INTRODUCTION
Recently, I read several headlines that stated, “Aaron Hernandez Is Innocent.” I immediately thought of the impact of those words. First, I thought how it might affect the readers. Then, my thoughts shifted to how it may impact the families of the victims. After a day of contemplation, I decided that I needed to write this article.
THE FACTS
HYPOTHETICAL
Let’s say that law enforcement seizes your cell phone, believing that it contains evidence of a crime. Let’s further say that they demand that you give them the passcode so that they can get into your phone and retrieve its contents. You tell the officers, “No thank you. I respectfully decline your invitation. My top-notched attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, has warned me not to consent to this type of governmental action.” They then inform the prosecutor of your refusal. The prosecutor then petitions the court to force you to turn over your passcode, arguing that they believe it contains incriminating information. How should the judge rule?
ANALYSIS
THE ALLEGED FACTS
The victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Florida are suing both the wife of the shooter and the shooter’s former employer. They accuse them of failing to prevent the abhorrent massacre. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Florida.
The 57 victims, consisting of survivors and representatives of the deceased, allege that the security company that the shooter worked for knew of the comments Omar Mateen had made prior to the shootings that resulted in the tragic death of 49 club patrons and the injury of dozens more. Mateen allegedly bragged to a co-worker that he had ties to terrorists and a mass shooter. The law suit alleges that his employer, G4S Secure Solutions, should have immediately taken away his weapons and recommended that his firearms license be revoked. When investigated by both his employer and the FBI in 2013, he claimed that he only said those outrageous things so that his co-worker would stop teasing him about being Muslim. The FBI determined that he did not pose a threat.
WHAT HAPPENED
Florida Governor Rick Scott recently removed newly elected Orlando prosecutor Aramis Ayala from the Markeith Loyd case. Loyd is charged with two counts of First Degree Murder for shooting and killing police officer Lt. Debra Clayton and Loyd’s pregnant ex-girlfriend Sade Dixon. The case was re-assigned to state attorney Brad King, who prosecutes in neighboring Florida counties. Scott claims that the reason he removed Ayala is because she “won’t fight for justice.” He points to her comments concerning the death penalty as support for his extraordinary move. She allegedly stated that the death penalty causes too much pain for victims’ families and that it was not an effective deterrent. Additionally, she allegedly made it clear that not only wouldn’t she be seeking death for Loyd, but she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty in any future case during her entire four years in office. Regarding seeking the death penalty in future cases, she stated, “I have determined that doing so is not in the best interest of the community or the best interest of justice.”
Scott initially attempted to get Ayala to recuse herself from the Loyd case. When she refused, he took the case away from her.
OUTRAGEOUS FACTS
Ahhh, Orlando, Florida. Home of Sea World, putt putt, Mickey Mouse, and Epcot. Apparently, they’ve got some drug activity as well. Recently, Orlando police received many complaints concerning drug activity at a local 7-11. As a result, they beefed up surveillance.
One afternoon, police spotted 65-year-old Daniel Rushing driving his car. The cop who stopped him, 8 year veteran Corporal Riggs-Hopkins, alleges that she observed Rushing commit two traffic infractions. She claims that Rushing was speeding and also, that he failed to come to a complete stop. As she approached the vehicle, Cpl. Riggs-Hopkins alleges that she saw a “white, rocky substance” on the floorboard of the vehicle. She immediately assumed that the substance by the driver’s feet was an illegal controlled substance. Rushing passionately exclaimed to the officer, “It’s glaze! Glaze from a doughnut!!!” He tells the officer that it was Krispy Kreme. Cpl. Riggs-Hopkins and the other law enforcement officers that arrived on the scene after the stop didn’t believe the driver. Instead, they were convinced it was crack cocaine. Then, after some time elapsed, they changed their position, concluding instead that it was Methamphetamine (“crystal meth.”)
FACTS
This story got my attention. Ricky Weinberger was recently arrested on Miami Beach for allegedly making a bunch of “harassing” telephone calls to law enforcement. Apparently, he also posted lots of threats against police on the bulletin board of an on line police themed web site. Most troubling for law enforcement is what they found at his small apartment when they arrested him. Weinberger had stockpiled 16 weapons, which allegedly included six assault rifles, along with 4500 rounds of ammunition. Police believe this was a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Judge Mindy Glazer held Weinberger with no bond. He has three other pending criminal cases that were made against him over the past year. His attorney attempted to secure his freedom by arguing that his both his speech and weapons possession were constitutionally protected. That argument failed.
INTRODUCTION
It was an eerie feeling. As I walked into Terminal 2 of the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport, just days after the horrific shooting, I was consumed with emotion. It hit me that I was in “The room where it happened.” (Yes, even when describing something dark and emotional, “Hamilton” references still flow out of me) There was an overwhelming presence of media and law enforcement both inside and outside of the terminal. I was headed to Minneapolis for an appearance in federal criminal court. My return flight on Delta Airlines into Fort Lauderdale was the exact one the shooter had taken just days earlier. This case still consumes me. I find myself frequently discussing it with friends and colleagues. I’ve chosen to write this article because I’ve found from my discussions that there’s a lot of misinformation concerning this case. Also, there are many wondering what will likely happen to the shooter, Esteban Santiago. To best be of service in this article, I’ve attempted to answer the most common questions that I believe are on the minds of most people at this time.
QUESTIONS
INTRODUCTION
On March 30, 1981, as former President Ronald Reagan left the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C., John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate the president. Hinckley drew his revolver and fired six rounds, injuring President Reagan and three other individuals. Roughly a year after the assassination attempt, Hinckley, who faced 13 criminal charges, was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, a federally operated psychiatric facility in Washington D.C. Today, 35 years after that fateful day Hinckley decided to pull the trigger, a federal judge ruled that he shall be released from St. Elizabeth’s Hospital to live with his mother in her home as early as August 5th. Many of the questions that members of the “Court of Public Opinion” are asking includes, “How could he possibly be released? Why isn’t he serving a life sentence? How was he ever initially found not guilty by reason of insanity?”
ANALYSIS
THE HYPOTHETICAL
You’re driving home from a lovely night out on the town when you see those dreaded police lights behind you. You hope the officer is just trying to around you, however, you quickly realize that he wants you to pull over. As you think of all the reasons why the cop may have interest in you, you remain calm knowing that you weren’t speeding and that you’ve only had a couple of drinks over the course of a several hour dinner. The officer approaches and immediately smells the odor of an alcoholic beverage protruding from your breath. He asks, “Have you been drinking?” After you admit to the couple of drinks you consumed over dinner, he asks you to perform roadside “tests.” (We call em’ “exercises”) In spite of feeling fine and thinking you performed well, you are told that you are being placed under arrest for DUI (also known in other states as DWI and more commonly referred to as “Drunk driving”) You’re eager to take a breath test to prove the officer wrong. Unfortunately, after you blow twice into the machine (they call it an “instrument”), the officer’s eyes light up. In amazement, the officer announces that your breath reading is .40, which is approximately 5 times the legal limit. Regardless of your passionate pleas of innocence, you’re booked into the county jail. After you post bond and are released after approximately 18 hours of custody, you contact me, an attorney with expertise in DUI defense. You feel comforted knowing that I believe you, that there must be another explanation of the high reading other than extreme alcohol consumption.
ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Having practiced criminal law for over two decades as both a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, there’s one question I get asked more than any other, “Should I blow?” Solely for those whose minds tend to travel to unusual places, the “blow” I’m referring to concerns the breath machines police use during drunk driving (DUI) criminal investigations.
DON’T DRIVE WHEN IMPAIRED
Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog