Author Archives: W.F. Casey Ebsary
Forfeiture – Innocent Owner Defense – Feds Lose Summary Judgment
| Forfeiture of Ford Tow Truck |
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that:
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.
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.
Forfeiture – Innocent Owner Defense
Cops GPS Tracking | Hit and Run | Florida | Tampa | St Petersburg
![]() LEAVING SCENE OF A CRASH WITH INJURY |
| GPS Hit and Run |
If you have been charged with TRAF2012 Leaving Scene Of A Crash With Injury you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.
Form Code: TRAF2012
Florida Statute: 316.027.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: Leaving Scene Of A Crash With Injury
316.027 Crash involving death or personal injuries.
316.062 Duty to give information and render aid.
(4)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
Destruction of Evidence | Jury Instruction | Criminal Case | Rare Ruling
| Destruction Jury Instruction |
“You may infer from the Government’s failure to preserve these messages, or the fact that they were deleted by agents, that the missing text “messages were relevant to this case and that they were favorable to both Defendant[s]”
Penalties for Destruction or Spoliation of Cyber Evidence
“this is one of the first known cases to address spoliation of electronic discovery in the criminal context”
The issue of spoliation of evidence is frequently litigated in civil electronic discovery cases, but this is one of the first known cases to address spoliation of electronic discovery in the criminal context. Though the opinion is not for publication, counsel will want to consider that communications between agents and witnesses can often [sic] be in electronic form, and to remember this reality with when they or the defense team communicates with their own witnesses. It is hard to say what affect the jury instruction had in this instance, but it is worth mentioning that Mr. Suarez was ultimately acquitted.”
Spoliation US v. Suarez Complete Opinion
Download is Here:
Spoliation Case Excerpts:
“The Court finds the adverse inference instruction appropriate because:
These findings by the Court fall squarely within the four elements set forth in Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J.2004). Under Mosaid, the Court may only give an adverse inference instruction based on spoliation if the following elements are satisfied:
“Thus, given the F.B.I.’s analogous preservation duty under Vella and Ammar and the failure of the Government to preserve relevant data in the midst of an ongoing investigation specifically aimed at prosecution, and thus where litigation was reasonably anticipated, the Government had a duty to preserve the Jencks material contained in the text messages.”
Destruction of Evidence | Jury Instruction | Spoliation
“At the close of evidence, the Court will issue the following charge to the jury:
Motion to Attend World Series
A Texas attorney filed this Emergency Motion to Attend the 2010 World Series. View it below or download it for your next miraculous comeback by your favorite team.
Surveillance Cameras in Tampa Florida
![]() |
| Eye on Crime |
Camera Surveillance Questions? Ask Me at 1-877-793-9290
“I hate to use the anecdote ‘It’s like shooting fish in a barrel,’ but it is,” Deputy Burton of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. According the Tampa Tribune, “The cameras were funded with a $1 million federal grant called Eye on Crime. The University Area is a pilot project for Hillsborough County, but the cameras are used in other cities such as Chicago and New York.”
The portable cameras are high-resolution cameras and record 24 hours a day. Images are stored for 30 days and are monitored from the sheriff’s office’s district station. Deputies may also will be able to see views from the cameras in their cars and in a helicopter.
Camera Surveillance Questions? Ask Me at 1-877-793-9290
Source: https://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/09/university-area-gets-view-surveillance-cameras/news-breaking/
Cell Phone Surveillance | Cell Tower Data | Judge's Opinion
![]() |
| ECPA Electronic Communications Privacy Act |
Author’s Comment: Your cell phone tells police a lot about you. A Judge recently provided written testimony about about the impact of the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act — that is a law that appears to be about anything but ensuring privacy of electronic communications). Title I of the ECPA 18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 allegedly protects wire, oral, and electronic communications while in transit. It was enacted to set down requirements for search warrants that are more stringent than in other settings. If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.
Excerpts from the written testimony are below. We will be posting the complete testimony and will link to that for our readers.
“ECPA was passed in 1986 as a laudable attempt to balance the privacy rights of citizens and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, given the communications technology of that day.”
