Cops GPS Tracking | Hit and Run | Florida | Tampa | St Petersburg

GPS Hit and Run

A St. Petersburg Police Department Officer was acquitted when he went on trial for hit and run in his police car. During the trial there was testimony that "exposed some embarrassing revelations for the St. Petersburg Police Department when [the cop] testified that he disabled the tracking device on his police cruiser several times so that his superiors couldn't tell where he was or how fast he was going."

Other cops said that "it's no secret" how to disable the devices, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Notably, we recently used the patrol car GPS to question the credibility of a police officer in a DUI case. The GPS data is sometimes embedded in the DUI videos made in patrol cars used by DUI squad cops.

If you have been charged with TRAF2012 Leaving Scene Of A Crash With Injury you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: TRAF2012

Florida Statute: 316.027.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: Leaving Scene Of A Crash With Injury

316.027 Crash involving death or personal injuries.

(1)(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in injury of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. Any person who willfully violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

316.061 Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.

(1)The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting only in damage to a vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such crash or as close thereto as possible, and shall forthwith return to, and in every event shall remain at, the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. A person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

316.062 Duty to give information and render aid.

(1)The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall give his or her name, address, and the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and shall upon request and if available exhibit his or her license or permit to drive, to any person injured in such crash or to the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the crash and shall give such information and, upon request, exhibit such license or permit to any police officer at the scene of the crash or who is investigating the crash and shall render to any person injured in the crash reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.

(2)In the event none of the persons specified are in condition to receive the information to which they otherwise would be entitled under subsection (1), and no police officer is present, the driver of any vehicle involved in such crash, after fulfilling all other requirements of s. 316.027 and subsection (1), insofar as possible on his or her part to be performed, shall forthwith report the crash to the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority and submit thereto the information specified in subsection (1).

(3)The statutory duty of a person to make a report or give information to a law enforcement officer making a written report relating to a crash shall not be construed as extending to information which would violate the privilege of such person against self-incrimination.

(4)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/police-officers-testimony-exposes-practice-of-disabling-gps-trackers/1141567

Destruction of Evidence | Jury Instruction | Criminal Case | Rare Ruling

Destruction Jury Instruction

Tampa Cyber Crime Attorney just received this tip from a source. “A recent non-published opinion [Florida Criminal Defense Cyber Crime Attorney Lawyer for your convenience we have published it here ] from the District of New Jersey (United States v. Suarez, 2010 WL 4226524 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2010)) will be of interest for those who are following issues involving electronic discovery in criminal cases. In this case, the court imposed an adverse jury instruction against the government when it failed to preserve text messages that were sent between FBI agents and a cooperating witness. The instruction allowed the jury to infer (though did not require) that the deleted messages were favorable to the defendant. The issue of spoliation of evidence is frequently litigated in civil electronic discovery cases, but this is one of the first known cases to address spoliation of electronic discovery in the criminal context. Though the opinion is not for publication, counsel will want to consider that communications between agents and witnesses can often [sic] be in electronic form, and to remember this reality with when they or the defense team communicates with their own witnesses. It is hard to say what affect the jury instruction had in this instance, but it is worth mentioning that Mr. Suarez was ultimately acquitted.”

Case Excerpts:

“The key considerations for determining the appropriate spoliation sanction (e.g., dismissal, suppression, fines, or an adverse inference instruction) are:

(1) The degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence;

(2) The degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and

(3) Whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and, where the offending party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.

Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir.1994).”

“The Court finds the adverse inference instruction appropriate because:

(1) The text messages were within the Government's control;

(2) The text messages were intentionally deleted by the agents, and the U.S. Attorneys' Office failed to take steps to preserve them;

(3) The text messages that were deleted or not preserved were relevant to claims or defenses; and

(4) It was reasonably foreseeable by the Government that in the context of this investigation and in light of the actions of the cooperating witness the text messages would later have been discoverable.

These findings by the Court fall squarely within the four elements set forth in Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J.2004). Under Mosaid, the Court may only give an adverse inference instruction based on spoliation if the following elements are satisfied:

(1) The evidence in question must be within the party's control;

(2) It must appear that there has been actual suppression or withholding of the evidence;

(3) The evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and

(4) It was reasonably foreseeable that the evidence would later be discoverable.

348 F.Supp.2d at 336.”

“Thus, given the F.B.I.'s analogous preservation duty under Vella and Ammar and the failure of the Government to preserve relevant data in the midst of an ongoing investigation specifically aimed at prosecution, and thus where litigation was reasonably anticipated, the Government had a duty to preserve the Jencks material contained in the text messages.”

“At the close of evidence, the Court will issue the following charge to the jury:

During the course of this trial you have heard evidence by way of stipulation and testimony that during the Government's investigation of Defendants, the cooperating witness, Solomon Dwek, exchanged numerous text messages with F.B.I. agents supervising the investigation. The Government was obligated to preserve all of these text messages, but they were either deleted by the agents themselves or not preserved by the Government. Specifically, although some text messages were in fact preserved, the Government failed to preserve other text messages, which pertained to Agent Russ and Agent McCarthy, from two key time periods: March 1 through March 16, 2009 and the entire month of July 2009. You may infer from the Government's failure to preserve these messages, or the fact that they were deleted by agents, that the missing text messages were relevant to this case and that they were favorable to both Defendant Suarez and Defendant Tabbachino. You are not required to make this inference, however, and you must consider any rebuttal evidence that has been offered by the Government with regard to this issue. Whether you ultimately choose to make the inference is your decision as the finder of fact.”


Destruction of Evidence | Jury Instruction | Spoliation

Florida Cyber Forensics | Computer Investigations

Florida Cyber Forensics Attorney, Lawyer W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. handles civil and criminal and cases in Federal and State Courts.  What is Cyberforensics? Cyberforensics is the science of locating and securing digital evidence within computer networks. These electronic records are also used in criminal investigations and may help get to the bottom of security breaches. I am Licensed in Florida, Federal Middle District of Florida, and the 11th Federal Circuit. Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 to discuss how I can help you, your family, or your business.

I am  a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with diverse civil and criminal litigation experience. My Tampa office is conveniently Located in Tampa, Florida.

1101 Channelside Drive Number 244,
Tampa, FL 33602.

Computer Investigations
Forensic Analysis
Evidence Acquisition
Forensic Imaging
Electronic Discovery

Florida Cyber Forensic Attorney Lawyer

Tampa Cyber Crime | Focus on Privacy

Tampa Cyber Crime Attorney and Bay News 9 continue their focus on computer and online privacy.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney | Tampa Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney, Casey Ebsary is a local defense attorney and former prosecutor. Casey is ready to help with all types of criminal charges including white collar criminal defense, criminal charges arising out of the internet, computer crime, cybercrime, computer fraud, drug charges and Driving Under the Influence DUI.

Casey is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Florida's lawyers have qualified for this distinction. Click on the Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial icon above to review Casey's qualifications.

Casey is available for a free phone consultation at 1-877-793-9290.

View Tampa Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. in a larger map

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Residence Searched | Consent Invalid

Consent Search Residence

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney has been researching  Search and seizure in a Residence under Florida Law in State Court when there are allegations of Consent. Recently, a judge granted motion to suppress evidence. The evidence was collected in defendant's residence after consent to search the residence was coerced. The Court decided consent was obtained after an unreasonable display of police force.  A reasonable person would believe that he had no choice but to acquiesce to the officer's request to enter.

Search and Seizure in Your Residence? Call Toll Free 1-877-793-9290

Source: 35 FLW 2377a.

Surveillance Cameras in Tampa Florida

Eye on Crime

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney notes that twenty surveillance cameras were installed in an area bounded by Fowler Avenue, Bearss Avenue, Nebraska Avenue and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. The cameras offer 360-degree views of street corners and parking lots. Arrests have been made during the cameras' test runs.

"I hate to use the anecdote 'It's like shooting fish in a barrel,' but it is," Deputy Burton of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. According the Tampa Tribune, “The cameras were funded with a $1 million federal grant called Eye on Crime. The University Area is a pilot project for Hillsborough County, but the cameras are used in other cities such as Chicago and New York.”

The portable cameras are high-resolution cameras and record 24 hours a day. Images are stored for 30 days and are monitored from the sheriff's office's district station. Deputies may also will be able to see views from the cameras in their cars and in a helicopter.

