Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

The federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia recently took on the issue of the use of Global Positioning System (known as GPS) devices and a defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in what Broward criminal lawyer William Moore notes was an important case for the development of technological searches. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. In many cases, the law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant to conduct invasive searches. The law enforcement agency did not obtain a warrant, but had suspicions that he was involved in drugs. The placed the GPS tracking device under the bumper of his car, monitoring his comings and goings for several weeks. The defendant was the owner of a nightclub in Washington, D.C.

The defendant was subsequently convicted. However, he challenged the validity of the use of the GPS device to track him, saying that it was too invasive of a search for the government not to need a warrant. The government disagreed for several reasons. First, they argued that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as far as where he drove, as any member of the general public could have followed him to see where he went and when. The government also argued that the use of GPS devices to monitor the subjects of criminal investigations had already, in essence, been dealt with in previous cases and found to be constitutional: the use of beepers, attached to car bumpers, had been found not to be an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

The court dismissed the government’s arguments and found that the search was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, violating the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The court determined that the comparison to beepers was not a persuasive analogy because those were usually used only for very short periods of time; for example, for trailing a suspect from one location to another. They are not generally used to track a suspect’s movements for weeks on end. The court also noted that it is extremely implausible that a member of the public would actually have followed the defendant’s every move for a month.

Evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful search was therefore excluded and the conviction was overturned. But for the illegal search, the government would have been unable to prove its case, notes Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore.

Continue reading "Broward Criminal Lawyer on Search and Seizure in the Age of Technology" »

In many criminal cases, it is appropriate for the Broward criminal defense attorney to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a law enforcement agency during its investigation of an alleged crime. The motion is a written request to the judge presiding over the case, which asks him or her to exclude certain evidence from consideration. If a defendant’s rights were violated, for example, it is inappropriate to consider the evidence obtained as a result.

Motions to suppress are based on the exclusionary rule, a legal rule that primarily exists only in the United States. This doctrine states that the evidence against the defendant should be excluded from consideration at a criminal trial if the police or other law enforcement agents did not legally obtain the evidence or statements. The law has become tougher on this issue over time, but the general rule is that “fruit of the poisonous tree” may not be used against a criminal defendant. That means that information or evidence that would not have been obtained but for a violation of the defendant’s rights cannot be used, because it is tainted -- or “poisoned” -- as a result of the violation.

Either the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States could be the basis for a motion to suppress. The Fourth Amendment is related to a citizen’s protection from illegal searches, which can include a person’s body, a vehicle, or even a home. The search does not have to be just a physical search of the vehicle’s contents, but could even be a motion to suppress the findings of an illegal traffic stop. For example, if a police officer pulls over a car without a valid reason and as a result finds evidence of criminal activity, his attorney can move to suppress the findings. If the court grants the motion to suppress, the driver’s identity or observations made by the officer could be suppressed. The evidence might be suppressed if the arresting officer found marijuana or other illegal drugs, whereas the identity of the car’s driver could be suppressed if he were driving with a suspended license.

A Fifth Amendment-based motion to suppress has to do with statements a defendant made prior to being read his or her Miranda rights. For instance, if someone is taken into custody and questioned about involvement in an alleged crime, but the interrogating police officer does not “Mirandize” the defendant, the statements may not be admissible in court. The context is important, however. Certain kinds of statements are still admissible, even if the Miranda rights were not read. Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney William Moore consults with clients to decide if motions to suppress are useful depending on the facts of individual cases.

If you ask any Broward County criminal attorney, he or she will tell you that there are three different levels of encounters between police and citizens for the purpose of Fourth Amendment analysis. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The first level is a consensual encounter between a police officer and citizen where there is only minimal contact. The second level is a more investigatory stop where the officer may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Note that a citizen encounter becomes an investigatory stop once the officer shows authority in a manner that restrains the defendant’s freedom of movement such that a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply. The third level is an arrest, which must be supported by the officer's probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

A recent Broward County event illustrated the value of Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections. A man went to a local strip club and parked his car not in the lane of a side lot. The vehicle was not in a marked parking space, but it was also not blocking traffic. As he got out, he locked his doors and proceeded to go into the club. The man was stopped by police officers and was physically pulled back to his car. As he was questioned, one of the police officers shined a light into his car, illuminating what appeared to be a crack rock on the front seat. The man was subsequently arrested. Upon appeal, the appellate court ruled that the officers lacked the well-founded suspicion of criminal activity necessary to justify the detention. Therefore, the evidence found after the police detained the man should have been suppressed in court. The officers did not witness a crime and the vehicle was not blocking traffic. This is an example of unlawful search and seizure in Broward County.

For more information on this article, contact Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney, William Moore.