Category Archives: Criminal Defense

8 Ways To Get To Gasparilla 2015 Pirate Festival

Posted on by
7 Ways To Avoid A DUI at Gasparilla Pirate Festival 2015

Gasparilla Pirate Festival Ship 2015

As of 2023 and historically, there were 42 Gasparilla Pirate Festival related arrests and 63 open container civil citations (No open containers of alcohol outside the “wet-zone” or the parade route). Do not end your party in jail! With just a little fore thought you here are 8 ways to get to Gasparilla 2015 and avoid a DUI or BUI this weekend:

Gasparilla Pirate Festival Travel Plans

1. Charter A Helicopter.

        oldcityhelicopters.com charters helicopters from Davis Island (813) 254-1300

2. Charter A Yacht.

          suncoastadventurecenter.com charter a yacht and crew  (727) 480-8289

3. Take A Bus Or Streetcar

          Hillsborough Area Regional Transit  will be running extra buses. Park and ride the bus both ways for only $4. (813) 254-HART or (813) 254-4278

4. Take A Taxi

          Suburban Taxi (727) 260 8294
          Go Taxi Florida (727) 386-6787
          Metro Taxi (727) 412-2101
          Yellow Cab (813) 253-0121
          Cab Plus (813) 288-8888
          United Cab (813) 251-5555
          TampaWaterTaxiCo.com for a little twist try a water taxi (813) 900-3288

5. Designate A Driver: A Friend Or A Service For Hire.

          You or a friend agree not to drink and be the designated driver for the day.
          ZingoTampa.com You drive yourself there and hire someone to come and drive your car home. (888) ZIN-GO 11 or (888) 946-4611
          DesignatedTampa.com  You drive yourself there and hire someone to come and drive your car home. (813) 444-2332

6. Get A Car Ride From A Friend Or Pay For A Car Ride.

          Ride in a friend’s car with your friend who will not be drinking.
          Uber.com download application onto your phone then arrange for a pickup.
          Lyft.com download application onto your phone then arrange for a pickup.

7. Get A Hotel Near The Route And Sleep It Off.

Hyde Park Hotel 2105 West Bristol Avenue, Tampa, FL 33606 (813) 254-2000
Epicurean Hotel Autograph Collection 1207 South Howard Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 (813) 999-8700
Embassy Suites® Tampa – Hilton.com‎ 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 769-8300
Tampa Marriott Waterside Hotel & Marina 700 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 221-4900
The Westin Tampa Harbour Island 725 South Harbour Island Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 229-5000
Hilton Tampa Downtown 211 North Tampa Street, Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 204-3000
Sheraton Tampa Riverwalk Hotel 200 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 223-2222

8. As A Last Resort Call AAA

          AAAs TOW2GO at (855) TOW2GO (855) 286-9246
Mention of third party companies and products is for informational purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Read Our Past Gasparilla Pirate Festival Posts:

Mr. Casey Ebsary, Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer, found this Tampa Police Video. Casey Ebsary (813-222-2220) is working this weekend helping people charged at this year’s Gasparilla in Tampa.

16 Tips For Surviving Gasparilla Piratefest Invasion

Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy the Gasparilla Pirate Invasion without waking up with a criminal record…Read More

https://www.dui2go.com/2013/01/surviving-gasparilla-pirate-invasion.html

Tampa Attorney BUI | Boating Under Influence | Gasparilla Arrest

In one recent Piratefest weekend there were 5 Gasparilla BUI Boating Under the Influence Arrests…Read More

https://www.dui2go.com/2011/01/tampa-bui-boating-under-influence.html

Boating Under the Influence – Crash Video

BUI charged Speedboat driver charged with manslaughter in fatal crash…Read More

https://www.dui2go.com/2013/07/boating-under-influence-crash-video.html

Gasparilla Notice to Appear or Arrest? Affordable Help From an Attorney | Lawyer | (813) 222-2220

In 2010 there were 5 BUI Boating Under the Influence Arrests. The Police, Sheriff’s Office, Coast Guard, and Florida Fish and Wildlife will be using a Mobile Facility this year to process arrests…Read More

https://www.drug2go.com/2011/01/gasparilla-notice-to-appear-or-arrest.html

Arrest Report Gasparilla Update

Tampa police reported 349 arrests, most for alcohol violations and all but three misdemeanors…Read More

https://www.drug2go.com/2011/01/arrest-report-gasparilla-update-359.html

Wiretaps in Federal Prosecutions | Florida

Posted on by

Wiretaps - An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping

Wiretaps
Wiretaps in Federal Prosecutions

A friend at the Federal Defender’s Office in Florida just sent us this information on Wiretaps in Federal Prosecution and  provided us with a new Congressional Research Service report entitled “Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping.” It is comprehensive and should be useful to anyone with a case in which wiretaps are an issue. Some excerpts are below and a download of the complete document is available below.:

 

“Unless otherwise provided, Title III/ECPA outlaws wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping; possession of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping equipment; use or disclosure of information obtained through illegal wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping; and disclosure of information secured through court-ordered wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping, in order to obstruct justice, 18 U.S.C. 2511. Elsewhere, federal law proscribes:
  • unlawful access to stored communications, 18 U.S.C. 2701;
  • unlawful use of a pen register or a trap and trace device, 18 U.S.C. 3121; and
  • abuse of eavesdropping and search authority or unlawful disclosures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1809, 1827.”

The report summarizes:

“At the heart of Title III/ECPA lies the prohibition against illegal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, 18 U.S.C. 2511(1), that bans:

  • any person from
  • intentionally
  • intercepting, or endeavoring to intercept,
  • wire, oral or electronic communications
  • by using an electronic, mechanical or other device
  • unless the conduct is specifically authorized or expressly not covered, e.g. one of the parties to the conversation has consent to the interception
  • the interception occurs in compliance with a statutorily authorized, (and ordinarily judicially supervised) law enforcement or foreign intelligence gathering interception,
  • the interception occurs as part of providing or regulating communication services,
  • certain radio broadcasts, and in some places, spousal wiretappers.”

The complete report is available here,

Debra LaFave – Probation Early Termination Approved by Florida Supreme Court

Posted on by
The too-pretty-for-prison teacher, Debra LaFave was released from probation early by today’s ruling in the Florida Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the state attorney could not appeal the trial court’s order terminating the probation, even though the no prison plea agreement provided that her probation was not to be terminated early.
The Florida Supreme Court said:

Early Termination of Probation

“Six years into her ten-year nonprison sentence, LaFave unabashedly sought early termination of her probation in 2011 in direct violation of her plea agreement. She asked the circuit court to terminate her sex offender probation four years early. On October 3, 2011, over objections from both the state attorney and the Department of Corrections [(DOC)], the circuit court granted her motion and terminated her probation as requested. “
“We answer the certified question in the negative and find that the State did not have the right to petition the district court [to appeal the decision] for certiorari review in this case.”
Complete Decision Here:

History of Cell Phone Searches

Posted on by

Cell Phone Search Warrant

Cell Phone Search Warrant, Cell Phone Search, Search and Seizure
Search Warrant
Cell Phone

Cell Phone Search Warrant

Up until quite recently, there were exceptions to the general requirement that police get a Search Warrant for a cell phone. Cell phones have been a window into suspects’ activities, as police used these exceptions to get their hands on information found inside mobile devices. Obtaining a Search Warrant for a cell phone is not that hard to do. You can review a Search Warrant for a Cell Phone here:  Here is an actual iPhone Search Warrant . GPS or Global Positioning Satellite information found in mobile phones has also been used by police.

Up until around 2014, police could and did search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who was arrested. Defense Attorneys would frequently challenge such searches. These searches were frequently based upon “helping” arrested citizens by making sure their property was properly inventoried by the arresting officers for safekeeping by jail personnel or by the evidence unit at the arresting agency’s office. This rationale remains a frequent flier in broad invasive “inventory” searches of automobiles during traffic stops.

