Z Law Firm

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

The issue of whether you can be charged with both misdemeanor driving while license suspended in violation of section 322.34(2) and felony driving while license suspended in violation of section 322.34(5).  This issue was addressed in Pedro Gil v. State of Florida, No. SC11-1983 (July 11, 2013).   On October 6, 2009, Pedro Gil was stopped in Miami-Dade County for speeding. Gil informed the officer that his driver’s license was suspended, and Gil was then arrested. For purposes of this case, the arrest report listed the following charges: driving with a suspended license (DWLS), in violation of section 322.34.   On October 27, 2009, Gil pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor DWLS charge in a county court and was adjudged guilty of this charge. Gil was sentenced to six months’ probation and two hundred hours of community service, plus the payment of $358. On the same day, the State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit filed an information that charged Gil with a violation of

For almost a decade, the legal blood alcohol level for DUI cases has been 0.08.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is now recommending that the level be reduced to 0.05 claiming that this decrease would reduce alcohol related crashes by fifty (50) percent.  The NTSB Chairman was quoted as saying, "This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States."