Busted on Video | Photographer Arrested

Citizen Journalist

Drug Bust on Video

Tampa Drug Defense Attorney Michael P Maddux has recently reviewed a case where there was a Drug Bust on Video. The citizen photographer was arrested. Criminal Defense issues will be was there a Search Warrant, Probable Cause, or Consent to Search? The video mentions a "warrant", but the police office claims consent to search the vehicle.

Civil Rights issue will be can the police arrest a citizen reporter recording police actions on a city street? What do you think?

Documentary | Copwatch: These Streets are Watching

Can Color of Vehicle Be Probable Cause In Traffic Stop?

Probable Cause Traffic Stop Vehicle Color

A Florida Drug case just answered two questions: 1) Can the Color of a Vehicle be the Probable Cause for a Traffic Stop? 2) Can cops invent creative reasons to pull you over?

Traffic Stop Facts

The case began when the cops were looking for a reason to pull a vehicle over and the driver was not doing anything wrong to justify a legitimate traffic stop to issue a traffic citation or a warning. The cop used his computer system to pull the DHSMV (Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) records on the vehicle he was following. The record was valid, the registration was valid, the driver and the vehicle were lawfully in operation. One field on the vehicle record described the color of the vehicle. The color of the targeted vehicle did not match. vehicle was stopped, odor of cannabis / marijuana, large quantity of drugs found, driver is arrested and goes to prison.

Can the Color of a Vehicle be the Probable Cause for a Traffic Stop?

Florida Supreme Court says the DHSMV record does not need to match the vehicle color. People are free to paint cars whenever they wish. There is no requirement that car owners report the new color of their vehicle to the state. Conviction overturned.

Can cops invent creative reasons to pull you over?

Florida Supreme Court says police cannot use otherwise innocent conduct to invent reasons for traffic stops. Courts can punish police who engage in such hunting. The punishment will at least be the evidence they have illegally obtained will be suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule. Under the rule, courts will not let police engage in misconduct and then convict and imprison citizens.

Case Excerpts

"To warrant an investigatory stop, the law requires not just a mere suspicion of criminal activity, but a reasonable, well-founded one. Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186 (“[A]n investigatory stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”). In Terry, the stop was found appropriate because the officer “had observed [three men] go [t]hrough a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.” Terry, 392 ."

"[T]he sole basis here for the investigatory stop is an observation of one completely noncriminal factor, not several incidents of innocent activity combining under a totality of the circumstances to arouse a reasonable suspicion—as was the case in Terry. "

"The discrepancy between the vehicle registration and the color the deputy observed does present an ambiguous situation, and the Supreme Court has recognized that an officer can detain an individual to resolve an ambiguity regarding suspicious yet lawful or innocent conduct. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. However, the suspicion still must be a reasonable one. Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186 (“Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop.”). In this case, there simply are not enough facts to demonstrate reasonableness." 

"[It] is not against the law in Florida to change the color of your vehicle without notifying the DHSMV."

"The intrusion involved in the instant case is similar to that described in Prouse, especially considering that anyone who chooses to paint his or her vehicle a different color could be pulled over by law enforcement every time he or she drives it."

"We are satisfied that the exclusionary rule will have an appropriate deterrent effect in this case and that none of the exceptions to the rule apply. "

Here is a Copy of the Vehicle Color Probable Cause for Traffic Stop Case.

Marijuana Search - Protective Safety Sweep

Marijuana Search
Protective Safety Sweep

Tampa Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer notes a recent Search and seizure case involving a Residence and a Search Warrant. The Second District Court ruled that the protective sweep of the possession of marijuana defendant's residence was improper. The court noted no basis for concern that drug evidence might be destroyed before a search warrant could be obtained.

Marijuana Search - Safety Sweep

The appeals court also found no facts to support a reasonable belief that there was a person in the residence who could pose a danger to law enforcement. The observation of narcotics by officers during an improper protective sweep cannot be a valid basis for issuance of search warrant, even so, since the officers smelled marijuana when the suspect opened front door after officers had lawfully approached residence and knocked on front door,  probable cause for issuance of warrant was found.

When the court finds that police unlawfully obtained some of evidence contained in an affidavit or application for a search warrant, the trial court must then determine if there was probable cause to support issuance of warrant based on any independent and lawfully obtained evidence. The trial court committed error in granting the  motion to suppress because probable cause for issuance of warrant was established without considering evidence obtained in improper protective sweep.

Case Excerpts:

"[T]he sweep of the house was improper based on the concern that evidence may be destroyed because there were no facts supporting an objectively reasonable basis for the belief that someone inside the house could destroy evidence while the warrant was being obtained. See United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 156 (7th Cir. 1987) ("In determining whether the agents reasonably feared imminent destruction of the evidence, the appropriate inquiry is whether the facts, as they appeared at the moment of entry, would lead a reasonable, experienced agent to believe that evidence might be destroyed before a warrant could be secured.")."

"[T]here was no evidence that the house was occupied, the trial court correctly found that the protective sweep of the house for officer safety was improper as there were no specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that there was an individual in the house who could pose a danger to law enforcement. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 337 (1990) ("The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.")."

"Where a court finds that police unlawfully obtained some of the evidence contained in the application for the 

search warrant, the court must then determine if there is probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant based on any independent and lawfully obtained evidence. Id. “[T]he court must excise the invalid allegations from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient valid allegations remain to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Hood, 68 So. 3d 392, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)."

Source: STATE OF FLORIDA, v. IDALIA ROMAN Case No. 2D11-769 (Fla 2d DCA Nov. 7 2012).