Cell Phone Search, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant

Cell Phone Search, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant

Cell Phone Search Warrant
Warrant Required
Mobile Devices
Florida had outlawed warrantless phone searches before the US Supreme Court. That ruling is discussed here. Now prohibited will be mobile device and cell phone searches without a warrant. Before the 2014 United States Supreme Court ruling here was another Court’s Ruling on a Cell Phone Search. Searches Incident to a lawful arrest were previously justified by cops using issues of police officer safety and prevention of destruction of evidence.
Now under Floridalaw, a Motion to Suppress Evidence can be filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Illegal Search and seizure now applies to cell phones and the Courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence including, photographs, video, text messages, directory and location data, voice mails, and emails.

Case Summary: The US Supreme Court’s ruling is that a properly obtained and issued search warrant is generally required before search of a cell phone. Here is some language from the Court’s ruling.

“Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person. The term “cell phone” is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras,video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”
“The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeledwith dates, locations, and descriptions; the same cannot besaid of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet.”
“To further complicate the scope of the privacy interests at stake, the data a user views on many modern cell phones may not in fact be stored on the device itself. Treating a cell phone as a container whose contents may be searched incident to an arrest is a bit strained as an initial matter.”
“[T]he search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones . . . .”

Some Excerpts from Florida Cell Phone Search Cases:

“However, we express great concern in permitting the officer to search appellant’s cell phone here where there was no indication the officer had reason to believe the cell phone contained evidence.”
“We are equally concerned that giving officers unbridled discretion to rummage through at will the entire contents of one’s cell phone, even where there is no basis for believing evidence of the crime of arrest will be found on the phone, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”

 

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Posted on by

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)

What is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Indictment charging criminal violations of the FCPA.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), if may be time to get acquainted.

The FCPA, found at Title 15 U.S. Code Section 78dd, prohibits “bribes” to any individual working in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of a foreign government in order to obtain or retain business. For years, business was done in certain foreign countries under a “pay to play” scenario- someone needed to get paid in order to get the deal done. Most often, when these arrangements were detected, the Department of Justice imposed civil fines and penalties and permitted the American company and its employees to keep doing business. That trend seems to have ended.
The DOJ and FBI have recently ramped up criminal enforcement of this law. Entire FBI squads as well as teams of DOJ lawyers are now assigned, full time, to identifying criminal violations and prosecuting alleged violators, individuals and companies. In addition to our very recent case in DC, on May 10, 2011, the government obtained convictions of Lindsey Manufacturing and two of its executives on charges of Conspiracy to violate the FCPA, arising out of an scheme to bribe Mexicans officials. Another criminal FCPA trial against employees of a California company, alleging bribes to a Chinese officials, will begin soon in Los Angeles. Do not think that these cases are limited to Fortune 500 companies and their employees- my client owned a mid-sized police equipment supply company in St. Petersburg . I must admit that I did not realize the full scope of the government’s efforts in this area until becoming involved in this case.
What happened in my case? After 9 weeks of trial and 6 days of deliberations, a mistrial was declared when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. They were hung 9-2 with one undecided for acquittal on the conspiracy, but closer on the substantive counts. We had raised many defenses available under the FCPA, including lack of business nexus between the payment and the contract, and absence of mens rea – the statute requires the government to prove both willfulness and corrupt intent. We also attacked, successfully, I believe, the method and integrity of the FBI’s investigation.
The bottom line here is that all clients and companies doing business with foreign governments must be made aware of this law. Although “bribes” are illegal, there are permissible ways to compensate foreign agents and foreign officials under limited circumstances. It is important to recognize the difference. Look for a lot more of these cases in the future.
Special Thanks to Guest Author.

What is Entrapment?

Posted on by
What is Entrapment?
Sometimes law enforcement behavior can be so despicable that their conduct and method of investigation leads only to entrapped citizens. This form of entrapment is rare but not unheard of.

What is Entrapment?

Entrapment occurs when criminal conduct is a product of law enforcement officials. In other words, a police officer can’t lure an innocent person to commit a crime then arrest them for it. When cops cross this boundary the defense of entrapment is available.

