Articles Posted in Attorney Richard Ansara

A Florida man convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon will receive a new trial, following an appellate court’s finding that admission of a 911 transcript absent the testimony of the caller was erroneous.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution in criminal cases, but it’s important to effectively challenge evidence that doesn’t meet appropriate legal standards. These are the kinds of arguments an experienced Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer can raise on your behalf, which could ultimately result in the scales tipping in your favor.

The case of Brandon v. Florida stemmed from an alleged assault that was called into 911 dispatchers in Duval County. The woman reported she had been assaulted by the defendant, who threatened to kill her while simultaneously pointing a gun at her.
Continue reading

The Florida Supreme Court has determined that a police search of cell phone content without a warrant is unconstitutional.

The case of Smallwood v. Florida establishes an important precedent in Florida that our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers hope will ensure greater constitutional and privacy protections for the accused.

Although prosecutors attempted to argue cell phones searched in the course of a valid arrest were no different than any other item found on a person (citing the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Robinson), the state high court rejected this theory.
Continue reading

In some Fort Lauderdale felony defense cases, the defendant can be ordered to pay restitution and compensation to any victims who may be involved.

In traffic cases, if you are or were an insured driver, depending on your policy, it’s possible that your insurance company may cover your restitution costs. If you weren’t insured or if the insurance won’t cover that amount, you will be expected to pay it out-of-pocket. This is separate from any compensation you may be compelled to pay as part of any civil lawsuits brought against you by the victims.

Keep in mind that if you are found guilty in the criminal case, that information can be used against you in subsequent civil action. Another reason to invest in an experienced Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer.
Continue reading

One of the smartest things a person can do if stopped by a police officer is decline consent to a search – be it of your vehicle, your home or your persons.

It may not prevent the search from taking place. It may not even prevent your arrest. But clearly refusing a search will provide your Fort Lauderdale defense attorney with grounds upon which to request a suppression of evidence. If evidence is suppressed, it can’t be used against you and you have a better chance of seeing the charges dismissed or significantly reduced.

Relevant grounds for suppression would be if the officer failed to follow lawful procedure in conducting the search after consent was refused. However, if you consent to the search – as police will no doubt pressure you to do – all bets are off. By consenting to a search, you effectively waive your right to fight it later.
Continue reading

In a move that could have sweeping effects on a broad range of criminal defendants, lawmakers in Florida are weighing a move to broaden protections for unborn children. What’s more, unlike many other similar measures, pro-choice advocates seem unlikely to fight the action, which means its chances of approval are much higher.

The new law would make it a separate crime to cause injury or death to an unborn child – regardless of the fetus’ stage of development.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorneys know this could end up resulting in major complexities and complications in cases ranging from allegations of DUI to domestic violence.
Continue reading

Two young teenagers are facing felony stalking charges in Florida following the suicide of a classmate who was reportedly bullied by the two girls via social media for more than a year.

Having recently wrote about a number of stalking cases in our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer blog, we have noted a trend in which juvenile defendants are increasingly being charged with this crime in connection with their activities online.

Bullying has always been around, but there are a number of reasons why it is seemingly more prevalent today. For one thing, ever-advancing technology allows everyone to remain in constant contact through a variety of outlets. For a teen with a smartphone, messages can be fired off instantaneously to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as through e-mails and text messages. That means two things: One, the targets of these actions feel like they can never get away from their aggressors. Two, the evidence against the alleged bullies is now incredibly easy to obtain, all right there in a single device.
Continue reading

A criminal traffic defendant in Ohio this month was victorious in her appeal against a trooper who had stopped her and subsequently arrested her for DUI, reckless operation and failure to drive within marked lanes.

The grounds for her appeal? The trooper lacked a “reasonable, articulable” suspicion upon which to stop her. The appellate court agreed, and her conviction was reversed.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers are well aware of the fact that reasonable suspicion can play a key role in whether an officer had the right to stop a defendant in the first place.
Continue reading

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court released a 5-4 decision in the Maryland v. King case, which held that law enforcement officials have the right to collect DNA samples during the booking process from those arrested for serious offenses.

Our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers know this sparked a firestorm of controversy across the country in relation to privacy rights and whether the government was going too far in collecting biological data from people who had yet to be convicted of any crime.

But here’s the reality: State police agencies in Florida were already doing this. It’s just that now they have stronger backing from the high court.

What’s even more troubling is the fact that, largely under the radar, an expanding number of local law enforcement agencies have begun amassing their own DNA database of potential suspects.

The phenomenon was recently chronicled by The New York Times, which pointed out that the practice is largely unregulated and that samples are often secured without donors’ knowing it. In some cases, individuals aren’t even suspects in any crime at the time. In some cases, they are victims.

The perfect example: A man calls to report that his home has been burglarized. Police ask if he will submit to a DNA sample so that his biomarkers can be excluded during the course of the investigation. The victim’s samples are then stored in the department’s criminal suspect’s database. It’s stored there indefinitely and can be scanned at any time in relation to future or past crimes – all without the donor having any knowledge whatsoever that the sample is being used this way.

It’s a trend that is expected only to accelerate after the ruling in Maryland v. King.

It’s tough to say exactly how many agencies have begun their own databases. We do know that New York City has about 11,000 crime suspect profiles. Orange County, California has about 90,000 profiles. And in Central Florida, a number of law enforcement agencies have worked together to pool their DNA databases so they have a larger sample upon which to draw.

Of course, this begs the question: Why not just use the state and federal DNA databases, which are better regulated and have more samples overall?

