace and quiet. Drag racing in the area has been going on forever. Someone recently wrote the Saint Petersburg Times, “This stretch of road, …

Street Racing Attorney Lawyer

“Chase terminated . . . call the Coroner.”

After an alleged rampage in our Tampa Palms neighborhood, great pursuit driving by a Tampa Police Officer, pulled a Pit maneuver, the car skidded into a ditch, and the gunfire starts in this aerial video from the helicopter. Chase terminated, call the ambulance, and call the Coroner.

Crime Maps

“check your neighborhood and see if it is safe to go outside.”

Keeping score is now possible for Police. Statistics are kept for Traffic Cameras, Government Grant Applications, and to Justify or disprove profiling allegations. Our research has noted that the public information available from the crime mapping systems below is just the tip of the iceberg. Police agencies do not disclose statistics for some crimes while touting the numbers for others. For example, one local agency with a huge public relations nightmare for DUI enforcement, has chosen not to map DUI statistics see: Tampa. Other agencies may not list certain crimes or activities for reasons unbeknownst to the public.

Here Are Crime Mapping Local Links.

You Can Check Your Neighborhood and See if It Is Safe to Go Outside.

Hillsborough

Pinellas

Docs vs Glocks

After years of court battles on Doctors, Free Speech, and Guns in Florida, the Second highest court in the land has ruled in the Docs Versus Glocks case.

“The Second Amendment provides that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Florida legislature passed a law limiting what doctors can discuss with patients regarding firearms. The law that limited doctors questions about guns is constitutional. The law is complex, so excerpts from the court opinion are below. The complete opinion is here:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/

Case Excerpts

“Having concluded that the Case: 12-14009 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Page: 80 of 82 81 Act does not offend either the First or the Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, we must uphold it.”

“[W]e hold that the District Court erred by concluding that the Act violates the First Amendment. The Act withstands strict scrutiny as a permissible restriction of speech.”

Second Amendment Gun Rights

“The Second Amendment provides that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. It is now undisputed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

“The State of Florida asserts four compelling interests: (1) protection of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; (2) protection of patients’ privacy rights; (3) elimination of barriers to healthcare access; and (4) prevention of discrimination and harassment of firearm owners.”

“When the State seeks to impose content-based restrictions on speech in a context in which its regulatory interests are diminished, such as when a professional speaks to the public in a nonprofessional capacity, courts apply the most exacting scrutiny.”

“The inquiry provision of the Act, § 790.338(2), requires physicians to “refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm . . . .” On its face, this provision also inhibits protected speech—inquiring about firearm ownership. It too must survive some level of First Amendment scrutiny.”

Court Rules in Docs Versus Glocks

“To summarize, we read the Act to prohibit record-keeping about firearm ownership only when the physician knows such information to be irrelevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others; inquiry about firearm ownership only when the physician lacks a good-faith belief that the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others; and harassment about firearm ownership only when the physician does not believe it necessary for the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”

“Having determined that the record-keeping, inquiry, and harassment provisions are of sufficient clarity to conform to the requirements of due process, we hold that the District Court erred in holding them void for vagueness”

“The Act provides, in relevant part, that licensed healthcare practitioners and facilities (1) “may not intentionally enter” information concerning a patient’s ownership of firearms into the patient’s medical record that the practitioner knows is “not relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others,” id. § 790.338(1); (2) “shall respect a patient’s right to privacy and should refrain” from inquiring as to whether a patient or their family owns firearms, unless the practitioner or facility believes in good faith that the “information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others,” id. § 790.338(2); (3) “may not discriminate” against a patient on the basis of firearm ownership, id. § 790.338(5); and (4) “should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership,” id. § 790.338(6).”

“[I]n a widely publicized incident that took place in Ocala, Florida, a pediatrician, during a routine visit, asked a patient’s mother whether she kept any firearms in her home. Because she felt that the question constituted an invasion of her privacy, the mother refused to answer. The pediatrician then terminated their relationship and advised the mother that she had 30 days to find a new doctor. Fla. H.R. Comm. on Health & Human Servs., H.B. 155 (2011) Staff Analysis 2 (Apr. 7, 2011); see also Fred Hiers, Family and pediatrician tangle over gun question, Ocala StarBanner, July 24, 2010, https://www.ocala.com/article/20100724/articles/7241001”

“On June 2, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the Act into law. The Act created Fla. Stat. § 790.338, entitled “Medical privacy concerning firearms; prohibitions; penalties; exceptions,” and amended the Florida Patient’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, Fla. Stat. § 381.026, to include several of the same provisions. The Act also amended Fla. Stat. § 456.072, entitled “Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement,” to provide for disciplinary measures for violation of the Act.”

“On June 6, 2011, four days after Governor Scott signed the Act into law, Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the inquiry, record-keeping, discrimination, and harassment provisions of the Act facially violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs contended that the Act imposes an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on speech, is overbroad, and is unconstitutionally vague.”

“The Act seeks to protect patient privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians on the sensitive issue of firearm ownership and by prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of firearm ownership. The Act does not prevent physicians from speaking with patients about firearms generally. Nor does it prohibit specific inquiry or record-keeping about a patient’s firearm-ownership status when the physician determines in good faith, based on the circumstances of that patient’s case, that such information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”

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.”

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

Gasparilla Piratefest Live Stream from Helicopter Saturday Morning!

“electronic devices will be removed from all members of a jury panel before jury deliberations begin”

Jurors and Cell Phones

In a mere 43 pages, the Florida Supreme Court has told judges, civil, and criminal defense lawyers how to address widespread use of electronic devices by jurors in courts. We now have guidance on what is meant by turning off these devices. There are very specific instructions to be given during trials. The instructions now tell jurors what to do with computers, tablets, and cell phones during breaks and recesses. Jurors also receive an explanation of why they are to be disconnected with the outside world during jury service.

What Has Florida Told Lawyers and Judges About Use of Electronics by Jurors?

“The rule provides that electronic devices will be removed from all members of a jury panel before jury deliberations begin.  The presiding judge may remove the jurors’ electronic devices at other stages of the trial.  If electronic devices are removed from members of the jury panel during trial, the judge may order them returned during recesses.  If a jury panel is sequestered, the judge may decide whether to remove electronic devices during the entire period of sequestration.  The rule also makes clear that during court proceedings, jurors cannot use their electronic devices to take photos or videos, or to transmit or access data or text.  At all times, jurors are prohibited from using the devices to research information about the case or to communicate with others about the case or jury deliberations.”

What Does the Court Mean When Jurors Are Told to Turn off Electronic Devices?

“All cell phones, computers, tablets or other types of electronic devices must be turned off while you are in the courtroom. Turned off means that the phone or other electronic device is actually off and not in a silent or vibrating mode.”

What Are Jurors Told About Use of Electronics in Court?

“Many of you have electronic devices such as cell phones, smartphones, tablets, and laptops, computers, and other electronic devices.  Even though you have not yet been selected as a juror, there are some strict rules that you must follow about using your cell phones, electronic devices and computers.”

“When you are called to a courtroom, the judge will give you specific instructions on the use of electronic devices.  These rules are so important that the judge may tell you that you must turn off your cell phone or other electronic devices completely or that you cannot have your cell phone or electronic devices in the courtroom.  If someone needs to contact you in case of an emergency, the judge will provide you with a phone number where you can receive messages.”

“If the trial judge allows you to keep your cell phones, computers, or other electronic devices, you cannot use them to take photographs, video recordings, or audio recordings of the proceedings in the courtroom or your fellow jurors.  You must not use the many device to search the Internet or to find out anything related to any cases in the courthouse.”

Why Are Jurors Told to Log off of Cell Phones, Smartphones, Tablets, and Laptops, Computers, and Other Electronic Devices?

“Why is this restriction imposed?  This restriction is imposed because jurors must decide the case without distraction and only on the evidence presented in the courtroom.  I know that, for some of you, these restrictions affect your normal daily activities and may require a change in the way you are used to communicating and perhaps even in the way you are used to learning.”

“If you investigate, research, or make inquiries on your own, the trial judge has no way to make sure that the information you obtain is proper for the case.  The parties likewise have no opportunity to dispute or challenge the accuracy of what you find.  Any independent investigation by a juror unfairly and improperly prevents the parties from having that opportunity our judicial system promises.”

“Between now and when you have been discharged from jury duty by the judge, you must not provide or receive / discuss any information about your jury service to / with anyone, including friends, co-workers, and family members. You may tell those who need to know where you are that you have been called for jury duty. If you are picked for a jury, you may tell people that you have been picked for a jury and how long the case may take. However, you must not give anyone any information about the case itself or the people involved in the case. You must also warn people not to try to say anything to you or write to you about your jury service or the case. This includes face-to-face, phone or computer communications.”

