Drug Crimes Case Results (Part 2)

Internal Reference #1070

DRUG TRAFFICKING

Facts : On the above date, Officer F was investigating a crime stopper complaint of an indoor marijuana grow at the location. The crime stopper stated that the defendant currently has an indoor marijuana crow, which consists of a minimum of 24 marijuana plants in the upper left section of the house.

At approximately 1330 hours, Officer F entered the property through the unlocked gate, and approached the front door to make contact with the resident. When Officer F approached the front door, he could immediately smell the odor of raw marijuana coming from the inside of the house.

After getting the smell, Agent K knocked on the door in an attempt to make contact with a residence. When this was unsuccessful, Officer F backed away from the door and wrote a search warrant for the residence. While Officer F was writing the search warrant, the defendant arrived at the residence and advised that he lived at the residence. The defendant was detained at the scene.

Officer F was able to get a search warrant signed for the property, at which time Officer F used the defendant’s keys to enter the residence and secure the property. Officer F then had a crime scene technician photograph the property, while Officer F conducted a search of the property. The search resulted in the following findings:

- A total of 33 marijuana plants growing in the southwest rooms.

- Several five gallon buckets, and plastic tubs, containing processed marijuana, marijuana stalks, and marijuana shake.

- Scales, Baggies, and packaging materials used in the packing and sale of illegal narcotics.

The marijuana that was recovered from the house field-tested positive for marijuana using a Duquenois Levine test kit. The marijuana and all other evidence will be turned into evidence and an addendum probable cause affidavit will follow with the official weight of the processed marijuana.

Based on the above Facts, Officer F found probable cause to charge the defendant with Cultivation of Marijuana. If the weight later exceeds, (25) pounds, the defendant will be charged with Trafficking in Marijuana. The defendant was turned over to jail.

On the initial probable cause affidavit and rough arrest the defendant was charged with Cultivation of Marijuana due to the unknown weight of the marijuana that was recovered. Since this time, all marijuana has been weighed and the weight exceeded the 25-pound weight, which is needed for trafficking.

The total weight of the raw marijuana plants was 11.8 pounds, and the remaining marijuana buds, dried plants, and clippings weighed 38.75 pounds. It should be noted, Officer F did not add in the weight of the hash or marijuana seeds as there weight was mostly packaging. The above weight included packaging, but Officer F knows from prior training and experience with Marijuana grow cases that the weight far exceeded the 25 pound limit and removing the packaging would not bring the weight below 25 pounds.

Based on the above, Officer F is upgrading the defendants charge to Trafficking in Marijuana.

The defendant was initially arrested and charged with

1.Cultivation of Marijuana but after the marijuana was weighed at 78 pounds over the 25 pound limit, the charge was upgraded to Trafficking in Marijuana.

Process: The defendant had initially retained another attorney, but the defendant was unhappy with that attorney when the only result that he could acquire was a conviction and a three year Florida State Prison sentence . Mr. Foley accepted the case, reviewed the applicable case law, reviewed pictures of the scene, and took depositions. After final review, Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Suppress. The state then offered to reduce the charges to Cultivation and offered the defendant a withhold of adjudication and two years of probation. The chances of winning the motion were great but definitely not 100%. If Mr. Foley went forward on the motion, and it was denied, the defendant would be required to accept a three-year prison sentence. Therefore, the client requested that Mr. Foley not go forward with the motion because he believed that the two years of probation was a fair compromise.

Result:

Marijuana Drug Trafficking –that carried a three year minimum prison sentence was reduced to Cultivation of Marijuana (third degree felony), withhold of adjudication, and two years of probation


Internal Reference #1086

Facts : The defendant was charged with Possession of Cocaine

Results : Case dismissed


Internal Reference #1089

Facts : The defendant was actively engaged in living off of the earnings of two prostitutes at a motel. According to one of the prostitutes, the defendant collected a percentage of her daily earnings from her prostitution activities and also paid for the hotel room where these activities occurred. The defendant also carried a firearm to protect both of the prostitutes should any clients cause problems. The defendant was in possession of a Revolver.

Charges:

Deriving Proceeds from Prostitution (796.05)

Possession/Use Firearm During Felony (790.07.2)

Process: Mr. Foley contacted the state attorneys office and was immediately able to have the Firearm charge dismissed. The remaining charge of Deriving Proceeds from Prostitution went to felony court. Mr. Foley filed an open plea with the court (negotiating directly with the judge, rather then the state attorney). The defendant received 1 year of non-reporting probation.

