Pinellas County Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Although I don't pretend to be an expert on the First Amendment (freedom of speech) or the 14th Ammendment (equal protection) of the United States Constitution I do see a real problem with juvenile curfews. In Pasco County, juveniles are not to be out of their homes, without a parent or guradian, "between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Sundays through Thursdays and between midnight and 6 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays." See Pasco County Ordinances

Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties had similar laws several years ago which were struck down as uncontitutional. Whether you think this is a good or bad law is your opinion. But from my lawyerly perspective - juvenile curfews are not good. It merely allows the police one more reason to stop and harrass kids. The police already have enough reasons - or at least they say they do in their police reports. And kids don't know the law - most adults don't know the law. So if a police officer stops them for a curfew violation, then wants to search them, they can. Note, that this is without warning them of their rights and without their parents present. I may not be an expert on equal protection or freedom of speech, but I do know a bit about the 4th Amendment - illegal search and seizures - and it seems to me, a juvenile curfew allows this.

This morning in the Tampa Tribune there was a story about a driver who refused to stop and led the police on a 27 mile chase into Hernando County reaching speeds of 130mph. You can read it yourself.

Does this mean the police were chasing him up US 19 at 130mph? Does the public's safety matter to PCSO? Or are they still trying to figure out how Twitter works?
The worst part of the story is his kids were in the backseat and weren't in car seats. As it was reported in the press, this is the problem. I would definitely agree that running from police with your kids in the car is horrible. Plus, the guy didn't have a valid driver's license. And there was allegedly a gun in the car. But the police didn't know any of that - YET.

But the real problem for me as a lawyer is the reason the police were chasing him. He was apparently driving a Chevy Silverado which looked similar to the truck involved in the fatal hit and run that occurred at US 19 and Moog Road in NPR on Friday night June 15th, 2009. Does this mean everyone driving a dark colored pickup through Pasco County will be stopped? That's an awful lot of people. My brother in law has a dark colored pickup. My father does too. I happen to know where they were on Friday night, so I know it wasn't them.

But I'm concerned about the reason for the stop. The police have to have a valid reason to stop people. Everyone driving a dark colored pickup on US 19 is not a valid reason.

I thought I might be able to say something nice here, but it's hard for me.  The Pasco County Florida Sheriff's Office spokesperson Kevin Doll now has a site on Twitter . Allegedly sponsored and endored by the the Sherriff, Bob White.

I have nothing against Sheriff White personally, I've never even met him.  But having met many of his deputies, I'd say a training class on the US Constitution, might be a better thing for the Sheriff to spend his time on. 

Any of my clients can tell you that one of the first questions I ask after they've hired me is:

"Do you have a Myspace or Facebook page, or anything on Youtube, or any emails or texts that will incriminate or help you?" This goes both ways. I have seen a number of witnesses completely discredited on the witness stand when confronted with their Myspace pages, or emails, or text messages.

This recent article from Fox News basically sums up why I ask that question.  The man videotaped himself and his buddies beating up and robbing another man outside of a bar.  As if this wasn't bad enough, he then POSTED it on YouTube , and went back to the bar the following night to BRAG about his YOUTUBE posting.  Needless to say he was arrested. 

You Tube says to "broadcast yourself" - I don't think this is what they had in mind.

What better evidence do the police need?

 The Court Hired Me A Lawyer - Can Police Still Question Me?
For those of you who don't know, the police have to read you your "rights" when you are in "custody", and being "interrogated".  These are legal terms of art that are pretty well defined in Florida and Federal cases, but the point is that in those situations the police have to say:  "You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be held against you; you have the right to an attorney; if you can't afford one, one will be appointed to you by the Court." (the infamous Miranda warnings).  If those words are not spoken, any confession you give the police could be thrown out of Court.

What if my brother hired a lawyer for me and I didn't know about it?  Too bad.  He can be in the police station lobby asking to talk to you while your under the hot lights, and as long as you agreed to talk (after your rights were read to you), it doesn't matter!  See, Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986). 

But wait - what if I was arrested, came before a judge the next morning, and he told me that the Public Defender was "appointed" to my case...without me asking?  Can the police come question me the next day?  YES, according to a new U.S. Supreme Court case, Montejo v. Louisiana, 566 U.S. ___ (2009).  

If you've done your homework you may be asking: how can that be if the right to a lawyer is protected under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?  And how can that be, if the Miranda warnings even say I have the right to a lawyer, and I just had one appointed to me (i.e., I hired a free lawyer compliments of the judge)?  Good questions.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court thinks that even if the State just hired a lawyer for you, (if you didn't ask for one), the police can still come visit you, read you your rights, and if you say "I'll talk", you've legally waived those rights...even without your lawyer being there. 

Both sides of the legal argument in this case are actually very convincing.  However, it's harder to believe the prevailing opinion in this case after you read a funny point the Court makes in support of its decision.  Justice Scalia essentially says that the law set out in the Miranda and Edwards cases provides enough protection of Constitutional rights so that a person won't be illegally coerced by police, even after that government lawyer has been appointed by the judge.  He then briefly discusses situations when a person is out of jail and states:  "when a defendant is not in custody, he is in control, and need only shut his door or walk away to avoid police badgering." 

I'm sure all of you who have had the joy of dealing with the police know how simple and true that is, right?