“In this age of electronic communication,I want to stress that you must not use electronic devices or computers to talk about this case, including tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a website or chat room, or any other means at all.  Do not send or accept any messages, including e-mail and text messages, about your jury service. You must not disclose your thoughts about your jury service or ask for advice on how to decide any case.”

“After you are called to the courtroom, the judge will give you specific instructions about these matters.  The / A judge will tell you when you are released from this instruction.  Remember, these rules are designed to guarantee a fair trial.  It is important that you understand the rules as well as the impact on our system of justice if you fail to follow them.  If it is determined that any one of you has violated this rule, and conducted any type of independent research or investigation, it may result in a mistrial.  A mistrial would require the case to be tried again at great expense to the parties and the judicial system. The judge may also impose a penalty upon any juror who violates this instruction.  All of us are depending on you to follow these rules, so that there will be a fair and lawful resolution of every case. “

What Happens With Electronics When Jurors Take a Break or Recess?

“We are about to take [our first] [a] recess. Remember that all of the rules I have given you apply even when you are outside the courtroom, such as at recess. “

“Remember the basic rule:  Do not talk to anyone, including your fellow jurors, friends, family or co-workers about anything having to do with this trial, except to speak to court staff.  This means no e-mailing, text messaging, tweeting, blogging, or any other form of communication.”

“You cannot do any research about the case or look up any information about the case.  Remember to observe during our recess the other rules I gave you. If you become aware of any violation of any of these rules at all, notify court personnel of the violation.”

“After each recess, please double check to make sure [that your cell phone or other electronic device is turned off completely] [that you do not bring your cell phone or other electronic device into the courtroom or jury room].”

The too-pretty-for-prison teacher, Debra LaFave was released from probation early by today’s ruling in the Florida Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the state attorney could not appeal the trial court’s order terminating the probation, even though the no prison plea agreement provided that her probation was not to be terminated early.The Florida Supreme Court said:

Early Termination of Probation

“Six years into her ten-year nonprison sentence, LaFave unabashedly sought early termination of her probation in 2011 in direct violation of her plea agreement. She asked the circuit court to terminate her sex offender probation four years early. On October 3, 2011, over objections from both the state attorney and the Department of Corrections [(DOC)], the circuit court granted her motion and terminated her probation as requested. ““We answer the certified question in the negative and find that the State did not have the right to petition the district court [to appeal the decision] for certiorari review in this case.”Complete Decision Here:

floridasupremecourt.org

We have hundreds of pages of information on Technology, Cybercrime, Federal Fraud claims and recent developments in Federal Courts and News. Search Centrallaw.com. Search results appear in a new tab.

Search our other federal database for free by entering your search terms below.

Search results appear in a new tab.

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney
(813) 222-2220

Prosecutor Wants New Judge in Aaron Hernandez Murder Trial – Prosecutor has filed a Motion and stated they want a different Judge based upon some past history the prosecuting attorney’s office had with the Judge. The attorney for the Commonwealth tried to discuss the matter at sidebar, a tactic that would attempt to keep the allegations out of the public view.In an unusual twist, ESPN broadcast the hearing live. The court spent a substantial portion of the hearing warning lawyers of the penalties associated with making media statements that have no legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Criminal Defense experts agree that when the stakes are high, in a death penalty case, a Judge has to be extremely careful. 10, 15, or 20 years later when the ultimate price is to be paid the courts will be very careful to avoid executing someone who has not received a fair trial.

Judge William Fuente granted a mistrial in a high profile murder case where the alleged victim was a baby tossed from a moving car onto an Interstate highway in Tampa, Florida.“The jurors heard testimony they should not have heard under any circumstances. In this court’s conclusion, a mistrial is necessary,” Fuente said Tuesday morning. One juror was interviewed in the video clip below.

Radio Interview Clip

970wfla.com

In this case, the witness, the alleged victim’s mother, brought into at least one juror’s mind the concept of premeditation. Premeditation is a essential element of a death penalty case under Florida criminal law. The statement was excluded during pretrial litigation. Judge Fuente’s ruling was spot-on. This is not the first time that Judge Fuente has been faced with issues that caused a mistrial in a high-profile case.

Recently, a juror had Googled a subject during the course of a trial. That caused Judge Fuente to declare a mistrial and to take action against the Juror. In another recent case, an emotional witness screamed out in front of the jury and the jury heard information that was not admissible. Judge Fuente had to grant another mistrial

It is not uncommon for lawyers to instruct Witnesses not to discuss certain matters that have already been decided by the court before the trial. In this case, I understand the prosecutor did not instruct the witness not to speak of certain matters. Consequently, the case will be tried again later this year.Defense attorneys frequently must move for a mistrial when improper information has been in front of the jury. This is due to the general rule that the failure to allow the judge to correct a problem that has come before the jury during the trial renders that issue non-reviewable by an appeals court later on in the proceedings.