Results :

Deriving Proceeds from Prostitution (796.05) – 1-year non-reporting probation

Possession/Use Firearm During Felony (790.07.2) - Dismissed


Internal Reference #1110

Facts : Officer S was driving a marked K-9 Unit eastbound on a road. There were approximately three other vehicles traveling eastbound in the immediate area, and they had a green traffic signal. The defendant suddenly appeared driving a Hyundai. The defendant was traveling approximately 80 to 90 miles per hour approaching a red traffic signal. Miraculously Officer S and the other traffic saw the defendant and stopped before entering the intersection. They narrowly avoided being seriously injured or killed by the incredibly dangerous defendant.

Officer S turned southbound and attempted to catch up to the defendant to initiate a traffic stop. Officer S could see the defendant in the distance as he slowed upon reaching a curve and railroad crossing. The defendant was still traveling well in excess of the speed limit and his vehicle became airborne over the railroad tracks, causing him to fly over into the opposite lanes of traffic. Officer S notified dispatch, requesting the assistance of a sheriff’s helicopter to help locate and stop the dangerous defendant. The defendant displayed a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property in the area.

The defendant ran another red light before Officer S was able to catch up and pull behind him. Officer S activated his emergency lights and siren commanding him to immediately pull over and stop as required by law. The defendant refused, instead turning westbound and ramming a large gate protecting an overflow parking lot. The defendant drove thru the large lot to the north side where he was trapped by parked cars, concrete barriers, and a barbed wire fence. The defendant bailed out diving out of the driver’s open window. The defendant left his vehicle in gear and driverless.

When Officer S attempted to arrest the defendant he violated resisted arrest. He refused to obey Officer S’s commands to stop or a sheriff’s work dog would be deployed to arrest him. The defendant continually screamed out “battle yells” and displayed “super-strength” appearing under the influence of both alcohol and illegal drugs. The defendant refused to be handcuffed, continually utilizing the following illegal, unlawful, and violent tactics: Ripping his hands free, attempting to bite Officer S’s forearms and hands, knocking Officer S to the ground, violently shoving and pushing Officer S, grabbing Officer S, and attempting to break free. Officer S’s work dog was deployed to assist, attempting to apprehend the defendant to protect Officer S and prevent his escape. The defendant violently gouged at his work dogs eyes and mouth; unlawfully striking a sheriff’s work dog engaged in the lawful performance of duty apprehending a violent felon. During the defendant’s violent attack, Officer S’s firearms holster became unlocked, and his uniform pants/shoes were covered in dirt from where the defendant knocked him to the ground several times.

After the defendant was finally handcuffed, the defendant began yelling he was on LSD, acid, marijuana, alcohol, and other pills. The defendant candidly asked if Officer S found his “cannabis” in the trunk, advising he sells the illegal drug. (A inventory of the defendant’s vehicle prior to tow revealed a sandwich bag of marijuana along with a scale, test weight, and numerous additional baggies for sale/ Field tested positive)

The defendant drove recklessly on city streets running red lights at incredible speeds. The defendant rammed a gate upon sight of law enforcement to escape, casing damage to the gate and vehicle. The defendant bailed out and attempted to flee on foot, violent resisting arrest and battering both a uniformed deputy sheriff and a sheriff’s work dog attempting to lawfully arrest him. The defendant possessed illegal narcotics, a scale, test weight, and baggies for sale. These items, along with the defendants unsolicited admission he sells drugs, are consistent with a drug dealer and not for personal use.

The defendant advised the LSD caused him to have hallucinations that people were trying to kill him, and that is why he was recklessly driving and resisting arrest. The defendant advised he had a “bad trip” (street vernacular for a bad reaction to the LSD causing his behavior)

The defendant was arrested and charged with:

Battery On Officer (784.07-2b)

Damage Prop- Felony Criminal Mischief 1000 dolls or more (806.13-1b3)

Marijuana- Sell, Man//Del or Possession/w Int Cannabis (893.13-1a2(1C7)

Resist Officer- With Violence (843.01)

Public Order crimes – Touch Strike Cause Harm Police (843.19-3)

Moving Traffic Violation – Reckless Drive Damage Person or Property (316.192-3c1)

Charges:

Resist officer with violence

Felony criminal mischief -

Possession of Cannabis

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Reckless Driving

Battery on Officer – Reduced to resisting officer with violence

Results :