Author’s Comment: The ECPA provides that many of the requests and records are to remain secret. Title II of the ECPA, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 to 2712 protects communication held in electronic storage, most notably messages stored on computers.
“The brunt of such secrecy is not necessarily borne by the surveillance targets who are ultimately charged with a crime. After all, they are entitled to discover the nature and source of the prosecution’s evidence, including electronic surveillance orders leading to arrest. Suppression motions are available in the event of a constitutional violation. But not everyone caught up in the web of electronic surveillance is ultimately charged with a crime. Any target is likely to call or be called by family, friends, associates, or even total strangers who have no connection to a criminal enterprise. Yet by the fortuity of a single call, these by-standers may be swept up in a criminal investigation, their cell phone use monitored and their location tracked in real time. Unlike criminal defendants, however, these presumably law abiding citizens will never find out. The phone company cannot tell them, and courthouse records will disclose nothing. Ordinarily, a citizen whose house or office is searched is provided a warrant duly signed by a judicial officer, giving notice of the particulars of the search.33 When a citizen wishes to challenge the legitimacy of a law enforcement search of his home pursuant to a warrant, the law affords due process for that purpose. But when searches are shrouded in permanent secrecy, as in most cases of electronic surveillance, due process becomes a dead letter. Such secrecy also has a pernicious impact on the judicial process . . . .”
Author’s Comment: There are proposals to restrict the scope of this federal law, but as of today, November 22, 2010, the law and its ability to gather a diverse array of data about your cell phone usage remains a frequently used tool of federal law enforcement, including DHS (Department of Homeland Security) , DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), State, and Local Law Enforcement.
If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.
Cell Phone, Surveillance , SCA, Stored Communications Act , ECPA , 18 U.S.C. § 2510, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, , Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Cell Phone Surveillance | Cell Tower Data
Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Update | Cut, Copy, and Paste Not Florida Porn Violation
|
Cut, Copy, and Paste |
Cut, Copy, and Paste Not Florida Porn Violation
“The images . . . are composite images which were crudely prepared by cutting and pasting a photocopy of the head of a minor onto a photocopy of an adult female.”
The court ruled “If the legislature had intended to proscribe the possession of composite images that simulate lewd and lascivious exhibition of the genitals, it could have included a provision doing so. In fact, child pornography has been defined in the federal statutes to specifically include composite images.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(C) (2008).
.
Sources: https://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/December/dec0310.shtml
https://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/dec/03/031558/child-porn-conviction-of-ex-polk-principal-overtur/news-breaking/
Child Porn Defense Attorneys | Restitution Issues
Child Porn Restitution Issues
In Tampa last year, 2009, the Government and Probation agreed that, in a possession of child pornography case, restitution for Vicky was not appropriate “because the harm to the victim was not proximately caused by the defendant.” That case is U.S. v. XXX, Case No. 8:09-cr-00189-T-27MAP. (Name omitted).
Destruction and Spoliation of Evidence | Sanctions
| Spoliation |
Spoliation of Evidence in Cybercrimes
The plaintiff sought sanctions arising out of the defendants’ intentional spoliation of evidence and other litigation misconduct in this intellectual property litigation. There were eight preservation issues including: use of wiping software; failure to implement litigation hold; failure to preserve an external hard drive; failure to preserve files and e-mails notwithstanding plaintiff’s demands and several court orders.
The Judge found through four years of discovery, the defendant had actual knowledge of his duty to preserve, “yet delayed and misrepresented the completeness of the ESI [Electronically Stored Information] production and deleted, destroyed and otherwise failed to preserve evidence.” The Judge then found the destruction “collectively constitute[d] the single most egregious example of spoliation [that he has] encountered in any case & in nearly fourteen years on the bench.”
The sanctions: Defendant to be imprisoned for up to two years, or until he paid the attorneys’ fees and costs estimated to be a “significant amount.”
Sources:
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 WL 3703696 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010)
https://www.krollontrack.com/newsletters/clu-102010/CLU-102010-decisions.html ?news=US_CaseLaw_Oct_10-a&#D1








