This topic will consider whether judges in the State of Florida will follow the law involving criminal sex charges that society considers heinous. Remember, each case involving a sex charge is different and must be reviewed on its own merit. The principal question here is whether judges differentiate between the admittance of evidence in a serious sex charge versus a lesser non-sex charge. The simple answer is, “they should.” However, an experienced attorney that handles sex charges will tell you that many judges will look for any reason to admit evidence and hold the defendant accountable. So, what does this mean? The clearest way to explain is from a recent hearing in Orange County, Florida in State v. Green (2018-CF-16350-A-O).
The main issue in this case revolved around whether consent given by a third party would allow law enforcement to seize the property of the defendant. In simple terms, the police knock at your door, and someone else who lives at the residence allows the police to search your things. What was ultimately found was the basis for very serious charges to be brought and should that evidence be suppressed, then the State would have no ability to prosecute further. That’s a tall order for any judge, but if the defense presents their evidence properly, the facts are established without question, and the law is outlined thoroughly, then the Court must and will follow the law.
Attorney Anton Nace represented Mr. Green, who was charged with multiple counts of unlawful possession of materials depicting a sexual performance by a child and sexual battery on a child under 12. The police seized evidence at his residence, and this was allowed by a resident of his home when they allowed the police to enter, search, and retrieve personal property belonging to Mr. Green. Importantly, the third party was asked by the officer to retrieve any electronics Mr. Green owned and bring it to the officer executing the search. So, what is so tricky with this issue? Standing. Standing is an issue often overlooked by other attorney’s but here, it became a very important detail that allowed Mr. Green to prevail on the motion to suppress. In order to raise a 4th Amendment, claim of an unreasonable search and seizure, a defendant must have standing. That is, the defendant must demonstrate a right to privacy in the particular item searched and seized.