Case: State of Florida v. K.S. (Dade County Criminal Case)

Charge: Violation of Community Control underlying charge Grand Theft 1st Degree

Facts:

Dade County Criminal Violation of Community Control accusation. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired from an out of county defendant (Orange County) He had a hold on him in Orange County for a Violation of Community Control stemming from 6 counts of technical violations. He scored 39.7 months Florida State Prison at the bottom of the guideline sentencing sheet. The offer when we initially appeared in court was 39.7 months and they were unwilling to negotiate. After receiving the discovery packet Bradford noticed an error in the date on the Affidavit of violation. Essentially, the Officer stated on the affidavit that the Defendant was placed on Community Control on the wrong date. It was not a minor mistake, as if that date was correct, then the violation would have occurred outside the punishment date. Bradford argued that it could not be corrected by an amendment, as warrant was issued based on the faulty information. Similarly to a search warrant issued on faulty information. You cannot correct it by simply amending the affidavit. Bradford discussed the matter further with the Supervisor for the Division.

Result:

After the discussion with the Supervisor of the Criminal Division, she saw the logic to the argument and was willing to reinstate the Defendant to supervised release. The Criminal Division Supervisor in the division should be commended for weighing the negatives and positives about the argument and offering a fair resolution. Defendant was released that day on those charges.

Case: State v. K.L.

Charge: Trafficking in Oxycodone 14 to 28 grams (Pain Clinic)

Facts:

This criminal case revolved around a South Florida "pill mill" or Pain Clinic. The client departed from a pain clinic with approx. 250 pills of oxycodone. Once in the car he allegedly handed a portion over to the driver. That driver allegedly counted out a portion and placed them in another container in the center console. They left the area. A drug task force pulled the car over for a "traffic infraction" and began asking questions regarding prescriptions. Based on those answers they asked to search the vehicle, the pills in the center console were found and more incriminating statements were made by our client. We moved to suppress the statements and result of the search based on the lack of Miranda. Essentially, we argued that although stopped for a "traffic infraction", the Officer's knew they were conducting a criminal investigation due to their earlier observations, and stated such in their deposition. As such, they should have advised the Defendant of his rights.

Result:

Motion to Suppress GRANTED. Case DISMISSED no appeal from the State.

Case: Florida v. S.L.

Charge: Tax Fraud; Grand Theft of State Funds

Facts:

The State of Florida brought charges against Bradford's client for essentially theft of State Funds. The State had witnesses that said?his client was responsible to pay the taxes for his auto sales business and he was the only signature on the checking accounts for the corp. The client was also president of the corp. and was the individual signor for the auto dealers license. The State alleged that his corporation owed over $45,000.00 in back taxes. They also alleged he bounced checks (bad check)to the State. We raised issues with the amount involved, the signature on the checks, the method in which the State criminally charges individuals with crimes allegedly committed by the corporation as well as, the identity of the individually truly in charge of paying the State taxes for the corporation. Specifically, in questioning the "tax auditor" from the State, we questioned his expertise in the area of taxes and finance. It was revealed he obtained his undergrad degree in "arts and science" with a major in psychology. He never obtained a degree or specialized in the field of tax prior to getting the Job with the state. "Good enough for Government work" became the mantra of the criminal case. We announced ready for trial after Bradford (who majored in Finance) meticulously went over all the records, amounts, signatures and facts and found huge flaws in the State's case. The Defendant had to obtain a NOT GUILTY in order to stay in this country as he was a foreigner on a VISA

Result:

The client could settle for nothing less then a NOT GUILTY. On the day of trial the State approached the Defense and offered to settle for literally pennies on the dollar and a DISMISSAL of all criminal charges.

Case: State of Florida v. D.K.

Charge: Driving Under the Influence over a .20 with property damage

Facts:

Defendant was at a closed gate in the port of Fort Lauderdale Florida. The stopping Officer testified that the vehicle had hit the gate causing damage. He pulled the Defendant out of the vehicle and smelled a slight odor of an alcoholic beverage, he was unsteady on his feet and did not know where he was in Fort Lauderdale. He also stated that the car was never moved at any point. The DUI task force unit was called in to conduct a DUI investigation. Ultimately the Defendant was arrested and agreed to provide a breath sample. That sample came back as a .213, almost three times the legal limit. After a review of the video tape and supporting documents, Bradford filed a Motion to Suppress the stop as illegal.