Judge William Fuente – Biography

Judge William Fuente was born in Key West, Fla. on May 21, 1945. He received his B.A. degree (in Biology) from the University of South Florida in 1974 and his J.D. degree from the South Texas College of Law in 1976. He also served in the U.S. Navy from 1967 to 1971.

Judge Fuente began his career in 1980 as an Assistant State Attorney, and was also in private practice lawyer until he was appointed to the Hillsborough County Court in 1994. In 1997, he was elevated to the Circuit Court. He has also taught as an adjunct professor at Stetson University College of Law.

Sources:

judgepedia.org

blogs.lawyers.com

tampabay.com

tampa.cbslocal.com

Excerpts from Special Agent’s Affidavit:

“I submit this affidavit in support of an application for a complaint charging DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV with (1) unlawfully using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (namely, an improvised explosive device) against persons and property within the United States …”

“I have reviewed videotape footage taken from a seculity camcra located on Boylston Street near the corner of Boylston and Gloucester Streets. At approximately 2:38 p.m. (based on the video’s duration and timing of the explosions) — i.e., approximately 1 I minutes before the first explosion –two young men can be seen turning left (eastward) onto Uoylsion from Gloucester Street. Both men are carrying large knapsacks.”

“Approximately 30 seconds before the first explosion, he lifts his phone to his ear as if he is speaking on his cell phone, and keeps it there for approximately 18 seconds. A few seconds afler he finishes the call, the large crowd of people around him can be seen reacting to the first explosion. Virtually every head turns to the east (towards the finish line) and stares in that direction in apparent bewilderment and alarm. Bomber

Two, virtually alone among the individuals in front of’the restaurant, appears calm.”

“In addition, from the scene of the shootout on Laurel Street in Watertown, the FBI has recovered two unexploded IEDs, as well as the remnants of numerous exploded IEDs.”

“The remnants of at least one of the exploded IEDs at the scene of the shootout indicate that a low-grade explosive had been contained in a pressure cooker. The pressure cooker was of the same brand as the ones used in the Marathon explosions. The explosive also contained metallic BBs contained within an adhesive material as well as green-colored hobby fuse. The intact low-grade explosive device found in the abandoned car was in a plastic container and wrapped with green-colored hobby fuse.”

“On April 21, 2013, the FBI searched DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV’s dormitory room at 7341 Pine Dale Hall at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, pursuant to a search warrant. The FBI seized from his room, among other things, a large pyrotechnic, a black jacket and a white hat of the same general  appearance as those worn by Bomber Two at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, and BBs.”

“Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to believe that on or about April 15, 2013, DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV violated 18 U.S.C. $5 2332a (using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction, resulting in death) and 844(i) (malicious destruction of property by means of an explosive devicc, resulting in death). Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court issue a complaint charging DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV with those crimes. Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation”

Federal Criminal Prosecutions are up for 2012 in the Middle District of Florida says a United States Department of Justice report. USDOJ national statistics reveal in 2012, there were 84,307 criminal filings in the nation. In the Middle District of Florida for 2012 there were 1,505 Filings and 2011 had 1,290 filings.

Sadly, drug cases, including marijuana, remained by far the largest category with 593 of the 1505 total (39%) cases. The next largest number of case filings – Immigration (241 cases) (16%) , then Fraud offenses right behind it at 227 (15%) ; Firearms (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms – ATF) Gun cases were next at 171 filings (11%). In the 11th Circuit there were 2,064 criminal appeals filed in 2012 compared to 1,433 filed in 2011.

911 Recording Violates Wiretap Statute

Florida Criminal Defense Attorney notes that a call from a 911  dispatcher TO a crime scene violated the Florida Wiretap Statute “section 934.03(2)(g)2, which the court broadly construed to allow an emergency agency to intercept and record  any  wire communication in order to acquire necessary information to render aid and assistance.” Complete Opinion Follows:

911 Recording Violates Wiretap Statute

Case Excerpts:

“On January 17, 2010, a dispatcher with the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, received a 911 call from a woman reporting a disturbance occurring at her daughter’s house next door.  The woman gave the dispatcher the telephone number for that residence, and the dispatcher called the number to see if anyone there needed police assistance.  After the line was answered, the dispatcher heard screaming and yelling in the background.  No one said anything on the line; the line was simply open, and the dispatcher could hear a male threaten to shoot everyone in the house and himself.  This call was recorded.”

