Articles Posted in Internet and Sex Crimes

There are several things that must happen in order for you, as a criminal defendant, to receive justice. If you did nothing wrong, then you should receive an acquittal and be allowed to go on about your life. Even if you were not completely blameless, justice requires that a criminal charge you face be reflective of what you did, and nothing more. If a crime has within its definition elements that simply weren’t met in your case, then you should still be entitled to an acquittal. In order to give yourself the best chance of getting true justice from the legal system, be sure you have the power and skill of an experienced Tampa Bay criminal defense lawyer on your side.

So, what do we mean when we talk about the “elements of a crime”? Here are a couple of examples, one hypothetical and one from an actual recent case.

Hypothetically, let’s say that John Doe was spotted urinating in public. There’s no evidence that he was touching or displaying himself in a sexual manner; just that he was relieving himself in the open and that his genitals were exposed. In that scenario, an attempt by the state to charge John with exposure of sexual organs could very possibly lead to a successful motion to dismiss or motion for an acquittal by the defense. Why? Because Florida law, including Supreme Court decisions, is relatively clear that simple public nudity, without something additional (such as sexual touching or some sort of vulgar/sexual display) generally does not meet the elements of that crime. If you look at the standard jury instructions judges use in court in Florida, those instructions say that this crime requires (1) nudity and/or exposure of sexual organs, (2) in public or viewable from a public place or the property of another person and (3) that the display was (or was intended to be) “vulgar, indecent, lewd, or lascivious” in nature. In John’s case, unless the state presented more evidence, it generally would fall short of meeting that final element, so it would not be entitled to a conviction. In fact, in 1994, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled for a man charged with this crime when all he had done was urinate in public.

Sometimes, you may read in the news about a court case and have a viscerally negative reaction to the person accused of a crime. “That person is beneath contempt, so I am not sure I care if his rights were violated by the police,” some say. The problem, of course, is that once you allow the police to violate the rights of people just because they allegedly are contemptible human beings, then you potentially allow the police to violate the rights of anyone they suspect of a crime. Instead, our system establishes certain absolutes to ensure that all citizens are protected from overreach. If you or a loved are facing criminal charges, be sure you have skilled Florida criminal defense counsel to advocate for you and defend your rights.

One recent case that involved a question of fundamental constitutional rights began when police in Polk County identified an IP address that was associated with the sharing of child pornography. The police traced the IP address to a home, but discovered that none of the residents’ devices had been used to view or share child porn.

The police also discovered that the resident had not secured his network. That meant that anyone could “piggyback” off that person’s network simply by having a WiFi-enabled device and being close enough to his router. With the help of the resident, the police began monitoring that network’s usage. After that, they employed something called a “Yagi antenna,” that let them follow a signal that led them to a motorhome parked near the resident’s house. Inside, they found D. and his device, which was the one that had allegedly been used for the child pornography activities.

If you enjoy “Law and Order” or other police dramas on television, the chances are you’ve heard the words:  “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” This statement is known commonly as a Miranda warning (because it originated from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Miranda v. Arizona). In real life, the issue of a criminal suspect’s receipt of a Miranda warning can be a very important part of the case. An experienced Florida sex crime attorney can help analyze your case and determine if your rights have been violated and what that can mean for you.

One recent Tampa Bay area case in which the Miranda warning was critical was a case of the alleged molestation of a young girl. The girl told her father that her former stepfather had sexually assaulted her multiple times at a home in Palm Harbor when she was nine years old. Law enforcement in Pinellas County brought in the alleged abuser for an interview.

A detective began the interview by giving the man his Miranda warning. He went through each element of the warning, and the suspect said he understood every part. However, the man also observed, “I can’t afford a lawyer anyhow.” Without doing any more inquiry regarding whether the man understood that he was entitled to have an attorney provided to him at no cost if he wanted, the detective simply went forward with the questioning.

One of the protagonists from a famous 2009 movie encouraged others to “enjoy the little things.” In the law, it is less about enjoying the little things than it is about paying keen attention to the little things because sometimes the little things can make a huge difference in your criminal case. That was the case for one defendant who was facing sexual assault charges and who won a reversal of his conviction because the trial court, in issuing jury instructions, misstated the crime with which the state had charged the man. These and other minute but highly important details are examples of the types of areas in which experienced Florida sex crime attorneys can help you.

In the case, recently decided by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, the defendant was accused of trying to take advantage of an inebriated woman. Specifically, the defendant, the victim, and several of the defendant’s co-workers had spent the night drinking, and the victim ended up passed out in a field next to the bar’s parking lot. Eventually, several of the group got the unconscious woman to a van owned by one of the group. Even though the victim was “essentially non-responsive,” everyone except the victim went back inside the bar. After that, the defendant went back outside, purportedly to check on the victim. Then, sometime after that, the van’s owner went out to check. She discovered the victim, still largely not responsive, in a “half-naked” state and the defendant, with no pants on, standing over her.

At trial, the jury heard replays of phone calls, made by the victim but recorded by the police, during which the defendant “admitted that he attempted and probably did try to have sex” with the victim. Eventually, the case went to the jury, and the jury convicted the man. With facts like these, the case against the defendant might seem, to a layperson, to be ironclad. However, in many aspects of the law, from contract law to criminal defense, the difference between a favorable and an unfavorable outcome can be the smallest of details and knowing how to present those details to the courts. Additionally, even with alleged facts that are offensive and potentially triggering for some, the law still requires that all defendants receive a trial that comports with all of the fundamental elements of fairness.

When you (or a friend or relative) are facing a criminal trial, there are lots of ways in which the prosecution can make mistakes. The state can bring a case that is too old (in other words, outside the statute of limitations), that is based upon illegally obtained evidence (proof that is barred under the Fourth Amendment), or that violates your constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Two cases, one from here in the Tampa Bay area (recently decided by the Second District Court of Appeal) and one from across the state (decided earlier this year by the Fifth District Court of Appeal), present two different scenarios in which the state can stack charges in a way that violates double jeopardy.

