Destruction and Spoliation of Evidence | Sanctions

“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.”

Spoliation of Evidence, ESI, destruction of evidence, Electronically Stored Information,

Spoliation of Evidence

Spoliation

Spoliation of Evidence in Cybercrimes


Florida Cybercrime  Attorney has been researching sanctions for destruction of evidence, also known as Spoliation. The Sanctions: Defendant to Pay Attorneys’ Fees or Serve Two Years Imprisonment for “Egregious” Discovery Misconduct.

 


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

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

Automobile Glovebox Search Thrown Out

Automobile Search, glove box, Search and Seizure

Automobile Search, glove box, Search and Seizure

Search Seizure Automobile

Weapons Found in Car Suppressed


“movements towards the glove box did not justify a search based on officer safety”


 

Florida Defense Attorney just received news of a Automobile Search and Seizure case where the defendant fled from police. The vehicle came to rest. The cop watched the defendant reaching towards the dashboard on the passenger side. Police ordered the defendant to show his hands and step out of the car.

 
The suspect was handcuffed the cops found no weapons on him. Other officers took custody of the defendant. The defendant was separated from his car, in handcuffs, under the supervision of backup officers. The traffic stop cop then seized defendant’s car keys, unlocked the glove box, and found a firearm. The Second District Court ruled that the defendant’s furtive movements towards the glove box did not justify a search based on officer safety. The court held that the law enforcement officer (LEO) could not have reasonably believed that he would find evidence of the defendant s fleeing and eluding in the glove box. Under Arizona v. Gant, the firearm must be suppressed. The case is attached and the firearm statute is below.


Automobile Searched? Tell me about it Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .


 

 
790.23 Felons and delinquents; possession of firearms, ammunition, or electric weapons or devices unlawful.
 
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device, or to carry a concealed weapon, including a tear gas gun or chemical weapon or device, if that person has been:
 
(a) Convicted of a felony in the courts of this state;
 
(b) Found, in the courts of this state, to have committed a delinquent act that would be a felony if committed by an adult and such person is under 24 years of age;
 
(c) Convicted of or found to have committed a crime against the United States which is designated as a felony;
 
(d) Found to have committed a delinquent act in another state, territory, or country that would be a felony if committed by an adult and which was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year and such person is under 24 years of age; or
 
(e) Found guilty of an offense that is a felony in another state, territory, or country and which was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.
 
Source: 35 Fla. L. Weekly D533b (Fla. 2d DCA March 5, 2010) Special Thanks to Rocky Brancato, Associate Attorney Office of the Public Defender 

Federal Indictment | Conspiracy | Trafficking Counterfeit Goods | Mail Fraud

Trafficking Counterfeit Goods, Conspiracy, Mail Fraud

Trafficking Counterfeit Goods, Conspiracy, Mail Fraud

Conspiracy Trafficking Counterfeit

Trafficking Counterfeit Electronics and Components

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney in the Middle District of Florida has just obtained excerpts from a recent indictment for Conspiracy, Trafficking Counterfeit Goods, and Mail Fraud involving electronic components:

 


“The devices are used in a variety of applications including consumer electronics, transportation, medical, spacecraft, and military. Counterfeit integrated circuits can result in product or system failure or malfunction, and can result in costly system repairs, property damage, and serious bodily injury, including death. Such counterfeits also raise national security concerns because the history of the device is unknown, including who has handled it and what has been done to it.”


A recent (January 2010) study outlined the Government’s position on the prevalence of counterfeit electronics and components. The Executive Summary states in part, “The purpose of this study is to provide statistics on the extent of the infiltration of counterfeits into U.S. defense and industrial supply chains, to provide an understanding of industry and government practices that contribute to the problem, and to identify best practices and recommendations for handling and preventing counterfeit electronics.”

 


Here is a complete copy of the recent Government Report on Counterfeit Electronics and Components.


Questions About Federal Indictments? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290

 

USCA0012 IMIGRANT – FEDERAL (Immigrant)

Immigration Violation, USCA0012

Immigration Violation, USCA0012

Immigration Violation

Government power without warrant . . . to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens


Immigration Violation


If you have been charged with USCA0012 IMIGRANT (Immigrant) – FEDERAL Immigration Violation you can call a Tampa Immigration Defense Lawyer at 813-222-2220.