“Section 934.03 prohibits the intentional interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications without the parties’ consent or court authorization.  However, an employee of an agency operating an emergency 911 system may lawfully intercept and record incoming wire communications on designated “911” telephone numbers and published nonemergency telephone numbers staffed by trained dispatchers at public safety answering points only.  It is also lawful for such employee to intercept and record outgoing wire communications to the numbers from which such incoming wire communications were placed when necessary to obtain information required to provide the emergency services being requested.”

§ 934.03(2)(g)2, Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added)

“[T]he trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress an audio recording made by a 911 dispatcher ….”

911 Call in Your Case? Call (813) 222-2220

Presidential Pardons are at 22 and counting under President Barack Obama as of November 2011. A Tampa Bay, Florida residentbenefitedfrom a “presidential pardon this week [and] called his earlier felony a “youthful indiscretion” that happened after he got mixed up in the wrong crowd.”

Florida Update 2020

Florida Clemency Board Blocks Pardons

As of July, 2020, “On July 1, there were 24,400 people waiting for a hearing before the Clemency Board. Wednesday’s agenda had just 82 cases.”

wcjb.com

As of August 2020, the clemency board had a backlog of more than 24,000 cases.

news.wfsu.org/state-news/

Pardon vs. Seal | Expunge

According to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) “[w]hile a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction.

Free Florida Sealing and Expunge Web App

We have place a freeFlorida Sealing and Expunge Web App on SealMyFile.com. Check and See If You Are Eligible To Have Your Record Sealed Or Expunged. The contact The Law Office of Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. at (813) 222-2220.

Presidential Pardon Requirements

Federal Offense Only

“Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. ” Furthermore,“if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit [a Presidential Pardon] petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. ”

Five Year Waiting Period

“Under the Department’s rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. “

Application Tip:

When completing the application, “you should state the specific purpose for which you are seeking pardon and, if applicable, attach any relevant documentary evidence that indicates how a pardon will help you accomplish that purpose (such as citations to applicable provisions of state constitutions, statutes, or regulations, or copies of letters from appropriate officials of administrative agencies, professional associations, licensing authorities, etc.). In addition, you should bear in mind that a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. ”

USDOJ Has Penalty for False Statements

“The failure to fully and accurately complete the application form may be construed as a falsification of the petition, which may provide a reason for denying your petition. In addition, the knowing and willful falsification of a document submitted to the government may subject you to criminal punishment, including up to five years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 3571.”

Source:

tampabay.com

justice.gov

Pardon? Seal? Expunge? Call (813) 222-2220

Gibson Guitars and The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Gibson Search Warrant? Feds with nothing better to do spent a lot of time and money drafting this Affidavit for Search Warrant. Somehow, I don’t feel any safer.

UPDATE: “Gibson, fearing a bankrupting legal battle, settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to the U.S. Government. It also agreed to make a “community service payment” of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to be used on research projects or tree-conservation activities. The feds in return agreed to let Gibson resume importing wood while they sought “clarification” from India.” According to Investor’s Business Daily.

Jump to End of Article to see Previous Federal Guitar-related Prosecutions.

Gibson Search Warrant Excerpts:

“The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(B)(iii), makes it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant taken, possessed, transported or sold, in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants. Section 3371 defines the term plant and plants to mean any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof, and including trees from either natural or planted forest stands.

8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 545, makes it unlawful for anyone to knowingly import or bring into the United States any merchandise contrary to law, or to receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law.

9. Countries generally establish laws and regulations related to the harvest (logging) and export of wood, timber or plants (forest products) in order to manage natural resources and regulate the commercialization of their nation’s natural resources.

10. The international community uses an “International Tariff Code” system or ITC, also known as the “Harmonized Schedule” or HS, to simplify international trade in commodities including plants and plant products. Most relevant to this case is HS Code 4407, “Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded, or end jointed, or a thickness exceeding 6mm.” India prohibits the export of products classified under HS Code 4407 for all plant species harvested in India, without exception.”

“14. Guitar bodies utilize veneers of various wood species. Veneers are typically large pieces of uniformly cut thin sheets of wood, defined by the harmonized tariff codes under the HS series 4408. Veneers are defined as being less than 6mm thick” 

“The plant product imported was “Ebony fingerboards for guitars: Diospyros ebenum, harvested in India”. The final consignee was declared as GIBSON GUITAR, 641 Massman Dr, TN, with Herb Jenkins listed as the point of contact.”

“34. According to Matthews, since January 2010, GIBSON CUSTOM has used only Indian rosewood. Eugene Nix initially receives and inspects all the GIBSON CUSTOM rosewood and ebony upon import. Nix then kiln dries the wood andlor conditions the rosewood and ebony to prepare it for the manufacturing process. The rosewood and ebony is then shipped to GIBSON CUSTOM from the GIBSON ELECTRIC facilities when it is ready. Gibson purchasing managers are responsible for the order placement and purchase of specific species of sawn wood from selected venders. The following GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION employees are responsible for the sourcing and procurement of rosewood and ebony for manufacturing at the different GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION Divisions . . . .”

“31. SA Seiler conducted an interview with GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION employee, Eugene Nix, on November 17, 2009. Nix is the wood products engineer for GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION and is responsible for sourcing types and species of wood for manufacturing use by GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION. In addition, Nix is responsible for inspection of the imported wood to evaluate its condition, properties, and quality. Nix also accomplished all kiln drying for imported wood received at the GIBSON ELECTRIC manufacturing facility in Nashville, Tennessee, including rosewood and ebony. Nix shipped dried wood to other Gibson divisions when the wood was ready for further manufacturing. The kiln used for drying wood is located in the rough mill, an adjacent building to 641 Massman Drive. The rough mill is marked as building 653 on Massman Drive. Nix stated that Gibson uses only Indian ebony in Gibson products (containing ebony). Nix further stated the following: Rosewood used by Gibson is Indian rosewood, although Gibson had used Madagascar rosewood and ebony in the past. According to Nix, all ebony and rosewood was stored at Red Arrow Delivery Service upon import and delivery to Nashville until GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION was ready to have it picked up. Gibson’s purchasing managers are responsible for actually placing orders for rosewood and ebony from suppliers and Herb Jenkins was the senior purchasing manager at GIBSON ELECTRIC. Nix confirmed he kept electronic files and email correspondence concerning the sourcing, receipt, and use of rosewood and ebony by GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION on his computer. ”

Computers Seized

“38. Your affiant is aware that computers are used to engage in business transactions that involve the trade of wildlife and plant species. A computer may have been used to store, generate, and print documents used in furtherance of the shipments of lndian ebony and lndian rosewood, which are in violation of the laws enumerated hereinabove. For example, THEODOR NAGEL GMBH would direct their United States sales representative, Hunter Trading Corporation, to send email notification to Red Arrow Delivery Service, to authorize the release of sawn rosewood and ebony to GIBSON GUITAR CORPOPRATION upon receipt of invoice payment. In another example, LUTHIER MERCANTILE INTERNATIONAL sent an email notification to Red Arrow Delivery Service to expect arrival of a 24 pallet shipment of lndian rosewood and ebony for GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION.”

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

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

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

Is the Law in your Traffic Case Valid? Call Me Toll Free to Discuss. (813) 222-2220.

Case Excerpts:

“[S]ection 316.3045, Florida Statutes (2007). . . restricts the volume at which a car stereo system may be played on a public street, but it exempts vehicles being used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices. “

The statute provides: “Operation of radios or other mechanical soundmaking devices or instruments in vehicles; exemptions —

(1) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical soundmaking device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is:

(a) Plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the motor vehicle; or (b) Louder than necessary for the convenient hearing by persons inside the vehicle in areas adjoining churches, schools, or hospitals.

(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any law enforcement motor vehicle equipped with any communication device necessary in the performance of law enforcement duties or to any emergency vehicle equipped with any communication device necessary in the performance of any emergency procedures.

(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices. The provisions of this subsection shall not be deemed to prevent local authorities, with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power, from regulating the time and manner in which such business may be operated.

(4) The provisions of this section do not apply to the noise made by a horn or other warning device required or permitted by s. 316.271. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall promulgate rules defining “plainly audible” and establish standards regarding how sound should be measured by law enforcement personnel who enforce the provisions of this section.

(5) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.”

“The circuit court carefully considered each argument and concluded that the issue ruled on by the two district courts was essentially the same, i.e., whether the “plainly audible” standard was too vague and overbroad to pass constitutional scrutiny. “

“Additionally, while recognizing our agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the circuit court, we note that section 316.3045 suffers from a more fundamental infirmity.  ”

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

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

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

Is the Law in your Traffic Case Valid? Call Me Toll Free to Discuss. (813) 222-2220.