Florida Laws on Entrapment

Florida recognizes two theories of defense based on entrapment: subjective and objective entrapment. See 777.201, Florida Statutes; Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90, 99 (Fla. 1993). Subjective entrapment focuses on whether conduct by law enforcement induced, encouraged, or caused the defendant to commit a crime when he or she was not predisposed to do so. See § 777.201, Fla. Stat.; Jones v. State, 114 So. 3d 1123, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Subjective Entrapment

The test to establish a subjective entrapment defense includes:

1. whether a government agent induced the defendant to commit the crime charged;

Inducement has been defined as “any government conduct creating a substantial risk that an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense, including persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy or friendship” Farley v. State, 848 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

2. whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged;

Predisposition asks whether the accused was awaiting any propitious opportunity or was ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the offense. Munoz, 629 So. 2d at 99. Predisposition is not present when one has no prior criminal history related to the offense at issue. Nadeau v. State, 683 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

(3) whether the entrapment defense should be evaluated by the jury.

Where the facts and the law establish entrapment there is no need for the jury to make any findings of fact. Where facts are contested though the issue of entrapment will be decided by a jury.

Objective Entrapment

Objective entrapment occurs when egregious law enforcement conduct amounts to a violation of the defendant’s right to due process under article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. See Munoz, 629 So. 2d at 99.

Simply put, law enforcement behavior can be so despicable that their conduct and method of investigation leads only to entrapped citizens. This form of entrapment is rare but not unheard of.

Thanks to Guest Author Robson Powers of the Law Office of Michael P. Maddux, P.A.

 

Gasparilla Arrest Update : 42 Busted

Posted on by

Gasparilla Arrest Update

Gasparilla Arrest Update
Gasparilla Arrest Update
42 Busted
Gasparilla Arrest Update: “authorities announce a preliminary tally of arrests made throughout the day: 3 felony arrests and 39 misdemeanor arrests, including 12 for underage drinking. Sixty-three open-container citations are issued.”

Source TPD and Media Report

Cell Phone Searches – Supreme Court to Rule on Warrant Requirement

Posted on by
Cell Phone, Cell Phone Search

Cell Phone, Cell Phone Search

Cell Phone Searches – Supreme Court

Update: “Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, concluding that a warrant is required to search a mobile phone.[8] Roberts wrote that it fails the warrantless search test established in Chimel v. California.”

 

“The Supreme Court granted certiorari review in two similar cases, both used with evidence obtained by means of a warrantless search of a cell phone during a lawful arrest.

One friend has said, “Wow, the Supremes are taking a serious look at cell phone searches! There’s been talk for a while now about the problems courts have applying old standard to modern technology.   We may get a sea change in S&S law. Of course, we may not, too, but it’s really worth watching.  If you have a cell phone search case now, for goodness sake make your 4th Am motion and/or objections (track the language in these 2 cases).” Thanks DE for your thoughts on this issue.


In Riley v. California, No. 13-132, a state case, the question presented is:

Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In United States v. Wurie,No. 13-212, the Feds appealed, the question presented is:

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the call log of a cellphone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested.
 The cases are Riley v. California, No. 13-132, and United States v. Wurie,No. 13-212.

Florida Attorney Case Review – Sentencing Cap – College Band – FAMU Hazing

Posted on by
Florida A&M University, FAMU , Hazing, 782.07, 1006.63(2), Judge Marc Lubet, Jeff Ashton , Sentencing Cap,
Sentencing Cap – College Band
FAMU Hazing
Sentencing Cap in High Profile Case
Florida Criminal Attorney notes that in November 2013 an agreement that a potential Prison Sentence would be capped at 9 years in the high-profile Florida A&M University hazing case was apparently reached according to published reports. Notably, in July 2013, according to the Orlando Sentinel, Judge Marc Lubet “The Orange County judge presiding over the [Florida A&M University] FAMU hazing cases was unwilling Tuesday to cap at three years a possible prison sentence for an ex-band member charged with felony hazing and manslaughter in the death of Marching 100 drum major Robert Champion.” Here is an official copy of the 49 Page Arrest Warrant.
What is a Sentencing Cap?
Here is an example: While the maximum sentence in a second degree felony is 15 years and sentencing guidelines may call for a lengthy prison sentence, sometimes prosecutors agree with defense attorneys that a maximum sentence in a given case will be less that the statutory maximum. Generally judges will approve of these agreements. If the Judge does not approve of the agreement, then the case may be forced to trial.

