PDF Traffic Court Rules — A Moving Target

A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community

December 2011

Traffic Court Rules -- A Moving Target

In this issue:

Professionalism Robbery Probable Cause Public Safety

Warrants Check

Legal Eagle

Published by: Legal Eagle Services West Palm Beach, FL

33401 B. Krischer, Editor

As a law enforcement officer have Statute of Limitations

you ever felt that in traffic court the Once you write a non-criminal traffic

cards are stacked against you ? You citation the prosecution of it must be

put your life on the line in each and commenced within one (1) year after

every traffic stop and have to deal it is committed. (Fla. Stat. ?775.15

with citizens berating you and mak- (2)(d) ) Within 180 days of you

ing complaints when they violate the serving the defendant with a uni-

law. Then you go to traffic court form traffic citation the defendant

only to have your tickets tossed be- shall be brought to trial on the

cause of a technicality or because charge. Florida Rules of Traffic

you are going up against an attorney Court 6.325

that knows the ins and outs of the Amendments to Citations

traffic court rules.

Are there any mistakes or corrections

The first disadvantage that you that need to be made on the traffic

have in traffic court is that there is no infraction? If so, then pursuant to

prosecutor handling the case. No Florida Rules of Traffic Court 6.455,

one told you in the police academy the issuing officer may amend the

that you would have to be prepared traffic ticket with proper corrections

to play the role of enforcer and pros- before the start of the scheduled

ecuting attorney while going up

hearing, with the judge's approval.

against experienced defense attorney The official shall grant a continuance

and challenging magistrates on evi- if the amendment requires one in the

dence and procedure.

interests of justice. This rule states

that "No case shall be dismissed by

Practical Tips for Success

in Traffic Court:

reason of any informality or irregu-

larity in the charging document." (In

For you to be successful in traffic these types of cases, your citation is

court it is important to know the

considered a charging document).

technical aspects of the law. Be pre-

This rule makes it clear that the court

pared and have the applicable statute

should not grant a defense motion to

and case law with you to support

dismiss due to vagueness and/or due

your position.

process violation (i.e. that the charg-

VLeigsailtEuasglae t our new web site:

December 2011

ing document is so vague that it does ute. Do you have your course at- copy of the Driving Record into evi-

not put the defendant on notice of tendance certificate, logs, proper dence. It is self- authenticating so no

which conduct forms the basis of the certifications? If there is any rele- witness is needed it just has to be

charge). The remedy, if any preju- vant supporting documentation re- made relevant to the case. This

dice can be shown, is an amendment garding the electronic or mechanical would be accomplished by eliciting

to the charging document (i.e. the speed measuring device used by the testimony that the person that you

citation).

citing officer is in said officer's pos- came into contact with had the same

Defects in the Citation

session at the time of trial, the de- name, address and DOB as that con-

Did you make a mistake and put the fendant or defendant's attorney shall tained in the driving record.

wrong statute number? Is the de- be entitled to review said documenta- An officer could obtain a copy of

scription of the violation correct? tion immediately before that trial. the Driving Record in the clerk's

Pembroke Pines v. Estrella, 11 Fla. Florida Rules of Traffic Court 6.445. office and then move it into evi-

L. Weekly Supp. 844a (Fla. 17th Cir. Every Traffic Magistrate is differ- dence. The better suggestion would

2004). Where first citation stated ent and they may require more or be to ask the Magistrate to take judi-

"Failure to Use Due Care, to wit: less proof in a hearing. The rules of cial notice of the Court file which

Following Too Closely," and second evidence are applicable in a traffic should have a copy of the Driving

citation stated "Fail to Use Due Care, infraction hearing the same as any Record in it. Then it becomes evi-

Fail to Maintain Control of Vehicle civil or criminal case. See Florida dence in the case.