Battery On Officer (784.07-2b) – Dismissed

Damage Prop- Crim Misch 1000 dolls or more (806.13-1b3) – Withhold of Adjudication

Marijuana- Sell, Man//Del or Possession/w Int Cannabis (893.13-1a2(1C7) – Reduced to Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana Under 20 Grams

Resist Officer With Violence (843.01) – Withhold of Adjudication

Public Order crimes – Touch Strike Cause Harm Police (843.19-3) - Dismissed

Moving Traffic Violation – Reckless Drive Damage Person or Property (316.192-3c1) – Withhold of Adjudication

Defendant received 2 years of probation on counts 1 through 5 to run concurrent (1 year on Misdemeanors)


Internal Reference # 1113

Facts : The defendant was arrested and charged with Possession/Sale/Deliver of Cocaine and Possession of Marijuana less than 20 grams. The defendant was sentenced to probation. Sometime thereafter the defendant violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to 72 months Florida State Prison. The court ordered that the defendant complete a boot camp and if the boot camp was completed, the sentence would be converted to probation. Although an order directing the defendant to attend a boot camp was submitted to the department of corrections, the defendant was never transferred to boot camp. The previous attorney never followed up and/or communicated with the family and the defendant was never transferred to boot camp. While waiting to attend boot camp, the defendant was stabbed in jail multiple times and is now not eligible to attend boot camp due to the serious natures of his injuries. Mr. Foley took on the case and filed a motion to mitigate sentence, requested a hearing, explained to the court the errors that had occurred, and that the defendant never actually went to boot camp and that the defendant had been stabbed multiple times now and the injuries were so severe that he could not enter into boot camp. Mr. Foley requested that the defendants prison sentence be converted to probation immediately and the court granted said motion.

Results : Possession of Cocaine – Prison sentence converted to a probationary sentence.


Internal Reference #1114

Facts : The defendant was arrested and charged with Possession of Heroin

Results : Possession of Heroin - Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1121

Facts : On 4/30 at approximately 0352 hours, Officer K conducted a traffic stop on a car for failure to maintain a single lane and speeding. Officer K observed the vehicle traveling west on a road at a high rate of speed. Officer K sped up to within a safe distance behind the vehicle and began to pace clock the vehicle with his marked police unit. The vehicle was traveling 65 MPH in a posted 45 MPH zone. The vehicle was in the left lane and entered into the center lane multiple times with its passenger side tires only and then back into the left lane. The vehicle also drove left of the left lane nearly striking the raised median multiple times.

Officer K made contact with the driver of the vehicle and later identified him as the defendant by his Florida Driver License. While speaking to the defendant, Officer k could detect an odor of an obvious alcoholic beverage emitting from his facial area as he spoke to the officer. Officer K also observed the defendant to have glassy bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. While speaking to the defendant through the driver side window of the vehicle, Officer K could see the defendant had a small clear bag in his right hand with a white powder contents. Officer K recognized this to be suspect cocaine. Officer K requested that the defendant step out of the vehicle an as he did he dropped the bag on the driver seat. Officer K noticed the defendant sway from side to side as they spoke The defendant advised he is not taking any medication and is not under a doctors care at this time.

Due to Officer K’s observations of the defendant and his driving pattern, Officer K requested a DUI camera respond to his location due to him now conducting a dui investigation. Officer F responded and recorded the investigation.

Officer K advised the defendant that due to the officer’s observations of the defendant’s person and the observations of the defendants driving pattern, Officer K was not conducting a DUI investigation. Officer K requested that the defendant submit to some voluntary roadside sobriety exercises. The defendant advised that he would perform the exercises. Each exercise was demonstrated and explained before the defendant was asked to begin any exercise. The exercises were performed in a dry, level, well-lit area that was free of debris. The results of the exercises were as follows:

HGN: All six clues detected. Lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes. Distinct and sustained Nystagmus at maximum deviation, and onset Nystagmus prior to 45 degrees.

One Leg Stand: The defendant lifted his arms for balance, bounced during the exercise, counted without lifting his foot, and dropped his foot multiple times.

Walk and Turn: The defendant could not hold the instructional stance for this exercise. The defendant did not look down during this exercise, missed heel to toe on multiple steps, lifted his arms for balance, and made an improper turn.

Upon completion of Officer K’s investigation, he placed the defendant under arrest for DUI. Officer K believes that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage to the extent that his normal facilities were impaired. Officer K requested that the defendant submit to a test of his breath for the purpose of determining its alcohol content and the defendant refused. Officer K then read implied consent from a prepared text and the defendant advised that he understood what Officer K had read him but still refused.

