Limited Medical Marijuana Bill in Florida

The Florida Legislature passed a bill nicknamed "Charlotte's Web" in June 2014, after the House approved an amended version of the Senate bill by a 111-7 vote. The Senate bill, SB 1030 "Low-THC Marijuana and Cannabis" by Sen. Rob Bradley (R-Orange Park), originally would legalize a non-euphoric marijuana extract, known as "Charlotte's Web," to treat children who suffer from intractable epilepsy. The House sponsor, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Shalimar), amended the SB 1030 on the House Floor to add language to cover cancer, persistent muscle spasms, and other chronic conditions. Authorized patients will also be allowed access to the non-euphoric drug through oil or vapor form, but it may not be smoked.

The bill was amended to increase the number of dispensaries organizations (from 4 to 5) to ensure reasonable statewide accessibility, and one each in the following regions: Northwest Florida, Northeast Florida, Central Florida, Southeast Florida, and Southwest Florida. Also, language was added that would require an application form and annual license fee for the dispensaries to be developed by the state Department of Health. Applicants for the dispensaries must possess a certificate of registration from the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services that is issued for the cultivation of more than 400,000 plants and must be operated by nurserymen who have been registered in Florida for at least 30 years. The dispensary applicants must show they can cultivate non-euphoric marijuana, have suitable financial stability, and perform background checks on its operators.

Search Warrants: When Can an Officer Legally Search Your Property?

We’ve all seen it on crime shows. An officer goes to search someone’s home or vehicle, the suspects scoffs and says, “You can’t do that!” and then the officer  proudly flashes a warrant and proceeds with the search. Or, the officer wants to carry out a search, the suspect smugly says “Got a warrant?” and then the officer scowls, forced to walk away until he or she can return with that piece of paper. In reality, it’s not that cut-and-dried. While an officer is generally required to obtain a search warrant before he or she can search a suspect’s property, there a many exceptions to this rule. In order to properly protect your rights, it is important that you fully understand how search warrants work and what officers’ liberties and limitations are with these warrants.

First, let’s talk about what a search warrant is. When an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has engaged in criminal activity and that a search of that person’s property will produce evidence of that activity, the officer can seek a search warrant from the court. If the officer is able to convince the judge of the probable cause, the search warrant will be granted. The officer will have to limit his or her search to the location, date and time (or time range) that is listed on the warrant. For example, if the search warrant is for a suspect’s backyard, the officer cannot search the person’s home as well (unless one of the exceptions applies). The officer will also be limited to what he or she can search for. For instance, if the search warrant is for weapons, the officer cannot also start carrying out a drug search. The officer would only be able to lawfully seize illegal drugs if he or she found the drugs through the reasonable course of the weapons search, or if the drugs were out in the open.

Here are a few of the many exceptions that may allow an officer to search or seize your property without a search warrant:

• The contraband is in plain view from an area where the officer has a right to be (such as when a gun can be seen through a vehicle window, or when marijuana plants can be seen in a backyard from the street or alleyway, or from a helicopter flying above).
• The search is conducted in connection to an arrest.
• The officer needs to enter or search a property in an emergency situation, and public safety or the need to avoid the immediate loss of key evidence outweighs the absence of a search warrant in that moment (such as when an officer hears cries for help coming out of a home, or when the officer finds contraband while tending to an injured motorist).
• An officer lawfully stops a vehicle and there is probable cause that a vehicle contains contraband.
• The suspect willingly consents to the search (even if the officer doesn’t have a required search warrant).

If an officer carries out an illegal search or seizure of property, there is a good chance that the court will bar it from being used in court. This oftentimes leads to charges getting dismissed or greater likelihood of a “not guilty” verdict. If you have any reason to suspect that your Constitutional rights were violated in the search or seizure process, take action now by giving my firm a call! As a Miami DUI attorney who has more than 30 years of experience, I can provide you with excellent defense. I handle DUI cases, as well as other types of criminal cases. Contact Jonathan Blecher, P.A. and get high-quality defense!

Jonathan Blecher, P.A. to be Guest on Local Radio Show

For another holiday season, I have been asked to appear as a guest on a local radio program. Each year, I have the pleasure of appearing on Fried on Business, which airs every Thursday from 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. on 880AM-The Biz, which is Miami’s Bloomberg Radio affiliate. Fried on Business is Jim Fried’s radio program where I speak with his listeners as a legal consultant on criminal law and DUI defense. My next appearance will air on December 4, 2014.

