Pinellas County Sheriff Evidence Unit

Courthouse, crime scene, evidence, jail, Pinellas County Sheriff Evidence Unit, prosecution Pinellas State Attorney's,
Pinellas County Evidence Unit in Florida

 


Crime scene evidence goes  here for prosecution of cases by the Pinellas State Attorney’s Office. Located across the street from the Courthouse and the jail.


Evidence Used Against You? Call Casey at 813-222-2220 .

 

Cell Phone and GPS Location Data in Criminal Prosecutions

18 U.S.C. § 2516, GPS, warrantless GPS surveillance, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, privacy, Cell Phone Location Data
Cell Phone and GPS Location Data
Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer at Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. notes recent developments in Cell Phone Location Data used in Criminal Prosecutions. When the government wants to track an individual’s location through his or her cell phone, it submits an application to a judge seeking an order compelling a company to provide access to location data. Cell phones generate several types of data that can be used to track their users’ past or present locations with various degrees of precision.
Not all Courts agree on tracking. “Courts are divided as to whether the government must show probable cause before it can obtain cell phone location data, as well as on related questions regarding warrantless GPS surveillance.” “[W]ith respect to wiretapping Congress has balanced privacy interests with law enforcement needs by permitting the government to use that technique for only the more serious offenses, see 18 U.S.C. § 2516
The court found the Feds must disclose certain Cell Phone Tracking Data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). “We affirm that portion of the district court’s decision directing disclosure of docket information from criminal cases in which the government prosecuted individuals after judges granted applications for cell phone location data withoutdetermining probable cause, and in which those individuals were ultimately convicted or entered public guilty pleas.”
One Court has reasoned, “In deciding whether the release of particular information constitutes an “unwarranted” invasion of privacy under Exemption 7(C), we “must balance the public interest in disclosure against the [privacy] interest Congress intended the Exemption to protect.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776 (1989); see Favish, 541 U.S. at 171; Ray, 502 U.S. at 175 (quoting Rose, 425 U.S. at 372).”
Even law enforcement agrees, “that disclosure of records revealing that an individual was involved or mentioned in a law enforcement investigation implicates a significant privacy interest.” The Government has expressed concerns that defense attorney(s) may investigate usage of Cell Phone tracking Data by contacting “convicted ‘defendants and/or their counsel to determine whether [the] defendants ever learned that they were the targets of warrantless cell phone tracking.'”
Other concerns include whether : “the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986), should be revised either to limit or to facilitate the practice.” “The Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari to address the GPS issue. See United States v. Jones, 2011 WL 1456728 (June 27, 2011), granting cert. to Maynard, 615 F.3d 544.”
Criminal Defense Attorneys argue that Cell Phone Tracking data records kept by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) “would also provide information regarding how often prosecutions against people who have been tracked are successful, thus shedding some light on the efficacy of the technique and whether pursuing it is worthwhile in light of the privacy implications. Information from suppression hearings in these cases could provide further insight regarding the efficacy of the technique by revealing whether courts suppress its fruits, and would disclose the standard or standards the government uses to justify warrantless tracking. Information from suppression hearings would also provide facts regarding the duration of tracking and the quality of tracking data, facts that would inform the public discussion concerning the intrusiveness of this investigative tool.”
A Federal Court of Appeals has just ruled: “In sum, because disclosure of the information considered in this Part would “shed[] light on [the government’s] performance of its statutory duties,” it “falls squarely within [FOIA’s] statutory purpose.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773. And in light of the strength of the public interest in disclosure and the relative weakness of the privacy interests at stake, we conclude that production of the requested information will not constitute an “unwarranted” invasion of personal privacy under Exemption 7(C).”
The court found the Feds must disclose certain Cell Phone Tracking Data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). “We affirm that portion of the district court’s decision directing disclosure of docket information from criminal cases in which the government prosecuted individuals after judges granted applications for cell phone location data withoutdetermining probable cause, and in which those individuals were ultimately convicted or entered public guilty pleas.”
Source: ACLU v USDOJ Docket No. 10-5159 (DC Cir Sept 6, 2011).
Cell Phone Data Tracking in Your Case? Call Casey at 813-222-2220.
 
