Photo of Richard Ansara - Attorney at Law
Call or Text Us 24/7 at (954) 761-4011
Richard Ansara Attorney at Law

It’s estimated that 1 in every 5 students is bullied at some point in their lives. But at what point does bullying become a crime? Can a person be arrested for bullying in Florida?

Short answer is: Yes, you can be arrested for bullying in Florida. However, the charge that is filed will not be for “bullying.”Florida bullying arrest Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney

There are bullying and cyberbullying statutes in Florida. However, those pertain mostly to public school district standards and responses to student bullying, both on and off campus. F.S. 1006.147 sets expectations for school districts to be proactive in preventing bullying and responding swiftly and decisively when bullying is reported. That response can include school-imposed discipline, such as suspension or even expulsion.

The conduct outlined in that statute includes things like teasing, social exclusion, and public embarrassment. Such acts aren’t kind – but they aren’t necessarily  criminal.

Other acts, such as threats, intimidation, stalking, physical violence, harassment and theft – these ARE criminal. A person accused of bullying using these tactics would be charged under the appropriate statute that correlates to the act.

For example, a person accused of harassment or stalking via texts, emails, or social media may be accused of cyberstalking, as outlined in F.S. 784.048. A charge of cyberbullying in Florida requires proof that the accused engaged in a course of conduct to communicate with someone (directly or indirectly) with the intention to cause substantial emotional distress with no legitimate purpose. It usually involves classmates, acquaintances, former friends or prior intimate partners. Occasionally, it can involve strangers.

Cyberstalking is a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. However, it could be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, if the victim is under 16, a credible threat of harm is made or there’s an active restraining order against the accused. Continue reading

It used to be that nude pictures and sexually explicit videos were almost exclusively found in behind-the-counter magazines, specialty theaters and shops and via pay-per-view cable access. But these days, everyone has a smartphone with a camera, and one recent study found that about 40% of American men and women have sent a sexual picture to someone else at some point in their lives. The actual number is probably a lot higher – which is fine, because such exchanges between consenting adults is perfectly legal.Florida sexual cyberharassment defense lawyer revenge porn defense

Where we run into problems is when images are shared or threatened to be shared without the consent of the person depicted. This is known as sexual cyberharassment, or “revenge porn,” and it’s been outlawed in Florida since 2015.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer Richard Ansara has successfully represented clients accused of sexual cyberharassment in Florida. Prosecutors have a high proof burden to clear with these cases. No matter how solidly it seems the cards are stacked against you, there are almost always ways a skilled defense lawyer can minimize the fallout.

What Exactly Is Sexual Cyberharassment?

F.S. 784.049 defines sexual cyberharassment as using electronic communication devices to send or publish sexually explicit images or videos of another person without their consent.

A few additional stipulations: Continue reading

South Florida criminal defense attorney Richard Ansara was recently interviewed by the South Florida Sun Sentinel for an article about a proposed Florida bill that would increase the severity of stalking offenses involving the unauthorized use of wireless tracking devices. As a criminal defense lawyer representing South Florida clients accused of domestic violence, Richard Ansara is uniquely qualified to weigh in on proposed legislative change.Attorney Richard Ansara unauthorized tracking device

As it stands, F.S. 934.425 outlaws the unauthorized installation of tracking devices or tracking applications – including surveillance software on phones. With very few exceptions, you cannot install a tracking device on someone’s phone, computer, car, person, etc. without their consent. To do so is a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.

A new Florida bill would bump the offense up to a third-degree felony, which would make it punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Proponents of the law say the current law gives police little power to properly investigate complaints because they lack the authority to obtain a search warrant per F.S. 933.02 that could help ascertain who bought the device, downloaded the software, or is using the tracker to keep tabs on a victim. If the offense of unauthorized tracking were increased to a felony, then police would have greater authority to obtain a search warrant.

A big problem Criminal Defense Lawyer Richard Ansara has with that is it addresses the wrong thing. If the only reason to make unauthorized use of a tracking device a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor is so that police can obtain search warrants, it begs the question: Why not modify the law on search warrants? Why should the penalty for unauthorized use of a tracking device be substantially greater than for an actual physical assault on someone?

As Ansara told The Sun Sentinel:

“People do desperate things in relationships, specifically when they are trying to determine whether infidelity is occurring. Some may decide to drop an AirTag in a spouse’s vehicle and or clothing to try to get to the bottom of what is happening in their relationships. Is this correct behavior? No.

“Should this behavior be punished more harshly than someone who straight up punches their spouse in the face? Absolutely not. That person would only be charged with a misdemeanor battery.” Continue reading

Twin bills in the Florida House and Senate threaten to undercut the due process rights of defendants facing Broward DUI charges. HB 39 and SB 260 would require drivers who refuse to take a breathalyzer to install ignition interlock devices at their own expense – regardless of whether they are ultimately found guilty of violating F.S. 316.193, Florida’s DUI statute.Broward DUI defense lawyer

As a Broward DUI lawyer can explain, the proposed statute is aligned the existing implied consent law, F.S. 316.1932. Essentially, this law establishes that driving is a state-extended privilege, as opposed to a right. Therefore, by operating such a vehicle, the state has the right to impose certain requirements. One of those is that drivers agree to the condition that if they are going to drive, they have impliedly given their consent to submit to approved chemical or physical testing (namely breathalyzer tests) for the purposes of determining whether he/she was driving under the influence of alcohol. Such tests must be incidental to  a lawful arrest and administered by a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe the driver is under the influence.

