Loading...

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Motion to Suppress Evidence

Welcome to the .......

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.

708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7


"Serving Broward, Dade and Palm Beach County"
Attorney Edward J. Chandler has successfully represented numerous clients in criminal cases throughout Broward, Dade and Palm beach Counties in the State of Florida.  Edward J. Chandler  prides himself on aggressive representation with a personal touch.

In addition to personally handling your case, Edward J. Chandler, Esq. will be available to you during every step of the process. Edward J. Chandler guarantees that you and your case will receive his undivided attention.

Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  - Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.



Motion to Suppress Evidence:


In reviewing an order on a motion to suppress, an appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings but reviews de novo the application of the law to the facts. E.g., Pantin v. State, 872 So. 2d 1000,
1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). A search conducted pursuant to consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirements of a warrant or probable cause. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). Where consent to a search is the issue, “the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). The state must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence, Jorgenson v. State, 714 So. 2d 423, 426 (Fla. 1998), but if there has been an illegal detention, the state must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was not a product of the illegal police action. Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082, 1086 (Fla. 1992).


CONSENT:

Whether consent is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. McDonnell v. State, 981 So. 2d 585, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). “Consent to search may be in the form of
conduct, gestures, or words.” State v. Gamez, 34 So. 3d 245, 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Over time, the concept of “consent” to a search has become divorced from its common meaning. In the Fourth Amendment context, “consent” has come to mean that set of circumstances that the law will tolerate as
an exception to the probable cause or warrant requirement. What passes for “consent” today would not have survived a motion to suppress 25 years ago. Now, even aggressive conduct by the police will not necessarily
vitiate “consent” when viewed as a part of the “totality of the circumstances.” Thus, in Golphin v. State, the Supreme Court rejected the concept that, as a matter of law, an otherwise consensual encounter
matures into a seizure when an officer retains a person’s identification to conduct a check for outstanding warrants. Id. at 1187-89. Similarly, in Caldwell v. State, 41 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 2010), the Supreme Court held that the administration of Miranda warnings, as a matter of law, does not transform a consensual encounter into a seizure. Under Golphin and Caldwell, the challenged police conduct was but one factor to be
considered in the totality of the circumstances.

The “totality of the circumstances” approach has expanded the concept of “consent” in a way that has had a significant effect on the administration of criminal justice. It allows a trial court to rely on other factors that swallow aggressive police conduct and contract the limits of Fourth Amendment protection. In many cases, the police rely upon a defendant’s voluntary consent to justify a search or a stop. One possibility is that citizens, especially those involved in crimes, have a desire to cooperate with the police to
avoid making waves. Another possibility, far more sinister, is that the police have come to recognize that “consent” is the catch-all exception to the Fourth Amendment, so they tailor their testimony accordingly.
After Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), applied the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions, one trial judge noticed the profusion of “dropsy” testimony in New York City—testimony by police officers that a defendant
dropped drugs onto the street upon seeing the police:

Were this the first time a policeman had testified that a defendant dropped a packet of drugs to the ground, the matter would be unremarkable. The extraordinary thing is that each year in our criminal courts policemen give such testimony in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases—and that, in a nutshell, is the problem of ‘dropsy’ testimony. It disturbs me now, and it disturbed me when I was at the Bar.
Younger, ‘The Perjury Routine,’ The Nation, May 8, 1967, p. 596:

‘* * * Policemen see themselves as fighting a twofront war—against criminals in the street and against
‘liberal’ rules of law in court. All’s fair in this war, including the use of perjury to subvert ‘liberal’ rules of
law that might free those who ‘ought’ to be jailed * * * It is a peculiarity of our legal system that the police
have unique opportunities (and unique temptations) to give false testimony. When the Supreme Court lays
down a rule to govern the conduct of the police, the rule does not enforce itself. Some further proceeding *

* * is almost always necessary to determine what actually happened. In Mapp v. Ohio, for example, the
Supreme Court laid down the rule that evidence obtained by the police through an unreasonable
search and seizure may not be used in a state criminal prosecution. But before applying the rule to any
particular case, a hearing must be held to establish the facts. Then the judge decides whether those facts
constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. * * * The difficulty arises when one stands back from the
particular case and looks at a series of cases. It then becomes apparent that policemen are committing
perjury at least in some of them, and perhaps in nearly all of them. Narcotics prosecutions in New York
City can be so viewed. Before Mapp, the policeman typically testified that he stopped the defendant for
little or no reason, searched him, and found narcotics on his person. This had the ring of truth. It was an
illegal search (not based upon ‘probable cause’), but the evidence was admissible because Mapp had not yet
been decided. Since it made no difference, the policeman testified truthfully. After the decision in
Mapp, it made a great deal of difference. For the first few months, New York policemen continued to tell the
truth about the circumstances of their searches, with the result that evidence was suppressed. Then the
police made the great discovery that if the defendant drops the narcotics on the ground, after which the
policeman arrests him, the search is reasonable and the evidence is admissible. Spend a few hours in the
New York City Criminal Court nowadays, and you will hear case after case in which a policeman testifies that
the defendant dropped the narcotics on the ground, whereupon the policeman arrested him. Usually the
very language of the testimony is identical from the case to another. This is now known among defense
lawyers and prosecutors as ‘dropsy’ testimony. The judge has no reason to disbelieve it in any particular
case, and of course the judge must decide each case on its own evidence, without regard to the testimony in
other cases. Surely, though, not in every case was the defendant unlucky enough to drop his narcotics at the
feet of a policeman. It follows that at least in some of these cases the police are lying. People v. McMurty, 314 N.Y.S.2d 194, 195-96 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1970) (Younger, J.). “Dropsy” in 1970 has evolved into “consent” in 2010. The more things change the more they stay the same.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