Camera Surveillance Questions? Ask Me at 1-877-793-9290

Source: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/09/university-area-gets-view-surveillance-cameras/news-breaking/

Motion to Attend World Series

A Texas attorney filed this Emergency Motion to Attend the 2010 World Series. View it below or download it for your next miraculous comeback by your favorite team.

Motion to Attend World Series Texas Rangers Fan

Cell Phone Surveillance | Cell Tower Data | Judge's Opinion

ECPA
Electronic Communications
Privacy Act

Author's Comment: Your cell phone tells police a lot about you. A Judge recently provided written testimony about about the impact of the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- that is a law that appears to be about anything but ensuring privacy of electronic communications). Title I of the ECPA 18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 allegedly protects wire, oral, and electronic communications while in transit. It was enacted to set down requirements for search warrants that are more stringent than in other settings. If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.

Excerpts from the written testimony are below. We will be posting the complete testimony and will link to that for our readers.

"ECPA was passed in 1986 as a laudable attempt to balance the privacy rights of citizens and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, given the communications technology of that day."

Author's Comment: The ECPA provides that many of the requests and records are to remain secret. Title II of the ECPA, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 to 2712 protects communication held in electronic storage, most notably messages stored on computers. 

"By contrast, the SCA does not require $ 2703(d) orders to be sealed, and allows for "preclusion of notice" to others only if there is reason to believe the investigation would be jeopardized or other adverse consequences would result. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2705(b)(l)-(5)." 

"There are over 500 federal magistrate judges serving in district courts around the country. In addition to civil matters, our responsibilities on the criminal side generally include almost everything except conducting felony trials."

"One of our chief functions is to issue search warrants and other orders in aid of criminal investigations. These include electronic surveillance orders for pen registers, trap and trace devices, tracking devices, 2703(d) orders for telephone and e-mail account records and activity."

"With rare exceptions, ECPA orders pertain to ordinary crimes and criminals, not national security or terrorism cases."

"The process is exparte, meaning only one party - law enforcement - appears before the magistrate judge. Since this is at the criminal investigation stage, no defendant has yet been charged so no defense counsel is there to challenge the government's request. Likewise, no representative of the electronic service provider or the target phone's subscriber is present. In fact, the orders routinely contain gag orders precluding the service provider from advising their customers that the government is accessing their cell phone or e-mail account records. The public rarely learns about these orders, even long after issuance, because they are routinely placed under indefinite (i.e., permanent) seal."

"A reasonable estimate is that the total number of electronic surveillance orders issued at the federal level each year substantially exceeds 10,000"

"The application sought "the location of cell site sector (physical address) at call origination (for outbound calling), call termination (for incoming calls) and, if reasonably available, during the progress of a call," in addition to "the strength, angle, and timing of the caller's signal measured at two or more cell sites, as well as other system information such as a listing of all cell towers in the market area, switching technology, protocols, and network architecture." 390 F. Supp. 2d at 749. "

"Under ECPA, secrecy is achieved in two-ways: (1) gag orders preventing service providers from informing customers about law enforcement monitoring of their cell phone and e-mail usage; and (2) sealing orders denying public access to judicial orders. Typically, electronic surveillance orders contain both types of provisions, but rarely impose an expiration period; instead, those orders remain in place "until further order of the court."29 The catch is that there is no mechanism in place for the judge to revisit the sealing order. She does not retain jurisdiction over the case, which is not a "case" at all but an investigation that may or may not ripen into a real case." 

"The brunt of such secrecy is not necessarily borne by the surveillance targets who are ultimately charged with a crime. After all, they are entitled to discover the nature and source of the prosecution's evidence, including electronic surveillance orders leading to arrest. Suppression motions are available in the event of a constitutional violation. But not everyone caught up in the web of electronic surveillance is ultimately charged with a crime. Any target is likely to call or be called by family, friends, associates, or even total strangers who have no connection to a criminal enterprise. Yet by the fortuity of a single call, these by-standers may be swept up in a criminal investigation, their cell phone use monitored and their location tracked in real time. Unlike criminal defendants, however, these presumably law abiding citizens will never find out. The phone company cannot tell them, and courthouse records will disclose nothing. Ordinarily, a citizen whose house or office is searched is provided a warrant duly signed by a judicial officer, giving notice of the particulars of the search.33 When a citizen wishes to challenge the legitimacy of a law enforcement search of his home pursuant to a warrant, the law affords due process for that purpose. But when searches are shrouded in permanent secrecy, as in most cases of electronic surveillance, due process becomes a dead letter. Such secrecy also has a pernicious impact on the judicial process . . . ."

Author's Comment: There are proposals to restrict the scope of this federal law, but as of today, November 22, 2010, the law and its ability to gather a diverse array of data about your cell phone usage remains a frequently used tool of federal law enforcement, including DHS (Department of Homeland Security) , DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), State, and Local Law Enforcement.

If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.


Cell Phone, Surveillance , SCA, Stored Communications Act , ECPA , 18 U.S.C.  § 2510, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, ,  Electronic Communications Privacy Act


Cell Phone Surveillance | Cell Tower Data 

Tampa Appeal

Tampa Appeal Attorney, Lawyer and good friend of ours, Attorney Ken Siegel has a new website, TampaAppeal.com.

Lawyer Ken Siegel handles appeals in criminal and civil cases in State and Federal Courts. Call Ken today for a free phone consultation to to discuss how Ken can help you, your family, or your company

Ken can be reached at:


Kenneth S Siegel Attorney
14502 N Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, FL 33618


Phone: (813) 962-6676

Casey Ebsary.

Tampa Appeal Lawyer Web Resource

Tampa Appeal Lawyer and friend of ours, Attorney Ken Siegel has a new website, TampaAppealLawyer.com.


Tampa Appeal Lawyer Ken Siegel handles appeals in both criminal and civil cases in State or Federal Courts. You Can Call Ken at (813) 962-6676 today for a free phone consultation to to discuss how he can help you, your family, or your company




Ken can be reached at:


Kenneth S Siegel Attorney
14502 N Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, FL 33618


Phone: (813) 962-6676

Casey Ebsary.


Tampa Appeal Lawyer

Tampa Appeal Attorney Now Online

Tampa Appeal Attorney and friend of ours, Attorney Ken Siegel has a new website, TampaAppealAttorney.com.


Tampa Appeal Attorney Ken Siegel handles appeals in both criminal and civil cases in State or Federal Courts. You Can Call Ken at (813) 962-6676 today for a free phone consultation to to discuss how he can help you, your family, or your company




Ken can be reached at:


Kenneth S Siegel Attorney
14502 N Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, FL 33618


Phone: (813) 962-6676

Casey Ebsary.

Tampa Appeal Website | Ken Siegel

Tampa Appeal Attorney and friend of ours, Attorney Ken Siegel has a new website, TampaAppeal.com.


Tampa Appeal Attorney, Lawyer Ken Siegel handles appeals in criminal and civil cases in State and Federal Courts. Call Ken today for a free phone consultation to to discuss how Ken can help you, your family, or your company




Ken can be reached at:


Kenneth S Siegel Attorney
14502 N Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, FL 33618


Phone: (813) 962-6676

Casey Ebsary.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Update | Cut, Copy, and Paste Not Florida Porn Violation

Complete Opinion Here

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney reports a decision of the Florida Court of Appeal where, "composite images which were crudely prepared by cutting and pasting a photocopy of the head of a minor onto a photocopy of an adult female." do not constitute violation of the Florida Statutes. Section 827.071(5) proscribes the possession of child pornography, in pertinent part, as follows: It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or other presentation which, in whole or in part, he or she knows to include any sexual conduct by a child. The possession of each such photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or presentation is a separate offense. 

The court ruled "If the legislature had intended to proscribe the possession of composite images that simulate lewd and lascivious exhibition of the genitals, it could have included a provision doing so.  In fact, child pornography has been defined in the federal statutes to specifically include composite images." See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(C) (2008).

The Tribune reports, "The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 overturned a federal law that made computer-simulated child pornography illegal. The high court ruled that because the computer-generated depictions were not the product of the actual sexual abuse of children they were protected by the First Amendment."

You can call Casey at 1-877-793-9290 for a free phone consultation.
.
Sources: http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/December/dec0310.shtml

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/dec/03/031558/child-porn-conviction-of-ex-polk-principal-overtur/news-breaking/