Causing Rear-End Crash," there was Traffic Court Rule 6.460(a) which

Section 322.201, Florida Statutes,

no prejudice to defendant when of- provides that "the rules of evidence specifically states:

ficers wrote down incorrect statute applicable in all hearings for traffic "A copy, computer copy, or tran-

number. The court reasoned that the infractions shall be the same as in script of all abstracts of crash reports

State's failure in a criminal case to civil cases . . . and shall be liberally and all abstracts of court records of

"precisely specify a charged statute construed by the official hearing the convictions received by the depart-

in an indictment or information is not case.")

ment and the complete driving record

necessarily fatal to the charge. As

In a recent traffic hearing a Traffic of any individual duly certified by

long as the charging document does Magistrate excluded testimony from machine imprint of the department or

not `totally omit an essential element an officer about the status of an indi- by machine imprint of the clerk of a

of the crime or [as long as it] is [not] vidual's Florida driver's license be- court shall be received as evidence in

so vague, indistinct or indefinite that cause he testified that the infor-

all courts of this state without further

he is misled or exposed to double mation came for "DAVID" and the authentication, provided the same is

jeopardy,' the case will not be sub- Magistrate found it to be considered otherwise admissible in evidence."

ject to dismissal." McMillan v. State, hearsay. So, as a law enforcement Elements to Prove:

832 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA officer how can you get around this Civil Infractions have elements in

2002); see also C.S. v. State, 869 exception?

the same manner as criminal charges.

So.2d 637, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The first thing to realize is that the Always verify that all elements can

A ticket, which is also a charging burden of proof in a traffic infraction be proven beyond a reasonable

document, should be no different. hearing is the same as is required in a doubt.

Discovery

criminal case. The standard of proof Driving

If the citation that you issued was for is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All civil infractions under Chapter

speeding then you should bring the Fla. Stat. ? 318.14(6)

316 require that the Defendant be

proper documentation with you in

In a criminal case the Prosecutor "driving" or in "actual physical

order to prove a violation of the stat- would have to physically move a control" of the vehicle. Many times,

Legal Eagle

2

December 2011

there may not be an actual witness to hough it may appear that their testi- board, or seatbelt

the driving. Therefore it may be nec- mony would be unnecessary, it may

Hair or blood on broken win-

essary to prove "driving" by circum- become vital if the defendant's ad- dows or interior of car

stantial evidence.

missions become inadmissible.

Blood spatter or smears on inte-

What statements were made by

What physical evidence do you rior of car

the defendant?

have to prove the defendant was

Tooth marks on steering wheel

Perez v. State, 630 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. driving?

or dashboard

2d DCA 1994); Sullivan v. DHSMV, Circumstantial evidence is very pow- Fingerprints on ignition key,

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 148 (Duval erful when combined with eyewit- steering wheel, gear shift, headlight

Circuit Court, January 28, 2003). ness testimony. In some cases the knob, rear-view mirror,etc.

Defendant's spontaneous incriminat- defendant may be placed behind the

Forensics found related to de-

ing statements to the officer at the wheel with no wheel witness at all if fendant's head wound, pieces of

scene are not protected by the acci- the time and effort is spent collect- glass etc.

dent report privilege. Cato v.

ing, recording and analyzing the cir-

Gas receipts or other receipts

DHSMV, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267 cumstantial evidence. Due to the found in car indicating recent driver

(Duval Circuit Court, February 22, inadmissible nature of some defend- or owner of car

2001). A person who claims

ant statements, the LEO should take

Location of personal belongings

"presence" at the scene of an acci- care to obtain circumstantial evi- in car

dent but denies "involvement" in the dence even when the defendant has

Location of defendant upon arri-

crash cannot claim the protection of confessed that he was driving the car. val, e.g. leaning against driver's side

the privilege. State v. May, 10 Fla. L. Sometimes the circumstantial evi- of car, sitting on or standing near

Weekly Supp. 124 (Palm Beach

dence will not be sufficient to prove car, etc.

County Court, December 16, 2002). that the defendant is the driver, but is

Location of any other possible

LEO was not in process of conduct- sufficient to prove that the passen- drivers/passengers

ing a crash investigation when he gers were not. If the investigation

Location of car keys (ignition,

asked the defendant if he was OK, can show that all people in the car D's pocket) and identification of

therefore the defendant's response is have been accounted for, the LEO owner of keys or key chain

not protected by the accident report can use circumstantial evidence to Inability of passenger to operate

privilege.

prove that the passengers could NOT manual transmission

What statements were made by have been the driver, thus leaving

Vehicle registration and insur-

the witnesses?

only the conclusion that defendant ance information

One of the most common forms of was the driver.

Injury to defendant's head in

evidence to place the defendant be- Examples:

relation to striking head liner, wind-

hind the wheel comes from the driver The following are some examples of shield or steering wheel

and passengers of the other car in- types of circumstantial evidence that Case Authority:

volved in the crash. It is extremely can place the defendant behind the Torresi v. DHSMV, 5 Fla. L. Weekly

important to document all the other wheel. This list is neither complete Supp. 640 (Orange Circuit Court,

people that may be at the crash scene nor will all of the items be found at June I, 1998). Officer is entitled to

to determine whether they saw the all scenes. It is entirely possible that rely on information provided to him

incident or heard the defendant make none would apply; it all depends on by witnesses to an accident as well as

any statements. It is not uncommon the circumstances of the particular on his own observations in order to

for people to stop to help in a crash crash.

determine who was driving the motor

prior to EMS and LEO arrival. Alt-

Clothing fibers on airbag, dash- vehicle. State v. Johnson, 695 So.2d

Legal Eagle

3

December 2011

771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Officer was told by another officer and by

Professionalism

witnesses that the defendant was the We all know that whether the officer's actions are justifiable or not depends

driver. The officer also observed the on the totality of the circumstances know to the officer at the time of the

defendant standing next to the car incident. Recently, an Alabama officer was fired over a TASERing incident

when she arrived and there was no that happened in local jail.

one else in it or near it. The defend- Just having the newspaper article and a piece of video footage isn't

ant admitted he was the driver, but enough to make a decision on whether the use-of-force in any incident is

that he did not know what happened. justifiable or not.

This was sufficient PC to believe

We all know that whether the officer's actions are justifiable or not de-

defendant was the driver.

pends on the totality of the circumstances know to the officer at the time of

Affidavits:

the incident.

A defendant in a civil infraction case The real importance of this recent news article is not whether the officer's

may offer evidence of other witness- actions are justifiable or not but rather a concept that Dr. George Thompson

es through use of one or more affida- of the Verbal Judo Institute developed shortly before his death referred to as

vits. The affidavits shall be consid- "Complete Public Transparency."

ered by the court only as to the facts This concept refers to the fact that everything that an officer does will

therein that are based on the personal eventually come out to and be reviewed in the full light of day. There are no

knowledge and observation of the longer any dark alleys or dark cells, for that matter, for the officer's actions

affiant as to relevant material facts. to be hidden within.

However, the affidavits shall not be Although the change had already begun more than twenty years ago, after

admissible for the purpose of estab- the global media frenzy of the Rodney King video, it has now exploded into

lishing character or reputation.

an era of Complete Public Transparency. I posted a video showing the Rod-

Conclusion:

ney King video for our new officers who weren't around for this incident

For law enforcement the job does not that for once and all changed how law enforcement use-of-force is viewed.

end after you give the citizen their This incident and others like it created a reasonable doubt in the eyes of our

driver's license, registration and

citizens that the officer(s) may have used too much force.

copy of their citation. You must also At no time in history has police business been more public. Police re-

be prepared and armed with a good sponse, both appropriate and improper, is no longer just caught on the front

working knowledge of the Rules of page of a newspaper or on television. Police business is now being posted

Traffic Court and the applicable law on YouTube where 100,000s, even millions of people, watch it over and

in order to level the playing field. over again.

Once you gain a reputation for being Our actions are now immortal and capable of being viewed forever on the

knowledgeable, prepared and fear- Internet. This is one of the major differences in police work from a decade

less about the process you will be ago. Never before has the need for professional police conduct been more

able to put a stop to the absurd cases important.

and outcomes that seem to occur all As Dr. Thompson loved to say, "You need to look good and sound good

too often in Traffic Court.

or no good." We, the police, need to act, talk, and be more professional than

Editor's Note: This article authored by Elizabeth Parker, former Chief Assistant State Attorney, Palm Beach County. She can be reached at: Elizabeth@

ever before. Our personal and professional survival demands it.

Editor's Note: This article was authored by Gary T. Klugiewicz, for , "Klugie's Correctional Corner," November 9, 2011.

Legal Eagle

4

December 2011

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA CASE LAW UPDATE 11-07

Case: Date: Subject:

Hamilton v. State, 36 FLW D2242a (Fla. 4th DCA)

October 12, 2011

Committing a robbery with a toy gun will generally not support a conviction for the enhanced offense of "Robbery with a Weapon," even though the victim did not know the gun was not real

FACTS: Hamilton committed a robbery using a toy gun, and was subsequently convicted for Robbery with a Weapon in violation of Section 812.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes, which enhances the offense to a first degree felony. Hamilton appealed, arguing that since he used a toy gun instead of a real firearm, and therefore did not actually endanger the victim, his conviction for the first degree felony was improper.

RULING: The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant, and held that evidence that a perpetrator used a toy gun in the commission of a robbery, by itself, is insufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery with a "weapon." Accordingly, the court held that Hamilton should be convicted only of Robbery under 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes, a second degree felony.

DISCUSSION: The enhanced statute under which Hamilton was originally convicted provides that "(i)f in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree." The Standard Jury Instruction (15.1) defines a "weapon" to be "any object that could be used to cause death or inflict serious bodily harm." In this case, the prosecution was unable to introduce any evidence to show that the toy gun could be used to cause death or inflict serious bodily harm. The court acknowledged that the victim did not know that the gun was not real, and was therefore understandably placed in fear. However, "Florida courts apply an objective test and look to the nature and actual use of the instrument and not to the subjective fear of the victim or intent of the perpetrator." (Citing Williams v. State, 651 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).)

COMMENTS: The Hamilton court was careful to distinguish its decision in this case from the holding in Gomez v. State, 496 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986,) where a conviction for Robbery with a Weapon was upheld when the perpetrator used a toy gun to strike the victim several times during the robbery. In that case, the toy gun could have inflicted serious bodily harm by the way it was actually used, even though it could not fire a projectile. In this case, however, there was no evidence that the toy gun was used in a similar manner.

John E. Kemner Regional Legal Advisor Florida Department of Law Enforcement Jacksonville Regional Operations Center

Legal Eagle

5

December 2011

Recent Case Law

Probable Cause Does Not lock exit the vehicle." The 4th D.C.A. items may be contraband ... or useful

Require Certainty

disagreed and found sufficient proba- as evidence of a crime; it does not

A Broward S.O. detective was work- ble cause for an arrest.

demand any showing that such belief

ing a selective enforcement detail Issue:

be correct or more likely true than

targeting drugs and prostitution. He Were the detective's observations false. A `practical, nontechnical'

drove to a hotel where he had made sufficient to justify a stop and arrest probability that incriminating evi-

previous narcotics arrests. In the

of the defendant? Yes.

dence is involved is all that is re-

parking lot, the detective observed Probable Cause Is Not

quired.... The process does not deal

Brian Blaylock in a parked vehicle Certainty:

with hard certainties, but with prob-

with the window down. He observed Once again the 4th D.C.A. referred to abilities.... Finally, the evidence thus

Blaylock lift the open part of a soda

collected must be seen and weighed

the Florida Supreme Court's pro-

can horizontally to his mouth, while

not in terms of library analysis by

nouncement in Popple v. State (Fla.

holding a lighter to the closed end of

scholars, but as understood by those

1993), to decide the issues raised by

the soda can. Blaylock inhaled and

versed in the field of law enforce-

this appeal. Probable cause is, of

exhaled a white powdery smoke

ment." That is to say, based upon the

course, one of the three levels of

from what the detective described as

totality of the circumstances.

police-citizen encounters as outlined

a "makeshift crack pipe." During the by the Court in Popple. The first

Court's Ruling:

motion to suppress hearing, the de-

tective conceded that defendant

level is a consensual encounter, the Not only did the 4th D.C.A. find that

could have been smoking something second level involves an investigato- the detective's observations warrant-

ry stop based on reasonable suspilegal such as tobacco, but that with

ed an investigative stop, but the

the "white powdery smoke," it

cion, and the third level is an arrest court also found sufficient facts to

resembled the smoke of "crack

based on probable cause.

support probable cause for an arrest.

cocaine."

The trial court's difficulty arose "Although the trial court found that

from the detective's acknowledgeThe detective approached the ve-

the detective did not have a well-

hicle and asked defendant for identi- ment that the defendant "could have" founded suspicion of criminal activi-

been smoking something legal, fication. Blaylock appeared startled

ty, we disagree and find that the de-

and dropped the soda can on the

rather than a controlled substance. tective, in fact, had probable cause to

But absolute certainty is not refloorboard of the vehicle. The detec-

believe that a crime had been or was

tive asked him to exit the vehicle. quired. A police officer does not have being committed."

to "know" that a certain item is conThe detective retrieved the can and

"In the present case, we find that

field tested the can, which came back traband. He must only have probable there was sufficient evidence to con-

positive for cocaine. Defendant was cause to associate the property with stitute probable cause. `Probable

criminal activity. As the U.S. Suarrested and charged with possession

cause to arrest or search exists when

of cocaine.

preme Court said in Texas v. Brown, the totality of the facts and circum-

(S.Ct. 1983): The trial court granted the sup-

stances within an officer's

"[Probable cause] merely requires pression motion finding that the de-

knowledge sufficiently warrant a

tective did not have a "well founded that the facts available to the officer reasonable person to believe that,

suspicion before having Mr. Blay- would `warrant a man of reasonable more likely than not a crime has been

caution in the belief' that certain

Legal Eagle

6

December 2011

committed.' Even though the detec- nal. It merely requires that the officer bedroom to locate and retrieve the

tive in this case acknowledged that substantiate that belief with a factual gun. The search revealed a nine-

the substance, although appearing to basis bolstered by his prior experi- millimeter handgun and a magazine

emit crack cocaine smoke, could ence, knowledge, and training.

containing ten rounds of ammuni-

theoretically have been tobacco, this Once again, this requires effective tion.

is not dispositive as to whether the report writing and meaningful testi- The defendant was arrested and

detective had probable cause to be- mony at a deposition, motion hear- charged with possession of a firearm

lieve a crime was being committed. ing, and trial, to win the day.

by a convicted felon. Prior to trial he

`A police officer does not have to `know' that a certain item is contra-

State v. Blaylock 4th D.C.A. (November 16, 2011)

filed a motion to suppress both his statement to the officers and the fire-

band' in order to establish probable

cause. Thus, `a finding of probable

Public Safety

cause does not require absolute

Shortly after 1:00 a.m. two New

certitude.' We find that probable York City police officers responded

cause existed for the detective to

to a radio call that an individual had

believe that more likely than not, a a gun at a residential address. When

crime was being committed in his they arrived the officers met the

presence."

complainant, Jamar Vaz, who ex-

"The trial court recognized, de- plained that Robert Simmons, his

spite its decision to suppress, that the roommate, had displayed a silver

`crushed cola can . . . was more like- handgun during a dispute they had

ly to probably contain a narcotic, earlier. Vaz requested that the offic-

than it was to have some type of pipe ers accompany him into the apart-

tobacco.' We agree that the detective ment to retrieve his belongings.

personally observed a `crushed cola After entering the apartment, the

can' being used as a `makeshift crack officers conducted a protective

pipe,' and thus, personally observed, sweep. When they reached Sim-

`more likely than not,' a crime being mons' bedroom, the officers found

committed."

the bedroom door open, the room

"In conclusion, we find the detective dimly lit, and Simmons lying in his

properly seized the soda can contain- bed. An Officer testified that he saw

ing cocaine, based up on probable a shiny object, which he thought

cause that defendant had committed might be the gun Vaz had described,

or was committing a crime. We,

on a table next to the bed. When

therefore, reverse [the trial court's Simmons got up from his bed and

suppression order].

approached the bedroom doorway,

Lessons Learned:

the officers instructed him to show them his hands. The officers then

arm. He argued he was not read Miranda warnings prior to making the inculpatory statements and he had not consented to a search of his bedroom. The trial court denied the motions on exigency grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed. Issue: Did the exigencies of the situation excuse the officers from reading Miranda warnings? Yes.

Did the exigencies of the situation excuse the officers from obtaining a search warrant prior to the search of the bedroom for the firearm? No. Miranda and Officer/ Public Safety: It is well settled that statements obtained during a police interrogation that are not preceded by Miranda warnings cannot typically be used by the prosecution in its case in chief. However, consistent with New York v. Quarles (U.S. 1984), courts have recognized that "Miranda warnings need not precede questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety or for the safety of the

As was noted in this case, it is not asked Simmons about the dispute arresting officers for a suspect's an-

necessary for the officer to be able to with Vaz, the presence and location swers to be admitted as evidence of

testify with absolute certainty that of the gun, and whether he had a

his guilt."

the substance or actions observed license for it. Simmons responded

In Quarles the officer responded

that form the basis of his decision to that the gun was in his bedroom, at to "man with a gun" in a supermar-

arrest is in fact contraband or crimi- which point an Officer entered the ket. After subduing him and not find-

Legal Eagle

7

December 2011

ing the gun on his person the officer ence and location of the gun. It is to seal the bedroom and seek a

asked where it was and Quarles told also true, as Simmons points out, that search warrant. "We find that the

him where he hid it. That statement they asked about the dispute between circumstances facing the officers at

was used to convict him of a firearm the roommates and whether Sim- the time they searched the bedroom

offense. The U.S. Supreme Court mons had a license for the gun. The were not sufficiently exigent to fall

said, "The doctrinal underpinnings of questions about the dispute had the within this narrow exception." The

Miranda do not require that it be potential to shed light on the volatili- defendant had been removed from

applied in all its rigor to a situation ty of the situation and the extent to his bedroom, he was being coopera-

in which police officers ask ques- which Simmons harbored potentially tive, made no move to retreat back

tions reasonably prompted by a con- violent resentment toward Vaz. We into the bedroom, and the apartment

cern for the public safety. In this

are not persuaded that this limited "was full of cops."

case, so long as the gun was con- questioning was prohibitively

"Thus, before conducting the

cealed somewhere in the supermar- `investigatory in nature' or a subter- search, the officers had effectively

ket, it posed more than one danger to fuge for collecting testimonial evi- allayed the safety concerns that justi-

the public safety: an accomplice

dence." Accordingly, the Court of fied their initial questioning of Sim-

might make use of it, or a customer Appeals found the statement proper- mons and had, by exercising control

or employee might later come upon ly admitted at trial.

over a compliant occupant and the

it."

Warrantless Bedroom

surrounding premises, neutralized

In the instant case the U.S. Court Search:

any threat that Simmons or the gun

of Appeals ruled, "Applying these The Court of Appeals did not agree may have initially posed. In doing so,

principles, we affirm the district

that the bedroom search was lawful. the officers also eliminated the possi-

court's ruling that, under the public "It is a basic principle of Fourth

bility of the destruction of evidence.

safety exception, Simmons' state- Amendment law that searches and Under these circumstances, there

ments regarding the presence and seizures inside a home without a

simply was no `urgent need' to fur-

location of the gun were admissible warrant are presumptively unreason- ther search the home for the gun

at trial."

able."

without a warrant. Of course, absent

"At the time the officers entered

"An exception to the warrant re- such an urgency, the gun alone did

the apartment, based on the police quirement applies when `the exigen- not justify the officers' search of the

radio call and their discussion with cies of a situation make the needs of bedroom."

Vaz, they had a reasonable basis for law enforcement so compelling that a The Court of Appeals, relying on

believing that Simmons was home warrantless search is objectively rea- Payton v. New York (S.Ct. 1980),

and that he might have a gun, which sonable. The common theme through concluded, "Absent exigent circum-

they understood he had recently

these cases is the existence of a true stances, a warrantless entry to search

brandished. Under these potentially emergency. In determining whether for weapons or contraband is uncon-

volatile circumstances, the officers exigent circumstances exist, the core stitutional even when a felony has

had objectively reasonable safety question is whether the facts, as they been committed and there is probable

concerns when they entered the

appeared at the moment of entry,

cause to believe that incriminating

apartment and were justified in ques- would lead a reasonable, experienced evidence will be found within." The

tioning Simmons in order to assuage officer, to believe that there was an Court of Appeals suppressed the

those concerns and defuse the per- urgent need to render aid or take

firearm and the magazine as the pro-

ceived threat of violence between action."

ceeds of an unlawful search.

Vaz and Simmons. Moreover, their

The Court of Appeals found the Lessons Learned:

questions mainly concerned the pres- facts did not support a true emergen- After the volatile, exigent, circum-

cy in that the officers were equipped

Legal Eagle

8

December 2011

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download