Z Law Firm

Scott v. State, 39 FLW D2458b (Fla. 4th DCA) – November 26, 2014 Law Enforcement were conducting surveillance of a residence for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant on someone named R.Q.  During the surveillance, the defendant exited the residence.  The officers approached defendant, at which time he denied being R.Q., and provided them with his name.  The officers were unable to confirm his identity via computer check, so the defendant invited them into the residence while he looked for his ID.  He was unable to locate it, and he and the officers returned outside.  The officers asked defendant to sit on the porch while they continued their efforts to confirm his identity.  A few minutes later, the defendant walked back into the house, locked the door, and exited through the rear of the residence.  The officers saw defendant jump the back fence and attempt to flee, but he was caught and arrested for Resisting an Officer without Violence (it was later established that he was n

In 2012, there were nearly 70,000 hit and run crashes in the State of Florida which resulted in 17,000 injuries and 166 fatalities.   This number of fatalities equates to nearly 3 Floridians killed each week in hit-and-run crashes. On February 15, 2012, Michele Traverso was on his way home from an evening of drinking when he ran over two cyclists and fled the scene.   One of those cyclists, Aaron Cohen was killed and the defendant received a sentence of twenty-two months of incarceration. In response, the Florida Legislature began to make proposals to Florida Statute §316.027 that were contained in Senate Bill 102.   This Bill became law effective July 1, 2014.   Some of the changes to Florida Statute §316.027 include the following: ·         Leaving the Scene of an Accident resulting in bodily injury is now a 2 nd degree felony rather than a 3 rd degree felony; ·         A minimum mandatory penalty of 4-years shall be imposed for a conviction resulting in the death o

For those who were charged with the offense of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) prior to July 1, 2014, Florida Courts would impose the condition of the ignition interlock device only individuals who were either charged with a subsequent DUI (see Florida Statute §316.193(2)(a)(3)) or with a DUI where there was a blood alcohol or breath alcohol level that measured in excess of 0.150 or had a minor in the car (see Florida Statute §316.193(4)). Following the 2014 Legislative Session, Florida Statute §316.193 has been amended by adding §316.193(2)(c).   In addition to the penalties already listed in §316.193(2), Florida Courts may now impose the following: the court may order placement, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 for at least 6 continuous months upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person if, at the time of t

Florida Statute 812.0155  permits courts to suspend the driving privileges of an individual convicted of a misdemeanor theft related offense in violation of s. 812.014 or s. 812.015.  As is customary due to "Separation of Powers", a court could not order the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to issue the offender a hardship license.  Now, following the 2014 Legislative Session, Florida Statute 812.0155 (5) authorizes a court that suspends the driver license of an individual for an offense relating to theft, to DIRECT the DHSMV to issue the person a license for business purposes only, if the person is otherwise qualified. www.zlawfirmfl.com

It has long stood in the State of Florida that anyone over the age of 18-years who was charged with and convicted on a violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, was subject to having their driving privileges suspended for a period of two-years. That meant that anyone who was convicted of possession or sale of, trafficking in, or conspiracy to possess, sell, or traffic in a controlled substance was subject to the two-year suspension.   However, now following the 2014 Legislative Session, we have seen a change that can be found in the wording of Florida Statute §322.055 that details the license revocation period for persons over the age of 18 who have been convicted of alcohol, drug and tobacco offenses. Now, if you are over the age of 18 and are convicted of a violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, you are now subject to a license suspension of one-year. www.zlawfirmfl.com  

Florida Statute §893.135 which governs Florida’s drug trafficking laws was enacted for the purpose of combatting high-level drug traffickers and dealers.   The penalties for violating any section of this statute were harsh.   Drug traffickers would be faced with minimum-mandatory periods of imprisonment and substantial fines.   On its face, this appeared to be an idea that would not be met with much opposition. However, what the statute failed to take into account were the large numbers of addicts who would find themselves caught in this web for simply possessing a predetermined weight of drugs despite the fact that these individuals had no intent whatsoever to sell or traffic their drugs.   Things only got worse when the State of Florida cracked down on trafficking in prescription narcotics (oxycodone and hydrocodone) that individuals were obtaining from the so called “pill mills”, or worse yet, teenagers were gathering from their parent’s and grandparent’s medicine cabinets.

The Fourth Amendment is still alive.   In a unanimous decision (9 – 0 for those of you keeping score), the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant.   The justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement. The issue arose following the arrests and subsequent conviction of defendants in Massachusetts and California.   In these cases, United States v. Wurie , No. 13-212 and Riley v. California , No. 13-132, the defendants were convicted, in part, after phone numbers, text messages, photos and addresses obtained from personal electronic devices linked them to drug and gang activity.   Those cases were appealed to the high court, giving it an opportunity to re-enter the public debate over the limits of privacy rights, with a focus on the ubi