Cell Phone and GPS Location Data in Criminal Prosecutions

Pardon | Seal | Expunge

Presidential Pardons

Presidential Pardons


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


Pardon vs. Seal | Expunge


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

Free Florida Sealing and Expunge Web App

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

 


Presidential Pardon Download Application Here.


 

Federal Offense Only

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


Five Year Waiting Period

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


Application Tip:

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


USDOJ Has Penalty for False Statements

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

Source:  https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/presidential-pardon-brings-relief-stirs-regret-wesley-chapel-man-tells/1203163


https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm

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

Doctor Shopping – Florida Medical Records Thrown Out

Obtain Drugs Physician Withhold Information Practitioner, 893.13.7A8, DRUG9892, OBTAINING DRUGS FROM PHYSICIAN BY WITHHOLDING

Obtain Drugs Physician Withhold Information Practitioner, 893.13.7A8, DRUG9892, OBTAINING DRUGS FROM PHYSICIAN BY WITHHOLDING


Drug Charge and Doctor-Shopping Defense Attorney Lawyer  notes a new case where although the court allowed evidence from warrantless seizure of pharmacy records, it granted a Motion to Suppress Evidence from medical records and discussions with doctors that were also obtained without a warrant. We have previously covered this law here:


Florida Statute: 893.13.7A8 is a Third Degree Felony.

Statute Excerpt: 893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.

(7)(a) It is unlawful for any person:

8. To withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days.


Doctor Shopping – Florida Medical Records Thrown Out


Here are the Doctor Shopping Case Facts:

The officer had reason to believe that Defendant was committing the crime of withholding information from a physician and, as such, trafficking would ensue because the prescriptions received would have been fraudulent because of the withholding information. The officer goes to various pharmacies, pulls patient’s profiles. From those patients’ profiles, he finds out who the prescribing doctors are. He then goes to the prescribing doctors, in this case, [Dr. X and Dr. Y], and speaks with the doctors without any subpoena or search warrant being issued. The conversations include whether or not Defendant had disclosed previous prescriptions to the
doctor. The officer also pulled and reviewed various patient documents.

Doctor Shopping Case Excerpts:

“Medical records and physician’s statements are protected by the statutory physician-patient privilege, and therefore, the State was required to get either a subpoena with court approval or prior notice to and authorization from Defendant. See §§ 456.057(6) & (7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008).”
“The fact that the police had already secured doctors’ names from prescriptions at pharmacies does not waive the requirements of law. There is a danger of medical professionals willing to surrender private medical records and engage in discussions regarding private and privileged communications concerning their treatment of individuals in submission to apparent police authority.”
“The language in Section 456.057 is intentionally broad in protecting information from being disclosed by a health care practitioner and in assuring that the condition of a patient may not be discussed. The protection extends to all patient records. The State is not precluded from obtaining the information it seeks. Its agents must only follow the law and either seek a patient’s written authorization or the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice to the patient or a search warrant.”

“The object of the physician-patient privilege is to encourage patients to be entirely forthcoming and candid in their statements to their treating physicians. These conversations and the records with regard thereto protect our most fundamental right, the pursuit of life itself.”

Source: 4th DCA No. 4D10-777 November 16, 2011

If you or someone you care about have been charged with Doctor Shopping you can call a Florida Criminal Defense Attorney at 813-222-2220 and tell me your story.


Tampa Doctor Shopping Florida Attorney Lawyer

Video Tampa Prescription Drug Roundup | Breaking News

Operation Pain Reliever, Tampa Prescription Drug Defense Lawyer,  Oxycontin,

Operation Pain Reliever, Tampa Prescription Drug Defense Lawyer, Oxycontin,

Oxycontin

Oxycodone, morphine, methadone, amphetamines, hydrocodone, xanax, and other types of prescription medication legal  problems


Tampa Prescription Drug Defense Lawyer just received a report of yet another Prescription Drug roundup as HCSO Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputies deputies made 33 arrests for dealing prescription medications. Code Name: Operation Pain Reliever .