         My goal is to represent my clients as I would want to be represented, always putting their interests first, diligently working to fully understand and serve the clients' needs. In short, to do whatever it takes for the successful resolution of the
clients' causes.
         If you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense, you need to seek the advice of Edward J. Chandler, Esq., an experienced Florida Federal and State criminal defense attorney since 1991! Right now, you may be filled with fear, confusion, embarrassment, and anger. You probably have a thousand questions and want to know your rights and how to proceed. With your future as stake, you need to think smart and speak with an experienced Florida criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

       Since a criminal conviction may affect your future, your reputation and your chances of getting a job, it is critical that you seek out an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney such as Edward J, Chandler, as soon as you are being investigated or charged with a Federal or State criminal offense. The right Florida criminal defense lawyer can evaluate your case, determine legal strategies, and defend you in court, increasing your likelihood of staying out of jail and protecting your future.

       Given the complexity of criminal defense in Florida, it is important that you choose a Florida criminal defense lawyer that knows the Federal and State systems, and who combines experience with a track record, and who has a thorough understanding and familiarity with the law, the prosecutors and the local courts. If you have been accused of a crime, your time to get the right experienced Federal or State criminal defense attorney is limited. Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty, you deserve aggressive, experienced legal representation.

           Violating the laws in Florida can result in harsh punishments, such as incarceration and fines. However, being charged with a Federal or State criminal offense does not have to devastate your entire life.  Edward J. Chandler, Esq, is here to ensure that you get your life back, your peace of mind and your freedom. "I employ an aggressive defense, often convincing the prosecution to reduce the charges against you or, in some cases, dismissing them. My sole priority is to achieve a resolution that you can live with."

        Attorney Edward J. Chandler has successfully represented numerous clients charged with criminal offenses throughout the State of Florida.  Edward J. Chandler  prides himself on aggressive representation with a personal touch. Armed with Federal and State legal knowledge and experience, he can build a winning defense. Edward J. Chandler, Esq. is accustomed to taking on the criminal justice system and achieving the best results for his clients. In addition to personally handling your case from investigation, arrest, bond hearing, arraignment, discovery and through jury trial, Edward J. Chandler, Esq. will be available to you during every step of the criminal procedure. Edward J. Chandler guarantees that you and your case will receive his undivided attention.

When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.

Professional Organizations:

   * Florida Bar since 1991
    * Broward County Bar Association
    * Association of Trial Lawyers of America -ATLA
    * Federal Bar
    * Federal Court -Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
    * Supreme Court of United States
    * 4th District Court of  Appeals
    * 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
    * United States Tax Court

Law Offices
of
Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7

If You Have Been Arrested for a Crime or are being Investigated for A Suspected Criminal Action, you need legal advice and the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer. Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. to begin protecting your rights TODAY….Phone (954) 788-1355

EDWARD J. CHANDLER, ESQ. represents clients in State and Federal criminal defense cases in the following areas:

  •     Federal Criminal Trials
  •     State Felony Trials
  •     Drug Trafficking Cases
  •     Conspiracy Cases
  •     RICO Cases
  •     Health Care Fraud
  •     Bank Fraud
  •     Money Laundering
  •     Security Violations
  •     IRS Violations
  •     White Collar Crime
  •     Asset Forfeiture
  •     Grand Jury Representation
  •     Business Fraud and Theft
  •     Battery
  •     DUI
  •     Grand Theft
  •     Battery on a LEO
  •     Burglary
  •     Child Pornography

Attorney Chandler also represents individuals charged with criminal offenses including:

  •     DUI Driving under the influence
  •      BUI Boating under the influence
  •      Traffic Cases Driving with Suspended License
  •      Drug Cases prescription drugs, marijuana, cocaine
  •      Felonies and Misdemeanors
  •      Juvenile Delinquency Cases
  •      VOP’s Violations of Probation



If You Have Been Arrested for a Crime or are being Investigated for A Suspected Criminal Action, you need legal advice and the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. to begin protecting your rights TODAY….

Phone (954) 788-1355
When your future is on the line…Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.  at (954) 788-1355  24/7 immediately! Your phone consultation is free and completely confidential.

Professional Organizations:

   * Florida Bar since 1991
    * Broward County Bar Association
    * Association of Trial Lawyers of America -ATLA
    * Federal Bar
    * Federal Court -Southern and Middle Districts of Florida
    * Supreme Court of United States
    * 4th District Court of  Appeals
    * 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
    * United States Tax Court


Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A.
708 East Atlantic Boulevard    Telephone:  (954) 788-1355
Pompano Beach, Fl 33060    Facsimile:  (954) 788-1357
Call Today! 24/7


                  If You Have Been Arrested for a Crime or are being Investigated for A Suspected Criminal Action, you need legal advice and the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer. Call the Law Offices of Edward J. Chandler, P.A. to begin protecting your rights TODAY….Phone (954) 788-1355


The information on this Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

Note: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters, and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. All information herein is subject to Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-7.2.

No comments:

Post a Comment