 

A New York Times report states one band member “pleaded no contest to manslaughter on Wednesday and could become the first person to go to prison in the beating. The prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, described that band member as being “most consistently identified as the most enthusiastic” participant in the hazing ritual that killed the drum major, Robert Champion, in 2011. A plea deal calls for the band member to spend nine years in prison, though his lawyers can argue for less when a judge sentences him in February.”

Court Records show the band member charges as:

1. MANSLAUGHTHER (VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY) 782.07 2nd Degree – Felony

2. HAZING RESULTING IN DEATH 1006.63(2) 3rd Degree – Felony

Florida Statute Definition of Hazing

The Florida Statutes defines hazing as, “As used in this section, “hazing” means any action or situation that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for purposes including, but not limited to, initiation or admission into or affiliation with any organization operating under the sanction of a postsecondary institution. “Hazing” includes, but is not limited to, pressuring or coercing the student into violating state or federal law, any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance, or other forced physical activity that could adversely affect the physical health or safety of the student, and also includes any activity that would subject the student to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced conduct that could result in extreme embarrassment, or other forced activity that could adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the student. Hazing does not include customary athletic events or other similar contests or competitions or any activity or conduct that furthers a legal and legitimate objective.”

“It is not a defense to a charge of hazing that . . The consent of the victim had been obtained;”

Florida Law Penalties for Hazing

Third Degree Felony –  5 Years – serious bodily injury or death of such other person.

 

1st Degree Misdemeanor – 12 Months – Intentionally or recklessly substantial risk of physical injury or death.

University Definition of Hazing
The University now defines hazing as: “The term hazing shall include, but not be limited to, pressuring or coercing the student into violating state or federal law, any brutality of a physical nature, such as striking in any manner, whipping, beating, branding, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of food, liquor, drugs, or other substances, or other forced physical activities that would adversely affect the health or safety of the student and also includes any activity that would subject the student to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contacts, forced conduct that would be demeaning or results in extreme embarrassment or any other forced activity that could adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the student. Hazing does not include customary athletic events or other similar contests or competitions or any activity or conduct that furthers a legal and legitimate objective. For purposes of this section, any activity as described above, or any action or situation that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for purposes, including, but not limited to, initiation or admission into or affiliation with a university sanctioned organization, shall be presumed to be hazing and a “forced” activity, the willingness or consent of an individual to participate in such activity notwithstanding.”

Sample Florida Arrest Warrant

Tampa Criminal Attorney Lawyer – Read More

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney – 813-222-2220 – Video on YouTube

Posted on by
Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney has a FREE fully searchable Pasco Drug Crimes Oxycodone defense database on Oxycontin and drug charges in Florida. Drug Crimes Data Base Click Here. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause in criminal cases and the possibility of drug charges being dropped or dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband. Casey reviews the Minimum Mandatory sentences that may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, a specialist who defends drug crimes in Pasco County, Florida.

Transcript: [Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day. You may be one of them. I spend most of my time defending cases in State and Federal Courts. Many times drug crimes arise from searches of motor vehicles. Sometimes police will stop a car and then search it. Sometimes we are able to attack these searches when police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the motor vehicle. In the event we can suppress the evidence, we may be able to have the drug charges dismissed, since there is no longer any evidence to be admitted against you in a criminal prosecution and evidence becomes unavailable for admission in a trial. I have arrived at my destination – one of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Criminal charges in State or federal Court? Let me help. Call me at 813-222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you.[End of Pasco Oxycontin Defense Lawyer Narration]