The theme of this episode will focus on charges of driving under the influence (DUI) and the business aspects related to it since, with the holiday season ahead, DUI enforcement will increase. During this broadcast, I will discuss various aspects DUI charges in relation to this season of the year.

Listeners will learn about their rights pertaining to:

·         Chemical testing (blood, breath, and urine testing)

·         Driver license suspensions

·         Roadside sobriety tests

·         DUI sobriety checkpoints

On a previous episode, listeners were curious about the DUI penalties in Florida and what will take place if they are arrested. Another topic that I will likely discuss is the long-term effects of a DUI conviction on an individual’s life, such as the impact on:

•          Future employment opportunities
•          Increased insurance premiums
•          Deportation (If not a U.S. citizen)

If you have been arrested during the holidays, or are taking proactive measures to avoid a DUI arest, you will want to tune in to 880AM-TheBiz on December 4, 2014 from 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. 

Colombian Minister of Health: "Alcohol May Be More Dangerous Than Marijuana"

"Alcohol may be more dangerous than marijuana," said Thursday the Minister of Health of Colombia, Alejandro Gaviria , reiterating the government's support to an initiative being debated in Congress to allow the medical use of cannabis.

At a hearing in Bogota  that started the four debates needed to pass the bill, Gaviria said that "marijuana may be safer than alcohol if one takes into account all the results of public health" and cited a study published three years ago by the British medical journal The Lancet.

"We will give an evidence-based debate," he insisted.

The bill proposed by the ruling Liberal Party Senator Juan Manuel Galán, son of presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galán, murdered by drug traffickers in 1989, has the backing of President Juan Manuel Santos .

"We welcome the initiative on medical and therapeutic use of marijuana. Understand it to be a practical, compassionate measure to reduce pain and anxiety of patients with terminal illnesses," he said in August.

Several lawmakers of the Democratic Center, the main opposition party led by former President Alvaro Uribe, and Attorney Alejandro Ordóñez, to monitor public officials reject the rule that argues that could open the door to full legalization of drugs.

"This bill seeks to regulate the medicinal and therapeutic use of cannabis , which has nothing to do with recreational use," said Galán to reporters .

In Colombia, consumption and sale of marijuana is prohibited. However, in 2012 the possession of 20 grams of cannabis is decriminalized personal dose.

Dispelling Miranda Rights Myths

Television and movies have made us all well-aware of the Miranda warnings that officers read off to suspects as they are being arrested. They go something along the lines of this:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” (Courtesy of the U.S. Courts website)

While these warnings actually are read to arrested individuals in real life, there are a few misconceptions about the Miranda warning that need to be addressed.

Before delving into these misconceptions, let’s take a look at why the Miranda warnings exist and how they came to be. The purpose of the reading of these warnings is to protect people’s Fifth Amendment right against coerced self-incrimination when they are being questioned by officers while they are in custody (usually once they have been arrested). It is also meant to protect individuals’ Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The Miranda warnings specifically apply to custodial interrogations, or questioning of a person in the custody of law enforcement and their freedom is limited. The idea is to inform the suspect that they are not legally required to answer officers’ questions; that if the individual does choose to speak, his or her statements can be used as evidence in court; and that he or she can choose to consult with an attorney, and to have one present, before talking to law enforcement.

The Miranda warnings became part of an arrest and interrogation protocol from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that officers must warn detained individuals of their rights as outlined above before they are subject to custodial interrogation. The Court also ruled that a failure to provide such warning (or any violation of the person’s Fifth or Sixth rights) will lead to the person’s statements being deemed inadmissible in court—even if those statements indicate guilt. For more information about the Miranda v. Arizona case, click here.

Many people falsely believe that an officer failing to read a suspect his or her Miranda warnings at the time of arrest means that the arrested person cannot be convicted. This is not necessarily true. A failure of an officer to recite the Miranda warning simply means the suspect’s statements made in the custodial interrogation cannot be used in court as evidence. Oftentimes, this equates to the case being dismissed or the defendant winning the case, due to insufficient evidence. However, in some cases, there may be other strong evidence that is used to reach a conviction, even without the defendant’s inadmissible statements.