Former Drug Court Prosecutor W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is now available to help both the accused and their family members with all types of drug charges. Casey can help with oxycodone, morphine, methadone, amphetamines, hydrocodone, xanax, and other types of prescription medication legal  problems.

Need Relief? Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.





Source: https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/as-bondi-announces-crackdown-on-prescription-meds-33-arrested-in/1149356


Hillsborough Prescription Drug Busts | Operation Pain Reliever | Prescription Drug Defense Lawyer

Criminal Forfeiture Update | Innocent Owner Defense | Third Party Claim

Criminal Forfeiture Update | Innocent Owner Defense | Third Party Claim

Criminal Forfeiture | Innocent Owner Defense

Third Party Claim | Innocent Owner
Criminal Forfeiture Standard (A District Magistrate’s View)
18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(5), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) provide in pertinent part that any property, real or personal, which constitutes, or is derived from proceeds traceable to the charged offenses in this case are subject to forfeiture by the United States. For the property to be subject to forfeiture, the Government must establish the requisite nexus between the offense and the property. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(2)(b)(1).”
“Any third party asserting a legal interest in such property must petition the Court for a hearing to adjudicate her interest in the property. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) (2). Rule 32.2(c)(1) provides that a Court must hold an ancillary proceeding if a third party files a petition asserting an interest in the property. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(c)(1). The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to the ancillary proceeding. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 (Advisory Committee Notes 2000). Section 853(n)(5) sets out the following procedure for the hearing:”
“At the hearing, the petitioner may testify and present evidence and witnesses on his own behalf, and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. The United States may present evidence . . . . In addition to testimony and evidence shall consider the relevant portions of the record of the criminal case which resulted in the order of forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(5)(emphasis added).”
“The Court shall amend the order of forfeiture if the claimant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence either that: (A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; or (B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section ….21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(emphasis added).”
“To prevail on a third-party claim under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A), a petitioner must show that she had a legal interest in the property and the interest vested in the claimant instead of the defendant. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). However, “[a] third-party claimant … must have more than bare legal title to the forfeited property.” United States v. Hovind, No. 3:06cr83/MCR, 2009 WL 2369340, at *4 (N.D. Fla. July 29, 2009). In the Eleventh Circuit, possession of bare legal title without the right to exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient to prove ownership. See A Single Family Residence Located at 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir. 1986).”
Source: Case 8:09-cr-00110-JDW-AEP January 28, 2011
Innocent Owner in a Criminal Forfeiture Case? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Forfeiture – Innocent Owner Defense – Feds Lose Summary Judgment

Forfeiture - Innocent Owner Defense - Feds Lose Summary Judgment

Innocent Owner Defense

Forfeiture of Ford Tow Truck
Federal Forfeiture Attorney in Tampa Florida has been following a case prosecuted by The United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, where the Tampa Division just lost a Motion for Summary Judgement in a case involving an Innocent Owner claim to a Tow Truck. The Court ruled “To prevail on a third-party claim under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A), a petitioner must show that she had a legal interest in the property and the interest vested in the claimant instead of the defendant. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). However, “[a] third-party claimant … must have more than bare legal title to the forfeited property.” United States v. Hovind, No. 3:06cr83/MCR, 2009 WL 2369340, at *4 (N.D. Fla. July 29, 2009).”

 

“In the Eleventh Circuit, possession of bare legal title without the right to exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient to prove ownership. See A Single Family Residence Located at 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir. 1986).”

 

The Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida recently “reviewed all evidence, factual inferences, and reasonable doubts about the facts in a light most favorable to the respective non-moving party. The core issue in this case is simply whether The vehicle’s owner voluntarily surrendered the Tow Truck to the Defendant, and, therefore, transferred her ownership interest in the Tow Truck”.

 

“The court reviewed surrounding the circumstances of when the [name omitted] discovered the Tow Truck was stolen, and when she reported to the police and the insurance company that the Tow Truck was stolen. Specifically, the United States highlights that the owners’s “original” version of events simply defies plausibility in light of all of the other independent evidence.”

 

However, the United States asserts that since the owner has become educated in the Government’s position in this case by review of the United States’ original Summary Judgement Motion (Dkt. No. 155), the owner has drastically changed her statements in this case in an effort to create a genuine issue of fact.

 

“Based upon review of the record, the United States’ argument is not without merit, but nonetheless the Court finds that, given the nature of this matter, it is more appropriate to resolve this dispute upon the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing rather than upon a summary judgment motion.”

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that:

1. the United States of America’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 167), and Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 177); Motion to Strike “Exhibit D” (Dkt. No. 174); Motion to Strike “Exhibit F” (Dkt. No. 175); and Motion to Strike “Exhibit G” (Dkt. No. 176) are DENIED, and

2. the evidentiary hearing in this case shall go forward as scheduled for January 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10A, United States Courthouse, 801 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

Are you an innocent owner in a Forfeiture Case, an Innocent Owner of property the Feds want to Seize? Call Me Toll Free at 1-877-793-9290.

Source: Federal Forfeiture Innocent Third Party Owner Middle District Florida Case 8:09-cr-00110-JDW-AEP Document 199 Filed 01/07/11(Names Omitted)

The Statute Provides:

18 USCS § 983 (d) Innocent owner defense.

(1) An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) (A) With respect to a property interest in existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took place, the term “innocent owner” means an owner who–

(i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or

(ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property.

(B) (i) For the purposes of this paragraph, ways in which a person may show that such person did all that reasonably could be expected may include demonstrating that such person, to the extent permitted by law–

(I) gave timely notice to an appropriate law enforcement agency of information that led the person to know the conduct giving rise to a forfeiture would occur or has occurred; and

(II) in a timely fashion revoked or made a good faith attempt to revoke permission for those engaging in such conduct to use the property or took reasonable actions in consultation with a law enforcement agency to discourage or prevent the illegal use of the property.

(ii) A person is not required by this subparagraph to take steps that the person reasonably believes would be likely to subject any person (other than the person whose conduct gave rise to the forfeiture) to physical danger.

(3) (A) With respect to a property interest acquired after the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, the term “innocent owner” means a person who, at the time that person acquired the interest in the property–

(i) was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value (including a purchaser or seller of goods or services for value); and

(ii) did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.

(B) An otherwise valid claim under subparagraph (A) shall not be denied on the ground that the claimant gave nothing of value in exchange for the property if–

(i) the property is the primary residence of the claimant;

(ii) depriving the claimant of the property would deprive the claimant of the means to maintain reasonable shelter in the community for the claimant and all dependents residing with the claimant;

(iii) the property is not, and is not traceable to, the proceeds of any criminal offense; and

(iv) the claimant acquired his or her interest in the property through marriage, divorce, or legal separation, or the claimant was the spouse or legal dependent of a person whose death resulted in the transfer of the property to the claimant through inheritance or probate, except that the court shall limit the value of any real property interest for which innocent ownership is recognized under this subparagraph to the value necessary to maintain reasonable shelter in the community for such claimant and all dependents residing with the claimant.

(4) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess.

(5) If the court determines, in accordance with this section, that an innocent owner has a partial interest in property otherwise subject to forfeiture, or a joint tenancy or tenancy by the entirety in such property, the court may enter an appropriate order–

(A) severing the property;

(B) transferring the property to the Government with a provision that the Government compensate the innocent owner to the extent of his or her ownership interest once a final order of forfeiture has been entered and the property has been reduced to liquid assets; or

(C) permitting the innocent owner to retain the property subject to a lien in favor of the Government to the extent of the forfeitable interest in the property.

(6) In this subsection, the term “owner”–

(A) means a person with an ownership interest in the specific property sought to be forfeited, including a leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security interest, or valid assignment of an ownership interest; and

(B) does not include–

(i) a person with only a general unsecured interest in, or claim against, the property or estate of another;

(ii) a bailee unless the bailor is identified and the bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property seized; or

(iii) a nominee who exercises no dominion or control over the property.

The Florida Statute Provides:
932.701Short title; definitions.—
(1)Sections 932.701-932.706 shall be known and may be cited as the “Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.”
(2)As used in the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act:
(a)“Contraband article” means:
1.Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893 or any substance, device, paraphernalia, or currency or other means of exchange that was used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of any provision of chapter 893, if the totality of the facts presented by the state is clearly sufficient to meet the state’s burden of establishing probable cause to believe that a nexus exists between the article seized and the narcotics activity, whether or not the use of the contraband article can be traced to a specific narcotics transaction.
2.Any gambling paraphernalia, lottery tickets, money, currency, or other means of exchange which was used, was attempted, or intended to be used in violation of the gambling laws of the state.
3.Any equipment, liquid or solid, which was being used, is being used, was attempted to be used, or intended to be used in violation of the beverage or tobacco laws of the state.
4.Any motor fuel upon which the motor fuel tax has not been paid as required by law.
5.Any personal property, including, but not limited to, any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, vehicle of any kind, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, or currency, which was used or was attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, whether or not comprising an element of the felony, or which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
6.Any real property, including any right, title, leasehold, or other interest in the whole of any lot or tract of land, which was used, is being used, or was attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, or which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
7.Any personal property, including, but not limited to, equipment, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, currency, or any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, or vehicle of any kind in the possession of or belonging to any person who takes aquaculture products in violation of s. 812.014(2)(c).
8.Any motor vehicle offered for sale in violation of s. 320.28.
9.Any motor vehicle used during the course of committing an offense in violation of s. 322.34(9)(a).
10.Any photograph, film, or other recorded image, including an image recorded on videotape, a compact disc, digital tape, or fixed disk, that is recorded in violation of s. 810.145 and is possessed for the purpose of amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing another person.
11.Any real property, including any right, title, leasehold, or other interest in the whole of any lot or tract of land, which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of Medicaid fraud under s. 409.920 or s. 409.9201; any personal property, including, but not limited to, equipment, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, or currency; or any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, or vehicle of any kind in the possession of or belonging to any person which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of Medicaid fraud under s. 409.920 or s. 409.9201.
(b)“Bona fide lienholder” means the holder of a lien perfected pursuant to applicable law.
(c)“Promptly proceed” means to file the complaint within 45 days after seizure.
(d)“Complaint” is a petition for forfeiture filed in the civil division of the circuit court by the seizing agency requesting the court to issue a judgment of forfeiture.
(e)“Person entitled to notice” means any owner, entity, bona fide lienholder, or person in possession of the property subject to forfeiture when seized, who is known to the seizing agency after a diligent search and inquiry.
(f)“Adversarial preliminary hearing” means a hearing in which the seizing agency is required to establish probable cause that the property subject to forfeiture was used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
(g)“Forfeiture proceeding” means a hearing or trial in which the court or jury determines whether the subject property shall be forfeited.
(h)“Claimant” means any party who has proprietary interest in property subject to forfeiture and has standing to challenge such forfeiture, including owners, registered owners, bona fide lienholders, and titleholders.

Forfeiture – Innocent Owner Defense

Federal Prisoner Handbook | Free Download

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment, RDAP, Bureau of Prisons, Drug Abuse Treatment, Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Drug Treatment,

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment, RDAP, Bureau of Prisons, Drug Abuse Treatment, Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Drug Treatment,

Prison Handbook | RDAP

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment


Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.  was researching Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Programs (RDAP). During this project I found a document that I will call a Prisoner Handbook. In it it discusses rules, regulations and procedures for inmates in federal custody. Although the manual was drafted for a Northern prison, it gives insight into what to expect while incarcerated. The manual also discusses the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and its requirements:

“1. Residential drug abuse programming is available at selected Bureau of Prisons institutions. It is a course of individual and group programs provided by a team of Drug Treatment Specialists and the Drug Abuse Program Coordinator in a treatment unit set apart from the general population. 2. The RDAP runs a minimum of 500 hours over a nine to twelve month period depending on individual progression.”

