Published on:

By

Child pornography prosecutions in Florida are often reliant on evidence that was obtained by the issuance of a search warrant. In evaluating Florida child pornography cases, understanding the intricacies of search warrant requirements is crucial. If a prosecution relies upon evidence obtained without a valid warrant, dismissal of the charges may be mandatory. A recent Florida judicial opinion provides valuable insights into the necessary details for a search warrant to issue in such cases.

The case revolves around a Florida detective’s investigation into child pornography that was allegedly possessed by the defendant. The affidavit supporting the search warrant application outlined in detail the detective’s extensive experience in handling cases related to the possession and transmission of child pornography. The investigation, initiated in late 2017, utilized BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing network, to trace illegal content linked to the defendant’s IP address.

The crux of the affidavit rested on the detective’s use of internet tools designed for investigating crimes against children. Through these tools, he identified specific hash values associated with the Defendant’s P address, indicating the presence of containers/files/folders containing child pornography. Notably, a hash value serves as a unique digital fingerprint for each piece of digital media, supposedly offering law enforcement a tool to identify illegal content with precision.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As technology progresses, Florida police officers, prosecutors, and courts face novel questions as to how the Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures apply to evidence sought from a cloud account or other online storage source. The Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case where the defendant had challenged the validity of a search warrant that was used to obtain evidence against him for a firearm charge. The defendant challenged the breadth of a warrant that allowed the police access to his entire iCloud account.

According to the facts discussed in the recent appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon after police discovered a picture of him holding a weapon in his cloud storage. The initial police investigation was for an armed robbery, and they obtained a warrant to search his iCloud account for evidence related to the robbery. Although not enough evidence was found to charge the defendant with the robbery, he was charged with the firearm offense based on his felon status.

The defendant challenged the admission of the photograph into evidence, arguing that the warrant was overbroad and allowed police access to too much information without probable cause. The appellate court agreed that the warrant was insufficient, though the ruling was upheld anyway based on the good faith exception. The good faith exception allows police to make a mistake of law and potentially violate a suspect’s constitutional rights if that officer relied upon a good-faith belief that what they were doing was constitutional. The appeals court was sympathetic to the officer’s conduct because searches of cloud storage systems are relatively new, and with evolving technology comes evolving laws. As a result of the appellate opinion, the defendant will be required to serve his sentence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Defending against sex crime allegations in Florida can be an uphill battle. Florida defendants have the right to a trial by jury, however, selecting a jury in a sex crime prosecution can be especially difficult, as many members of the public may have a bias against anyone accused of a sex crime, regardless of what the evidence demonstrates. A Florida appellate court recently ruled on an appeal by a defendant who claimed his objections during the jury selection process were illegally denied, resulting in a conviction.

The defendant in the recently decided case was arrested and charged with sexual battery. Before his trial, the defendant and prosecution went through jury selection, where each side was permitted to exclude jurors, either for cause or for no cause at all. Each party is allowed a limited amount of preemptory strikes, which are done without cause. During jury selection, one prospective juror’s initial response during questioning presented an issue for the defense counsel. She expressed feeling uneasy when she learned about the sexual assault charges against the defendant. This reaction was attributed to her experiences as an elementary school teacher, where she had heard students recount their own experiences of sexual abuse.

When defense counsel moved to strike the juror for cause, the trial court did not recall her statement accurately. Instead, the state prosecutor suggested that the court question Mehr further to rehabilitate her impartiality, which was denied. As a result, the defendant had to use his last peremptory challenge to remove Mehr from the jury. Subsequently, the defendant moved for an additional peremptory challenge to strike another juror he believed to be objectionable. However, at that point, only one prospective juror remained. The trial court expressed concern about having an insufficient number of jurors rejected the request. The defendant was ultimately convicted after the trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before a district court in Florida, the State asked the court to reconsider the lower court’s decision to suppress evidence in a drug case. The lower court had originally ruled that the defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted, given that several police officers executing a warrant failed to knock and announce their presence prior to entering his hotel room. On appeal, however, the higher court found that the officers did not actually need to knock before entering, thus granting the State’s request and remanding the case back for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was residing in a hotel room, one that had sliding glass doors. While he was in the hotel room, officers came looking for him in order to execute a warrant for his arrest. Upon seeing him inside the room, the officers noticed the defendant had narcotics and drug paraphernalia around him.

