George Zimmerman's Attorneys Seeking Costs

The latest in the Zimmerman saga: his attorneys are seeking to have such costs as depositions and expert witness fees expended in the course of defending his case reimbursed by the State of Florida post-verdict.  The entire article (as published in USA Today) can be found here.

In the instance you or someone you know is in need of legal counsel, contact a criminal defense attorney.

Fourth Amendment Nullified By the Supreme Court

On June 3, 2013  the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King (12-207) that “When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” (at 28) 

The 5-4 majority opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Breyer. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

It is the opinion of the majority, as is evidenced above, that upon arrest we have not 4th Amendment right (against search and seizure) to prevent DNA testing.




In the dissent (written by Scalia) he stated:

"The most regrettable aspect of the suspicionless search that occurred here is that it proved to be quite unnecessary. All parties concede that it would have been entirely permissible, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, for Maryland to take a sample of King’s DNA as a consequence of his conviction for second-degree assault. So the ironic result of the Court’s error is this: The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who have been acquitted of the crime of arrest (so that their DNA could not have been taken upon conviction). In other words, this Act manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth Amendment’s protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who are innocent of the State’s accusations."

Scalia concluded stating:

 “ ... I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. I therefore dissent, and hope that today’s incursion upon the Fourth Amendment, like an earlier one, will some day be repudiated.”

The link to the case can be found here. If you have been arrested in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach or Broward County, you can find your attorney here.

FLORIDA CIVIL THEFT

www.TheMiamiDefender.com

While my practice is predominately criminal I started in civil litigation and an area that I really think can help people in terms of prompting wrong-doers attempting to separate them from their money and/or services is the "Florida Civil Theft" Statute.  The Statute states as follows:

772.11 Civil remedy for theft or exploitation.—

(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured in any fashion by reason of any violation of ss. 812.012-812.037 or s. 825.103(1) has a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Before filing an action for damages under this section, the person claiming injury must make a written demand for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages under this section. If the person to whom a written demand is made complies with such demand within 30 days after receipt of the demand, that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability for the specific act of theft or exploitation by the person making the written demand. Any person who has a cause of action under this section may recover the damages allowed under this section from the parents or legal guardian of any unemancipated minor who lives with his or her parents or legal guardian and who is liable for damages under this section. Punitive damages may not be awarded under this section. The defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney’s fees and costs under this section, the court may not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. This section does not limit any right to recover attorney’s fees or costs provided under any other law.

(2) For purposes of a cause of action arising under this section, the term “property” does not include the rights of a patient or a resident or a claim for a violation of such rights.

(3) This section does not impose civil liability regarding the provision of health care, residential care, long-term care, or custodial care at a licensed facility or care provided by appropriately licensed personnel in any setting in which such personnel are authorized to practice.

(4) The death of an elderly or disabled person does not cause the court to lose jurisdiction of any claim for relief for theft or exploitation when the victim of the theft or exploitation is an elderly or disabled person.

(5) In a civil action under this section in which an elderly or disabled person is a party, the elderly or disabled person may move the court to advance the trial on the docket. The presiding judge, after consideration of the age and health of the party, may advance the trial on the docket. The motion may be filed and served with the civil complaint or at any time thereafter.

 

This statute essentially states that should someone have "defrauded" you of an asset/money(s) which is/are rightfully yours, you may send a letter containing the aforementioned verbiage from the statute (cited above) via certified mail (return receipt requested) and should said party NOT return your money(s) owed within the 30 (thirty) day period proscribed by the statute, you may thereafter file suit for triple the amount owed, attorney fees, and costs.

 

This statute helps to avail those wronged by a party who may otherwise have no incentive to return expropriated money as it carries the weight of potentially paying TRIPLE.  Should you desire to further explore the potential for treble damages in your case contact our office and we can set up a free initial consultation.