Florida Drug Court Blues – Video

Nixon, The War on Drugs, and Drug Courts – Video


Nixon declared war on drugs. Nancy Reagan just said no. Neither of those were effective strategies to help alleviate the problems flowing from the epidemic of drug abuse that plagues us to this day. Florida Drug Courts have come to their senses and prosecutors are using treatment courts to help people who are otherwise crime-free, seeking help to avoid convictions for serious drug crimes. Check the end of this post you will find the complete transcript of Nixon’s original declaration of war on drugs.



Songwriter and Investigative Journalist Mike Deeson and I worked on an investigative report on the positive impacts of Drug Courts in Florida. 40 years ago, President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs. 3 years later, in 1974, he said the war was a success. Here is a new song called Florida Drug Court Blues.


“We must wage what I have called Total war against public enemy number one in the United States the problem of dangerous drugs.”

Richard Nixon


Florida Drug Court


In Pinellas County – a different approach Chief Judge Thomas McGrady says 80% of the crimes are related to substance abuse. For the most part the solution of the problem is incarceration. But in situations where they are non-violent and in a situation where we could get to the point where they could become productive members of society. That seems to be a better use of our limited resources to put it towards treatment rather than in prison.

Sentencing offenders to treatment instead of prison offenses costs taxpayers more than 377 million dollars a year.


“Drug offenders are not bad people trying to get good, they are sick people who can get well.”

Casey the Lawyer


One local sheriff said drug abusers should be in prison that’s working so well that’s keeping the people of this community and this state safe. He urges legislators and the governor to leave it alone. Drug treatment courts are too radical says the sheriff.


“Seeing violent offenders out of prison is too radical , some guy with a machine gun or rocket launcher, somebody who is a violent felon is not going to prison because some non-violent offender is in on a minimum mandatory drug sentence. That is too radical. That’s disturbs me greatly and it happens all the time.”

Casey the Lawyer


Sending a drug abuser to prison instead of into a program has a societal cost as well and there is a good chance that the judge will see that same drug abuser in front of him or her once again.


“Prison is graduate school for whatever they were doing before they got in there.”

Casey the Lawyer


At DACCO there is a 6 month residential program that has close to a 70% success rate at the cost of about $10,000 compared that to the average 6.4 year sentence costing taxpayers $124,000 per offender locked up.


As Mike Deeson said, Nixon “declared a war that is clearly being lost .”

Here is Mike’s Youtube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClSXAwjKZLJxq0cy0VhtuXg/videos


Drug Treatment Court Resources


https://www.drug2go.com/p/drug-treatment-rehabilitation.html

https://www.centrallaw.com/


Transcript of Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs Speech on June 17, 1971


Ladies and gentlemen:

I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with the bipartisan leader which began at 8 o’clock and was completed 2 hours later.

I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to be made to the Nation: America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.

I have asked the Congress to provide the legislative authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive. This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.

With regard to this offensive, it is necessary first to have a new organization, and the new organization will be within the White House. Dr. Jaffe, who will be one of the briefers here today, will be the man directly responsible. He will report directly to me, and he will have the responsibility to take all of the Government agencies, nine, that deal with the problems of rehabilitation, in which his primary responsibilities will be research and education, and see that they work not at cross-purposes, but work together in dealing with the problem.

If we are going to have a successful offensive, we need more money. Consequently, I am asking the Congress for $155 million in new funds, which will bring the total amount this year in the budget for drug abuse, both in enforcement and treatment, to over $350 million.

As far as the new money is concerned, incidentally, I have made it clear to the leaders that if this is not enough, if more can be used, if Dr. Jaffe, after studying this problem, finds that we can use more, more will be provided. In order to defeat this enemy which is causing such great concern, and correctly so, to so many American families, money will be provided to the extent that it is necessary and to the extent that it will be useful.

Finally, in order for this program to be effective, it is necessary that it be conducted on a basis in which the American people all join in it. That is why the meeting was bipartisan; bipartisan because we needed the support of the Congress, but bipartisan because we needed the leadership of the Members of the Congress in this field.

Fundamentally, it is essential for the American people to be alerted to this danger, to recognize that it is a danger that will not pass with the passing of the war in Vietnam which has brought to our attention the fact that a number of young Americans have become addicts as they serve abroad, whether in Vietnam, or Europe, or other places. Because the problem existed before we became involved in Vietnam; it will continue to exist afterwards. That is why this offensive deals with the problem there, in Europe, but will then go on to deal with the problem throughout America.

One final word with regard to Presidential responsibility in this respect. I very much hesitate always to bring some new responsibility into the White House, because there are so many here, and I believe in delegating those responsibilities to the departments. But I consider this problem so urgent—I also found that it was scattered so much throughout the Government, with so much conflict, without coordination—that it had to be brought into the White House.

Consequently, I have brought Dr. Jaffe into the White House, directly reporting to me, so that we have not only the responsibility, but the authority to see that we wage this offensive effectively and in a coordinated way.

The briefing team will now be ready to answer any questions on the technical details of the program.


Download Transcript of Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs Speech on June 17, 1971


Transcript of Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs Speech on June 17, 1971 – Google Docs


 

Transcript of Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs Speech on June 17, 1971 Florida Drug Court

Transcript of Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs Speech on June 17, 1971 Florida Drug Court

Drug Crimes Stories From Google+ 2 Million Views and over a 1000 Followers Cant be Wrong.

DUI Stories and Videos

Traffic Ticket Stories From Google+
2 Million Views and over a
1000 Followers Can’t be Wrong.

These are all of the DUI stories we had  on our  Google Plus page.

It contains years of curious and, at times, odd  stories that were posted.



Safe and Sound on Floriduh Beach

Glad our Indian Shores Police Officer is safe tonite after last night’s shooting. First I can ever remember in our small town.

https://dui2go.com/safe-and-sound-on-floriduh-beach/

Safe and Sound on Floriduh Beach | Indian Shores Florida | Expert  Defense | 813.222.2220
Safe and Sound on Floriduh Beach | Indian Shores Florida | Expert DUI Defense | 813.222.2220

Request For Medical Records Denied | Blood Test Subpoena

Court denied issuance of a subpoena and ruled In a blood test “burden arises from the Constitutional right to privacy in one’s medical records, which requires the State to demonstrate a compelling interest in the disclosure.” A burden that in a rare case was NOT met. These subpoenas are routinely rubber-stamped and almost always issued.

 

Blood Test Subpoena for DUI Medical Records Denied

https://www.centrallaw.com/dui-subpoena-medical-records-blood-test-denied/

Request For Medical Records Denied | Blood test Subpoena
Request For Medical Records Denied | Blood test Subpoena

Reducing Impaired Driving Recidivism – RIDR

First timers can avoid a driving under the influence conviction. This change in policy is important for drivers charged with their 1st driving while impaired. According to Florida law, pretrial intervention programs can are available for a first time driving while intoxicated driver as long as they have spoken with a lawyer, agrees to complete the program.

https://dui2go.com/reducing-impaired-driving-recidivism-ridr/

Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr

Reducing Impaired Driving Recidivism - RIDR | DUI2GO.com Expert DUI Defense | 813.222.2220

Reducing Impaired Driving Recidivism – RIDR

 Video – Sober Driver Arrested

 

This is how you can be arrested for driving while intoxicated even if you’re sober.

Sober Driver Arrested Video

 

Sober Driver Arrested for DUI

Sober Driver Arrested for DUI

This person was arrested for driving while intoxicated — even though they were completely sober


Another Way to Get Arrested – Florida Man Does Cartwheel During Sobriety Test

In #Floriduh Cape Coral man showed off his cartwheel skills during a sobriety test. A police officer’s body camera recorded the man’s #Shenanigans .

Florida Man Does Cartwheel During Sobriety Test

Checkpoint Aimed at Keeping Roadways Safe

#DUI #Checkpoint East Sligh Avenue and North Branch Street from 10 p.m. – 1 a.m. #Tampa https://www.tampagov.net/news/checkpoint-aimed-keeping-roadways-safe
Checkpoint Aimed at Keeping Roadways Safe
Checkpoint Aimed at Keeping Roadways Safe

tampagov.net


Tesla’s Latest Crash Reveals Issue with Autopilot

Over the weekend, a driver in Tesla Model S sedan was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated when he was found passed out behind the wheel on San Francisco’s Bay Bridge. His blood alcohol content was two times the legal limit. He told the California Highway Patrol officers it was OK: The car was on autopilot.

https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-crash-dui

Tesla’s Latest Crash and driving while intoxicated Incident Reveal the Issue with Autopilot | WIRED
Tesla’s Latest Crash and DUI Incident Reveal the Issue with Autopilot | WIRED

wired.com


St Petersburg Will Try to Seize Vehicles in Driving Under the Influence Cases

Can St Petersburg Seize Vehicles in DUI Cases? YES

“There does not appear to be any legal impediment to adding DUI as a basis for vehicle seizure . . .” said the Attorney for the City of St Petersburg.

St Petersburg DUI Vehicle Seizure

St Petersburg DUI Vehicle Seizure

One Florida town will join a few others in allowing police to seize the vehicle of a driving under the influence suspect and sell it back to him/her for around $500.00.

The language used by the St. Petersburg City Attorney is, “vehicle seizure and impoundment with a companion administrative fine. ”

https://dui2go.com/dui-st-petersburg-attorney-813-222-2220-lawyer/

St Petersburg Will Try to Seize Vehicles in driving under the influence Cases

Are Traffic Ticket Quotas Legal in Florida?

Think #quotas for #tickets R #bad, how about arresting drivers 4 fun & profit Contests 4 #arrests since 2009 Bad!

https://www.centrallaw.com/traffic-ticket-quota-arrest-contests-florida/

Are Traffic Ticket Quotas Legal in Florida? – Contests – Arrests and Traffic Tickets in Florida
Are Traffic Ticket Quotas Legal in Florida? - Contests - Arrests and Traffic Tickets in Florida - Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr

centrallaw.com


What Happens if You Are Confused and Refused a Breathalyzer Test in Florida?

Aug 5, 2017

What happens if you are confused and refused a #Breathalyzer test in #Florida?

https://www.centrallaw.com/confused-refuse-breath-test-breathalyzer-tampa/

What happens if you are confused and refused a Breathalyzer test in Florida? Refuse Breath Test
What happens if you are confused and refused a DUI Breathalyzer test in Florida? Refuse Breath Test - Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr

Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie – So Says the Florida Supreme Court

The Florida Supreme Court loves television and so do we. #TV #CopsGoneWild

https://www.dui2go.com/video-dui-Florida.html

DUI Video Florida

DUI Video Florida

Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie – So Says the Florida Supreme Court

20,000 DWI Cases Called Into Question

#CopsGoneWild
20,000 DWI cases called into question in NJ: Is yours one of them?
20,000 DWI cases called into question in NJ: Is yours one of them?

nj1015.com


Jose Fernandez Video

Oct 29, 2016

Pitcher was .147 with Cocaine in Boat Crash

#Marlins #JoseFernandez Boating Under Influence BUI FL Coroner BAC .147 & cocaine. No news who was driving .https://www.dui2go.com/2016/10/jose-fernandez-florida-baseball-BUI.html

Attorney for Boating Under the Influence Charges in Tampa Bay BUI Lawyer

Boating Under the Influence Charges

Jose Fernandez Video – Florida Baseball Star – Drunk in Boating Crash

Jose Fernandez Video – Florida Baseball Star – Drunk in Boating Crash

Tampa Bay DUI Convictions and Dismissals by the Numbers

Hillsborough DUI, Pinellas DUI, Pasco DUI, Conviction Rate

Hillsborough DUI, Pinellas DUI, Pasco DUI, Conviction Rate

Surprising data on Tampa Bay DUI Conviction rates. Raw Data and Spreadsheet data shows Hillsborough County Florida with highest conviction rate.

Tampa Bay DUI Convictions and Dismissals by the Numbers

Tampa Bay DUI Convictions and Dismissals by the Numbers

Michael Phelps – DUI

Michael Phelps - Miracles Happen - From Addiction to Gold Medals

Michael Phelps – Miracles Happen – From Addiction to Gold Medals

The Recovery of Michael Phelps from 2 DUI charges to “Greatest Olympian of All Time” was a long journey that began with his first DUI charge in 2004. The miracle began Less than 2 years before his historic run at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio.

The Recovery of Michael Phelps – DUI

The Recovery of Michael Phelps – DUI

 


Florida Can Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

 

DUI-Refusal-Submit-Breath Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

 

Supreme Court on Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

Three Reasons Court Used to Justify Punishment of a DUI Refusal

Why does the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine apply to breath and blood tests?

