Pinellas County Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

It seems like there are alot of stories in the news lately about employees stealing from their employers - and the employers don't recognize it until the amount is so high that the person charged will almost never be able to pay the money back. Grand Theft is a felony and the amount of time you might be subject to prison, depends on how much money was stolen.

There's the secretary of the lawyer in Pasco County, Florida who stole from the lawyer's clients.  She's already paid back $20,000 of the $70,000 missing but the victims want another $7,500 from her or she'll go to prison.  Her's is a second degree felony, because the amount was under $100,000 but greater than $20,000. (St. Petersburg Times 4/28/11)

There's the book keeper of the jewelry store in Dade City, Florida who took $15,000 plus from the owners.  That's a felony of the 3rd degree punishable by up to five years in prison.(St. Petersburg Times 4/30/11)

And there's the CFO of the infomercial genius Tony Little's company who took almost $600,000. (St. Pete Times 4/28/11) The guy apparently had a gambling problem.  Because the amount of theft is so high - that is over $100,000, he is being charged with a first degree felony grand theft - which is punishable by 30 years in prison. 

Not only do grand theft charges subject you to long prison sentences, you'll always be responsible for paying back the money - even when you get out of prison.  Plus, the court has the discretion to suspend your driver's license. 

If you've been charged with grand theft,  you need a lawyer - CALL US. 

The St. Petersburg Times reports today that crime in the Tampa Bay area is down in 2010.  But is it really?  The law enforcement officials say it's down because of their hard work - I think it's down from budget cuts.  There are far less police officers on the road today than there was in 2007.  Law enforcment agencies aren't hiring and positions have been cut.  Less cops - less arrests, thus making it look like the crime rate is going down, but there's merely less arrests. 

Here's a link to Florida Department of Law Enforcement statistics (FDLE).  In 2010 there were 1,020,497 arrests in Florida for all crimes.  In 2007, there were 1,126,524.   

My other theory as to why the crime rate is down, which of course is merely a theory, is because no one has any money to go out and drink.  When people go out and drink, they get DUI's, into bar fights, and do other stupid drunk things.  Now they stay home and drink. 

Note that murders, a crime usually committed by people who know one another, is up.   

Also note that domestic violence arrests have increased in most counties.  For example in Pasco County, in 2007 there were 3300 arrests for domestic related crimes while in 2010 there were approximately 3500.  (See FDLE domestic violence statistics)

So back to the age old question, is there more crime in high crime areas or more police to make arrests? 

A common scenario for drug dog sniffs that we hear all the time is when a person is stopped for a traffic violation, the officer asks for consent to search the car, the person (rightly) says NO, and the officer threatens to get the drug dog out there.  Sound unfair?  That's because it is - he can't do that without probable cause.  Probable cause is more than a hunch. Probable cause is not the officer's opinion of the length of your hair, your tatoos, the color of your skin, or the shine of your rims.  

If they need to get a dog out to the scene of their "investigation" they have every right to do it, so long as they have reasonable suspicion to continue detaining you, then in order to SEARCH, they need probable cause.

What if they get the dog out, and it "alerts" to an odor of drugs - do the police have the right to search then?  Not neccessarily - dogs are not always accurate, and just because they smell drugs TODAY, doesn't neccessarily mean there's drugs in the car TODAY.  For example, if you smoked in your car last week, the dog might alert, and there might be nothing illegal in your car at the time of the search. 

Prior to last week - the District Courts of Appeal were all over the place with what could be considered probable cause to search based on the drug dog alert.  Harris v. State, decided last week by the Florida Supreme Court, says that if the officer is basing his proable cause to search your car on the alert of a drug dog -  Evidence of the dogs track record in the field must be proven by the State.  That means, if you challenge your arrest based on an illegal search of the vehicle, the State has the burden of proving the reliablity of the dog, meaning how many times the dog alerts when drugs were actually found versus how many times the dog alerted when drugs weren't found.  

So the point of all this legal mumbo jumbo for those reading is:  If you're asked for consent to search you vehicle, it's your right to say NO.  And if they bring a dog out to sniff, you might have a great motion to suppress whatever evidence was found in the vehicle.  Of course, my first advice is not to get pulled over at all.  Make sure you're not speeding, your tag's not expired, and your tail lights work.  

If you think your car was searched illegally CALL US

CAN THE POLICE SEARCH MY CELL PHONE BEFORE OR AFTER I'M ARRESTED?

    That answer is complicated - the US Supreme Court says yes, although most Federal and State courts say no.  

The only reason police have a right to search a person or a car after they've been arrested - WITHOUT A  SEARCH WARRANT- is for the preservation of evidence and officer safety (or if they impound your car which is an entirely different topic).  

For example, if you are arrested in your home, they do not have the right to search your entire house, unless they fear for their safety or they fear that evidence of the crime might be found in the house and if they don't search, it will possibly be destroyed. (guns and drugs are good examples of this).

In the case of a cell phone, there is clearly no officer safety issue, unless you've McGyver'ed your phone with a gun.  Also, the courts have ruled that a cell phone is not a container, which provides another exception to warrantless searches.

As to the issue of preservation of the evidence, once the police have confiscated your phone, and you no longer have access to it, there's no fear that any potential evidence, such as incriminating text messages, a phone log, or the address book - can be destroyed since the arrested person no longer has access to it.

There's a further issue of the expectation of privacy in a cell phone.  Prior appeallate court decisions have based their opinions on pagers - cell phones are much more sophisticated with emails, videos, pictures, etc.  Clearly people have all sorts of things on their cell phones that they intend to keep private, beyond things that are potentially illegal.

There's a recent case out of Brevard County, Florida, a Circuit Court case, where the judge writes a great narrative on the case history of searches.  (I found it on Florida Law Weekly Supp. and couldn't figure out how to get a public link for it)  It's called State v. Glasco and ultimately the court GRANTS the suppression of evidence found in Glasco's cell phone after his arrest. 

Circuit Judge John Harris writes:  "If courts continue to allow the unfettered exploration of this personal data, then courts are permitting the government to execute an unwarranted search of the cell phone user's life and habits.  This intruision cannot reasonable be justified by the rationales of officer safety and evidence preservation; therefore, a simple seizure of the cell phone must suffice until a WARRANT can be procured." 

I can only hope the judges in the Fifth, Sixth, and Thirteenth Circuits feel the same way. 

If your cell phone has been searched -CALL ME - you may have a good Motion to Suppress.