Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
When Officer Safety Leads to Illegal Searches
August 03, 2009
Topic: Criminal
The Fourth District Court of Appeal this week in NAVAMUEL v. FLORIDA highlights how searches based on officer safety can be abused, and that searches, consent to search, and the fruit of those searches can be suppressed resulting in charges being dropped against clients. Navamuel was facing charges of possession of a firearm or electric weapon by a convicted felon, possession of cannabis with intent to deliver/sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In this case, DEA agents, based on information from an informant, drove to Navamuel's house to investigate the informant's allegations of marijuana cultivation and sales.
Two agents approached Navamuel in the driveway near his car and told him that they "were going to conduct a pat down for their safety." The court properly concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that the Navamuel was armed and dangerous, nor presented any danger to the officers. Because of that, the pat down search of Navamuel was illegal. Any evidence obtained after the pat down, even if done with Navameul's consent was tainted and had to be thrown out.
The United State Supreme Court in the famous case of Wong Sun v. United States states that all physical evidence derived from an illegal stop and frisk must be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). Even if a court grants a search warrant after the initial interaction between the defendant and the police, the evidence is suppressed because the warrant was tainted by the prior illegal search of the house. See Grant v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
We have had several cases we very incriminating evidence is found against a client, however the evidence is thrown out and charges are dropped after we investigate both the facts and provide supportive case law to prosecutors. Although even one agrees that police officer's must be protected, officer safety pat downs must be done only upon a reasonable suspicion that the defendant is armed and dangerous. If they are not, the evidence gained against the client must be suppressed, which often leads to charges being dropped.
If you are facing charges based upon evidence found by the police pursuant to a search, whether from a search warrant, traffic stop, or even consensual search, be sure to consult a firm with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney prior to entering a plea. The money spent on a private defense lawyer can be worth it if charges are dismissed or reduced.