Officer K retrieved the bag that the defendant dropped on the driver seat of the vehicle. Officer S field-tested the contents positive for suspect cocaine. The contents of the bag were .55 grams. The defendant was also administratively cited for possession of controlled substance while operating a motor vehicle. Officer K transported the defendant to the police department without further incident.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Cocaine: Possession of Cocaine(893.13(6)(A)), DUI(1 st Offense)(316.193(2)(A)(2)A, Speed Posted Municipal/State(316.189) and Failure to Use Designated Signal Lane(316.089)

Process: Mr. Foley severed the charges, so for the drug charge the defendant could enter drug court. The defendant successfully entered and completed the drug court and the drug charge was dismissed. The DUI went to a different court and after taking depositions and reviewing the discovery there was a difference of opinion on how to handle the case. Mr. Foley ultimately withdrew from the case.

Results :

Possession of Cocaine – Dismissed through Drug Court

DUI – Severed


Internal Reference # 1128

Facts : Detective N observed a car with the tag state completely blocked by a plastic cover, which blocked the state and expiration decal. Detective N conducted a traffics top and made contact with the defendant (driver) and another passenger in the car. Upon contact there was a strong odor of marijuana emanating from within the vehicle. Officer G detained the defendant and searched the vehicle. Inside of the center console, Detective N located a metal pill container that contained four blue Oxycodone and one white Alprazolam pill. The pills were verified via poison control and field tested positive. The defendant post Miranda advised that he carried his prescription in the bottle because he did not want to carry all his prescription. It is unknown if the defendant actually has a prescription for the Oxycodone and the Alprazolam. Due to the defendant not having his prescription in a prescribed bottle and not presenting valid prescriptions he is being arrested for Possession of Alprazolam and Possession of Oxycodone.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Barbiturate- Possession of Alprazolam-Xanax (893.13-6a(4a)) and Synth Narcotic – Possession of Oxycodone – Percocan Percocet (893.13-6a(2A1O))

Process: After learning that the defendant’s license plate tag was posted on the front and back of the car and completely visible as opposed to what the officer listed as his reason for the traffic stop, Mr. Foley filed a Motion to Suppress for Lack of Probable Cause to Stop. The motion was granted and the charges were dropped due to lack of probable cause to initiate the traffic stop and any searches therefor unlawful.


Internal Reference # 1133

Facts : The defendant was put on probation due to Possession of Cocaine and retained Mr. Foley for an Early Termination of Probation.

Motion Facts:

1. On December 15, the defendant’s probation on two charges of Possession of Cocaine was reinstated. The defendant was sentenced to two (2) years of probation on two different cases, to run concurrently.

2. The defendant had completed half of his probation.

3. The attorney contacted the Defendant’s Probation Officer, who has stated that he will defer to the Honorable Court as to the granting of the motion

Results : Mr. Foley filed a motion for Early Termination of Probation that was ultimately granted .


Internal Reference # 1134

Facts : While on routine patrol, Officer B observed the defendant walking on a street with a 375 Ml bottle of Alcohol; contents of the bottle had an odor and consistency of an alcoholic beverage. Upon making contact with the defendant, he advised Officer B that he had two plastic baggies of marijuana in his front left pocket. Upon search incident to arrest it was found that the defendant was in possession of two small plastic bags of marijuana (Voltox tested positive). The defendant was taken into custody and transported to the police department for booking.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Possession of Marijuana (>20g)(893.13-6b), Open Container (16-1 City Ordinance) and VOP

VOP:

Violation of Condition (5) of the Order of Probation by failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law by committing the criminal offense of Possession of Cannabis< 20 Grams

Violation of Condition (5) of the Order of Probation, by failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law by committing the criminal offense of Municipal Ordinance – Open Container

Violation of Condition (2) of the Order of Probation by failing to pay the State of Florida the amount of $50.00 a month toward cost of supervision, plus a 4% surcharge, unless otherwise exempted, in accordance with Section 948.09, Florida Statutes.

Violation of Condition (10) of the Order of Probation by failing to make court costs payments to the probation officer as directed in accordance with the payment instructions of the court.

Results : The defendant retained Mr. Foley for the case. Mr. Foley closed out the VOP on the two felony charges and handled the charge of Possession of Cannabis/ 20 Grams or Less in misdemeanor court. The defendant pled No Contest to the charge and it was Withhold Adjudication even though the Defendant was a convicted felon. The defendant was only required to pay court costs.