  • “First, the physical intrusion is almost negligible. Breath tests “do not require piercing the skin” and entail “a minimum of inconvenience.”
  • “Second, breath tests are capable of revealing only one bit of information, the amount of alcohol in the subject’s breath.”
  • “Finally, participation in a breath test is not an experience that is likely to cause any great enhancement in the embarrassment that is inherent in any arrest.”

Florida and Other States Can Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

Florida and Other States Can Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test


 St. Pete Pride, DUI, and Law Enforcement

St. Pete Pride

DUI Enforcement officers and other law enforcement will swarm St. Pete Pride as over 200,000 will gather this weekend to support and celebrate Florida’s LGBTQ community at the St. Pete Pride Parade.

St. Pete Pride Always A Busy Weekend For DUI And Law Enforcement

St. Pete Pride A busy weekend for DUI and Law Enforcement
St. Pete Pride A busy weekend for DUI and Law Enforcement

Florida Supreme Court Sets Arguments on DUI Breath Tests

Second Refusal Breath Test on Trial

Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments Sept. 1 in a challenge to the constitutionality of a state law that allows people to be prosecuted for refusing to take breath tests when suspected of drunken driving.

DUI-Refusal-Submit-Breath Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

Punish Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test

Justices issued an order Tuesday scheduling the arguments in the Volusia County case of William Williams, who was stopped in October 2013 on suspicion of driving under the influence. An arresting officer, who did not have a warrant, asked Williams to submit to a breath test to determine blood-alcohol content but Williams refused, according to court documents.

Florida Supreme Court sets arguments on DUI breath tests


 

An Impaired Driving Cases Guide for Law Enforcement Officers and Expert Witnesses

Originally shared by Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr

DUI Cops Are Instructed How to Testify

Notably, they are told not to demonstrate field sobriety tests that they themselves cannot perform. “Always demonstrate how you conducted field sobriety evaluations. Be certain, however, that you can do in court  all the evaluations you asked the defendant to perform

Review: The Criminal Justice System: A Guide for Law Enforcement Officers and Expert Witnesses in Impaired Driving Cases

Review: The Criminal Justice System: A Guide for Law Enforcement Officers and Expert Witnesses in Impaired Driving Cases
A Guide for Law Enforcement Officers and Expert Witnesses in Impaired Driving Cases

A Guide for Law Enforcement Officers and Expert Witnesses in Impaired Driving Cases


Field Sobriety Exercises Excluded

Epic Fail – Summary of the Field Sobriety Exercises Exclusion Ruling

Field sobriety exercises are inadmissible in this case unless the State of Florida demonstrates their reliability to the Court in a Daubert hearing. The State must show that field sobriety exercises were created using the same rigorous scientific method that is behind every theorem and postulate in science journals before field sobriety exercises can be admitted.

Field Sobriety Exercises Motion to Suppress Granted in Tampa

Field Sobriety Exercises Motion to Suppress Granted in Tampa
Field sobriety exercises are inadmissible in this case unless the State of Florida demonstrates their reliability to the Court in a Daubert hearing

Field sobriety exercises are inadmissible in this case unless the State of Florida demonstrates their reliability to the Court in a Daubert hearing


 

Pinellas Deputy Arrested for Attempted Manslaughter

Video cameras did not catch this or  were not running and then this happened at a DUI traffic stop.   #allegedly    “Instead of explaining what actually happened,” the sheriff said, “Deputy Virden made up facts that simply could not have occurred.”

https://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/83291503-story

Pinellas deputy arrested for attempted manslaughter

fox13news.com


 Doctor on Drugs, Testing and Impairment of Drivers

Tons of interesting questions and surprising answers from a just completed interesting afternoon with a doctor on drugs and testing and impairment of drivers.

Drug DUI and Cannabis in the Courts

Drug DUI and Cannabis in the Courts

Drug DUI and Cannabis in the Courts

Miss USA Contestant Stripped of Her Crown for DUI

It is Only a Misdemeanor

 

DUI – It is only a misdemeanor thought a Miss USA contestant. She did not disclose a conviction, won the title, and then was stripped of her crown when pageant officials got wind of the case.

DUI Conviction Ruins Miss USA Contestant | Video

 Number One Traffic Charge for Jail in Hillsborough County, Florida TRAF6075

Get a Driver’s License

Of the 1656 ways to go to jail in Tampa, Florida, this is Number 1. TRAF6075 is number one of the top 50 ways to be arrested and placed in the Hillsborough County Jail in Tampa, Florida. There are 1656 ways to go to jail for criminal charges in Tampa. This is Numero Uno #1.

TRAF6075 DRIVING W/LICENSE CANC SUSP OR REVOKED

 TRAF6075 DRIVING W/LICENSE CANC SUSP OR REVOKED

1656 Ways to End Up in the Hillsborough County Jail

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr

Top 50 Ways to Go to Jail

Many of the Top 10 ways to go to jail in Tampa, Florida are traffic crimes. By the way there are about 1656 ways to end up in the Hillsborough County Jail.

Top 50 Ways Into Hillsborough County Jail | Tampa

https://www.centrallaw.com/top-50-ways-hillsborough-county-jail/

Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr

Video – Drunk Driving on a Lawn Mower?

DUI Attorney Needed - Lawnmower Video

Floriduh Lawnmower Guy Video – dashcam,  nicely equipped lawnmower,  and catchy jazz soundtrack.

https://dui2go.com/can-you-get-a-dui-on-a-lawnmower-in-florida-dashcam-video/

https://www.dui2go.com/2012/08/dui-attorney-needed-lawnmower-video.html

Attorney Needed – Lawnmower Video


Can a Citizen Arrest a Driver for Driving While Impaired?

Driver detained by citizen and then arrested by cop for DWI.

What is required for a citizen to make a valid arrest for DUI? DUI Citizen’s Arrest

DUI Defense Attorney | Citizen's Arrest

Citizen’s Arrest

Complete List of 130 Florida Criminal Traffic Charges

130 ways to Go to Jail in Traffic Court

There are at least 130 ways to be charged with a criminal traffic crime under Florida law. This is a complete list of criminal traffic charges under Florida Statutes.

130 Florida Criminal Traffic Charges | Complete List

130 Florida Criminal Traffic Charges | Complete List

Second Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test in Florida

 

The FLORIDA Supreme Court will review Florida Driving Under Influence  2nd Refusal  law and whether it is Constitutional to refuse to cooperate with cops in a second refusal to submit to chemical testing.

What Happens When There Is A Second Refusal To Submit To A Chemical Test In Florida?

DUI Second Refusal To Submit To A Chemical Test In Florida

DUI Second Refusal To Submit To A Chemical Test In Florida

 

Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test

The US Supreme Court is reviewing the Constitutionality of three state laws like this one that criminalizes a second refusal to submit to breath test.
Form Code: TRAF1076 Florida Statute: 316.1939.1 Level: Misd (Misdemeanor) Degree: 1st Description: REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TESTING

Form Code: TRAF1076
Florida Statute: 316.1939.1
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st
Description: REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TESTING

 

TRAF1076 REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TESTING 316.1939.1


Florida, Confessions and the Corpus Delicti Rule

“Corpus delicti is one of those not-so-glamorous topics that tends to fall through the academic cracks in many law schools. In fact, before having to focus on this subject as a novice prosecutor, my knowledge of it was limited to what my bar exam review instructor had taught me: Corpus delicti is always the wrong answer to an evidence question. ”

Florida, Confessions, DUI, and the Corpus Delicti Rule

Florida, Confessions, DUI, and the Corpus Delicti Rule

Florida, Confessions and the Corpus Delicti Rule

Officer Misses Hearing – Driver Gets License Back

How to Win a Hearing Cop skips hearing, despite court order – absence was unexplained or unexcused. Driver gets license back.

https://dui2go.com/dui-officer-misses-hearing-driver-gets-license-back/

DUI Officer Misses Hearing – Driver Gets License Back

DUI Officer Misses Hearing - Driver Gets License Back

Officer Misses Hearing – Driver Gets License Back

How to Become an “Expert” in a Couple of Weeks.

Florida Drug Recognition Experts DRE Video

Florida Drug Recognition DRE Experts – Five (5) Things to Know
Florida Drug Recognition DRE Experts - Five (5) Things to Know

FREE Drunk Driving Defense Book

 

86 page color illustrated drunk driving Defense book you can research the harsh punishment imposed under Florida’s strict driving under the influence laws. Journey from the arrest at the roadside, to the county jail, to a vehicle being seized.

Jason Miller: “That looks like a very helpful book. I really like the cover.”
Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr: “Thanks for the comments. We are looking to expand it with the next edition. Be well. Leslie is a great friend. See you soon.”

Drug Crime Stories

Drug Crimes Stories From Google+

2 Million Views and over a

1000 Followers Can’t be Wrong.

Drug Crimes Stories From Google+ 2 Million Views and over a 1000 Followers Cant be Wrong.

Drug Crimes Stories From Google+


Video – Florida Growhouse Shoot Em Up

Shoot Out at a Florida Growhouse Florida Growhouse Video Shoot Out Shots Fired at 15 seconds and video ends with smoke detector alert. Florida Growhouse Shoot Out video just obtained by Florida Drug Crimes Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

Video – Florida Growhouse Shoot Em Up
Video - Florida Growhouse Shoot Em Up

Traffic Stop for License Plate Frame?

Driver was stopped by an officer because the words “MyFlorida.com” were obscured by a tag frame. The officer later found drugs in the car and the driver was charged with a narcotics offense. #Oops #IFeelSafer.
Don’t hide the letters on your Florida license plate with a frame
Don’t hide the letters on your Florida license plate with a frame

 Is the Lie Detector Admissible in Federal Court?

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

Lie Detectors in Court are expanding use in Florida again. Some courts are allowing use in testing registered sex offenders & predators as a requirement of sex offender probation and monitoring.

https://www.centrallaw.com/deception-detection-polygraph-testing-and-lie-detectors-in-federal-courts-at-sentencing/ .

Previously we discussed another federal case here https://www.centrallaw.com/lie-detector-polygraph-admissible-court/


Is the Lie Detector | Polygraph Admissible in Federal Court?

Is the Lie Detector | Polygraph Admissible in Federal Court?

Photographer Arrested for Recording Drug Bust on Video

Can the #police arrest a citizen reporter recording police actions on a city street? What do you think? #CopsGoneWild

https://www.drug2go.com/2011/02/drug-bust-on-video-photographer.html

Drug Bust on Video | Photographer Arrested

Drug Bust on Video | Photographer Arrested

Doggie Delayed is Justice Denied?

This guy was driving on I-75 in Alachua County near Gainesville Florida home of the Florida Gators. The cop claimed he had cut off a truck, perform a traffic stop, and then called for a drug dog. This case has the shortest delay I have ever seen in any drug dog case.

 

https://www.drug2go.com/2018/04/dog-sniff-delay-of-20-minutes-is-too.html

Photo

The Case of the Mysterious Marijuana Delivery from UPS and The Party Animal.

One guy had a hairstyle that was described as being like Popeye with a pipe painted green in his mouth. The cop said that that was consistent with a person who was waiting for a marijuana delivery and detained him. Court ruled even a “pot-smoking sailor hair design” is not enough to save this bust.

https://www.drug2go.com/2018/04/mysterious-marijuana-delivery-from-ups.html

Mysterious Marijuana Delivery from UPS and The Party Animal

Mysterious Marijuana Delivery from UPS and The Party Animal

 Can You Legally Grow Your own Weed in Florida?

“The court also finds … that the Florida Department of Health has been, and continues to be non-compliant with the Florida constitutional requirements,” the judge added, referring to the constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2016 that made medical marijuana legal.
Judge: Joe Redner can legally grow his own marijuana
Judge: Joe Redner can legally grow his own marijuana

Lie Detectors in Florida Courts

 

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.

https://www.centrallaw.com/lie-detector-polygraph-admissible-court/

Is the Lie Detector | Polygraph Admissible in Federal Court?

Is the Lie Detector | Polygraph Admissible in Federal Court?

Can a student lose financial aid for the possession or sale of illegal drugs that occurred while receiving federal student aid?

Yes.

https://www.drug2go.com/2018/04/drug-conviction-student-financial-aid-FAFSA.html

Can Drug Charges Destroy Opportunities for Student Financial Aid?

Can Drug Charges Destroy Opportunities for Student Financial Aid?

Defense Attorneys Arrested During Defense of Client

Suge Knight attorneys arrested Thursday on warrants alleging they were accessories after the fact to a felony, authorities said, without disclosing what the felony was or what they are believed to have done. #SugeKnight #CopsGoneWild

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/suge-knights-former-lawyers-arrested-on-felony-charge-205370/
‘Suge’ Knight attorneys released 1 day after arrest
'Suge' Knight attorneys released 1 day after arrest

Win In early round in  legal fight to Grow  own Marijuana

“I think this is a huge step forward for patients in need of this critical medicine,” Luke Lirot, the attorney who argued the case Dec. 20, said in a statement. #mmj #florida #growyourown #CannabisCommunity

https://www.tampabay.com/news/Joe-Redner-wins-an-early-round-in-his-legal-fight-to-grow-his-own-marijuana_164820715

Joe Redner wins an early round in his legal fight to grow his own marijuana

Shocking Stats on #Fentanyl #Deaths in #Florida Download Report.

Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDLE Prescription Drug Death Statistics

Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDLE Prescription Drug Death Statistics

Total drug-related deaths increased by 22 percent (2,126 more).

5,725 opioid-related deaths were reported, which is a 35 percent increase (1,483 more). The opioids were identified as either the cause of death or merely present in the decedent.

6,658 (24 percent more) individuals died with one or more prescription drugs in their system. The drugs were identified as either the cause of death or
merely present in the decedent. These drugs may have also been mixed with illicit drugs and/or alcohol.

3,550 (40 percent more) individuals died with at least one prescription drug in their system that was identified as the cause of death. These drugs may
have been mixed with other prescription drugs, illicit drugs, and/or alcohol.

https://www.drug2go.com/2010/12/florida-prescription-drug-report-tampa.html

Photo

#HowTo Determine Weight of a Mixture in #DrugCrimes?

One Court just Changed the Rules

How Is the Weight Determined in Case of a Mixture in Drug Crimes?
How Is the Weight Determined in Case of a Mixture in Drug Crimes?

Mugshots Are Big Business

Even the Tampa Bay Times, which prominently displays its Pulitzer Prize tally (12), and is behind such upstanding journalistic institutions as Poynter Institute, compiles them alongside a detailed list of physical attributes — gender, height, weight and so on. The images vanish after 60 days from a section that clocks nearly one million views a month, said the paper’s editor, Neil Brown. While he put the site’s news value at the “lowest possible level,” he said that such eyeball grabbing schemes aren’t unusual. “The slippery slope of being a purist is that there’s all kinds of stuff on news sites all over the county that is there for the interest of the audience,” he said. “I don’t think sanctimony over it is entirely well placed — though I don’t begrudge anyone their sanctimony.”

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/03/mugged#.NIfiWAtnf

Mugged!

Mugged!

themarshallproject.org


Cop Caught Planting Drugs

#CopsGoneWild The officer’s alleged trickery was revealed by the fact that his body cam retained footage for 30 seconds before it was activated to begin recording. During that time, according to the footage and the Baltimore public defender’s office, Officer Richard Pinheiro puts a bag of pills in a can in an alley and walks out of the alley.

The Axon cam’s initial 30 seconds of footage, by default, doesn’t have sound. After 30 seconds, viewers of the video can both see and hear the officer looking for drugs in the alley. Lo and behold, he finds them in the same soup can that he placed them in, according to the footage, which was released Wednesday. Pinheiro can then be heard yelling “yo” to his fellow officers, telling them he found drugs in the alley.

Cop’s body cam films him planting drugs—he obviously didn’t know it was recording
Cop’s body cam films him planting drugs—he obviously didn’t know it was recording

Police to Take more Cash from Americans

In 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.
Jeff Sessions wants police to take more cash from American citizens
Jeff Sessions wants police to take more cash from American citizens

washingtonpost.com


 Bad Cops and Bad Cases

The majority of the 41 dropped cases are drug-related, but charges of resisting law enforcement, battery or assault and three gun charges have also been dropped so far this year. #CopsGoneWild
State attorney drops 41 cases over officers’ issues
State attorney drops 41 cases over officers' issues

news4jax.com


Restrictions on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Pasco Marijuana

Pasco Marijuana

Another #Florida limit on #marijuanalaws #mmj

https://t.co/sCscAqhNe4

Pasco limits number of medical marijuana dispensers to two

Bring a Taser to a Gunfight?

Free Legal Advice – Don’t Bring a Taser to a Gunfight at a Growhouse

Growhouse Weekend Score Update

Assault Rifle 2
Taser 0

What happens when you Bring a Taser to a Gunfight?

You lose. Two guys from South Florida planned on breaking into a Tampa grow house using a couple of tasers. The would-be grow house invaders thought they would sneak around to the back and kick in the back door.

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/08/growhouse-gunfight-tampa-florida.html

Bad move: the occupant(s) were waiting locked and loaded.

Don’t Bring a Taser to a Gunfight at a Growhouse

Don't Bring a Taser to a Gunfight at a Growhouse


 

Florida Court reverses Constructive Possession of Drugs Conviction

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/08/constructive-possession-of-drugs-florida.html

Constructive Possession of Drugs in Florida
Constructive Possession of Drugs in Florida

Florida Drug Dog Sniff Case Overturned

Another Florida Drug Dog Sniff Case Overturned
Another Florida Drug Dog Sniff Case Overturned

 Complete List of Florida Controlled Substances

Ultimate #Complete #List of #Illegal #Drugs in #LoveFL https://www.drug2go.com/p/drug-dictionary.html

Drug Attorney Tampa Lawyer on Call | 813-222-2220 | Hillsborough FL | 24/7/365: Drug Dictionary


Florida Growhouse Busted

#Oops Video from inside a Winter Haven #LoveFL #Growhouse #cannabiscommunity #cannabislaws #marijuana

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/06/growhouse-busted-in-winter-haven-florida.html

Growhouse Busted in Winter Haven, Florida – Video From the Inside

Growhouse Busted in Winter Haven, Florida - Video From the Inside

Growhouse Busted in Winter Haven, Florida – Video From the Inside


Is there a marijuana grow house in your neighborhood?

Probably YES. Another Weed Growing Operation was Raided in a quiet Florida residential neighborhood

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/05/cannabis-growhouse-in-hillsborough-florida.html

#cannabiscommunity, #cannabislaws, #marijuana, #norml

Is there a marijuana grow house in your neighborhood?

Is there a marijuana grow house in your neighborhood?


What happens when a suspect throws drugs away and the cops find them?

Where drug crime defendants / suspects throw drugs under their vehicles while being removed from the vehicle after a valid traffic stop, a court can rule that the suspect has “voluntarily abandoned” the drugs. A Florida Court has just ruled there was reasonable suspicion to justify a pat down where there was a traffic stop, the target appeared nervous, could not answer some of the officer’s questions, had made a sudden U-turn into an oncoming traffic lane, and then parked facing the wrong direction just prior to the stop. The cop testified that the suspect had a pen clenched in his hand and the officer to believed it could be used as a weapon.
Drug Crimes Question Answer 4th Amendment

Drug Crimes Question Answer 4th Amendment

“Inevitable discovery is a recognized exception to the exclusionary rule and requires the State to establish that “the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in the course of a legitimate investigation.” Moody v. State, 842 So. 2d 754, 759 (Fla. 2003). See also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984) (recognizing and adopting the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, and holding that the exclusionary rule should not apply if “the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means”).

#PatDown InevitableDiscovery #Abandonment #TrafficStop #4thAmendment, #FourthAmendment #StopFrisk

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/05/what-happens-when-suspect-throws-drugs.html

What happens when a suspect throws drugs away and the cops find them?

Tweet Looking for Drugs Answered by Sarasota Police

FREE ADVICE: #DontDontDoThis “Who’s in Sarasota and has weed?” Sarasota police quickly responded with a tweet of their own: “If you’d like to stop by our headquarters, our narcotics detectives would be more than happy to talk.”

https://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/139621761-story

#CannabisCommunity #CannabisLaws #Weed

Tweet looking for drugs answered by Sarasota police


 

Why America Can’t Quit the Drug War

Despite strides toward a more sane national drug policy, the deeper infrastructure of the War on Drugs remains fundamentally unaltered.

Orlando Florida Marijuana Decriminalization Cannabis Ordinance

Florida Marijuana Decriminalization – Orlando Florida Cannabis Ordinance
Florida Marijuana Decriminalization - Orlando Florida Cannabis Ordinance

Tampa Cannabis Decriminalized Ordinance

Map of #Cannabis Ordinance Violations in #Tampa #CannabisCommunity #CannabisLaw Tampa targeting vehicle traffic stops #Cannabis citations.
Tampa Cannabis Decriminalized – Complete Text of Tampa Cannabis Ordinance
Tampa Cannabis Decriminalized - Complete Text of Tampa Cannabis Ordinance

MAP: Civil Citations for Marijuana-related Violations


Weedman Arrested Again

 

#BreakingNews Weedman has been arrested again on marijuana charges after law enforcement raided his restaurant and cannabis temple.

#WeedMan #CannabisLaws #CannabisCommunity

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160428/marijuana-advocate-dubbed-nj-weedman-arrested-again-for-pot

Marijuana advocate dubbed NJ Weedman arrested again, for pot
Marijuana advocate dubbed NJ Weedman arrested again, for pot
providencejournal.com

 St Petersburg, Florida Marijuana Civil Citation Program

St Petersburg, Florida is next in line to decriminalize cannabis.

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/04/StPetersburg-Marijuana-Citation-Cannabis-Attorney.html

St Petersburg, Florida Marijuana Civil Citation Program

St Petersburg, Florida Marijuana Civil Citation Program

Complete Text of  Tampa Cannabis Ordinance

The City of Tampa Florida, has just passed an ordinance decriminalizing possession of cannabis (less than 20 grams). Hash oil and derivatives are still felonies. The complete text of the new cannabis ordinance is below. The short version: Fines;  For a firs…
Tampa Cannabis Decriminalized – Complete Text of Tampa Cannabis Ordinance
Tampa Cannabis Decriminalized - Complete Text of Tampa Cannabis Ordinance

Possession of a Controlled Substance –  One of over 1500 ways to land in Tampa, Florida’s Hillsborough County Jail

This is the 11th on the list of over 1500 ways to land in Tampa, Florida’s Hillsborough County Jail. Possession of a Controlled Substance is a Third Degree Felony that can be punished by 5 years in the Florida State Prison. Here is a summary of the rather obscure names for drugs under the Florida Controlled Substances laws. We call it our Florida Drug Name Online Dictionary. https://www.drug2go.com/p/drug-dictionary.html

https://www.drug2go.com/2010/09/drug9101-possession-of-controlled.html

DRUG9101 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

DRUG9101 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

Seatbelt Ticket Becomes a Felony

Supreme Court cases have held that a traffic stop “can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission” of issuing a ticket . . . . “In this case, the officer abandoned his reason for the traffic stop (writing the seatbelt citation) and instead chose to conduct the sniff of Defendant’s vehicle.  Once the officer decided against writing the citation, the purpose for the stop was complete and the justification for the stop was no longer valid.”

Dog Sniff Drug Dog Oxycodone Trafficking Conviction Reversed

Dog Sniff Drug Dog Oxtcodone Trafficking Conviction Reversed

Dog Sniff Drug Dog Oxycodone Trafficking Conviction Reversed

 


What happens in a typical Constructive of Possession of Cocaine Case in Florida?

The conviction of one of multiple occupants of a vehicle was reversed, even though “this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with . . . innocence.”

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/02/constructive-possession-cocaine-Tampa-Florida.html

Constructive Possession of Cocaine in Florida - Conviction Tossed

Constructive Possession of Cocaine in Florida – Conviction Tossed

Get Tased and Waive Your Rights

You have the right to …. get blasted with a taser and waive your rights. “[S]uspects’ brains are briefly scrambled when they are on the receiving end of a Taser stun gun and its 50,000-volt delivery.”

Study: Suspects shocked by Taser “more likely” to waive Miranda Rights | Ars Technica
Study: Suspects shocked by Taser “more likely” to waive Miranda Rights | Ars Technica
arstechnica.com

How to Make Money at Home

How to make a living as a chemist. #Fentanyl “is one of the most potent opiates in human history — 100 times more powerful than morphine, and 50 times stronger than heroin alone. It is now flooding the streets as an addictive recreational drug, adding a terrifying turn to the worst narcotics epidemic in American history.” #WW #WalterWhite  #BreakingBad #HomeTalkTuesday

https://interactive.fusion.net/death-by-fentanyl/the-walter-white-of-wichita.html

The Walter White of Wichita
The Walter White of Wichita
interactive.fusion.net

Drugs, DUI, and Chemical Testing

Just completed an interesting afternoon with a doctor in seminar on drugs and testing and impairment of drivers.

Drug DUI and Cannabis in the Courts

Drug DUI and Cannabis in the Courts

Cops Walk in House with No Warrant

Treasure Island, Florida has become a hotbed of the methamphetamine world. So while on patrol, a cop saw an open door with mail on the floor near the mail slot. The decision was made to enter the home and make sure everyone was alright. Of course, while there, why not search the house and find some meth. Court says adios to this one.