The answer is, first of all, that local law enforcement agencies still do tap federal and state databases to cross-reference their samples. However, many police officials say it’s costly and time-consuming.

Plus, those databases don’t have profiles for lower-level offenders. These individuals might not have DNA samples that end up in the larger databases for years, when they are caught committing a higher-level crime.

Of course, while it may be semi-effective in the short-term for solving some cases, this practice of collecting samples for future, undefined investigative use raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns regarding unlawful searches.

In Central Florida, the police chief in Palm Bay said the samples have been used to produce some 1,000 matches in the last several years, mostly for low-level property crimes like burglary.

However, individuals prosecuted after DNA samples were taken unwittingly or unwillingly and not in accordance with state or federal law could potentially make a strong case to have that evidence suppressed in court.
Continue reading

The suicide of young computer genius Aaron Swartz sent shock waves throughout the country, as it was an immense loss of incredible talent. The 26-year-old would have been looking toward a very bright future – but for the fact that he was facing up to 35 years in federal prison and $1 million in fines – for downloading academic records for which he should have paid.

Our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorneys believe that if there is anything to be learned here, it is this: We must work aggressively to curb the increasingly common practice of both federal and state criminal prosecutors to pile on every imaginable charge – no matter how over-the-top it seems with regard to the crime – in a simple effort to win at any cost.

Certainly, we understand that prosecutors can’t stop doing their job in anticipation of every scenario in which someone may harm themselves in the face of serious charges. However, the potential punishment didn’t fit the crime here – and prosecutors well knew it.

In fact, they often know exactly what they’re doing when they heap countless charges on a defendant in an effort to make something stick. They will stretch the law to make broad interpretations so they can fit the scenario at hand.

There are some basic reasons why they do this. By piling on a mountain of charges, they give themselves a strong starting point for plea deal negotiations. They know full well that many of these charges won’t be able to withstand the scrutiny of a trial. But they have no intention of actually taking them to trial. What they want to do is apply pressure to the defendant so he or she will plead guilty to the lesser charges.

In doing this, prosecutors can secure convictions without having to endure the cost, time and effort of going through a trial.

For defendants, though, the practice is inherently unfair. They have a choice to plead guilty, regardless of the circumstances, or take the gamble of going to trial and facing potentially years or decades behind bars if they lose.

It’s no wonder that only 3 percent of cases in federal criminal courts actually went to trial in 2010 – the most recent year for which numbers are available and a marked decrease from what it was even just a few years ago. Local and state court statistics follow similar trends.

It represents a shift from the strong, ethical standard of years’ past. It used to be that if a prosecutor piled on 40 or 50 charges to a fairly straightforward case, a judge would toss it out. Today, though, that’s the norm.

Even prosecutors will admit that it happens routinely, though some say it is primarily young, ambitious prosecutors who are most likely to engage in this tactic. But a defendant can’t control the prosecutor who takes his case.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, which is why defendants – particularly those in federal or felony cases – need to invest smartly in an experienced criminal defense attorney who is prepared to fight for you. If that means calling the prosecutor’s bluff on having those non-supported charges stick at trial, we are prepared to do that.
Continue reading

It truly sounds like a creative episode of CSI: law enforcement officials using “water bullets” to catch those suspected of crimes.

However, our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers have learned this is more than a good television show plot. As it turns out, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department has initiated a water marking pilot program that is being closely monitored by law enforcement agencies across the country.

It’s not actually “water,” and it’s not just police who are being encouraged to use it. It’s a liquid substance called SmartWater CSI, and it leaves a semi-permanent mark on either a person or property that is visible only with the use of a special ultraviolet light. The idea is to arm store clerks, homeowners and property owners in general with these “guns.” The anticipation is that valuable property can be marked with the liquid solution for later proof of identification or that suspects may be squirted with the substance as later proof that they were the individual involved.

Primarily, city police have said, their goal will be to use it in efforts to combat property crimes. Patrol units will actually be carrying ultraviolet light detectors, while residents in certain neighborhoods will be given the liquid solution kits.

Administrators for the company that sells the product have already placed numerous signs in the area, warning that the technology is being used.

The liquid, comprised of certain earth minerals, reportedly contains microdots that hold identification numbers that a technician would be able to see under a special microscope. The markings last on a person or property for up to five years and may be next to impossible to remove during that time, company leaders say.

Yearly subscriptions are reportedly being sold for $200. For this, buyers would receive the liquid, registration information and warning signs. There are even special solutions available solely for boats and vehicles.

Businesses could also access sprinkler systems that would mark anyone who entered, giving police an option to identify an individual potentially weeks or even months after an incident.

Of course, our criminal defense lawyers would point out that if DNA technology has taught us anything, no technology is infallible. Theoretically speaking, an individual may be able to obtain another person’s spray solution and frame an innocent individual.

There are also Fourth Amendment considerations that haven’t been answered. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court is right now weighing whether police officers must first get a warrant before obtaining a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver. So what should be the protocol for putting a suspect under a UV light?

We know that officials in England have been using this technology for roughly 15 years now, and there has reportedly been a successful prosecution rate as a result. But local officials concede such technology has not yet been tested in the U.S. legal system – meaning it may be rife for challenges.

That position has some officials back-tracking to say it’s more of a deterrent than an actual crime-fighter. For example, the demand for stolen property may be decreased markedly if scrap yards and pawn shops are wary of buying SmartWater-marked items. (Though we would argue too that this could cut down on the ability of legitimate owners to hawk these items.)

Regardless, there are sure to be some test cases arising. If you are among those individuals arrested following the use of SmartWater technology, call us today.
Continue reading