The officers entered the defendant’s room and arrested him. The State later charged the defendant with possession of a controlled substance. Upon being charged, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officers should have knocked and announced their presence before entering the room. The lower court granted the motion, and the State promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before a district court in Florida, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. After the defendant was charged with drug-related crimes, his case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, the defendant argued that the confidential informant working against him illegally offered sex in exchange for his criminal activity, therefore coercing him to sell cocaine and leading him to his guilty conviction. Reviewing the record of the case, the district court eventually denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case met the confidential informant several years ago without knowing she was secretly working for the government. The defendant and the informant became close friends, and the informant supposedly told the defendant that they could be sole mates. Over time, the defendant began trusting the informant, and he believed they were in an intimate relationship.

After several months of this relationship, the defendant brought the informant with him to a meeting in which he would exchange money for a kilo of cocaine. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the drug dealer was actually an undercover officer, and eventually, the State charged the defendant for his participation in the cocaine dealing.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Criminal prosecutions in Florida often rely upon the testimony of law enforcement officers to convince the jury of a defendant’s guilt in cases where the other evidence isn’t very strong. Many jurors have a belief that police officers are inherently more credible than other witnesses, and this may result in jurors affording inappropriate weight to the testimony of a law enforcement officer. In reality, law enforcement officers work closely with prosecutors, and their testimony can be less reliable than an unbiased witness. A Florida appellate court recently reversed a man’s domestic violence conviction after finding that inappropriate testimony of a police officer was admitted at trial, which may have tainted the jury’s guilty verdict.

The defendant from the recently decided case was arrested and charged with domestic violence battery against his ex-girlfriend after the two had an altercation near her apartment while the defendant was moving his belongings. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the police were called to the scene after the two were reported to be fighting in the parking area of the apartment complex where the alleged victim lived. The police officer who responded to the scene noticed injuries on both the defendant and the alleged victim and interviewed witnesses about what happened. In the incident report, the officer noted the defendant as the primary aggressor, and prosecutors later pursued the charges against him.

At trial, the defendant claimed self-defense. Under Florida law, a person is justified in using nondeadly force to address a threat if they were not the primary aggressor during the incident. The prosecutors called the responding police officer as a witness at trial, and he was asked who was the primary aggressor. Against a defense objection, the officer was permitted to testify that based on the victim’s injuries and the eyewitness accounts that the defendant was the primary aggressor. The jury rejected the defendant’s self-defense claim, and he was found guilty as charged.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Florida law criminalizes a variety of sexual misconduct in addition to the general crimes discussed in the criminal code. Many sexual crimes are established or exacerbated by the specific relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the victim. When someone uses a position of trust or authority to encourage or coerce a vulnerable party into sexual activities, such behavior may be punished more severely under specific criminal statutes. The Florida Court of Appeal recently addressed an appeal filed on behalf of a man who was convicted of felony sex charges after he had sexual relations with an attendee of a substance abuse treatment center where he was employed.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant worked at a substance abuse and mental health treatment center where the alleged victim had checked herself in for substance abuse treatment. The defendant allegedly coerced the victim into having sexual intercourse with him in exchange for a cigarette. After the victim left the treatment center and contacted the police, the defendant was arrested and charged with felony crimes under the Florida Mental Health Act, which criminalized sexual conduct between an employee and a patient who has been held or accepted for mental health treatment at a Florida medical facility. The criminal provisions under which the defendant was charged do not rely on the lack of consent for a valid conviction.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the charges against him and sentenced him to over five years in state prison. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the statute under which he was charged defined the term “patient” in a way that was not consistent with the victim’s status at the time of the alleged misconduct. The appellant argued that a “patient,” as defined by the Mental Health Act, was a person admitted to a facility for a mental health condition. Because the alleged victim was admitted only for substance abuse treatment, the defendant argued that his conviction under the law was not valid.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In a recent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in an appeal involving a child pornography conviction. The defendant-appellant was charged and convicted of producing and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2252A(a)(5)(b). On appeal, the defendant challenged his conviction on three grounds. First, he contended that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the interstate commerce element of 2251(a). Second, he argued that the district court erred in discharging an impaneled-but-not-yet sworn jury in his absence. And third, he claimed that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish production under 2251(a).