Internal Reference # 1135

Facts : The defendant was charged with Possession of Cannabis/20 Grams or Less, Driving While License Suspended/ Habitual Offender, and Side Wind/Rest Sunscreen

Results : The defendant accepted a plea and was found guilty on the charge of Driving While License Suspended/Habitual Offender(defendant had previously been convicted of driving while license suspended charges which Mr. Foley did not represent him on) and received 12 months of reporting probation. The charge of Possession of Cannabis/20 Grams or Less was a Withheld of adjudication with court costs and the charge of Side Wind/Rest Sunscreen was dismissed.


Internal Reference #1148

Facts : Traffic stop was conducted at the location of the arrest. A search of the vehicle (post verbal consent and K-9 alert) revealed a small clear baggy with a white powdery substance on the driver’s seat (no other occupants). Post-Miranda the defendant advised that it was for personal use only and that he was in possession of a second small clear baggy with the same white powdery substance (same packaging) within his front right pocket. Both baggies field tested positive for Cocaine by Narco Kit (approx. 1.5 grams). The defendant was placed into custody and transported to jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Possession of Cocaine(893.13-6a(c0c)

Results : Case Dismissed


Internal Reference # 1162

Facts : On 7/13 at about 1747 hours several officers responded to the location in reference to a possible battery. Upon arrival Officer G made contact with Witness #1 and Witness #2.

Witness #1 in a sworn statement, told Officer G that he exited his apartment and was walking through the parking lot when he saw a white male in a dark business suit, red tie and carrying a briefcase walking directly toward him. Witness #1 said the man, later identified as the defendant approached him and asked “ are you who I’m supposed to talk to?” Witness #1 told Officer G that he did not understand what the defendant wanted and thought that he may need help based on his “worried” expression. Witness #1 said that the defendant appeared to be talking on the phone with someone and continued saying “60 seconds, one minute”. Witness #1 said that the defendant set down the briefcase and yelled that the briefcase was going to blow up. When Witness #1 asked “what?” the defendant told him the briefcase was a bomb. Witness #1 told Officer G that he and the defendant began to run from the briefcase and when he got about 20 yards away the defendant grabbed his shoulder, began laughing and said the incident was “a prank”. Witness #1 said at about the same time Witness #2 , whom he had seen across the street just before the incident ran at him with a video camera and was laughing. Witness #1 said that he was extremely scared and did not understand what was happening. Witness #1 told Officer G that he was a military veteran and had a son inside the building next to the parking lot with the briefcase. Witness #1 told Officer G that when the defendant grabbed his shoulder, he either pushed or punched the defendant. Witness #1 said that Witness #2 then lifted the camera as though he may throw it or hit him with it, so Witness #1 grabbed Witness #2’s shirt and pulled him down to the ground. The defendant came back at Witness #1 who pushed the defendant by the arm. Witness #1 said that he was concerned about the briefcase and was yelling for someone to call the police about the bomb. Witness #1 told Officer G that the defendant picked up the now dropped camera and took off running. A short time later, Witness #1 said that he heard the police sirens and waited for police to arrive. Witness #1 told Officer G that he was extremely upset and at some point picked up someone’s cell phone, he later said he threw it in the bushes.

Witness #2 told Officer G that he and his “friend” who he initially refused to name(later identified as the defendant), play pranks on people and videotape them for YouTube. When Officer G told him that she has heard of theses types of pranks before. Witness #2 was read his constitutional warnings from a pre-printed card, which he verbally stated that he understood. Witness #2 told Officer G that he and his “friend”(defendant) came up with the prank a couple days ago prior but told strangers there was money in the briefcase. Today the premise of the prank was changed to tell the stranger they had “60 seconds” and the case would blow up. Witness #2 said that he and the defendant drove to the area and were intending to target someone they knew with the prank, however when they could not locate this person they decided to approach a stranger.

Witness #2 said that he had the camera while the defendant approached Witness #1 and began talking to him. He saw the defendant and Witness #1 run from the briefcase and filmed Witness #1’s reaction to what was happening. Witness #2 told Officer G that Witness #1 was yelling about a bomb and the defendant was trying to tell Witness #1 that the whole thing was a joke. Witness #2 said that Witness #1 was extremely upset, punched the defendant several times then grabbed Witness #2 by his shirt and threw him to the ground, breaking his camera. When he got up he said that he took a fighting stance because he did not know if Witness #1 was “going to attack” him. The defendant then picked up the camera and ran away. Witness #2 said he called the police and waited for our arrival.