Form Code: USCA0012

Description: IMIGRANT – FEDERAL (Immigrant)


USCA0012 IMIGRANT – FEDERAL (Immigrant) Immigation Violations are often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.


8 USC Sec. 1357 02/01/2010

TITLE 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 – IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER II – IMMIGRATION
Part IX – Miscellaneous


Tampa Immigration Defense Lawyer


Sec. 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees


(a) Powers without warrant

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant –

(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;


(2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;


(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;


(4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and


(5) to make arrests –

(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer’s or employee’s presence, or
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.
Under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, an officer or employee of the Service may carry a firearm and may execute and serve any order, warrant, subpoena, summons, or other process issued under the authority of the United States. The authority to make arrests under paragraph (5)(B) shall only be effective on and after the date on which the Attorney General publishes final regulations which (i) prescribe the categories of officers and employees of the Service who may use force (including deadly force) and the circumstances under which such force may be used, (ii) establish standards with respect to enforcement activities of the Service, (iii) require that any officer or employee of the Service is not authorized to make arrests under paragraph (5)(B) unless the officer or employee has received certification as having completed a training program which covers such arrests and standards described in clause (ii), and (iv) establish an expedited, internal review process for violations of such standards, which process is consistent with standard agency procedure regarding confidentiality of matters related to internal investigations.
(b) Administration of oath; taking of evidence
Any officer or employee of the Service designated by the Attorney General, whether individually or as one of a class, shall have power and authority to administer oaths and to take and consider evidence concerning the privilege of any person to enter, reenter, pass through, or reside in the United States, or concerning any matter which is material or relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the administration of the Service; and any person to whom such oath has been administered, (or who has executed an unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28) under the provisions of this chapter, who shall knowingly or willfully give false evidence or swear (or subscribe under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28) to any false statement concerning any matter referred to in this subsection shall be guilty of perjury and shall be punished as provided by section 1621 of title 18.
(c) Search without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, whether individually or as one of a class, shall have power to conduct a search, without warrant, of the person, and of the personal effects in the possession of any person seeking admission to the United States, concerning whom such officer or employee may have reasonable cause to suspect that grounds exist for denial of admission to the United States under this chapter which would be disclosed by such search.

(d) Detainer of aliens for violation of controlled substances laws

In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or another official) –
(1) has reason to believe that the alien may not have been lawfully admitted to the United States or otherwise is not lawfully present in the United States,
(2) expeditiously informs an appropriate officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated by the Attorney General of the arrest and of facts concerning the status of the alien, and
(3) requests the Service to determine promptly whether or not to issue a detainer to detain the alien, the officer or employee of the Service shall promptly determine whether or not to issue such a detainer. If such a detainer is issued and the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.


(e) Restriction on warrantless entry in case of outdoor agricultural operations Notwithstanding any other

provision of this section other than paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this section, an officer or employee of the Service may not enter without the consent of the owner (or agent thereof) or a properly executed warrant onto the premises of a farm or other outdoor agricultural operation for the purpose of interrogating a person believed to be an alien as to the person’s right to be or to remain in the United States.

(f) Fingerprinting and photographing of certain aliens

(1) Under regulations of the Attorney General, the Commissioner shall provide for the fingerprinting and photographing of each alien 14 years of age or older against whom a proceeding is commenced under section 1229a of this title.
(2) Such fingerprints and photographs shall be made available to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, upon request.

(g) Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees

(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law.
(2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall contain a written certification that the officers or employees performing the function under the agreement have received adequate training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal immigration laws.
(3) In performing a function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.
(4) In performing a function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State may use Federal property or facilities, as provided in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or subdivision.
(5) With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision.
(6) The Attorney General may not accept a service under this subsection if the service will be used to displace any Federal employee.
(7) Except as provided in paragraph (8), an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State performing functions under this subsection shall not be treated as a Federal employee for any purpose other than for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating to compensation for injury) and sections 2671 through 2680 of title 28 (relating to tort claims).
(8) An officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State acting under color of authority under this subsection, or any agreement entered into under this subsection, shall be considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for purposes of determining the liability, and immunity from suit, of the officer or employee in a civil action brought under Federal or State law.
(9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection.
(10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State –
(A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or
(B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.

