Murphy v. State; November 20, 2009; 2nd DCA
Murphy was charged with Trafficking in Cocaine and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The facts state that the Officer responded to a domestic violence incident at an apartment complex. A bystander told the officer “the guy that you are looking for, he’s right over there”, pointing in the direction between two buildings. Officer made eye contact with Murphy and Murphy proceeded to run away from the Officer. Officer gave chase to Murphy and eventually tasered Murphy. Murphy fell about ten (10) feet away from the vehicle. There was an allegation that a firearm was involved in the domestic violence incident. No firearm was found on Murphy during the takedown. Officers were then told that Murphy left the scene in a purple Stratus and Murphy eventually returned in the same vehicle. Officer then conducted a search of the vehicle without consent or a warrant and found the cocaine. After the search the officer then proceeded to speak with the bystander who told him that he was unsure that Murphy had been armed.
The search was found to be illegal based upon the fact that the law provides that a search incident to lawful arrest must be confined “the area within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the arrest and only when the arrestee is unsecured”. Also, a search incident to lawful arrest will be justified “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle”.
For more information, please contact the Law Offices of Nayib Hassan, P.A.
Nayib Hassan will often post examples of cases that could support your defense. He is committed to research that maybe beneficial to his clients. Here is one such case:
Brooks v. State of Florida; November 18, 2009; 2nd DCA
Brooks was seen riding a bicycle in the early morning. The victim contacted 911 stating that he observed a suspicious person outside of his home. About ten minutes later victim saw Brooks jump the fence and flee the scene where a shed was located. Brooks ran in the direction of the police officer. Upon contact with law enforcement, Brooks was found wearing gloves and carrying a flashlight. Additionally, outside the shed was a crowbar. In this case, the fact that the crowbar was found outside the shed and by the bicycle did not support a conviction for possession of burglary tools. The shed was open and there was no evidence supporting the use of the crowbar into the shed or the fenced in area. As for the flashlight, there was no evidence showing that the flashlight was used to see inside the shed or commit a crime. Brooks conviction for Possession of Burglary Tools was overturned.
For more information, please contact the Law Offices of Nayib Hassan, P.A.
Nayib Hassan worked aggressively on a case where recently armed robbery charges were dropped with the alleged victim pleading to the government that the incident actually transpired. Mr. Hassan was able to demonstrate that reasonable doubt existed to the government and charges were dropped after a lengthy and aggressive 68 day battle with the government. Let Mr. Hassan handle your criminal defense case. Contact his office for immediate assistance.
Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer and Resisting with Violence Case Dismissed.
Nayib Hassan P.A. aggressively represented a client in which the charges involved Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer and Resisting with Violence. After taking the sworn statement of a witness to the incident and taking the deposition of the two officers involved in the incident, Mr. Hassan was able to successfully have the State dismiss the charges against his client. If you or someone you know is in a similar situation or need an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney, contact our office immediately for a consultation.
Mr. Hassan was able to aggressively represent a client in a 2nd degree grand theft case. The State was seeking for the client to serve time in State prison, but Mr. Hassan had the case ultimately DISMISSED. Through extensive research and follow-up investigation, Mr. Hassan was able to successfully find issues with the case and able to convince the government that the case was actually a 3rd degree Grand Theft rather than the government’s initial erroneous finding that the case involved a 2nd degree Grand Theft. As a 3rd degree Grand Theft, Mr. Hassan was able to place his client into a pre-trial diversion and have the case ultimately DISMISSED without the client having to undergo a lengthy trial or serve any time in State Prison.