Result:

The Motion was GRANTED. On the video tape you could clearly see the Officers walking around the car, it was impossible that it was up against the gate as the Officer testified. Further there was no accident report, no pictures of the alleged damage, and no corroboration from any of the other officers as to the "accident." The Judge cited a severe conflict in testimony as the basis for her GRANTING the Motion to Suppress.

Case: State of Florida vs. B.R.

Charge: Possession of Paraphernalia, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Marijuana and Possession of a controlled substance.

Facts:

This Criminal case revolved around a Defendant that was staying at a Hotel in Broward County Florida. The Officers testimony was that she was on routine patrol and pulled into the Hotel parking lot. She testified that she did not block the Defendant's car. She noticed the Defendant exiting his room and smelled what she testified to as "the strong odor of marijuana." The BSO Deputy stated on cross examination that the odor was that of "fresh" marijuana as opposed to burnt. Defendant approached his car and was stopped by the officer for what she considered a "consensual encounter." During this alleged encounter the Deputy testified that she asked the Defendant is there was any drugs in his car, to which he allegedly replied, "there is some weed in the center console." After that point the Defendant was placed in cuffs and asked if they could search his room. He allegedly said "yes." The room was searched and cocaine and other narcotics were found in the Hotel Room. There was absolutely no marijuana found in the room. The Defendant was transported to Jail.

The Deputies version of events made no sense whatsoever. Upon further investigation it was discovered that there were a minimum of 4 officers involved in this "consensual encounter." On cross examination the Deputy stated that although she never heard the Miranda warnings read, one of the other Deputies told her he read it to him. She did not know that Deputies name. When asked who requested for permission to search the car and room, she again said she did not know, but one of the Deputies told her. Her testimony was completely unbelievable. From her statement that she was wandering around a Hotel parking lot at 4:30 pm with 4 other Deputies to the "strong smell of fresh cut marijuana" coming from the Defendants room. (where no marijuana was found) All Testimony was taken at a Motion to Suppress. At the end of her testimony the court made the statement the "I just don't believe her."

Result:

Motion to Suppress was GRANTED all physical evidence and statements were excluded from trial. As a result of that the State Attorney DISMISSED all charges against the Defendant. This Deputy should be embarrassed by the testimony she gave to the court, her lack of knowledge of the law, her preparedness for court and her veracity for truthfulness. The Judge on the other hand Broward County Judge Tobin-Singer should be complimented for her candidness and proper decision.

Case: State of Florida vs. Scott Storch

Charge: Grand Theft

Facts:

Record Producer Scott Storch hired Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Lawyer, for a Grand Theft case revolving around a leased Bentley Flying Spur. The vehicle was allegedly rented by the Defendant on or about August 2004. The lease terms were for 36 months, plus the initial month of use. The lease payments were $4,200.00 per month with an initial deposit of $51,000.00. The approx. value of the vehicle at the time of the lease was $200,000.00. The leasing company alleged that Mr. Storch failed to return the vehicle at the end of the lease.

The allegations went on to state that at the end of the lease, the leasing company sent out a "7 day Notice" pursuant to Florida Statute. According to Florida Statute, 7 days after the certified letter is mailed a formal police report can be filed. The Leasing company allegedly sent out the letter September 2nd, 2008 and filed the police report September 9th, 2008. One of the problems with the case was that the certified return receipt was dated October 26th, 2008, over a month after the police report was filed. Essentially, they reported the car stolen prior to giving the Defendant notice, pursuant to Florida Statute. The other issue was that Mr. Storch did not have custody and control of the automobile at end of the lease. It was in the possession of a third party. That party was identified to the leasing company and the car was eventually recovered.

Result:

After discussing the case at length with the State Attorney, providing case law and filing a Motion to Dismiss on failure to adhere to the Florida Statute, the State DISMISSED all charges against Mr. Storch.

Case: State of Florida vs. M.M.