The Handbook is actually titled “Admission &; Orientation Federal Prison Camp.” The Introduction to the handbook begins, “The Purpose of the Admissions and Orientation (A&O) Booklet is to acquaint you with the rules, expectations, and opportunities at the Federal Prison Camp. . . .The Purpose of the Admissions and Orientation (A&O) Booklet is to acquaint you with the rules, expectations, and opportunities at the Federal Prison Camp . . . .”


The manual has several pages about drug treatment and Drug Abuse Programming, noting that the RDAP Involves Three (3) Levels:

1. Drug Education Program: 10 – 15 hours course which is offered at this facility.
2. Non-residential drug treatment: Involves individual as well as group programming, also available at this facility.

3. RDAP: This is a residential drug abuse program which spans approximately nine to twelve months in duration.


Drug Treatment Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290

USCA0003 MANUFACTURE DIST DISPENSE POSSES CON SUB- FED

Federal Charge of Manufacture, Distribute, or Dispense, or Possess a Controlled Substance

Federal Charge of Manufacture, Distribute, or Dispense, or Possess a Controlled Substance

Manufacture Distribution Possession
Controlled Substance Federal

If you have been charged with USCA0003 MANUFACTURE DIST DISPENSE POSSES CON SUB- FED (Federal Charge of Manufacture, Distribute, or Dispense, or Possess a Controlled Substance) you can call a a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: USCA0003
U.S. Code: 021.841 (21 USC Sec. 841)
Description: MANUFACTURE DIST DISPENSE POSSES CON SUB- FED (Federal Charge of Manufacture, Distribute, or Dispense, or Possess a Controlled Substance)

USCA0003 MANUFACTURE DIST DISPENSE POSSES CON SUB- FED (Federal Charge of Manufacture, Distribute, or Dispense, or Possess a Controlled Substance) one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 – DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I – CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Part D – Offenses and Penalties

Sec. 841. Prohibited acts A

(a) Unlawful acts – Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally –

(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or

(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.

GPS Tracking Requires Search Warrant

GPS Trackers, Fourth Amendment, GPS, Search Warrant, Tracker

GPS, Search Warrant, Tracker

GPS Tracking Needs Warrant

“police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches by

tracking his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a

GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a valid warrant”


GPS Trackers and the Fourth Amendment


Tampa Drug Charge Defense Lawyer, Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. reviewed an interesting appeals court decision where police put a GPS Tracking Device on a car and followed him for weeks. The defendant was arrested for Federal cocaine charges. Specifically, “conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.”  The court summarized the case as involving “Evidence Obtained from GPS Device.”


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


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

 


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

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


The Government used the GPS data to show a pattern of travels by the defendant. The Court mentioned , “This case itself illustrates how the sequence of a person‘s movements may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is composed. Having tracked Jones‘s movements for a month, the Government used the resulting pattern — not just the location of a particular ― stash house or Jones‘s movements on any one trip or even day — as evidence of Jones‘s involvement in the cocaine trafficking business. The pattern the Government would document with the GPS data was central to its presentation of the case . . . .” The court further noted, “The GPS data were essential to the Government‘s case. By combining them with Jones‘s cell-phone records the Government was able to paint a picture of Jones‘s movements that made credible the allegation that he was involved in drug trafficking.”
The Court also stated, “A reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination, and each place he stops and how long he stays there; rather, he expects each of those movements to remain ― ‘disconnected and anonymous’.” In closing the Court held, “Society recognizes Jones‘s expectation of privacy in his movements over the course of a month as reasonable, and the use of the GPS device to monitor those movements defeated that reasonable expectation.” The court concluded its forty-one  page opinion stating the cocaine trafficking defendant’s, “conviction is reversed because it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

The complete opinion is a free download here. 


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


 

Ratings and Reviews

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer