November 15, 2021

What is the difference between ‘nolo contendere,’ ‘nolle prosequi,’ and ‘guilty plea?’

If you have ever been arrested for a crime and taken before a judge, you know that you are attending an arraignment hearing. An arraignment hearing is where you (and your attorney if you have retained one) enter a plea. We have all seen in the movies where the defendant stands up before the Court and pleads ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ for the crime committed. In real life, everyone needs to plead not guilty at this time because if you pled guilty, a judge would sentence you immediately and you may not know what the judge’s sentence will be. At a later time, after the evidence is reviewed, you may choose to change your plea to nolo contendere (no contest) or guilty. For the purposes of this article, we will discuss what happens when you plead guilty or nolo contendere. Additionally, we will explain how a nolle prosequi could affect your status.

1) Pleading Guilty

This option is fairly obvious. When pleading guilty to the crime you are being charged with, you are admitting that you committed the crime. Oftentimes, a guilty plea comes about when the prosecution offers a plea deal for a better sentence if you plead guilty to the charges. Remember from the above paragraph you do not plead guilty at arraignment and you should have the evidence reviewed prior to changing your plea to guilty.

August 9, 2021

How resisting an officer with or without violence can be enforced against you

by Adams, Luka, & Benton

An officer walks up to you and tells you she has a reasonable belief that you have drugs on your person. You allow her to search your pockets and she comes up with cocaine. She places you in handcuffs but when she asks you to sit on the sidewalk while she calls another officer, you refuse. She tells you again to sit on the sidewalk and you once again refuse. Regardless of your intentions on why you do not want to sit on the sidewalk, the officer charges you with possession of cocaine and resisting arrest without violence.

Law enforcement officers have protections strictly enforced regarding how individuals will react when getting arrested. Because officers are placed in unknown danger when arresting an individual, not knowing how a person will respond when stopped, questioned, or placed in handcuffs, Florida created Statutes 843.01 and 843.02 to provide definitions and legal convictions should you be charged with resisting arrest without violence or with violence.

Under Florida Statute 843.02, resisting an officer without violence examples include: not obeying commands, refusing to be placed in handcuffs, refusing to sit on the ground when asked, or trying to escape being arrested. Even verbal actions, such as warning another person so they are not arrested are considered grounds for charging you with resisting arrest. If charged with resisting without violence, that constitutes a 1st-degree misdemeanor, resulting in jail time or probation for up to 1 year and a fine of up to $1,000.00.

January 5, 2021

I did not actually kill a person, so I must be off the hook

by Adams, Luka, & Benton

As much as we would wish that to be true, it is not. Attempted murder, under Florida statutes 777.04: Attempts, Solicitation, Conspiracy and 782.04: Homicide; Murder, is prosecuted and punishable with a murder prison sentence.

To be convicted of murder, two elements must be proven. In legal terms, they are called ‘mens rea’ or a guilty mind, and ‘actus reus’ or a guilty act.

Mens Rea= A Guilty Mind

April 28, 2020

Whether police in Florida can legally force you to unlock your cell phone. (FL Supreme Court Update).

by Adams, Luka, & Benton

The Florida Supreme Court recently declined to consider whether law enforcement can legally force defendants to reveal their cellphone passcodes. In the case of Pollard v. State, 287 So. 3d 649, out of the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Alachua County, prosecutors sought to force the defendant to reveal the passcode to his cellphone as part of their criminal investigation. The case reached the Supreme Court of Florida; however, because the case was dismissed by the state attorney’s office, it will no longer be reviewed by the highest court in Florida.

This topic is a continuous debate between court systems and law enforcement throughout Florida and across the United States. Currently, two of the five Florida district courts are divided on the issue of requiring defendants to provide police with their cellphone passcodes. The 2nd District Court of Appeals which covers counties in the Southwest regions of Florida, has ruled a search warrant can require a defendant to provide their passcodes. In contrast, the 4th District Court of Appeals which covers counties in the Southeast regions of Florida, has ruled requiring a defendant to reveal their cellphone passcodes is unconstitutional violating a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In the 5th District Court of Appeals (DCA), which covers the Central Florida regions including the counties of Lake, Osceola, and Orange; the court has not been presented with a case to rule on whether a search warrant required a defendant to unlock their cellphones. The 5th DCA has ruled on other situations involving the search of a cellphone. The court adopted the ruling in the case of Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724, which found that police needed to obtain a warrant to search a phone upon seizing it once an arrest had been made. The 5th DCA has also ruled on specific situations where a warrantless search of a cell phone is applicable. In the case of State v. Phillips, 266 So. 3d 873, the court found that a defendant on probation for sexual offenses created a greater public interest to justify a cellphone search without a warrant.