Charges:

2 Counts of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, 2 Counts of Resisting with Violence and 2 Counts of Resisting without Violence

Facts:

This Fort Lauderdale Criminal matter was interesting because this was the same client we walked on gun charges several months ago. Since Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen, obtained the NOT GUILTY on the charges of Aggravated Assault with a firearm on a 2 Law Enforcement Officers, the client complained he was being harassed. We instructed him to put up cameras at his house and record any and all activity. He followed my instructions and installed the system. Several days later an officer said his brother was speeding and playing his music too loud. He followed him to the Defendant's house and unluckily for the officer parked right in front of the camera. He then took some 45+ minutes to write a speeding and loud music citation. After he finished he asked the Defendant's brother to sign the infractions. When the Defendant's brother stated "I wasn't playing my radio at all," the officer arrested him for refusing to sign the infraction. At that point my client yelled "that's bullshit." The officer placed the Defendant's brother in the police cruiser and said to the Defendant, "this isn't Haiti, boy" and chased the Defendant. The Defendant ran into his home and the Officer kicked the door several times, leaving boot marks on the door. The Officer left, only to come back the next day and write citations for the vehicles parked on the Defendants front lawn. When the Defendant asked the Officer what he was doing, the Officer placed the Defendant under arrest, charging him with resisting without violence and obstruction for the day previous, 2 counts of Battery on a law enforcement officer and 2 counts of Resisting with violence.

We immediately set the Officer for Deposition and filed an internal affairs complaint. Of course Internal Affairs did not find calling an African American 22 year old man "boy" and saying "this isn't Haiti" a violation of conduct.

The officer showed to deposition and in our eyes perjured himself several times by saying he would use the term "boy" when addressing an African American. He also stated facts that were not present on the video tapes.

Result:

Bradford set the matter for JURY TRIAL. The week before trial the State offered a plea deal to time served to a Disorderly Conduct charge. It was rejected. The Friday before trial, the State called and DISMISSED all counts of the information. This is the 2nd NOT GUILTY or DISMISSAL the Defendant has received on the cases our offices have handled for him.

Criminal Case: State of Florida vs. K.H.

Charge: Trafficking in Oxycodone and Conspiracy to Traffic (Minimum Mandatory Prison Sentence pursuant to Florida Statute 893)

Facts: This Criminal matter stems from another South Florida Pain Clinic Criminal Investigation. In this case, the Officers were staking out a Pain Clinic that was reported to have drug transactions in the parking lot of their establishment. While staking out the location, they observed the Defendant obtain US Currency from an individual in a parked car, go inside the establishment and re-emerge with a prescription bag. He then handed the co-defendant a prescription bottle. The co-defendant drove off in his car and the Defendant left in a separate vehicle. The Officers stated that they followed the two cars separately and observed traffic infractions. They testified that even without the traffic infractions, they were going to pull over the Defendants based on what they had observed. They pulled over the Defendant and co-defendant separately. In regards to my client, they asked him to get out of the vehicle and asked a series of questions. The Officers asked if they could look in the center console. The Defendant replied "yes, I have nothing to hide". In the center console they found several prescription bottles all labeled with the Defendant's information. The officers realized that one of the bottles containing 80 pills was missing. Simultaneously, the co-defendants vehicle was stopped and searched. In the search that ensued the officers found the missing 80 pills in the glove box with my client's (Defendant) name on it. After Miranda was read to the Defendant, he stated that he "owed" the pills to the co-defendant from the month prior and was just paying him back. The State of Florida, Broward County filed 2 counts against both Defendant's with a minimum mandatory prison sentence of 3 years to a maximum of 60 years.

I filed a MOTION TO SUPRESS the statement given to the police, based on issues surrounding the criminal investigation taking place without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The co-defendant's lawyer also filed a Motion to Suppress based on the stop and search. This is where it gets ugly. On the day of the Motion to Suppress hearing, the State Attorney offers the co-defendant a deal to "flip" or testify against my client. Essentially, this was a no win situation for me. If I won the Motion to Suppress, my clients statements would be thrown out. But, if the co-defendant flipped then it wouldn't make a difference, because he would make incriminating statements against my client anyway, as part of his deal. The only chance we would have is if we both went forward with our Motions to Suppress. The co-defendant did not want to take the chance and wanted to take the deal. The State Attorney essentially told my client there was no deal for him.

RESULT: After speaking to the Police outside the courtroom, the State Attorney, as well as the Division Supervisor, and going over the facts multiple times, we were able to negotiate a change of charge and a probationary sentence. The Defendant (my client) did not have to co-operate in anyway or "flip" on anyone. The Officers (Davie Police Dept.) and State Attorney in this matter should be commended for doing the right thing on this case.

Older Victories