(h) Protecting abused juveniles An alien described in section 1101(a)(27)(J) of this title who has been battered, abused, neglected, or abandoned, shall not be compelled to contact the alleged abuser (or family member of the alleged abuser) at any stage of applying for special immigrant juvenile status, including after a request for the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii)(I) of this title.

USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION

USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION

USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION

Federal Rule Violation

Federal Rule Violation


If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Federal Defense Attorney in Tampa at 813-222-2220.


Form Code: USCA0024


U.S. Code: Various United States Code Sections

Description: FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION

 


USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.


 

What is a Federal Rule Violation?

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office may use this charge description when someone has been taken into custody on Federal Charges. It may include new charges as a result of arrests on a Criminal Complaint, Federal Indictment, or Violation of Supervised Release.

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.


 

Federal Prosecutor's Discovery Procedural Memo

AUSA, DOJ, United States Attorney, Memo

United States Attorney Memo


Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Casey Ebsary has obtained a copy of a recent memo to  United States Department of Justice / Assistant United States Attorneys on Procedures they are to follow in prosecuting federal crimes in Federal Court, including the Middle District of Florida.


MEMORANDUM FOR DEPARTMENT PROSECUTORS

 The discovery obligations of federal prosecutors are generally established by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 and 26.2, 18 U.S.C. §3500 (the Jencks Act), Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). In addition, the United States Attorney’s Manual describes the Department’s policy for disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment information. See USAM §9- 5.001. In order to meet discovery obligations in a given case, Federal prosecutors must be familiar with these authorities and with the judicial interpretations and local rules that discuss or address the application of these authorities to particular facts. In addition, it is important for prosecutors to consider thoroughly how to meet their discovery obligations in each case. Toward that end, the Department has adopted the guidance for prosecutors regarding criminal discovery set forth below. The guidance is intended to establish a methodical approach to consideration of discovery obligations that prosecutors should follow in every case to avoid lapses that can result in consequences adverse to the Department’s pursuit of justice. The guidance is subject to legal precedent, court orders, and local rules. It provides prospective guidance only and is not intended to have the force of law or to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).

Source: The complete Memorandum can be found at https://www.justice.gov/dag/discovery-guidance.html


Federal Prosecutor’s Discovery Procedural Memo | Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

Confession Tossed | Promises of Immunity

“promises of non-prosecution / immunity prevented the defendant from making a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights”

Federal Defense Attorney in Florida Miranda, Confession, Immunity

Confessions, Immunity, and Miranda


Confessions, Immunity, and Miranda


Federal Defense Attorney in Florida got a great tip from our friends at the Federal Defenders in Tampa and Orlando. New case involved a State agent / detective who promised a defendant he would not be prosecuted. Then he told the Feds about the evidence he gathered from the defendant. Federal Prosecutors use the evidence and the Secret Service busts him. The Eleventh Circuit held that a State Policeman’s promises of non-prosecution / immunity prevented the defendant from making a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.


The Court also held that, even if, the defendant had not been in custody at the time of the confession (making Miranda warnings unnecessary) the confession was involuntary under the Due Process Clause. The only interpretation of the State detective’s representations was that the information the defendant provided would not be used against him by state cops, feds, or anyone else. Circumstances of the defendant’s statements were enough to render his confession involuntary.


The Court rejected the Fed’s  argument that the state detective’s promise of non-prosecution did not bind the Feds and the United States Government. The Eleventh Circuit held that an involuntary confession is inadmissible in federal prosecutions even if improperly coerced by state police. See: Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964). The Court also required the suppression of the physical evidence seized as the fruit of the coerced confession.

Source: Fed Defender MD Fla and https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910794.pdf


Federal Defense Attorney in Florida