West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog : Ronald Chapman: West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer | Florida Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies | Criminal Law Firm

          In 2008, the Chief Judge in Palm Beach County Florida signed Administrative Order Number 10.102-9/08 which automatically dismisses the following types of cases:

          1.  All criminal-traffic cases that have had no court activity for the past 5 years.  (Such cases include driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, reckless driving [unless serious bodily injury occurred], and leaving the scene of an accident [not involving death or personal injuries]).

          2.  All violation of probation cases related to #1 that have had no court activity for the past 5 years.

          3.  All driving under the influence cases (DUI cases) that have had no court activity for the past 8 years.

          4.  Cases in which the Palm Beach County Clerk of Court receives documents proving that a defendant is dead (such as a death certificate).

          Also, as stated in a related article that I posted several days ago:

[T]his order goes on to state that if the Clerk of Court fails to dismiss one of the above-mentioned types of cases, a defendant is not entitled to have his case dismissed simply by filing a motion with the court.  In fact, if a defendant were to do so, the court could actually reactivate his case and set it for trial.

 

So what should you do if you believe that your case ought to be dismissed because it has been inactive for several years?  For one thing, do not file anything in writing with the judge or clerk.  That may well result in your case being reactivated.  Instead, contact a criminal defense lawyer for advice about how to proceed and hopefully get your case dismissed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          In 2008, the Chief Judge in Palm Beach County Florida signed Administrative Order 4.605-9/08 which automatically dismisses the following types of cases:

          1.  All nontraffic-related misdemeanor cases (for example, battery cases or trespassing cases) that have had no court activity for the past 5 years.

          2.  All violation of probation cases related to #1 that have had no court activity for the past 5 years.

          3.  All driving under the influence cases (DUI cases) that have had no court activity for the past 8 years.

          4.  Cases in which the Palm Beach County Clerk of Court receives documents proving that an accused individual is dead (for example, a death certificate).

          However, this order goes on to state that if the Clerk of Court fails to dismiss one of the above-mentioned types of cases, a defendant is not entitled to have his case dismissed simply by filing a motion with the court.  In fact, if a defendant were to do so, the court could actually reactivate his case and set it for trial.

          So what should you do if you believe that your case ought to be dismissed because it has been inactive for several years?  For one thing, do not file anything in writing with the judge or clerk.  That may well result in your case being reactivated.  Instead, contact a criminal defense lawyer for advice about how to proceed and hopefully get your case dismissed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          Manatee County Court Judge Doug Henderson recently issued an order suppressing all evidence that the police obtained at a sobriety checkpoint in 2008. 

          According to an article that appeared at BradentonHerald.com, Judge Henderson ruled that  because the Manatee County Sheriff's Office did not follow their own written guidelines regarding the operation of DUI checkpoints, any evidence gathered by the police as a result of implementing that particular checkpoint may not be presented in court by the prosecutor's office.  Judge Henderson's ruling may well result in the Manatee County State Attorney's Office having to drop some, if not most, of those DUI cases.

          In the case of Campbell v. State of Florida, the Florida Supreme Court decided the issue of whether advance written guidelines are required before the police may conduct a roadblock.  In deciding that such guidelines are indeed required, the Court was particularly troubled by the fact that the police worksheets in that case failed to specify "whether the officers were to stop all motorists, or only one in three or one in five vehicles, or were to use some other selection criteria."  That failure, along with several others, rendered Mr. Campbell's stop by the police unconstitutional pursuant to both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution.

          The Campbell Court concluded with this pertinent observation:

          "The requirement of written guidelines is not merely a formality.  Rather, it is the method this court and others have chosen to ensure that the police do not act with unbridled discretion in exercising the power to stop and restrain citizens who have manifested no conduct that would otherwise justify an intrusion on a citizen's liberty.  In this country the police are not vested with the general authority to set up "routine" roadblocks at any time or place.  Rather, law enforcement was placed on notice by our holding in [State of Florida v.] Jones that the stopping and detaining of a citizen is a serious matter that requires particularized advance planning and direction and strict compliance thereafter."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          Two years ago, Manatee County Court Judge Doug Henderson ruled that evidence of breath alcohol tests in more than 100 drunk-driving cases could not be presented at trial.  According to an article that appeared earlier this month at BradentonHerald.com, Judge Henderson's rulings in those several cases have been affirmed by two different courts of appeals.  The result may be that the Manatee County State Attorney's Office will have to drop certain of those cases while reducing charges in others (from DUI to possibly reckless driving). 

          Judge Henderson ruled the results of the breathalyzer tests inadmissible because the company that makes Florida's breathalyzers, CMI, Inc., has consistently refused to release the contents of its computer software to lawyers representing individuals accused of DUI in Manatee County.  Those lawyers argued that their clients have a right to have their own experts analyze the breathalyzers and its software in order to determine if the machines operate correctly.  Judge Henderson agreed, stating that while CMI's claim that its source code was a trade secret had merit, the accused individuals' right to a fair trial outweighed CMI's interest in protecting its software from public disclosure.

          The big question now is whether judges in other Florida counties will, like Judge Henderson, rule breathalyzer tests inadmissible as long as CMI, Inc. refuses to reveal its source code.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          Jeff Norman of The Huffington Post recently emailed me the following question:

          "What makes it legal for police to detain a DUI arrestee until he or she is 'sober,' when the only purpose of the detention is to maintain safety, and there is no intent to bring the arrestee before a judge for arraignment?  I’m not questioning anything about the arrest or booking process; I’m only asking about the extended detention (usually an overnight jail stay) that begins when the booking process has been completed.  I believe such detentions are illegal, despite conventional wisdom which suggests otherwise.  Your thoughts?"

          What Jeff is referring to is Florida statute section 316.193(9) which states:

          "A person who is arrested for [DUI] may not be released from custody:

          (a) Until the person is no longer under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance . . ., or any [controlled] substance . . . and affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired;

          (b) Until the person's blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level is less than 0.05; or

          (c) Until 8 hours have elapsed from the time the person was arrested."

          Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with Jeff's question in the case of State of Florida v. Atkinson.  In Atkinson, one of the issues that the Court was asked to decide was whether putting someone in jail for 8 hours after he is arrested for DUI is a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution.  In other words, is a person who is jailed for 8 hours after being arrested for DUI being punished twice if he is subsequently prosecuted for DUI?  If the answer is yes, then such a procedure is a double-jeopardy violation, and the prosecuting authority should not be permitted to prosecute that person for DUI.

          The Atkinson Court did not agree, however, that locking someone up for 8 hours after being arrested for DUI and later prosecuting that same person for DUI is a double-jeopardy violation.  The Court reasoned that:

          "The practice of detaining an intoxicated driver is to protect that driver and the community from an unreasonable danger imposed by drunken driving.  It is a situation analogous to the detention of persons under quarantine orders wherein a threat is posed to the public health and safety. . . .  There is no claim or indication in this case that the statute is being arbitrarily enforced in an unconstitutional manner."

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link