At the time of police arrival, the defendant could not be located.

Based on the statements of Witness #2 and Witness #1, Witness #2 was charged a principal in first degree in violation of 790.0165(2) for aiding and counseling in the possession, display, use and threatened use of a hoax bomb. He was handcuffed, which were double locked, checked for fit and transported to the police department. He was later turned over to the jail.

Officer G was able to obtain the name of the Witness #2’s friend and Witness #2 confirmed that the other party with him was the defendant. Search incident to arrest revealed keys in Witness #2’s pocket. The key fob lock button was pressed and the vehicle horn beeped on a car. The vehicle was registered to the defendant. Officer G completed a photo line up array which she provided to Sgt L to show to Witness #1. Witness #1 picked the defendant out of the line up and said that was the man in the suit with the briefcase. At this time, probable cause exits for the arrest of the defendant in violation of Possession, Display, Use and Threated Use a Hoax Bomb(790.0165(2)).

A video was posted online shortly after reflecting what occurred during the incident. A copy of the video was made and submitted to evidence along with a copy of the photo line up and video of Witness #1’s interview.

The defendant was ultimately arrested and located for Poss/Del Hoax Bomb(790.0165(2))

Results : Possession/Del Hoax Bomb – Charge reduced to a third degree felony and the defendant entered a pre trial intervention program and the case was dismissed after 3 months. Dismissed.


Internal Reference #1092

Facts : On 4/09 at Approximately 0327 hours at the location from a traffics top that was initiated for unlawful speed, the defendant was found to be in Possession of Cocaine, Marijuana Over 20 Grams with Intent to Sell, and Drug Paraphernalia

To Wit: Officer M was running a stationary radar at a location and observed a car traveling at a significant speed over the posted speed limit of 40MPH. After visual estimation, Officer M activated his Stalk ATR Radar and found the defendant’s vehicle to be traveling at 61 MPH, which is 21 MPH over the posted speed limit. The vehicle was stopped at an intersection and the defendant was asked to produce his license, registration and proof of insurance.

The defendant produced his license and as he was searching the inside of his vehicle for the registration and insurance. Officer M smelled a strong odor that from his training and experience is known to him as burnt marijuana. Prior to backup arriving, Officer M asked the defendant if he had any guns, knives, weapons or anything that Officer M should know about inside the vehicle. At that time, the defendant reached into his pocket and pulled out a multicolor glass pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana containing suspect marijuana residue.

The defendant additionally consented to a search of his vehicle and was asked to exit the vehicle. As the defendant exited the vehicle, he was told not to reach for anything, due to not having conducted an external pat down of his clothing for weapons. The defendant immediately turned away from Officer M and put his hands into the pocket of his pants. As the defendant removed his hands, a small clear plastic baggie fell from the right side of his person to the ground that containing a white powdery substance, a Scott Reagent (modified) test for cocaine was later conducted by Officer M that tested positive for the presumptive presence of cocaine. The total bag weight of the suspect cocaine at the time of the test was 0.37 grams.

A search of the defendant’s vehicle revealed a large clear plastic zip lock bag containing three smaller zip lock bags with 23.64 grams and 16.26 grams of a green-leafy substance known to Officer M as marijuana. The marijuana was field-tested positive using the Duquenois-Levine Reagent. The total marijuana weight is 66.48 grams. Additionally inside the large zip lock bag was a black digital scale used to test the weight of the marijuana. Also in the defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest was $547.00 in cash.

The defendant was taken into custody and transported to the police department for processing. At the police department he was advised his Miranda rights, via preprinted text, and agreed to speak about the narcotics. He admitted the marijuana and cocaine belonged to him; stating that he bought the marijuana two days prior. When asked about the amounts and packing, he could not provide a purpose for the packaging as it appeared for distribution, the quantity of marijuana that is not usual or personal consumption, or why the scale was packaged with it. Due to the above circumstances, it is believed that the defendant did possess the marijuana with intent to sell.

The defendant denied the money being associated with the narcotics. At the police department a certified narcotics K9 was called out at which time Detective S and K9 I responded. K9 I positively alerted to the currency during the money proof. Due to the corresponding cash with the narcotics, the money was submitted into evidence at the police department with the narcotics, scale and pipe. The defendant was transported to jail for the charges.

The defendant was arrested and charged with:

1. Marijuana – Possession With Intent to Sell (893.13(1A2)(1C7))

2. Possession of Cocaine (893.13-6A(2A4))

3. Possession of Paraphernalia (893.147(1))

4. Traffic- Speeding (316.189)

Process: Possession with intent to sell is to eligible for a defendant to enter drug court. Mr. Foley was able to negotiate with the state and the judge to allow the defendant to enter the drug court program.

Results :

1. Marijuana – Possession With Intent to Sell (893.13(1A2)(1C7)) - Dismissed

2. Possession of Cocaine (893.13-6A(2A4)) - Dismissed

3. Possession of Paraphernalia (893.147(1)) - Dismissed

4. Traffic- Speeding (316.189) - Dismissed


Internal Reference #1058

Facts :

(K.5) Failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law

(L.2) Failing to promptly and truthfully answer all inquires directed to the offender by the drug offender probation officer.

On July 7, the defendant submitted to a drug test at the probation office, after calling both myself and my supervisor requesting to change her appointment to another day, using the excuse that her husband was not available to stay home wit her nine and eleven year old while she reported. It should be noted that she was provided this appointment on June 6. After submitting to the positive drug test, she denied using Cocaine after this officer’s inquiry. Said sample was sent to Toxicology for confirmation. On July 15, the defendant confirmed the positive results for the presence of Cocaine at 899 ng/ml with a cutoff of 150 ng/ml.

Recommendation: This is the defendants’ second violation for using Cocaine. She was instated in March 2011. It is apparent that she has a problem with indulging in illegal substances. This officer recommends a warrant be issued in this case and the defendant be sentenced in accordance with the Florida Criminal Punishment Code. Drug Offender Probation is not a feasible recommendation as the defendant continues to use Cocaine while attending drug treatment. Therefore, this officer recommends revocation of the same with a period of 364 days in jail imposed.

Results : The family of the defendant retained Mr. Foley. The defendant t was reinstated to drug offender probation. The state attorney requested that the defendant complete the 30-day SAP program. The defendant had already completed the SAP program based on Mr. Foley’s recommendation and therefore was released from jail immediately.


Internal Reference # 1062

Facts : On 5/18, Investigator W was assigned this case for a follow up investigation, involving a burglary that occurred at the residence. Upon reviewing the original report it was learned that the victim’s son left his garage door open as he went inside the residence with his friends.

When the victim’s son exited the house he noticed that his bicycle was gone. The victim notified the police and they took the report. The victim stated that the bicycle was valued at $500.00.

On 5/20 at 1600 hours, a witness observed the defendant riding his friend’s bicycle in a plaza area. The witness approached the defendant and told him that he thought that the bicycle that he was on was his friend’s that was stolen two days prior. The defendant then took off on the bicycle towards the mobile home park. The witness followed him and summoned the help of other witnesses in the area.

Another witness observed the defendant on the stolen bicycle and helped the first witness. The defendant dropped the bicycle behind at residence. The victim was able to identify the bike as belonging to her son and also the serial number matched.

A witness advised that she knew of the suspect and has seen him inside the mobile home park. The witness was shown a photo line up by Detective D and was able to identify the defendant in the photo line up. The witness also gave a sworn taped statement to Detective D.

On 5/29, Detective B and Investigator W made contact with the defendant at his residence. The defendant was read Miranda by the detective from a prepared card. The defendant stated he understood and agreed to answer Investigator W’s questions. Investigator W asked the defendant if he remembered an incident involving a burglary and bicycle theft. The defendant put his head down and stated that he had to steal the bike because it was the only way he could get away from the three guys who were beating him up. The defendant stated that three men were punching him in the head and told him “Don’t look up punk”. The defendant stated that he was able to get away from them and he entered the garage and took the bike and rode it home. The defendant denies being chased days later. The defendant stated that he tried to call the police when the three guys were punching him but they “never showed up”. A check for the calls for service on that day did not indicate any fights and/or disturbance calls in the area of the burglary.

The defendant was placed into custody for the Burglary Residence and Possession of Stolen Property. A search of the defendant’s property incident to arrest revealed a pill bottle without a label on it. The pill bottle contained 23 oxycodone (WEIGHT 5.5 grams) 15mg pills and 37 partial Xanax (Alprazolam) pills. Both of the pills were identified by the poison control operator and PDR as Oxycodone and Alprazolam. The defendant immediately stated that he has a prescription for the pills and that the label was not on the bottle because the “rain made it wear off”. The defendant could not give the name of his doctor but said that he filled his prescriptions yesterday.

Inside the defendant’s wallet, Investigator W discovered Florida Drivers Licenses belonging to other people. There were also 5 credit cards belonging to another person. The defendant advised that he found them on the road outside a store.

The victim who was the owner of the credit card and drivers license the defendant had advised that he wanted to prosecute and gave a sworn taped statement to Detective B. The total value of items lost for this victim was estimated at $100.00. This victim stated that in addition to the wallet and credit he also had approximately $80 in US Currency in his wallet. This victim was able to identify his credit cards as well and took possession of them at the police department.

The victim of the burglary provided a sworn taped statement and stated that she did not give anyone permission to enter her garage and/or remove her property. The victim (a police officer) stated that she still wanted to prosecute.

Charges:

1. Trafficking in Oxycodone (30 year maximum sentence with a three- year minimum mandatory sentence)

2. Burglary of a Dwelling Occupied (15 years maximum in Florida State Prison and scored approximately two years Florida State Prison)

3. Grand Theft (Maximum 5 years Florida State Prison)

4. Possession of Alprazolam (Maximum 5 years Florida State Prison)

5. Petty Theft (364 days in count jail maximum)

Process: Mr. Foley was retained three years after the incident. The defendant had fled the jurisdiction and was living in another state. The defendant was picked up by police in another state and transported on a police bus back to the state of Florida. Mr. Foley met with the defendant in jail and the defendant indicated that he had a prescription for the oxycodone, however he could not recall where he filled the prescription. The family did not have sufficient monies to hire a private investigator so Mr. Foley and the family researched a 5-mile radius of his last known address in Florida and 28 pharmacies appeared. Mr. Foley contacted all 28 pharmacies and proof of a legal prescription being filled could not be found. Several depositions were taken in the case and the question on the trafficking charge was whether the prescription that the defendant had in evidence matched the pills confiscated by the defendant. The defense believed that there was a reasonable doubt in regards to the trafficking, however the Burglary of a Dwelling charge scored approximately two years in Florida State Prison if convicted. The likelihood of a conviction of the Burglary charge was great. Therefore, even if the trafficking case was won, the defendant would still have been required to do approximately two-years Florida State Prison on the Burglary of a Dwelling charge. After numerous meetings with the lead prosecutor on the case, in preparation for trial, the state attorney agreed to dismiss the trafficking and oxycodone charge and the grand theft charge and change the burglary of a dwelling from a second degree felony to a third degree felony. It was changed from Burglary of a Dwelling occupied, which scores 22 months Florida State Prison, to another second degree felony, Dealing in Stolen property. The reason for the change was that the Dealing in Stolen Property charge does not require prison according to the Florida punishment code.

Result:

1. Trafficking Oxycodone – Dismissed

2.Burglary of a Dwelling(occupied) – Reduced to Dealing in Stolen Property . Withhold of Adjudication with 10 years of probation.

3.Grand Theft – Dismissed

4.Possession of Alprazolam – Withhold of Adjudication and 5 years of probation to run concurrent with count 2

5.Petit Theft- Withhold of Adjudication

Click on the following reviews to see what clients are saying about us
Client Reviews
I was charged with Domestic Violence few years ago and I was referred to Roger Foley from a family member! Roger is a BULLDOG! He was great and very aggressive in helping me beat this bogus case. Case was dismissed! He was on top of everything until the end!!
Now again in need of his help and wouldn't go anywhere else!
HIGHLY RECOMMEND
★★★★★
My wife (Mother of Stepson) and I Hired Mr Foley to represent my stepson in a minor criminal case. We would highly recommend as it is obvious to us That Mr Foley Genuinely cares and wants to do the Best he can for you which he did for us. Also has a great rapport with all parties in the courtroom.....
★★★★★
Roger P. Foley got me reinstated. Also he got my COS waived, an got me to still be terminated off of probation on my expected termination date. I feel very comfortable with the decision my lawyer made for me. Also i would refer him to anyone who has a criminal felony or misdemeanor case.
★★★★★
Roger is a very compassionate person, he truly cares about his clients. He helped me with my case and was there for me every step of the way even if it was just reassurance that I needed. I would recommend him to anyone, he is absolutely the best!
★★★★★
I think your firm did a great t job on 3 cases that were 28 years old. The results are better than expected. I truly appreciate the hard work that you and your firm put forth in obtaining the results that we did on this case.
★★★★★