The defendant was originally indicted in the Northern District of Florida for the production and possession of child pornography. His trial was originally scheduled to begin in September 2020 in Pensacola, Florida. The judge and both parties agreed to impanel a jury but to hold off on swearing the jury in because of an imminent tropical storm that was set to make landfall. The storm grew in strength, and when it reached Pensacola, it was a Category 2 hurricane. As a result of the storm, there was significant flooding, and internet and phone service were disrupted. Following the passing of the storm, the judge scheduled a teleconference to discuss the next steps, which the defendant was unable to join due to the internet and telephone services not working in the jail. During the teleconference, the judge stated that he planned to continue the trial for three weeks and would ask the current jurors if they would be able to accommodate the new trial schedule. If any of them were unable to do so, he would dismiss the entire jury and impanel a new jury. The defendant’s attorney suggested only changing out the jurors that could not accommodate the new schedule, but the judge declined, ultimately impaneling a new jury despite the defendant moving for the judge to reconsider.

At trial, the alleged victim testified that the defendant was a family friend of her mother and that each summer, her family would visit the defendant and stay at his home in the Florida Panhandle. She further testified that during one of those trips when she was 15, the defendant asked her to undress and took photos of her using a flip phone on at least three occasions. She also testified that the defendant told her he had transferred the photos to his home computer. Several law enforcement officers testified that they had found explicit photos of the alleged victim on the defendant’s home computer. The defendant was convicted on both counts.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

With the advent of high-speed internet, the distribution of photos and video recordings that depict child sex offenses has become an increasingly common issue for law enforcement and the public at large. For media that is shared on the internet, the federal government can assume jurisdiction of a child pornography case. Federal prosecutions for the possession and distribution of child pornography are more common than state prosecutions for such violations. Federal laws that prohibit the possession or distribution of child pornography are not always clear-cut, and individual courts often have the discretion to decide if alleged conduct meets the standard for prosecution under federal law. The Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling that affirmed a conviction based on a seemingly broad definition of child pornography.

The defendant from the recently decided appeal was charged with the production and distribution of child pornography based on video footage that he live-streamed on a social media and video-sharing website. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant produced a video of himself masturbating while in the vicinity of a fully-clothed 11-year-old girl. The video included the defendant panning the camera from his own erect penis to the 11-year-old, who was facing the other way. Based upon his broadcast, the defendant was arrested and charged with the production of child pornography.,

The defendant challenged the charges at trial, arguing that the video he shared did not include any images of children without clothes or engaged in any sort of sexual activity. Based upon the wording of the relevant statute, which prohibited videos that use a minor to produce a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, the charges were pursued, and the man was convicted of the crimes as charged. The defendant was sentenced to over 50 years in federal prison. The defendant appealed his conviction to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the trial court’s interpretation of the statute was not proper, as the defendant was only filming the child in a benign scenario, and the video of himself masturbating was distinct from the video of the fully-clothed child.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The federal sentencing guidelines offer a framework for judges to utilize when determining the sentence of an individual convicted of a federal crime. Sentencing guidelines generally incorporate both aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant’s history or conduct in order to modify the sentencing judge’s discretion in accordance with congressional actions that have determined the guidelines.

In sexual offenses, especially those involving children, the range of sentences available can vary greatly based on the application of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances anticipated by the guidelines. A Florida man recently convicted of possession of child pornography successfully challenged the application of an aggravating factor that would have increased the minimum sentence for his crimes by 10 years.

The defendant in the recently decided case was charged and convicted in federal court with possession and distribution of child pornography based on files that were obtained from his computer. Before he was sentenced for the crimes, a presentence report was submitted, which proposed a sentencing enhancement based upon a prior Florida state conviction for traveling to engage in illegal sexual activity with a minor. The defendant objected to the application of the enhancement, arguing that the statute he was sentenced under for the proper offense was too broadly written to be included as an aggravating offense under the federal sentencing guidelines.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Mayberry Law Firm
3902 Henderson Blvd, #208-136
Tampa, FL 33629
Phone: (813) 444-7435

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2023, Mayberry Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design