In the matter of Jenkins v. State of Florida, the appellate court granted defendant’s appeal which challenged defendant’s convictions following pleas to possession with the intent to sell cocaine, drug paraphernalia possession, & altering a license tag, and remanded for additional proceedings consistent with its ruling. The court ruled that the defendant’s arrests on account of altering a license tag were illegal since he didn’t commit the crime within the presence of law enforcement, as required by Florida Stat. Section90.15(1) and per the holding in Baymon v. State. The facts of this case were as follows that the law enforcement officials stopped the defendant’s car because defendant was playing his music very loud, defendant had a tinted plastic cover over his license tag, and did not make a complete stop at a red light. Officers arrested the defendant for altering a license tag, a second-degree misdemeanor. See § 320.061, Fla. Stat. (2009). The officers conducted a search incident to lawful arrest. They searched defendant and the auto. Officers located cocaine in the defendant’s wallet in addition to bags with cocaine residue & also a digital scale within the auto trunk of the car. Less than one month later, cops once more spotted the defendant’s auto still having the tinted plastic cover over the license tag. They performed a traffic stop & arrested the defendant yet again for obscuring his license tag. An inventory search of the defendant’s auto revealed 700 counterfeit music & video Compact discs & DVDs. The defendant submitted motions to suppress in all cases. He contended that his arrests were unlawful for the reason that altering a license tag was a misdemeanor, and accordingly, that has to be committed within the presence of a law enforcement officer for an arrest to be legal. The Second District Court agreed with defendant finding that because the arrests were against the law, "the law required suppression of the evidence seized in any search performed incident to that arrest." The court cited to the cases of Baymon, 933 So. 2d at 1270 and also Wong Sun v. United States.
The district court reversed defendant’s convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell & possession of drug paraphernalia, his conviction for possession of counterfeit goods, & remanded those matters for resentencing on the defendant’s convictions for altering a license tag. The district court also reversed defendant’s probation violation & remanded for deliberation of whether to revoke, modify, or otherwise continue defendant on probation predicated simply on altering a license tag.
For more information on Lawyer Miami FL , Dui attorney and Attorney Miami FL you can contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne Blvd
Miami, FL 33131
(305)459-3286
In the appeal in of Gizaw vs. The State of Florida the 2nd District Court of Appeal overturned the defendant’s convictions for the charges of possession of a conveyance utilized for the purpose of trafficking, sale, or manufacturing of controlled substances; & possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge defendant based on the fact that the State of Florida did not establish the defendant’s knowledge regarding the presence of cannabis or her dominion and control over the suitcase containing marijuana.
The evidence showed that a deputy pulled over an automobile for speeding. The defendant, the driver, produced her driver’s license. The passenger provided identification & a criminal records check showed he was on probation for drug related convictions. The deputy radioed a backup unit & a 2nd sheriff’s deputy responded to the location of the stop. The 1st officer asked the defendant for permission to search the automobile for drugs. The officer advised defendant he had information that the occupant was on probation due to drug offenses. The defendant explained to the deputy that there were no illegal drugs within the vehicle and gave him consent to search, which he did. He testified he smelled a faint odor of raw marijuana that appeared to be residual, but didn’t locate any narcotics.
The 2nd officer searched the trunk, where he also detected a faint scent of raw cannabis. When he went into the trunk of the car, the odor became strong. Inside the trunk he found a suitcase which contained 2 bricks of what eventually turned out to be cannabis which was wrapped in duct tape. The suitcase contained 3 pairs of men’s jeans. Lying next to the suitcase, the deputy found additional clothing items & a box of sandwich bags. At the rear of the suitcase, he discovered college textbooks. No fingerprints were discovered on the suitcase or on the duct tape, and nothing belonging to defendant was located within the suitcase.
At some point during the stop, the passenger confessed that he had given a fake identification, confessed his real name, and said that he was defendant’s boyfriend. The defendant & passenger were both taken into custody for trafficking in cannabis & transported to the police station. Defendant was visibly upset and crying, & the occupant was not.
After arriving at the station, defendant provided a statement to police. The defendant insisted she didn’t know anything regarding the marijuana in the suitcase. She stated that she & the occupant had been returning from Miami after having driven there earlier in the day in order to visit the occupant’s grandmother. The defendant did not know the passenger’s grandmother’s actual name and address, but she had the grandmother’s telephone number on her cellular telephone. When a detective requested for permission to call the number, the defendant refused.
Upon arrest, the defendant had nine-hundred thirty-nine dollars in cash located on her person & the money was described as loose and not bundled in a way normally used by drug dealers. The detective admitted that defendant could have informed him the cash was for tuition for her next semester at a local college. The passenger, who refused to talk with detectives, had $640 in cash and a razor knife on his person.
Defendant testified that she was a twenty-four-year-old college student planning to sign up for the summer semester. She explained the occupant was her boyfriend. Defendant testified that she traveled to Miami with her boyfriend to visit his grandmother. Defendant testified that she had never before seen the black suitcase. The suitcase was not in her automobile when the couple left for Miami, & she didn’t access the trunk of the vehicle while the couple were in Miami. When she & the occupant arrived in Miami they visited with her boyfriend’s grandmother. The occupant kept the keys while they were both in Miami.
The defendant and the passenger left for home later in the evening. The defendant testified she didn’t smell anything in the car. She stated that she did not smoke marijuana and didn’t know what marijuana smells like. Defendant admitted that she was exceeding the speed limit when she was stopped by the deputy and that she had agreed to a search of her vehicle.
Defendant explained that she knew the grandmother only as "Mama" & didn’t know her address. The passenger drove to his grandmother’s residence & the defendant had not previously been there. While she had a phone number for the grandmother, she didn’t want to call her at 4:00 a.m. to say that she had been arrested.
The jury came back with a verdict of guilty on each count. The trial court sentenced defendant to forty-two months & three days in prison which included a three-year minimum mandatory on count one. On count two, the circuit court imposed a simultaneous sentence of forty- two months & 3 days. The trial court sentenced the defendant to time served on count three.
Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal since the state didn’t show her constructive possession of the cannabis. Defendant alleged that the state of florida failed to establish that she had knowledge of the presence of marijuana or otherwise that she had dominion and control over the cannabis.
Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in allowing the officer and detectives to give evidence concerning patterns of behavior related to drug trafficking. She asserted that this kind of evidence about generalized patterns of criminal behavior presented as proof of guilt is improper. Her final argument was that defendant should have been granted a new trial on account of newly-discovered evidence. The appellate court stated that its disposition of the matter on the constructive possession topic rendered the other two issues moot.
The district court ruled that, to be able to establish the felony charges, the state of florida was required to show that defendant knowingly possessed the cannabis. Since defendant wasn’t in actual physical possession of marijuana, the state of florida was required to prove defendant’s constructive possession of the suitcase. The state had to prove that the defendant knew of the presence of the suitcase and was in a position to exercise authority and control over it. If the area where the narcotics were located had been in the defendant’s exclusive possession, knowledge & control could have been inferred. Conversely, defendant & the passenger were traveling in her vehicle, and the passenger had access to the trunk. The state had to prove defendant’s knowledge of the cannabis and dominion and control over it by independent proof.
Following an analysis of similar matters, the appellate court concluded that the state did not present independent proof of the defendant’s knowledge or dominion & control over cannabis discovered inside the car. The district court held that the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s request for judgment of acquittal.
For further information on Criminal Lawyer Miami FL , Dui Attorney Miami FL you can contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne Blvd
Miami, FL 33131
(305)459-3286