Another misconception is that individuals need to be read their Miranda warnings in any type of questioning—even pre-arrest or pre-custodial questioning in which the person willingly cooperates with the investigation. In these types of interrogations, the person being questioned is not being held in custody and therefore has the freedom to walk away from the interrogation at any time. Considering this fact, it is not mandatory for officers to warn these individuals of their Miranda Rights in these types of situations.

My name is Jonathan Blecher, and I am a Miami DUI lawyer with more than three decades of experience. If you believe that you were not properly read your Miranda warnings or that your Constitutional rights were violated during the arrest/interrogation process, do not hesitate to contact myfirm. I provide defense in cases involving DUI arrests and many other types of criminal charges.

Profiled as a Disc Golfer: When Do Police Have the Right to Search Your Car?

 "I need you to answer me a question. Why is it that everybody that plays Frisbee golf smokes weed?"

This would be an impertinent question when put to any disc golf enthusiast. When it is asked by a police officer during a routine traffic stop, it moves from rude to threatening.

This is exactly what happened to an Ankeny, Iowa resident when he was pulled over by local police officer Aaron King. The traffic stop was captured on video and uploaded to YouTube under the title "Ankeny, Iowa."

Officer King pressed the driver repeatedly, saying, "you can't tell me you never smoked weed before." His questions became more insistent and pointed. "How much weed do you have in the car today? Nothing at all? Nothing on your person?" Eventually, King asked how much weed he would find if he searched the car.

The driver continued to calmly tell King that he did not have any weed with him or in his vehicle. Toward the end of the conversation, the officer said, "You understand, you are free to go, but you wouldn't have a problem with me looking through your car?"

The driver declined. Under your Fourth Amendment rights, you are protected from unreasonable searches. A traffic stop is not legal reason enough to search your car; this is why the officer asks permission.

Profiling laws vary from state to state and are mostly voluntary. Most written laws also deal with race. While there's no specific legal protection for disc golfers, the presence of a disc golf bag is not evidence of a crime, and thus not legal justification for a search.

Officer King eventually relented and the video ends with him walking away. After the video appeared online, the police department apologized on their official Facebook page. The Chief of Police said that the video was being reviewed.

Here is the official apology from the Ankeny Police Department:

"...The officer engages the driver in a line of questioning that is foolish and not representative of the Ankeny Police Dept.’s training or interactions with the public. This verbal exchange did not meet the level of professionalism expected of Ankeny police officers. Ankeny Police Chief Gary Mikulec respectfully apologizes for the officer`s demeaning statement..."

The video is not just an example of an officer behaving unprofessionally. It is a perfect example of what to do if you are stopped. If you are stopped by police:

• You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of your car or a search of your person. However, if the officer believes that you car contains evidence of a crime, he or she can search your car without your consent.
• You and your passengers have the right to remain silent if you do not wish to answer questions. Tell the officer out loud that you are choosing to exercise that right.
• If you are arrested, you have the right to have a lawyer's assistance. As for one immediately if you are arrested.
• If you are not being arrested, you have the right to leave. Ask the officer, "Am I being detained?"

While cops are allowed to ask questions, you do not have to comply with their requests. Know your rights and how to defend them. By protecting your privacy calmly, you can protect your freedom.

Tampa Sherriff's Department Gave Legal Advice to DUI Suspects

My colleagues at the Sammis Law Firm in Tampa, Florida alerted me to this practice by the Hillsborough County (FL) Sheriff's Office. It appears that the sheriffs took on a new role as legal advisors for their arrestees by handing out this flyer.

While nothing in the flyer is wrong, it’s incomplete and does not explain to the arrestee all of their legal options and secondary ramifications of electing to waive a formal review of the license suspension. And since when are police authorized to deliver legal advice to their prisoners?

What's Missing from This Notice?

It says nothing about the downside to electing to waive the formal review hearing. Waiving the Formal Review Hearing will result in a suspension for 6 months for a breath test over .08% and one year for a first refusal to submit to a chemical test.

It says nothing about the fact that this suspension will appear on your Florida driving record and could affect employment and insurance coverage. Some companies will treat the suspension as if it were a DUI conviction (which it's not) and not renew coverage.

It says nothing about the right to a formal review hearing to contest the legality of the suspension and that obtaining the business permit right now will toss that right in the garbage.