If a driver in these circumstances refuses to submit to a breathalyzer test, their driver’s license is automatically suspended for one year. This is true regardless of whether they are ultimately convicted of a DUI. For second or subsequent refusals, the suspension is 18 months. Continue reading

When it comes to criminal allegations, judges are generally reluctant to allow consideration of a defendant’s “prior bad acts.” The reasoning here is pretty straightforward: Providing proof of previous misconduct has the potential to poison juror perception of the defendant, leading to potentially unfair outcomes.Palm Beach domestic violence lawyer

The fear is that a conviction will be based on evidence that the defendant committed a different crime besides the one being charged. Similarly, there is concern that jurors may be swayed to convict someone on the basis that they’re a “bad person,” rather than on solid evidence of a crime.

Why is this more of an issue in Florida domestic violence cases? As a Palm Beach domestic violence defense lawyer can explain, courts are more likely to allow evidence of prior bad acts in domestic violence cases than in others.

Prior Bad Acts Reflect Poorly on Defendant

Prior bad acts are generally only admissible when they are relevant and necessary to establish motive, intent, mistake, identity or a common scheme/plan. Domestic violence cases often turn on issues of credibility (he said/she said), particularly if an alleged victim recants. In these cases, introducing evidence of prior violence can make a huge difference between conviction and acquittal.

Such evidence can be used to: Continue reading

A Broward domestic violence conviction can have devastating consequences for a defendant: Jail time, lengthy/expensive batterer’s intervention courses, strict probation rules, no contact orders, child custody/divorce case implications, etc. But even if you were unable to avoid the conviction, a Broward domestic violence criminal defense lawyer may still have another card to play: Mitigating factors.Broward domestic violence criminal defense lawyer

Also sometimes called “mitigating circumstances,” these are factors that can compel the court to impose a lower sentence – possibly even one that dips below statutory guidelines for the offense.

As your Broward criminal defense lawyer can explain, mitigating factors are not excuses. Unlike affirmative defenses, mitigating circumstances don’t assert that the actions were legally justifiable or support exoneration. Instead, the assertion is that the defendant’s actions can be partially explained/better understood in light of the mitigating circumstances. It’s not saying that the defendant acted legally, but that he/she/they should be shown some mercy in sentencing.

You’re likely familiar with the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” or “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” As a Broward criminal defense lawyer can further explain, these both reference the fact that the burden of proof in Florida criminal cases is on the prosecutor. As outlined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it’s a basic civil right to be presumed innocent and to require prosecutors to meet certain standards in order to prove the defendant’s guilt. Broward criminal defense lawyer talking to criminal defendant in orange jumpsuit

But there is a way to still win your criminal case even if the prosecutor does meet the proof burden. It’s called an affirmative defense.

In essence, an affirmative defense doesn’t deny the act occurred, but asserts it was either justified or excusable. It does shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. But if you have the right evidence, you can obtain a favorable outcome: Acquittal or avoiding trial altogether.

Broward Criminal Defense Lawyer on How Defenses Work

At the start of a case, the most likely strategy for your Broward criminal defense lawyer will be to analyze the flaws in the prosecutor’s case. They’ll be looking for weaknesses in the factual elements the prosecutor must establish if they want to get a conviction. If they can effectively raise reasonable doubt for jurors, there’s no need for additional defense.

An affirmative defense, however, is a different approach. Rather than going after the prosecutor’s evidence, y0uor Broward criminal defense lawyer concedes the basic facts, but insists their client should still avoid conviction. In other words, “Yes, it’s true my client did this. However, there are legal grounds that justify/excuse/prevent a conviction.” At that point, the onus is on the defense team to prove the basis for an affirmative defense.

Common Affirmative Defenses in South Florida Criminal Cases

Continue reading

The notion of making “evidence-based” decisions in a criminal case sounds like an all-around positive – right? After all, detention, arrest, conviction – all of that is “evidence-based.” Police, prosecutors, judges, and jurors can’t simply rely on their own whims to reach conclusions. They must use evidence. Man in orange jumpsuit cries in a jail cell; Fort Lauderdale defense lawyers fight against evidence-based sentencing that can be discriminatoryHowever, as Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers can explain, using “evidence-based” tools can lead to substantially skewed and unfair outcomes when applied during the sentencing phase.