A Single Criminal Episode and Double Jeopardy

The nearby case, which originated in Pasco County, involved a man, a travel trailer, and a firearm. Cecil Lambert stood accused of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. All of these charges arose from an exchange outside a travel trailer on land that Lambert owned. Lambert allegedly shot at one man and also placed his gun against the head of a woman, pulling the trigger only to have the gun jam. At his trial, the jury did not find Lambert guilty of any homicide crime. Instead, on the murder charges, the jury decided to convict on two counts of “improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon,” which was a lesser included offense. The jury did, however, convict on the concealed firearm charge. Lambert received a sentence of time served on the improper exhibition convictions and five years on the concealed weapon charge.

Lambert appealed and won. The problem with his verdict related to the pair of improper exhibition convictions. The facts in this case clearly showed a single instance of Lambert wielding his gun in the presence of his victims. In some cases, having multiple victims can mean a possible conviction on multiple charges, but not in this circumstance. The illegal-exhibition statute expressly used the language “in the presence of one or more persons.” That wording meant that, if the accused person engages in one act of exhibiting his weapon, that translates to one count of improper exhibition, regardless of the number of victims involved. Therefore, even though Lambert exhibited his weapon in front of more than one victim, he only brandished it once, so he could only be guilty of one count. By stacking two counts of illegal exhibition based upon this one single criminal episode, the state violated Lambert’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Continue reading

A blurb from the ever popular Thesmokinggun.com website shows how one woman’s anger towards another resulted in a felony charge of aggravated stalking.  The allegations?  That she set up a fake profile of someone she knew on Plenty of Fish asking men to rape her as part of role play…

39-year-old Frances Lee Tapscott of Largo,  is in Pinellas County jail on a $10,000 bond, charged with one count of aggravated stalking.  With the help of a friend, Ms. Tapscott made a fake plenty of fish profile of a real girl, complete with her real pictures and contact information.  The victim, a 25-year-old woman, was made out in the fake profile as a woman who fantasized about rape scenarios.  Calling it role play, the fake site begged men to come over to her given address and rape her!

According to the complaint, “The fake profile contained a request for an individual to come over and rape the victim, stating that she liked to ‘role play,’”.

This one will be hard to explain… a Tampa man has been arrested on multiple charges after being found in bed with a 10-year-old boy by the boy’s mother!

The importance of being Ernest…just not with a child. 25-year-old Ernest Johnson of Tampa was arrested Monday on multiple charges including burglary of an occupied dwelling, possession of burglary tools and lewd and lascivious molestation.

Per a police report, Tampa PD was called out after 4:30 a.m. for a reported burglary. The victim’s mother told police that she found a man naked inside her minor son’s bed!

“I turned his light for his room, I see that face,” said the boy’s mother. “He was laying in the bed. Like normal, like it was his bed.” She woke Johnson by hitting him multiple times, jarring him awake.

The man leaped out of her son’s bed, dived out of the same window he forcibly entered and was gone before the police arrived. Using a K9 unit, police were able to track down Johnson and make an arrest.

The man appeared in Hillsborough county court Monday morning and was denied bond. A brief look at his prior criminal record did not show that he was on a sex offender registry. It does appear however, that the defendant has a prior exposing himself to a minor charge out of Sarasota where he was given almost one year in county.

In addition, this new arrest seems to have violated his probation for another charge.

Not even counting what a violation of probation charge may do to him, these new allegations are extremely serious. Burglary of an occupied dwelling, (Florida statute 810.02(3)) is a second degree felony, punishable by up to 15years in prison and it will score mandatory prison time.

The L&L, depending on how it is filed, can be anywhere from a second degree felony all the way up to LIFE in prison! In addition, a conviction under this statute will result in mandatory registration as a sex offender/predator.

The defendant may have some mental health issues as he had previously violated parole by not receiving mental health treatment. If this is so, he may have possible competency defenses depending on the nature of any mental illness.
Continue reading

Didn’t Tom Cruise star in an 80’s movie with this same plot? Per USA Today two Florida teens were arrested for their part in a local “Risky Business” prostitution ring in Sarasota…

Venice, Florida police made two arrests, a 17-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, who are considered the “leaders” of a prostitution ring which involved three Sarasota high schools.

Per the police, the crime started in August when the two students formed the criminal enterprise. They used fellow students, all female in a scheme that involved multiple high schools and cities.

The two teens have been charged with human trafficking. Why did they do it? “The motive behind it: money and alcohol. Trading money and alcohol for sex,” says a police spokesman.

Police began their investigation in the fall after several students tipped off the school resource officer to the prostitution ring.

The police, using a search warrant, got on the Sarasota student’s facebook account and found a rudimentary business plan. Their were prices set up for various acts along with set rules. For instance, their was an agreement that the prostitutes got 40 percent!

The facebook account also showed the partners writing to themselves, often showing no regard for the young girls they were prostituting. “Why pimp out old hoes when I have fresh young hoes I can give up for money?” the female Sarasota High student wrote in a Facebook exchange to her business partner. She continued, “As long as I’m getting paid I’m trafficking all these (expletive deleted).”

The students used facebook accounts to set up meetings with the “Johns”. This led police to 21-year-old John Mosher. Mosher (pictured), was charged with sexual battery on a victim older then 12. The police claim he paid a 15 year-old $40 and a bottle of alcohol for sex.

During police interviews, students admitted that at least three prostitution deals got done by using facebook and snap chat accounts. School administrators were not commenting other then saying no sex acts took place on school property.
Continue reading