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/01/methamphetamine-case-tossed-open-door.html

Methamphetamine Case Tossed - Open Door and the Community Caretaker Function

Methamphetamine Case Tossed – Open Door and the Community Caretaker Function


Top 50 Ways to Go to Jail

Many of the Top 10 ways to go to jail in Tampa, Florida are drug crimes. By the way there are 1656 ways to end up in the Hillsborough County Jail.

https://www.centrallaw.com/top-50-ways-hillsborough-county-jail/

 Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr

 

Definitive List of Florida  Drug Crimes.

https://www.drug2go.com/2016/01/drug-crimes-tampa.html

250 Types of Drug Crimes | Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida

250 Types of Drug Crimes

How were Medical Marijuana Nurseries Chosen in Florida

A Hillsborough County business has challenged the issuance of medical marijuana nursery licenses in Florida. #CannabisCommunity

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/12/medical-marijuana-dispense-grow.html

How were Medical Marijuana Nurseries Chosen in Florida? Medical Marijuana on Trial in Hillsborough County Florida

How were Medical Marijuana Nurseries Chosen in Florida? Medical Marijuana on Trial in Hillsborough County Florida

Florida Medical Marijuana Legal Advice – How To

Can a lawyer advise a client about Medical Marijuana without Violating Bar Rules?

https://www.drug2go.com/2014/06/medical-marijuana-legal-advice-can.html

#HowTo #CannabisCommunity

Medical Marijuana Legal Advice - Can a lawyer advise a client about using the drug or operating such a business without running afoul of the Bar?

Medical Marijuana Legal Advice – Can a lawyer advise a client about using the drug or operating such a business without running afoul of the Bar?

 


Medical Marijuana Back on 2016 Ballot in Florida

“We therefore approve the proposed amendment and Financial Impact Statement for placement on the ballot.” said Florida’s Highest Court.

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/12/medical-marijuana–florida-ballot-in.html

Medical Marijuana on Florida Ballot in 2016 Says the Supreme Court

Medical Marijuana on Florida Ballot in 2016 Says the Supreme Court

Cannabis Reform in St Petersburg, Pinellas County Florida

Intervention and a second chance seems to be a more productive solution than parading them through jail and saddling them with arrest records. #cannabiscommunity

https://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/romano-citations-for-pot-dont-just-stop-there/2258089

” In other words, intervention and a second chance seems to be a more productive solution than parading them through jail and saddling them with arrest records.”

Is a Search Warrant Required for a Grow Room in a House?

Get a warrant, copper. Even though Bail Bondsman Opened a Grow Room Door and then Called the Cops.

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/12/search-warrant-growhouse-florida.html

Get a Search Warrant for Grow Room says Florida Supreme Court

Get a Search Warrant for Grow Room says Florida Supreme Court

 


How to Beat a Drug Dog Search?

How to Beat a Drug Dog Search? What Does the Supreme Court say about Threats of a Drug Dog Search?  Traffic cops and sometimes other law enforcement try to scare citizens by threatening to call in a dog, if they do not consent to a search.

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/12/how-to-beat-drug-dog-search.html

How to Beat a Drug Dog Search?

How to Beat a Drug Dog Search?

 

 


How accurate must a drug sniffing dog be?

Drug Sniffing Dog Accuracy How accurate must a drug sniffing dog be? Courts have frequently addressed drug dogs and drug dog training to evaluate whether the indication of drugs during a walk-around is sufficient to justify a complete search. Some Judges have expressed concern, but convictions are supported even where, “overall accuracy rate in the field (i.e., the number of times he alerts and his human handler finds drugs) is not much better than a coin flip (59.5%).

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/12/drug-sniffing-dog-accuracy-update.html

Drug Sniffing Dog Accuracy Update

Drug Sniffing Dog Accuracy Update

Motion To Suppress

Appeals court ruled that the defendant’s actions in answering questions and producing bag of marijuana for officers were not voluntary.

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/12/tampa-marijuana-attorney-motion-to.html

 Tampa Marijuana Attorney - Motion To Suppress
Marijuana Motion To Suppress
 

Drug Court Pre Trial Intervention in Florida

To avoid a conviction in the Drug Court system someone must:

1. Not have a prior felony conviction in the State of Florida or any other location;

2. Agree they have a substance abuse and or addiction problem;

3. Be able to comply with the programs requirements & rules;

4. Have your own transportation in order to attend your appointments

5. Be approved by the State Attorney’s Office, the Department of Corrections, Drug Pre-Trial Intervention and DACCO (treatment agency)

Drug Court Pre Trial Intervention in Florida

Drug Court Pre Trial Intervention in Florida


The First Fab Five Growers of Florida Marijuana

Florida just announced the first five licensed marijuana growers in Florida. Here is the list . . .

https://www.drug2go.com/2015/11/marijuana-growers-in-florida.html

Marijuana Growers Florida

Marijuana Growers Florida

 

Marijuana Growers in Florida – The First Fab Five
 

Can a Florida Drug Overdose Grant Immunity From Criminal Prosecution?

Usually the answer is “no” However, one recent case involved a victim who was found to be impaired, but not overdosed from heroin. The cop noticed the patient had signs of intoxication that included bloodshot eyes, rambling speech, and swaying. Usually, A person who experiences a drug-related overdose and is in need of medical assistance may not be charged, prosecuted, or penalized pursuant to this chapter for possession of a controlled substance if the evidence for possession of a controlled substance was obtained as a result of the overdose and the need for medical assistance.
Drug Book Cover

Drug Book Cover


Drug Crimes: The People’s Guide to Fighting Like an Expert

 

Working on first author’s proof for first publication. Drug Crimes Book is nearing completion. Here is a draft of the Table of Contents.

Drug Crimes: The People's Guide to Fighting Like and Expert

Drug Crimes: The People’s Guide to Fighting Like an Expert

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: Do You Need a Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer? 6
Vehicle Seizures and Forfeitures 7
Anonymous Tips 7
Traffic Stop by Non Law Enforcement 17
Video Recording of Police Encounters 19
Failure to Follow Proper Procedures 20
The Arrest 21
Targeting Neighborhoods 21
The Field Test for Drugs 21
What About Miranda Rights? 21
Witnesses Required For Court 26
Presumptive Field Testing of Drugs 26
The Driver’s License 27
Florida Drug Crimes License Suspension 27
Summary of Florida Drug Crimes License Suspension Laws 28
Consequences of a Drug Conviction 30
The Court 32
Florida Standard Jury Instruction for Possession and Trafficking in Drugs 32
Jury Trial Victories 33
Acquittal of a Drug Charges 33
The Impact of a Drug Crimes Conviction 36
Vehicle Impounded 36
First Time Drug Crime Penalties 38
Second Time Drug Crime Penalties 39
How to Go to Jail 39
Third time Drug Crime Penalties 40
How to Get a Felony Drug Crime Conviction 40
Drug Court and Avoiding a Conviction 40
Notes 41


Help for Veterans in Veteran’s Treatment Court VTC

Good news for veterans in trouble in Tampa.

Veterans Treatment Court VTC in Hillsborough County, FL

Veterans Treatment Court VTC in Hillsborough County, FL

 

Veterans Court – Tampa – Hillsborough County, Florida

The Sleeping Driver and DUI and Actual Physical Control of a Car

The Sleeping Driver and DUI

Here are a few tips to avoid becoming the next sleeping driver with a DUI in Florida.

DUI and Actual Physical Control of a Car

As the holiday travel season approaches, in Florida many people will be taking long trips by car. Some drivers may have had a bit to drink and be in actual physical control of their car. Is it safe to pull over and take a nap? That depends. If you have been drinking and have alcohol on your breath, it is likely that police may try to push the limits and arrest you. Even if you are a sleeping driver, not driving on the road, cops can bust you for being in Actual Physical Control of a Car while impaired or DUI.


“The firetruck’s air horn sounded and [the driver] rolled down his window, allowing [the officer] to smell the odor of alcohol emitting from him.”


Sleeping Driver DUI Actual Physical Control

Sleeping Driver DUI Actual Physical Control


Here are a few tips for pulling over for a nap:


  1. Park legally
  2. Shut off the engine
  3. Remove keys from ignition
  4. Roll up the windows
  5. Get out of the driver’s seat

Typically, the police will try to get you to roll down the windows and see if they smell the odor of alcohol emanating from your breath. While the police do have the opportunity to check on your welfare, they do not have the right to order you from the vehicle when they have not observed a violation of the law. I have found a recent court order where the judge ruled the police did not have the right to force someone to open the window of their vehicle after the police observed the driver sleeping.


The driver “was not obligated to roll down his window and acknowledge the officer.”


In one recent case, the officer observed a vehicle parked in a parking lot. The officer approached the vehicle to check on the driver’s welfare. Once the driver woke-up and responded,

and even though the driver was in actual physical control of the vehicle with the officer tapping on the window, the officer can not demand the driver to ultimately have the window of the car opened.

First responders used the loud horns of an ambulance to arouse the driver and when the driver opened the window in response to the ruckus. “[T]he firetruck’s air horn has sounded and [the driver] rolled down his window, allowing [the officer] to smell the odor of alcohol emitting from him.” The Court ruled that the officer had violated the Fourth Amendment since there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The driver “was not obligated to roll down his window and acknowledge the officer.”

Here is the Court’s complete Sleeping Driver DUI Opinion:


Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607BROW

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. DONTAY DEJUAN BROWN, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2017-CT-053213-AXXX-XX. May 8, 2018. Michelle V. Baker, Judge. Counsel: Annabelle Chambers, Office of the State Attorney, Titusville, for Plaintiff. Joel Leppard and Joe Easton, Leppard Law, Orlando, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant, Dontay Dejuan Brown’s Amended Motion to Suppress, filed on January 23, 2018 and heard on March 16, 2018. Having considered the Motion, evidence presented, and argument of counsel, the Court finds the following:

Sleeping Driver Spotted

On December 2, 2017, at approximately 7:00 a.m., the Titusville Police Department was contacted about an individual who was slumped over the steering wheel of an automobile that was parked in the Krystal’s parking lot. Titusville Police Officer Mark Fourtney responded to the location and observed the automobile, which was still running. The officer testified that there was no indication of any criminal activity and that he was there for a welfare check.

Officer Fourtney testified that he tapped on the window and the individual, later identified as Mr. Brown, raised his head slightly and rotated his body away from the window. Officer Fourtney continued to tap on the window. Meanwhile, the Titusville Fire Department, which had also been dispatched to the scene, arrived. Officer Fourtney stated that “the male is waking up but won’t open the door for me.” Thereafter, the firetruck’s air horn was sounded and Mr. Brown rolled down his window, allowing Officer Fourtney to smell the odor of alcohol emitting from him.

Demanding Sleeping Driver Attention

Mr. Brown argues that there was no need for a welfare check. The Court finds that the welfare check was permissible to the extent that Officer Fourtney was allowed to alleviate any concern’s he might have for the driver’s health. It is clear from Officer Fourtney’s testimony that there was nothing about the way or where the vehicle was parked that would indicate that there was anything wrong with the driver. The driver was slumped over the steering wheel, apparently asleep, and responded to the window taps by moving his body away from the noise. There was nothing about Mr. Brown’s behavior that indicated that he was incoherent.

Sleeping Driver Responsive

The two men did not engage in conversation at that time. Mr. Brown was also responsive, albeit not in the manner that Officer Fourtney desired. As part of a consensual encounter, Mr. Brown was not obligated to roll down his window and acknowledge the officer. Officer Fourtney’s persistence, although not verbal, in demanding Mr. Brown’s attention, after it was apparent that the Defendant was simply sleeping, runs afoul of Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D793a] and Greider v. State, 977 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D949b].

Investigation Not Based On Reasonable Suspicion

Contrary to the State’s assertion, this case is not factually similar to Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D776a]. Dermio involved an individual who was found with his head “cocked to the left side and had a cell phone lodged between his shoulder and cheek.” Id. at 553. Further, the Defendant woke up but seemed “really out of it.” Id. Thus, the deputy had a continuing concern for Dermio’s safety. Id. Officer Fourtney’s community caretaker duty was satisfied when the Defendant simply rolled away from the noise. There was no other evidence observed by the officer that Mr. Brown was ill. Thereafter, the officer was proceeding with an investigation which was not based upon a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress is hereby GRANTED.

Florida’s DUI Actual Physical Control Law


316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.—

(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;
(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or
(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Street Racing History in Tampa Florida

Street Racing Traf1063 316.191.2a Misd 1st Unlawful Racing On Highway

Street Racing

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. https://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.”

Source: https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/street-racer-found-guilty-in-83-year-old-womans-death/1044011

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.