The Cornell Law Review opens its 2019 research on this very topic by breaking it down like this:

“Jack and Jill went up the hill to steal a pail of water, Both were caught and sentenced to jail, But Jack came out two years later.” Why was Jack sentenced to so much more time than Jill when they both committed the same crime and have the same criminal history? Because he’s male, and statistically, men have higher recidivism rates than women. If we’re relying on evidence-based sentencing, the judge may agree that Jack is more likely to offend – and give him a harsher sentence.

This is the problem with evidence-based sentencing. It relies on a range of factors – some relevant to the crime, others totally outside the control of the defendant (up to and including immutable characteristics) – to determine likely recidivism and fair sentencing.

Evidence-based sentencing leans on large datasets to evaluate the statistical likelihood between a group trait and the rate of re-offending. But it goes beyond prior offense. Some of the factors analyzed include things like:

  • Age
  • Sex
  • Education
  • Marital status
  • Employment
  • Education
  • Parental convictions
  • Family members who were crime victims
  • High school grades
  • Chances of finding work above minimum wage
  • Dependence on social services
  • Finances
  • Crime statistics in their neighborhood of residence

As Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers, we of course find this incredibly problematic for a number of reasons –  not the least of which being from a constitutional standpoint. Plus, there’s significant doubt when it comes to the scientific validity of such methods when it comes to the accuracy of using such factors to determine one’s likeliness of re-offending. Continue reading

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to uphold a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. firearm license firearm possession offense Fort Lauderdale defense attorney

The case is U.S. v. Rahimi, and it involves a Texas man accused of striking his girlfriend during an argument and later threatening to shoot her.

As Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers who have represented defendants in matters of domestic violence, domestic violence restraining orders, and unlawful firearm possession, we’ve been watching the case closely. Although it comes down to federal law (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)) and we primarily handle state-level cases, there could certainly be some ripple effects if the justices err on the side of the right to bear arms.

Despite the conservative bend on the bench and the fact that justices expanded gun rights last year, many legal scholars are concluding it unlikely justices will go against the grain on this federal law in the Rahimi case. A federal appellate court in that matter struck down a 1994 federal ban on firearms for those under court order to stay away from their partners or spouses.

Whatever they decide, it could have implications for lots of other cases – including a pending matter involving President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. The younger Biden is facing criminal charges for purchasing a firearm while addicted to drugs, something that is also prohibited under federal law, though less commonly enforced as the domestic violence restraining order restriction.

As noted during the SCOTUS oral arguments, the existing federal background check system has blocked some 75,000 gun sales to those subject to domestic violence protection orders over the last 25 years.

What the Federal Law Says

The federal law says it’s unlawful for a person who has a protection order (a Florida judgment of injunction for protection of domestic violence meets this definition) in effect to possess guns or ammunition, to ship or transport guns or ammunition interstate, to receive any that have been so shipped or transported, or to have any that have been seized returned to them. The respondent in that case must be identified as an “intimate partner” (spouse, ex-spouse, co-parent, or person who lives/has lived together with victim). There are exemptions for police and active military members who who are required to possess service firearms as part of their job.

If a person is convicted of a domestic violence offense, they are permanently disqualified from possessing a gun or ammunition – and there’s no official use exemption in that case. Even if the case is expunged, the court can still retain that firearm prohibition.

Violate the federal firearm law on this, and you’re facing up to 10 years in federal prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

However, as our Fort Lauderdale defense attorneys can explain, even the repeal of the federal law wouldn’t necessarily mean these prohibitions would magically disappear. That’s because we still have state firearm restrictions for domestic violence injunctions with which to contend.

Florida Firearm Possession Rules for Subjects of Domestic Violence Injunction Continue reading

One of the thorniest issues for any Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer and client is whether the defendant should take the stand and testify in their own defense.man testifying before Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney at trial

Although we understand the general inclination of our clients to “have their day in court,” clearing your name isn’t nearly as simple as courtroom TV dramas might suggest. It’s true that a defendant’s testimony can make or break a case. But that also means any defendant who takes the stand in their own Florida criminal trial is also taking some enormous risks. Sometimes it’s necessary, but it’s never a judgment call that should be made flippantly.

It’s important to point out that few criminal cases in Florida ever make it to the trial phase. The vast majority are either dismissed or settled with plea agreements, typically on reduced charges. Having a skilled defense attorney might increase the odds that your charges will be dropped early on, but it could also boost the chances of a trial. That’s because with a knowledgeable advocate,. you’re far less likely to settle in cases where there is weak or minimal evidence against you.

Y0u Aren’t Required to Testify in Your Criminal Case

While the court system has ways of compelling testimony from other witnesses in your case, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially prohibits an inquisition. You are protected against being compelled in any case to be a witness against yourself.

That same protection is outlined in Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, where it states that “No person shall be… compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.” Prosecutors can’t use this fact against you for declining to do so, and you can’t be penalized for it.

So if you don’t want to testify, you are under zero obligation to do so. And there may be very good reasons your Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer might agree with that’s the best course of action.

What Do Fort Lauderdale Defense Lawyers Typically Advise? 

Continue reading

Contact Information