What Do You Give Up?

The Formal Review Hearing is a valuable discovery tool. The Bureau of Administrative Reviews will let us copy their entire file of police reports and breath testing/refusal. This gets me a leg up on prosecutors who won't see these documents for weeks. I also get to subpoena and take sworn statements of the police officers involved affording us a great opportunity for impeachment at a later time.

Since When Are Police Allowed to Dispense Legal Advice?

When my clients ask the police at the breath testing facility if they should take the breath test, the police invariably advise that they can't offer an opinion or give them advice. They tell my clients that if they refuse, their license will be suspended, which is all the law requires of them.

If a paralegal in my office were to give specific and material advice to a client about a legal matter, they might be subject to laws relating to the unauthorized practice of law. In these cases, the police are an adverse party who should steer clear of any advice or acts which could affect valuable legal rights.

Jonathan B. Blecher Named One of the "10 Best" Florida DUI/DWI Lawyers

Miami, Florida attorney Jonathan Blecher has been honored by the American Institute of DUI/DWI Attorneys (AIDUIA), having been named one of the 10 Best Florida DUI lawyers. This is no small honor, since attorneys must meet extensive qualifications in order to make this list. The selection process involves nomination by at least one practicing attorney, as well as independent research by the AIDUIA team.

Attorney Blecher’s nomination alone is enough to show his dedication and commitment to DUI defense, as well as his recognition among his peers. He has proven himself to be a leader in his industry who is highly rated by clients and peers alike.

To be named one on of the “10 Best,” Attorney Blecher holds a perfect 10-out-of-10 rating for client satisfaction, with no negative feedback or complaints with the bar. He also meets the requirements of possessing an advanced degree, receiving awards, being involved with professional associations, being published, and having spoken publicly in his field. Lastly, he was approved by the AIDUIA Board of Regents, resulting in his selection to the 10 Best list.

Attorney Blecher recognizes what an honor it is to receive this recognition from the AIDUIA. His desire is to continue providing excellent counsel and outstanding DUI defense representation for each client who walks through his doors.

Licensed for over 30 years, Mr. Blecher focuses his practice at Jonathan Blecher, P.A. on DUI defense. He is rated AV-Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell®. His "Superb" 10.0 out of 10.0 rating on Avvo.com, a professional attorney ratings directory, from both clients and peers speaks to his superior qualifications. He has been named as one of Florida's Legal Elite, by Florida Trend Magazine and has been recognized as a Top Rated Lawyer in South Florida and a Top 100 Criminal Trial Lawyer in Florida by The National Trial Lawyers.

Jonathan Blecher, P.A. is located in the Pinecrest/Dadeland area of Miami, Florida. Mr. Blecher can be reached at (305) 707-0036.

The History of DUI Laws in the United States – 1960 to 1990

Driving while intoxicated is not a new problem. In fact, it's practically as old as the automobile itself. In this blog, we've been looking at the history of DUI laws and enforcement over the past weeks, beginning with the first such U.S. laws in 1907. The decades between 1960 and 1990 brought substantial changes both in how law enforcement deals with DUI offenses and also in public opinion.

While alcohol-related traffic accidents still account for more than 40 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the number of traffic deaths has been reduced dramatically over the past 50 years.

MADD and DUI Laws

This shift is, in large part, contributable to one California mother's passion and loss. Candy Lightner started Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980 after her 13-year-old was struck and killed by a drunk driver with previous DUI convictions while she was walking home from school. Lightner and MADD worked diligently to change America's DUI laws and raise public opinion about the seriousness of drinking and driving. MADD is largely responsible for the lowering of the legal blood alcohol limit to .10% from .15% and a few years later to .08%. (Today's limit is .05%.) The organization also pushed for "zero tolerance" legislation for drivers under the age of 21. Such laws made it illegal for young drivers to operate a vehicle with a .01% or greater blood alcohol level.

MADD was also successful in lobbying Congress to raise the national drinking age, resulting in the minimum drinking age being raised from 18 to 21 years in 1984. Largely as a result of MADD's activity, 700 new drunk driving laws were passed in the United States between 1980 and 1985.

Student against drunk driving (SADD), formed in 1981, was another force in changing how young people look at drinking and driving. Today, this peer-driven group has 10,000 chapters in middle schools, high schools and colleges throughout the United States.

Drunk driving began to be taken seriously during the 1980s, both by citizens and by law enforcement. That work continued into the 1990s and beyond. In our next post, we'll look at how DUI laws changed from 1990 to the present day.

This is the third post of a four-part series on the history of DUI laws in the United States and their enforcement. Last time, we talked about DUI laws in the post World War II era. We hope you'll visit again over the next few weeks as we discuss how DUI laws in the United States have evolved over the past decades.

The History of DUI Laws in the United States – 1930 to 1960

The end of prohibition in 1933 brought alcohol back to American living rooms and restaurants. In addition, the gradual end of the Great Depression meant more average Americans were able to buy automobiles, often for the first time. This combination increased the number of alcohol-related accidents and re-focused America's attention on the problem of drinking and driving.

One of the most notable such accidents of that era involved best-selling author Margaret Mitchell, whose Civil War era novel, "Gone with the Wind" had earned her more than $1 million in royalties. Ms. Mitchell was crossing the street near her Atlanta home in 1949 when she was struck by an off-duty taxi driver motoring down the wrong side of the street. She died of her injuries several days later. The driver later admitted to having had several drinks.

Measuring Blood Alcohol Levels

The first DUI laws in the United States prohibited driving drunk, but left it up to the arresting officers to determine what "drunk" meant. It wasn't until 1938—more than 30 years after the first DUI laws were enacted--that legal blood alcohol levels were set. The first breathalyzer, called the "drunk o meter," was created by Indiana University professor Rolla N. Harger in 1931. This early, balloon-like device would change color if a person's breath contained alcohol. (The present-day breathalyzer test was invented in 1954 by an Indiana State Police Captain.)

This era also saw the American Medical Association get involved in drinking, driving and public safety. They created a Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents in 1938. This committee was partially responsible for setting the legal blood alcohol level at .15 and below. Indiana took this information and enacted the first Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) law in 1939.

As the "Mad Men" era of the 1950s and 1960s ended and with it much of the "glamor" of excessive drinking, organizations like MADD and SADD began to have political clout. In addition, DUI laws began to become more stringent as public opinion shifted to favor such laws. In our next post, we'll look at how DUI laws changed from 1960 to 1990.

This is the second post of a four-part series on the history of DUI laws in the United States and their enforcement. Last time, we talked about how DUI laws began in this country. We hope you'll visit again over the next few weeks as we discuss how DUI laws in the United States have evolved over the past decades.

The Early History of DUI Laws in the United States

Alcohol-related traffic accidents account for more than 40 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA.) To help combat this alarming statistic, all 50 U.S. states have laws against driving under the influence of alcohol or other controlled substances (DUI). Sometimes also called DWI (driving while intoxicated) or OVI (operating a vehicle while intoxicated), these laws first started to appear in the early part of the 20th century. Today, nearly one in every ten criminal arrests in the United States is for DUI, according to the NHTSA.

History of DUI Laws

The problem of driving while intoxicated is nearly as old as the automobile itself and is not specifically an American problem. In fact, the first DUI arrest occurred in London in 1897, according to History.com, when George Smith ran his cab into the side of a building. (He pled guilty and was fined 25 shillings.) In the United States, Massachusetts was the first state to enact a DUI statute, in 1907.

They were followed by California and New York State in 1910. The other 45 states (at that time) followed soon after that. Early laws prohibited driving while intoxicated, but didn't define what that meant. It wasn't until nearly twenty years later that the first blood alcohol limit was set.

Prohibition and DUI Enforcement

Prohibition in the United States, which lasted between 1920 and 1933, helped to reduce (but not eliminate completely) driving under the influence in the United States. Perhaps even more effective at controlling the problem in this era was the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed. This forced many Americans to give up their cars or put off buying one for more than a decade.

The repeal of the Volstead Act in 1933 ended prohibition and made drinking alcohol legal again in the United States. As more and more Americans became able to afford an automobile, the problem of drunk driving began to rear its ugly head again. In our next post, we'll look at how DUI laws changed in the prosperous post-World War II era.

This is the first post of a four-part series on the history of DUI laws in the United States and their enforcement. We hope you'll visit again over the next few weeks as we discuss how DUI laws in the United States have evolved over the past decades.