Source: https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1012528.ece

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

Blood Test Subpoena for DUI Medical Records Denied

Medical Records in DUI Prosecutions ,Blood Test Subpoenas and Medical Records

Blood Test Medical Records in DUI Prosecutions

in a blood test “burden arises from the Constitutional right to privacy in one’s medical records, which requires the State to demonstrate a compelling interest in the disclosure.”

Requests to Subpoena Medical Records of a Blood Test


After a typical crash police will sometimes attempt to assign blame. The police may suspect alcohol or drug use and attempt to obtain dui blood tests or medical records for people treated in a crash. This is true, even though the driver may have been the only person injured in a one-car crash. Nevertheless, police must jump through a lot of hoops to get your medical records. Sometimes the police jump the gun and make mistakes. If they do, a competent defense attorney can have the medical records and results of a possibly incriminating blood test thrown out by the court.

What is the process for obtaining the medical records of a driver in a crash?


The prosecutor will receive a copy of the crash report from the investigating DUI officer. If done correctly, the prosecutor will send a registered letter to the driver notifying them of the prosecutor’s efforts to obtain confidential medical records. The letter typically will give the driver a certain number of days to subject to the disclosure of the medical records. If the defendant’s lawyer files and an appropriate objection, there will be a hearing in front of a judge who will decide what if any medical records should be available to the prosecutor by subpoena. In the case we have discussed below, the judge ruled that there was not enough information for the confidential medical records of the driver to be disclosed.

Medical Records in DUI Prosecutions, Blood Test Subpoenas and Medical Records


As one commentator has noted in this case the “State failed to establish there was reasonable founded suspicion to believe defendant was driving while impaired by alcohol or controlled substances so as to overcome defendant’s right to privacy in her medical records and therefore failed to establish that medical records contained information relevant to ongoing criminal investigation.”

Complete Text of Order Denying Request for Blood Results in a DUI Case


STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA COOPER, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2017-308515MMDB. November 18, 2017. Belle B. Schumann, Judge. Counsel: Susan Bexley, Assistant State Attorney, for Plaintiff. John S. Hager, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING STATE’S REQUEST TO SUBPOENA “MEDICAL” BLOOD

This case comes before the Court on the State’s Notice of Intent to Subpoena Medical Records of the Defendant, filed November 16, 2017, and the Defense’s Objection thereto, which was filed that same date. A hearing was held on the State’s request on January 17, 2018. Upon due consideration of the facts as proved and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the State’s request to subpoena the Defendant’s medical records. The State failed to establish there was a reasonable founded suspicion to believe that the Defendant was driving while impaired by alcohol or controlled substances to overcome the Defendant’s right to privacy in her medical records, and therefore failed to establish that these records contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Previously, on November 6, 2017, there was a hearing on a motion to suppress in this case, and an order entered by the Court as a result of that hearing. This order, docket number 27 in this case, is incorporated herein [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1019a]. The facts found are as follows:

At the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Tara Libby established that on December 17, 2016, Joshua Wilson of the Ormond Beach Police Department responded to a “crash” within his city. No further explanation of this event was given. No description of the condition of the vehicles, no result of investigation into any driving pattern, no suggestion what may have caused the crash, not even the time of day or weather conditions were elicited by the State. The only further testimony about this “crash” established by the State was the conclusion by the officer that the Defendant was “at fault.” No explanation for this conclusory statement was provided, nor any of the facts that led the officer to this conclusion. There was no evidence that anyone was injured in this “crash” or even that there was any physical damage to any property.

When Officer Wilson spoke to the Defendant, he testified that he noticed she “spoke slowly” and was “lethargic,” again without any further elaboration. The State asked if in the accident report, he “noted alcohol was involved” and he replied, “yes.” The officer agreed with the conclusory question that he believed he had probable cause for DUI. No elucidation of the basis for this conclusion was provided.

On cross examination, the officer testified that he could not recall if he smelled alcohol on or about the Defendant, and conceded that his report did not indicate that he detected the odor of alcohol, or any other evidence of alcohol use. There was no mention of controlled substances.
In this prior order, the Court granted the Motion to Suppress, finding that,

The evidence presented by the State in this case falls woefully short of establishing probable cause to believe that the Defendant was driving while impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance to lawfully request breath, blood or urine. §316.1932, Fla. Stat. (2016). Although not at issue here, it seems unlikely that the State’s proof in this case would even rise to the level of a reasonable suspicion to require field sobriety exercises. The State’s offer of proof was completely inadequate. . . .

In this case, the State failed to establish any facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Debra Cooper was driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance on the date in question. Bare conclusory assertions cannot sustain the State’s burden of proof. Had the State presented any evidence concerning the crash to establish some sort of driving pattern, more observations of the officer, or some scintilla of evidence of impairment by alcohol, the result may have been different. (emphasis added)

Now the State seeks to subpoena the Defendant’s medical records after she was taken to the hospital as a result of the crash. The only evidence presented at the Hunter hearing was the accident report. This report is not an affidavit, and it is unsworn. It also contains statements from the Defendant which all parties agree are privileged and which cannot be used to establish the State’s burden of proof.

Assuming without deciding that an unsworn accident report is acceptable proof and not hearsay, the only evidence of impairment contained in this report is again that the Defendant appeared “lethargic and spoke slowly” after the crash that sent her to the hospital. There is the fact that the crash occurred when the vehicle driven by the Defendant drifted partially into a turn lane and struck the other vehicle from behind. The State makes no argument that the driving pattern or the crash provides evidence of impairment.

Before the State can employ its investigatory subpoena power and compel disclosure of medical records without the consent of the patient, the State “…has the obligation and the burden to show the relevancy of the records requested.” Hunter v. State, 639 So. 3d 72, 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); §395.3025(4), Fla. Stat. (2016). The State’s burden arises from the Constitutional right to privacy in one’s medical records, which requires the State to demonstrate a compelling interest in the disclosure. Art. 1, §23, Fla. Const. “Such [a compelling state] interest exists where there is a reasonable founded suspicion that the materials contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” State v. Rivers, 787 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D1512a]. See also, State v. Rutherford, 707 So. 2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly D2387b] [disapproved on other grounds in State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly S250a]] (“Where a right to privacy attaches, the State may vindicate an encroachment on that right…(when it) is established by a showing that the police have a reasonable founded suspicion that the protected materials contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.”)

In support of their position, the Defense relies on the case of Guardado v. State, 61 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1087a]. They point out that “crash plus death” or “crash plus injury” does not always make the blood relevant as the State argues; that is not the law. The Defense is entirely correct. Absent some scintilla of evidence that the Defendant was impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance, the State has again fallen woefully short of its burden to demonstrate a compelling interest which exists where there is a reasonable founded suspicion that the materials contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation to overcome the Defendant’s right to privacy in her medical records.

WHEREFORE, based on the argument and authority presented, the State’s Notice of Intent to Subpoena Medical Records is hereby DENIED.

* * *

Source: Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2512COOP

Florida Restoration of Civil Rights

Restoration of Civil Rights Tampa Florida Federal Court Criminal Defense Attorney / Lawyer

Florida Restoration of Civil Rights Criminal Defense Attorney / Expert Trial Lawyer


Appeals Court Reverses Voting Rights Restoration Ruling

UPDATE April 26, 2018:  St Pete Times reports, “A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued a stay of a March 27 order by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, who declared the system “fatally flawed” and unconstitutionally arbitrary.”

“The governor has broad discretion to grant and deny clemency, even when the applicable regime lacks any standards,” said the order written by Judge Stanley Marcus, a former federal judge in Miami, striking at the heart of Walker’s earlier decision.”


In a blockbuster ruling, a United States District Judge in Florida has ordered the Governor and the State of Florida to provide a meaningful path to restoration of Civil Rights. “Florida’s rate of denying voting rights is more than 300 percent higher than the other 49 states” said the St. Petersburg Times . According to one researcher,  “In Crist’s [previous governor’s] final year as governor, he oversaw the restoration of rights for 27,456 felons, according to the Brennan Center. In Scott’s first year, he restored voting rights for 52 felons. If this were the stock market, that would translate to a drop of 99.82 percent.”

 

Update April 4, 2018; The Governor has appealed the ruling in an effort to further delay.

Here is a Sample Clemency Application like the ones being delayed in Florida.

Excerpts from the Opinion of the Florida Restoration of Civil Rights Court

 

“In its prior order, this Court found the fuzzy time periods that the Board has invoked in reviewing or re-reviewing former felons’ applications unconstitutional . . . .”

 

“Florida’s current scheme inverts that important, democratic mechanism. It cannot do so anymore.”

 

“the Board “cannot . . . kick the can down the road for so long that they violate former felons’ rights to free association and free expression.”

 

“Removing any scheme for vote-restoration is the ultimate arbitrary act. Having lost their ability to re-enfranchise citizens at a snail’s pace guided by absolutely nothing, Defendants’ threats to arbitrarily and completely end the vote-restoration scheme is tantamount to picking up one’s marbles and going home.”

 

Opinion of the Florida Restoration of Civil Rights Court

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

 

Case No. 4:17cv128-MW/CAS

 

 

JAMES MICHAEL HAND, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

 

RICK SCOTT, in his official

capacity as Governor of

Florida and member of the

State of Florida’s Executive

Clemency Board, et al.,

 

Defendants.

__________________________/

 

ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

 

This Court is not the Vote-Restoration Czar. It does not pick and choose who may receive the right to vote and who may not. Nor does it write the rules and regulations for the Executive Clemency Board. Instead, this Court possesses the well-known and unsurprising “province and duty . . . to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). And this Court possesses the unremarkable discretion to find a means for the Board to comply with the law.

 

In its Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, this Court applied longstanding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit that invalidated unfettered-discretion schemes to a novel context; namely, that of felon re-enfranchisement. See generally ECF No. 144. And, as it has done in the past, this Court invited the parties to recommend appropriate remedial action. Defendants essentially repackage the current scheme into proposed remedies permitting the Governor and Board to do, as the Governor described, “whatever we want” in denying voting rights to hundreds of thousands of their constituents. ECF No. 144, at 2 (citation omitted). This will not do. And Defendants’ proposed remedy to abandon the whole vote-restoration scheme does not pass constitutional muster.

 

If binding precedent spanning decades is to guide this Court—as it must—then an injunction must ensue to prevent further infringement. Florida’s vote-restoration scheme can no longer violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental First Amendment rights. Accordingly, as even Defendants acknowledge, “this Court may direct the Board ‘to find a means of bringing the [State’s] scheme into compliance with federal law.’” ECF No. 149, at 14 (quoting Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155, 170 (1st Cir. 1997)).

 

I

 

Plaintiffs would have this Court restore the right to vote to any former felon who has completed her whole sentence and a uniformly imposed five- or seven-year waiting period. ECF No. 147, at 2–3. But such relief is beyond the scope of this Court’s authority. The people of Florida—either through ballot initiatives or through their legislative acts—may cure any perceived policy weaknesses with Florida’s restoration scheme.

 

1 A state constitutional amendment proposing changes to Florida’s felony disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement process will appear on the ballot in November 2018.

 

2 “The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows.” ROCKY BALBOA (Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, et al. 2006). The same goes for Florida’s current vote-restoration scheme. See generally ECF No. 144.

 

II

 

While Defendants oppose any relief and claim the current scheme is all sunshine and rainbows, they agree with Plaintiffs that this Court may provide declaratory relief.2 See, e.g., ECF No. 157, Ex. A (outlining Plaintiffs’ proposed declaratory relief), and ECF No. 158, at 15 (“Here, a declaratory judgment would provide an adequate remedy for the specific concerns identified by the Court.”). And this Court grants declaratory relief consistent with its prior order.

 

III

 

The parties disagree on the propriety and extent of injunctive relief, which is the primary purpose of this Order. This Court finds injunctive relief is appropriate to ensure that Florida’s vote-restoration scheme is no longer based on unfettered discretion.

 

 

A

 

To succeed on a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs “must satisfy a four-factor test.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs must show (1) “irreparable injury”; (2) that “remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury”; (3) that, “considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff[s] and defendant[s], a remedy in equity is warranted”; and (4) that the “public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Id. at 156–57 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

Plaintiffs have satisfied the elements for a permanent injunction. First, Plaintiffs have suffered an irreparable injury.3 Their right to free association and right to free expression were denied under a fatally flawed scheme of unfettered discretion that was contaminated by the risk of viewpoint discrimination. The Board will revisit some of their decisions at some unknown future date—if at all—based on nebulous criteria, such as the Governor’s comfort level. See, e.g., ECF No. 102, at 41. “[I]n the unique context of first amendment challenges upon the facial validity of licensing statutes, it is the very existence of official discretion that gives rise to a threat of injury sufficient to warrant an injunction.” Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. City of Hallandale, 734

 

One exception is Plaintiff Yraida Leonides Guanipa, who is not yet eligible for restoration. ECF No. 102, at 11–12. On Plaintiffs’ facial challenge, however, the absence of Ms. Guanipa does not impact the contours of this Court’s remedy or, for that matter, this Court’s Order. F.2d 666, 674 n.4 (11th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs, then, have established “an imminent likelihood” that their First Amendment rights to free association and free expression “will be chilled or prevented altogether.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1178 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).

 

Second, because Plaintiffs suffered an irreparable harm, remedies at law are inadequate. See Barrett v. Walker Cty. Sch. Dist., 872 F.3d 1209, 1229 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981) (“An injury is ‘irreparable’ only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.”)).

 

Decisions rendered by Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit constitute binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Stein v. Reynolds Secs., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982).

 

Third, the balance of the hardships favors Plaintiffs. Defendants need only redraft rules that align the vote-restoration scheme within the boundaries of the law by cabining official discretion and providing meaningful time constraints for the Board’s decision-making. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, are deprived of a voice in directly choosing their elected leaders. They are also deprived of associating with the political party, if any, of their choice. Both are essential First Amendment rights, as this Court described in its prior order. ECF No. 144, at 9–17. Balancing the hardships between protecting First

Amendment rights and having a government board that meets four times a year redraft their rules to conform with the United States Constitution weighs unsurprisingly in favor of the former.

 

Finally, Plaintiffs easily satisfy the fourth factor. “[T]he public interest is always served in promoting First Amendment values.” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1276 (11th Cir. 2001). There are few greater interests than free association and free expression to choose public officials to lead, to represent all people in their jurisdictions, and to advance policy for the common good. These interests are why Americans launched a revolution against perceived unfettered discretion in the hands of one high-ranking official, King George III.

 

B

 

The question turns to the nature and extent of a permanent injunction. “Injunctive relief against a state agency or official must be no broader than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation.”

Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1008 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986)). This Court does not re-enfranchise otherwise eligible citizens. This Court does not operate as a legislature. This Court is not a fifth member of the Board, drafting specific rules and regulations for it, unless it is forced to do so.

 

5 This Court recognizes that in other contexts, as Plaintiffs point out, courts have actively participated in crafting specific remedies. See ECF No. 157, at 3–7 (listing redistricting, voting-rights, and school-desegregation cases in which courts have crafted specific remedies when a legislature or other government body abandons its court-ordered duties).

 

6 Plaintiffs challenge an executive clemency scheme that, by rule, has “unfettered discretion” to deny or grant critical First Amendment rights. Fla. R. Exec. Clemency 4. But, as this Court emphasized in its prior order, a scheme’s placement under an executive-clemency structure does not exempt it from constitutional compliance. ECF No. 144, at 25–27 (discussing the limitations of executive clemency in relation to federal constitutional protections); see also Hoffa v. Saxbe, 378 F. Supp. 1221, 1231 (D.D.C. 1974) (“And the [pardon] power is most importantly limited, as are all powers conferred by the Constitution, by the Bill of Rights which expressly reserved to the ‘individual’ certain fundamental rights.”); see also id. at 1233 (observing that the President’s pardon power “does not exist in a vacuum but rather as part of our total constitutional system”).

 

While this Court again recognizes the novelty of Plaintiffs’ claims, this Court’s permanent injunction does not surface out of some swamp. Federal courts have regularly held—including other circuits and the Supreme Court—that cabining state officials’ discretion so they may not violate First Amendment rights is an appropriate task for federal courts.  See, e.g. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988) (listing a “long line of precedent” outlining the Supreme Court’s discomfort with government officials’ unfettered discretion over First Amendment rights); Forsyth Cty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 133 (1992) (“The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official.”); Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Berger, 894 F.2d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1990) (invalidating scheme that “failed to establish any parameters for the exercise of its authority to regulate a broad category of speech”). The incongruence of officials’ unfettered discretion with the First Amendment extends to executive-clemency schemes implicating constitutional rights.

 

The Eleventh Circuit has previously addressed other unconstitutional unfettered-discretion schemes, which guides this Court on the scope and nature of appropriate injunctive relief. In Sentinel Communications Co. v. Watts, the Eleventh Circuit struck down a scheme that gave a Florida official “standardless, unfettered discretion” in distributing newspaper racks at interstate rest areas. 936 F.2d 1189, 1197 (11th Cir. 1991). “Unaided (or unhindered) by any regulations, guidelines, procedures, ordinances, or standards,” the government official had “no grounds for granting or denying permits” and was “free to make his decisions on any basis that he deem[ed] appropriate.” Id. at 1198. Newspapers seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights were “subject to the completely standardless and unfettered discretion of one bureaucrat working . . . in Tallahassee.” Id. at 1199. To remedy that official’s infinite discretion, the court called for “[s]ome neutral criteria” that would “insure” that the government official’s decision “is not based on the content or viewpoint of the speech being considered.” Id. at 1199–1200 (quoting Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 760).

 

Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit determined en banc that an Atlanta government agency’s unfettered discretion over granting or denying permits for newsrack distribution at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport violated the First Amendment. Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Atlanta, 322 F.3d 1298, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Particularly concerning was the risk that the government official would engage in impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the guise of a neutral business-related reason—a sort of “mask for censorship.” Id. at 1311 n.13. To rectify that risk, “[s]tructural and procedural safeguards can reduce the possibility that an official will use her power to corrupt the protections of the First Amendment.” Id. at 1311. Therefore, the government official “must be constrained in some form in her exercise of discretion” by “clear standards.” Id.; see also id. at 1312 (holding that official discretion “must be restrained through procedures or instructions designed to reduce or eliminate the possibility of viewpoint discrimination”).

 

So too here. There is no doubt a risk that the Board’s officials may engage in viewpoint discrimination through seemingly neutral rationales—such as traffic citations or an applicant’s perceived lack of remorse—that serve as impermissible “mask[s] for censorship.”  Id. at 1311 n.13. This sort of unfettered discretion cannot exist under the Federal Constitution—or any well-functioning democracy. Therefore, the Board must promulgate specific standards and neutral criteria to direct its decision-making. Sentinel Commc’ns, 936 F.2d at 1199 n.9 (“[T]he doctrine forbidding unbridled discretion requires reasonable and definite standards.”); see also id. at 1207 (explaining that Florida “simply cannot continue to take an utterly discretionary, ‘seat of the pants’ regulatory approach towards” First Amendment activity and that written guidelines with “specific criteria” should guide government discretion).

 

These standards and criteria cannot be merely advisory, a Potemkin village for anyone closely reviewing the scheme. See ECF No. 144, at 4–5 (outlining the existing non-binding criteria the Board may or may not consider). “Implicit limits on a licensing official’s discretion must be made explicit, ‘by textual incorporation, binding judicial or administrative construction, or well-established practice.’” Sentinel Commc’ns, 936 F.2d at 1199 n.9 (quoting Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 770). In other words, the Board cannot rely on whims, passing emotions, or perceptions. Establishing safeguards against viewpoint discrimination should be the Board’s paramount goal following this Order. In the future, concrete criteria—not “feel[ing] comfortable,” ECF No. 144, at 30—must direct the Board. And its rules must spell these criteria out with precision. See Atlanta Journal, 322 F.3d at 1312 (retaining portion of district court’s permanent injunction “that prohibited the administration of any plan that did not explicitly constrain official discretion”).

 

Defendants balk at injunctive relief partly because of a “presumption of regularity.” ECF No. 149, at 8–9. This argument boils down to “trust us—we got this.” But “this is the very presumption that the doctrine forbidding unbridled discretion disallows.” Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 770. The Eleventh Circuit is again instructive. “[I]t is not enough to presume that officials will act in good faith and adhere to standards absent from a statute or scheme’s face.” Sentinel Commc’ns, 936 F.2d at 1199 n.9. While Defendants invoke the presumption of regularity to avoid a permanent injunction, such a remedy is necessary to cabin Defendants’ unfettered discretion—and the broad discretion they claim to have in crafting a remedy. And, as noted before, Defendants concede this point. “[T]his Court may direct the Board ‘to find a means of bringing the [State’s] scheme into compliance with federal law.’” ECF No. 149, at 14 (quoting Strahan, 127 F.3d at 170).

 

Generally, when a court strikes down unconstitutional grants of unfettered government discretion, it does so because “the problem is not potential abuses but the very existence of broad, censorial power.” Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness v. Eaves, 601 F.2d 809, 823 (5th Cir. 1979).7 Here, there is little doubt that the Board possesses broad, censorial power to prohibit hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible voters from freely associating with  7 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. political parties or freely expressing themselves through voting. And there are problems of potential abuse—especially when members of the Board, who are elected on a statewide basis and who may be running for re-election or another office, have a personal stake in shaping the electorate to their perceived benefit. “Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010). Florida’s current scheme inverts that important, democratic mechanism. It cannot do so anymore.

 

In short, the Board is left to the “task of devising a Constitutionally sound program,” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted), but it must do so within constraints that the Eleventh Circuit has identified; namely, specific, neutral criteria that excise the risk—and, of course, the actual practice of—any impermissible discrimination, such as race, gender, religion, or viewpoint. While this Court does not order any particular vote-restoration scheme nor any specific criteria the Board must consider, Florida’s corrected scheme cannot be byzantine or burdensome.

 

C

 

The Board’s new criteria would be toothless without meaningful time constraints. In its prior order, this Court found the fuzzy time periods that the Board has invoked in reviewing or re-reviewing former felons’ applications unconstitutional. ECF No. 144, at 27–31. Like this Court’s conclusions about the Board’s lack of criteria to cabin its decision-making, this Court’s conclusions over the absence of meaningful time constraints do not arrive out of thin air. The Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit have repeatedly struck down schemes that lack meaningful time constraints as contrary to the First Amendment.  See, e.g., id. at 28–29 (citing Supreme Court precedent),

and id. At 29 n.16 (citing Eleventh Circuit precedent).

 

Binding precedent again instructs the scope and nature of remedies. Recently, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court’s permanent injunction over a school board’s policy that essentially failed to constrain a high-ranking official from granting or denying speaking slots to individuals at school-board meetings. Barrett, 872 F.3d at 1229. “[U]nbridled discretion can . . . exist when a permitting official has no time limit within which she must make a decision on a permit application.” Id. at 1222. The challenged policy “pose[d] enough of a risk that speech w[ould] be chilled or effectively censored on the basis of content or viewpoint” because one portion of the policy “lack[ed] any time limit with which [the government official] must comply.” Id. at 1229.

 

The same risks exist here. As this Court emphasized in its prior order, the Board “cannot . . . kick the can down the road for so long that they violate former felons’ rights to free association and free expression.” ECF No. 144, at 29. It is no excuse that the Board lacks resources to abide by the Federal Constitution’s requirements. If the Board pursues policies that sever hundreds of thousands of Floridians from the franchise and, at the appropriate time, hundreds of thousands of Floridians want their voting rights back, the Board must shoulder the burden of its policies’ consequences. They cannot continue to shrug off restoration applications indefinitely.

 

Accordingly, the Board must promulgate time constraints that are meaningful, specific, and expeditious. While this Court leaves the specifics of timing to Defendants to outline and justify, the time limits cannot cloak impermissible clock-control. See Barrett, 872 F.3d at 1214 (“Control the clock and control the game.”). Absent extraordinary circumstances, this Court cannot conceive of any reason why an applicant at any point must wait more than one election cycle after she becomes eligible to apply for restoration.

 

D

 

Defendants cannot end the vote-restoration scheme entirely. See  ECF No. 149, at 11 (suggesting the Board could adopt a policy “declining to restore any convicted felon’s ability to vote, either permanently or as an interim measure . . .”). This Court concluded that Florida’s arbitrary slow drip of vote-restorations violates the U.S. Constitution—but that does not mean Defendants can shut off the spigot of voting rights with a wrench, yank it from the plumbing, and throw the whole apparatus into the Gulf of Mexico. In its prior order, this Court reasoned that a state cannot re-enfranchise its citizens arbitrarily because it cannot disenfranchise citizens arbitrarily. See ECF No. 144, at 6–7 (citing Shepherd v. Trevino, 575 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir. 1978), and Owens v. Barnes, 711 F.2d 25, 27 (3dCir.1983)); see also id. at 7 n.4 (citing Williams v. Taylor, 677 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1982)).

 

Removing any scheme for vote-restoration is the ultimate arbitrary act. Having lost their ability to re-enfranchise citizens at a snail’s pace guided by absolutely nothing, Defendants’ threats to arbitrarily and completely end the vote-restoration scheme is tantamount to picking up one’s marbles and going home.

 

It is true that “Florida’s discretion to deny the vote to convicted felons is fixed by the text” of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment. Johnson v. Bush, 405 F.3d 1214, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). States have “a realm of discretion in the . . . reenfranchisement of felons which the states do not possess with respect to limiting the franchise of other citizens.” Shepherd, 575 F.2d at 1114 (emphasis added). In exercising that discretion, Florida pursues an interest “in limiting the franchise to responsible voters.” Id. at 1115.

 

In so limiting the franchise, Florida has the ability under existing case law to exercise some—but not unlimited—discretion in re-enfranchisement of former felons.

Id. at 1114.

 

Florida exercises this discretion by defining what a felony is. It culls from the body politic hundreds of thousands of men and women who have been convicted of those felonies. And it strips voting rights from individuals serving their sentences, their probations, their paroles, and

from those men and women patiently waiting the duration of a uniform five- or seven-year period.

But, as this Court previously stated, “no realm is without boundary.” ECF No. 144, at 35. That conclusion unremarkably presupposed the existence of a realm for the state to exercise discretion. Removing all discretion by jettisoning the vote-restoration scheme in its entirety is easily outside the “realm of discretion” because such a plan tosses out the “realm.” In short, Shepherd presumes the existence of a realm for state officials to exercise limited discretion that the absence of a vote-restoration scheme would contravene. Once Florida provides for a realm of discretion through a vote-restoration scheme, it cannot simply discard that scheme after a federal court finds constitutional violations with its current rules.

 

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s “prior decisions have voiced particular concern with laws that foreclose an entire medium of expression.”

City of Ladue v. Gilleo

, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994);

see also id.

(listing Supreme Court precedent invalidating total bans on First Amendment activity). For example, a Ladue, Missouri ordinance that was a “virtually complete ban” on all residential signs “almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication.”

Id.

at 49, 54. The Court observed that bans on whole swaths of First Amendment rights “may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination” but “the danger [such prohibitions] pose to the freedom of speech is readily apparent—by

eliminating a common means of speaking, such measures can suppress too much speech.”

Id.

at 55. Similarly, the Supreme Court narrowly construed a municipality’s law prohibiting some picketing but acknowledged that problems would arise if the law banned

all

picketing.

Frisby v. Schultz

, 487 U.S. 474, 486 (1988) (“The type of focused picketing prohibited by the [municipality’s] ordinance is fundamentally different from more generally directed means of communication that may not be completely banned in residential areas.”).

Analogous concerns would arise if the Board abandoned its vote-restoration scheme entirely. Once a federal court acknowledges former felons’ First Amendment rights to association and expression upon which a restoration scheme of unfettered discretion unconstitutionally infringes, the Board cannot issue a blanket ban on all activity without some pathway out of the prohibition. And while a “particularly punitive state might even disenfranchise convicted felons permanently[,] . . . once a state provides for restoration, its process cannot offend the Constitution.” ECF No. 144, at 9.8 Shutting off the slow drip of vote-restorations in this context would offend the Constitution.

8 Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section Two, states have an “affirmative sanction” in disenfranchising men and women convicted of felonies. Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 54 (1974). This Court is troubled by some courts’ “fetishistic” reading of this precedent that strips the constitutional authorization of its context and relies solely on a textual reading. See Jessie Allen, Documentary Disenfranchisement, 86 TUL. L. REV. 389, 448–59 (2011).

That Florida cannot jettison its whole vote-restoration scheme is also supported as a matter of state law—though, of course, in so analyzing this Court treads carefully through longstanding principles of federalism. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (“[I]t is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law.”).

Defendants should heed the existence of a restoration process enshrined in Florida’s constitution and in state laws. “No person convicted of a felony . . . shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights.” FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a) (emphasis added). “[T]he civil rights of the person convicted shall be suspended in Florida until such rights are restored . . .” FLA. STAT. ANN. § 944.292(1) (emphasis added). Defendants acknowledge as much. ECF No. 149, at 7 (“[A] convicted felon loses the right to vote until civil rights are restored.”) (emphasis added). They helpfully point out that Florida has coupled disenfranchisement with a form of vote-restoration for the past 150 years. Id. at 18 (explaining how the 1868, 1885, and 1968 state constitutions contained restoration language).

References in Florida’s constitution and state laws to restoration are not window dressing. It is a “cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant.”

Kungys v. United States

, 485 U.S. 759, 778 (1988) (Scalia, J.) (plurality opinion);

see also

Vreeland v. Ferrer

, 71 So. 3d 70, 80 (Fla. 2011) (“[I]t is the duty of a court ‘to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’”) (quoting

United States v. Menasche

, 348 U.S. 528, 538–39 (1955)). It is clear, then, that Florida law assumes a vote-restoration scheme, at minimum, exists.

This Court does not enter an injunction pursuant to Florida law. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106 (forbidding federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with state law). “Under Pennhurst . . . the determinative question is not the relief ordered, but whether the relief was ordered pursuant to state or federal law.” Brown v. Ga. Dep’t of Revenue, 881 F.2d 1018, 1023 (11th Cir. 1989). A federal court can, however, consider a “state law issue that is preliminary to a federal claim against a state official.” Fleet Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Burke, 160 F.3d 883, 891 n.6 (2d Cir. 1998).

This Court reads the cited provisions of the Florida Constitution and state law as preliminary to

Shepherd

’s direction that states have a “realm of discretion” in re-enfranchising their citizens.

Shepherd

, 575 F.2d at 1114. In other words, the cited provisions codify the constitutional requirements that appellate courts have identified; namely, the existence of a state’s realm of discretion in re-enfranchisement.

Johnson v. Bush

, 405 F.3d at 1228;

Shepherd

, 575 F.2d at 1114. Abandoning that discretion by ceasing all vote-

restoration runs afoul of these cases.

restoration runs afoul of these cases.

restoration runs afoul of these cases.

9 This is not to say that a scheme of automatic re-enfranchisement for certain classes of convicted felons would run afoul of Shepherd’s grant of a “realm of discretion” to the state. Shepherd, 575 F.2d at 1114. It would be the state, after all, that would choose to grant the right to vote to some former felons but not all. Discretion would remain in such a scheme.

IV

 

These remedies are prophylactic. They construct guardrails so state officials’ discretion remains on the road of constitutionality. This Court recognizes that “pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally been the business of courts; as such, they are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review.” Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 464 (1981) (emphasis added). At the same time, clear standards “provide the guideposts that check” the government official granting or denying First Amendment rights and prevent “post hoc rationalizations” clouded by “shifting or illegitimate criteria.” Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 758. Simply put, the Board must create some preventative rules, criteria, and standards without any “shifting or illegitimate criteria.” Id. Since clemency decisions are “rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review,” Dumschat, 452 U.S. at 464, prophylactic protections must be robust and meaningful.

 

 

IT IS ORDERED:

 

 

  1. For the reasons set forth in its prior order, ECF No. 144, dated February 1, 2018, and this Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment stating:

 

  1. “FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4(a), FLA. CONST. art. IV § 8, FLA. STAT. § 97.041(2)(b), FLA. STAT. § 944.292(1), and the Florida Rules of Executive Clemency, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to the extent these provisions provide the Executive Clemency Board unfettered discretion to grant or deny restoration of voting rights to persons with felony convictions, and violate the First Amendment to the extent these provisions lack any time constraints for processing and making final decisions. This DECLARATORY JUDGMENT applies only to the right to vote, not to any other civil right. It does not apply to any other type of executive clemency in Florida.”

 

 

 

  1. “Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing the current unconstitutional vote-restoration scheme. Defendants are also PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from ending all vote-restoration processes. On or before April 26, 2018, Defendants shall promulgate specific and neutral criteria to direct vote-restoration decisions in accordance with this Order. On or before April 26, 2018, Defendants shall also promulgate meaningful, specific, and expeditious time constraints in accordance with this Order. Defendants shall file with this Court its modified rules on or before April 26, 2018.”

 

 

 

  1. Nothing in this Order Directing Entry of Judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants shall be construed to preclude or limit future modification or elimination of the pre-restoration waiting period(s) by any lawful means, such as constitutional amendment, legislation, or Board rulemaking.
  2. The Board shall reconsider any applicants who were denied a meaningful hearing during the pendency of this Order’s writing, i.e., between February 1, 2018 and today, under its new rules.
  3. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to monitor Defendants’ compliance and to entertain any motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

SO ORDERED on March 27, 2018.

 

s/Mark E. Walker  ____

United States District Judge

 

Are Traffic Ticket Quotas Legal in Florida? – Video – Contests – Arrests in Florida

Ticket Quotas are used in Florida.

Are Traffic Ticket Quotas Legal in Florida?

 

Hillsborough County Florida Traffic Ticket Quotas Award Arrest

Hillsborough County Florida Traffic Ticket Quotas Arrest Award

The short answer is “No.” Traffic Ticket Quotas are illegal. The Florida Statute specifically forbids these contests. Florida Statute 316.640(8)(b) (2017) states: “A traffic enforcement agency may not establish a traffic citation quota.” The issue turns on the question: “What is a quota?” A quota is a quantity, in this case the number of citations issued. There are several agencies that are competing for prizes in Driving Under the Influence contests where vehicles, body-cameras, and other law enforcement tools can be won, if certain goals are met. This may be a contest, but law enforcement consistently takes the position that these do not violate the law.

 

The Florida traffic law was passed in 2015. the law is called the “Waldo Bill.” The new provision is named after Waldo, Florida, a notorious speed trap between Gainesville and Jacksonville. “As of October 1, 2014 the town’s police force has been disbanded.” says the Wikimachine. When caught, here is what the Florida cops had to say about the latest  traffic ticket shenanigans:


“We will immediately designate that quotas are prohibited by Florida law . . . .”


 

More ticket quota evidence includes offering days off  to law enforcement officers that met  their goals. Apparently, a supervisor wanted 2 tickets per hour and “1.3 tickets per hour was not good enough.” We have been covering arrest quotas and contests by cops in Florida for years. We have uncovered the rules of the contest and posted them here. Up until this week’s breaking news from the Saint Petersburg Times, we thought the gamifying of law enforcement was limited to DUI arrests. Now we know that is not so. Police have targets that one, soon-to-be former, Florida Highway Patrol Trooper was encouraging- –  hourly targets and giving prime weekend time off to those who met the illegal goals of the department. So, unless you have a Stay Out of Jail Card, watch out for gamesmanship by law enforcement.


“1.3 tickets per hour was not good enough.”


I have spent quite a bit of time in court defending people charged with a variety of traffic offenses. One of the most offensive things I have seen was this luxury SUV that was a trophy in a contest to see how many people could be arrested for driving while impaired, among other things.

This vehicle was parked right outside of the Hillsborough County Courthouse in Tampa Florida. Apparently, the vehicle is equipped with a sophisticated video system and a mobile breath testing machine. Florida law prohibits quotas for issuing traffic tickets. The cops were just caught.

These kinds of incentives given to law enforcement can encourage otherwise decent and law-abiding police officers to violate the law. Maybe they need a weekend off. Maybe they think winning a car for their agency will look good in their personnel file. Maybe they think the prosecutor will reduce the charge from DUI to some lesser charge. Nevertheless, these awards are given for the issuance of citations or the arrests of citizens. No one seems to care to remove these entries on their permanent records when they are ultimately cleared of the charges or negotiate a plea to a lesser charge. Many first-time DUI offenders are never even convicted of DUI.

Since 2009, I have been following this area closely. The stories that are linked below cover in detail the policies and procedures that have been used by police to take advantage of programs to acquire more assets for law enforcement.

The Hillsborough County Sheriff won an SUV. The vehicle is marked with a championship logo and other markings establishing that the sheriff had won a contest to enforce DUI laws. DUI prosecutions are begun with a traffic ticket and issues about whether or not these are quotas should be asked.  The cop who wrote a memo documenting the quota has resigned. Fox has reported, “A top official with the Florida Highway Patrol who told troopers they aren’t writing enough speeding tickets is resigning from his job.” Here is some video on the illegal  ticket game.

 

Video | Illegal Ticket Quotas in Florida


 


Traffic Tickets, Arrest Contests, and Quotas – History in Florida

Arrest Contest, Traffic Ticket, and Quotas - History in Florida

Arrest Contest and Traffic Ticket Quotas – History in Florida


Florida Arrest Contest Costs $1,720,000

www.dui2go.com/2014/09/florida-dui-arrest-contest-costs-1720000.html

Sep 24, 2015 – As a Georgia Lawyer noted, when contests and quotas are in play, some police agencies keep their eyes on the prize. In that case , there is …


Florida Traffic Ticket Arrest Quota Award

Florida Traffic Ticket Arrest Quota Award


Florida Arrest Contest Winners?

www.dui2go.com/2014/04/florida-dui-arrest-contest-winners.html

Apr 8, 2014 – Driving under the influence Arrest Contest … it appears that citizens’ arrests are prizes in this despicable contest.

Arrest Contest Rules and Prizes

www.dui2go.com/2011/12/dui-arrest-contest-rules-and-prizes.html

Dec 15, 2011 – Attorney on Florida’s West Coast just uncovered the “rules” for a recent Arrest Contest. The awards are characterized as …


Hillsborough County Florida Traffic Ticket Arrest Quota Award

Hillsborough County Florida Traffic Ticket Arrest Quota Award


Arrest Contests Continue

www.dui2go.com/2010/10/dui-arrest-contests-continue.html

 Oct 21, 2010 – Largo Cop wins money for Pinellas Arrests. As Florida Lawyer W.F. Casey Ebsary has previously reported, here, here, …

Video | DUI Arrest Contest Trooper Tasers Sober Driver

www.dui2go.com/2012/03/video-dui-arrest-contest-trooper-tasers.html

Mar 30, 2012 – Attorney in Tampa has just received a report that a 200 Arrest Award Winner in a DUI Contest has admitted to numerous violations of DUI …


DUI Traffic Ticket Arrest Quota Award

Traffic Ticket Arrest Quota Award


DUI Arrest Contests in Florida

www.dui2go.com/2016/01/tampa-florida-dui-lawyer-continues-to.html

Jan 9, 2016 – Attorney on Florida’s West Coast just uncovered the “rules” for a recent Arrest Contest. The awards are characterized as DUI …

More Arrest Contest News

www.dui2go.com/2011/02/more-dui-arrest-contest-news.html

Feb 25, 2011 – More Arrest Contest News. Defense Attorney Observes: As we continue to tally the awards given to police officers who arrest drivers, …

Arrest Contest Trophy?

www.dui2go.com/2011/08/dui-arrest-contest-trophy.html

Aug 8, 2011 – Attorney noticed this was parked outside of the Hillsborough County Courthouse in Tampa, Florida this morning. This is an …

Florida Arrest Contest Winners

www.dui2go.com/2009/06/florida-dui-arrest-contest-winners.html

 Jun 19, 2009 – There were 13 contest winners at the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HSCO) . There were 16 contest winners at the Tampa Police …

Arrest Contest Winner

www.dui2go.com/2011/04/pasco-dui-cop-arrest-contest-winner.html

Apr 21, 2011 – DUI Defense Attorney notes that Pasco DUI cops are continuing their efforts to win DUI arrest contests. Florida Highway Patrol spokesman for …

What happens if you are confused and refused a DUI Breathalyzer test in Florida? Refuse Breath Test

Refuse Breath Test | Confused and Refused – Confusion Doctrine

 

Confusion DUI Refusal Refuse Breath Test

Confused about refusing a Breath test? Refuse Breath Test

Drivers can seek to have an alleged refusal to take a breath test thrown out of court using the  “confusion doctrine,” when the implied consent warnings are given following the administration of the Miranda warnings. If successful, the refusal of a breath test was not willful and is inadmissible. Under Florida law, the driver to make his or her confusion known to law enforcement. Florida law “does not require law enforcement officers to advise DUI arrestees that the Miranda warnings do not apply to the breath test, and a licensed driver in Florida has consented to the test and is not entitled to consult with an attorney prior to the administration of the test.”

 

What happens if you are confused and refused a DUI Breathalyzer test in Florida?

 

“The “confusion doctrine” is a judicially created exclusionary rule that operates to exclude a licensee’s refusal to submit to a breath test if the licensee believed that he had the right to consult with counsel prior to taking the test. See Kurecka v. State67 So. 3d 1052, 1056-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2162b]. Under this doctrine, “a licensee’s refusal to submit to [a] breath test will be excused if, due to a prior administration of the Miranda warnings, the licensee believes that he or she had the right to consult with counsel prior to taking a breath test.” Id. at 1056 (internal citations omitted).”

Miranda Warnings Do Not Apply to the Breath Test in Florida

 

“In Kurecka, the Fourth District Court of Appeal analyzed the history of the “confusion doctrine” in Florida and other states. Id. at 1057-60. That Court concluded that Florida’s implied consent statute does not require law enforcement officers to advise DUI arrestees that the Miranda warnings do not apply to the breath test, and a licensed driver in Florida has consented to the test and is not entitled to consult with an attorney prior to the administration of the test. Id. at 1060-61. “Accordingly, excluding evidence based on a suspect’s misconception about the right to counsel prior to taking the breath test would be contrary to the legislative intent of Florida’s implied consent law.” Id. at 1060.”


Video: Refusal to Take a Breath Test at Hillsborough County Jail in Florida

 

DUI Video from inside a jail where a cop is administering Florida’s Implied Consent warning given prior to requesting a suspect to take a breath test on an Intoxilyzer breath machine.


 

“The Fifth District Court of Appeal declined to apply the “confusion doctrine” on facts somewhat similar to the instant case. In Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Marshall848 So. 2d 482, 485-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1553b], the DHSMV hearing officer presiding over the formal review hearing of the license suspension rejected Ms. Marshall’s self-serving testimony regarding her confusion about her right to counsel. Id. Further, none of the DHSMV documents supported Ms. Marshall’s claims, and she failed to subpoena law enforcement officers who could corroborate her testimony that she was told she could consult with an attorney prior to the breath test. Id.”

“The Seventh Judicial Circuit has once addressed the “confusion doctrine,” in a case where the an officer explained to the petitioner that he did not have the right to an attorney and that any answer other than “yes” to the breath test would be a refusal. Bosch v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 757a (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct. 2003). The Court found that Mr. Bosch’s reliance on the “confusion doctrine” was misplaced because the Miranda warnings were given after the implied consent notice, and Mr. Bosch must have made his confusion known to the law enforcement officer in order to invoke the doctrine. Id. See also Moore v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 932a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. 2006).”

Refuse Breath Test

 

“The Court finds that the hearing officer’s decision to reject the application of the “confusion doctrine” was based upon competent substantial evidence. Petitioner did not make his confusion known to Officer Jacobs, and the Miranda warnings were not given contemporaneously to the implied consent warnings. Other than his own testimony, there is no evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion that he was confused over his right to remain silent and the officer’s request for Petitioner to take the breath test. As the trier of fact, the hearing officer is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the witnesses. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Satter, 643 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The hearing officer is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if unrebutted. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Dean662 So.2d 371, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D2179c]. Importantly, the hearing officer did not find that the “confusion doctrine” did not exist under Florida law; rather, he rejected the defense because Petitioner’s “testimony was not persuasive.” App. M at 5. This Court, therefore, rejects Petitioner’s reliance on the “confusion doctrine”.”

Sources: 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 412a Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2406CRAW ; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 932a

 

What happens when a driver changes his or her mind and decides to take a breath test after initially refusing to take one?

 

Refusal Breath Test

Refusal Breath Test

Sometimes a driver may change their decision to take a breath test or chemical test to determine the content of their breath or blood. This refusal decision is important both in the administrative suspension of a Florida Driver’s license at the Bureau of administrative Reviews and in the criminal case prosecuted by the local State Attorney’s office in court. In driving under influence cases, the evidence of defendant’s refusal to submit to breath test is sometimes admissible. It certainly is admissible where the State seeks to administratively suspend the driver’s license for failure to comply with the implied consent law. How do you let the court know there is a problem with the police procedure? A motion in limine can be filed with the court.

 

What is a Pretrial Motion in Limine?

 

A pretrial motion can be filed to attack the use of statements of actions of the driver in the prosecution of a crime. This action results in a hearing in front of a judge and not a jury. If the motion is successful, the jury will never know about the alleged refusal. prosecutors use the argument that the reason for the refusal by the suspect was that they driver knew they would have failed the breath test by blowing over a .08.

What happens when a driver changes his or her mind about refusal to take a breath test?

 

The driver’s refusal is not admissible, if they timely retract their refusal. The court found, “There was no material inconvenience to the police, for two Intoxilyzers and two Intoxilyzer operators were available. [the Florida Highway Patrol officer]  actually ran his Intoxilyzer, after the retraction, to obtain the “refusal” on the Breath Test affidavit. ” Florida courts have ruled where the driver / defendant was continuously in presence of officers between refusal and retraction, and there would have been no inconvenience to law enforcement in permitting defendant to take test, the refusal cannot be held against them in a DUI case.

What must a driver be told by police seeking a DUI breath test?

 

  • Request to submit to a test
  • Suspend for 12 months for first refusal
  • Suspend for 18 months for subsequent refusal
  • Second or subsequent refusal can be a misdemeanor
  • Refusal is admissible in criminal case

“It is not hard to imagine circumstances where the defendant,

soon after declining to take the breath test, has second thoughts.”


Here is the  text of one court’s ruling:

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. STEVEN PAUL BURCH, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County. Case No. 2015 CT 012729 SC. April 20, 2017.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

THIS CAUSE having come to be heard upon Defendant, Steven Paul Burch’s Motion in Limine, to preclude the State from introducing any evidence that the Defendant initially refused to submit to a breath test, the Court having held hearing and taking testimony and otherwise being fully advised finds as follows:

1. On August 8, 2015, Mr. Burch was arrested for DUI.

2. Mr. Burch initially refused to take a breath test at the scene of the arrest, but changed his mind and requested to take a breath test once he arrived at the Sarasota County Jail.

3. Mr. Burch was continuously in the presence of Trooper Angelicchi from the time of his initial refusal until his retraction of the refusal.

4. When Mr. Burch arrived at the Sarasota County Jail, an Intoxilyzer was available to conduct a breath as well as two permitted breath test operators to conduct the breath test: Trooper Angelicchi and Corrections Officer Rowe.

5. The breath test affidavit that is marked “subject test refused” shows that the Intoxilyzer was run at 11:37 pm, which was long after Mr. Burch retracted the refusal.

6. In Larmer v. State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 522 So.2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the court stated:

. . .an “absolute rule” prohibiting a subsequent consent after an initial refusal could lead to unnecessarily harsh and self-defeating results. It is not hard to imagine circumstances where the defendant, soon after declining to take the breath test, has second thoughts. If the test results would remain valid, and if no material inconvenience is caused to the police, we fail to see the harm in permitting the defendant to subsequently consent to take the test.

The Court held:

. . .while petitioner was continuously in the presence of the police officers, and in circumstances where no inconvenience would result by permitting him immediately thereafter to take the test that would produce the evidence that is the object and intent of Florida’s Implied Consent Law.
Larmer citied to a Utah case that held a one hour delay was not a refusal.

7. In this case Mr. Burch was continuously in the presence of the police officers. There was no material inconvenience to the police, for two Intoxilyzers and two Intoxilyzer operators were available. Trooper Angelicchi actually ran his Intoxilyzer, after the retraction, to obtain the “refusal” on the Breath Test affidavit. There was no lawful reason not to let Mr. Burch submit to a breath test when Trooper Angelicchi was conducting the test for the ‘refusal.” The duration of the time between the refusal at the scene of the arrest and the retraction upon arrival at the jail was not of such length to render the breath test invalid.

8. While Mr. Burch initially refused the breath test, he later retracted his refusal and requested a breath test. Following Larmer, since Mr. Burch was continuously in the presence of the police officers and under circumstances where no inconvenience would result by permitting him to take a breath test, there was not a refusal within the meaning of Florida’s Implied Consent Law. Also see State v. Eng, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 649a (Fla. Pinellas Cty. Ct. September 15, 1998).

Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED.

Source: 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 289a Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2503BURC

How to get a Florida Driver’s License back after Suspension?

 

Recently courts have tried to help those with suspended licenses get their driver’s licenses back. According a recent report in the Florida Bar News, one judge organized a “clinic, the first of its kind in Leon County, in order to help resolve a significant problem in the area. Hundreds of Leon County drivers are operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, and Smith says nine out of 10 drivers do not understand what is required of them to get their licenses back.” However, judges are limited in the help that can be provided to those who are subjected to the administrative license suspensions issued to those impacts from driving under the influence charges. Among the reasons these special programs apply: failure to resolve traffic infractions; accumulating too many points on a license; failure to have insurance; or failure to satisfy child support obligations.

Florida Implied Consent Warning Summary

Here is a summary of the language police use when threatening a suspect to take a breath or chemical test:

“If you fail to submit to the test I have requested of you, your privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended for a period of one (1) year for a first refusal, or eighteen (18) months if your privilege has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to a lawful test of your breath, urine or blood. Additionally, if you refuse to submit to the test I have requested of you and if your driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of your breath, urine or blood, you will be committing a misdemeanor. Refusal to submit to the test I have requested of you is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.”

“Do you still refuse to submit to this test knowing that your driving privilege will be suspended for a period of at least one year and that you will be charged criminally for a subsequent refusal?”

 

Ratings and Reviews

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer