Published on:

By

Blue lights pop on in your rearview, you pull over for an expired tag, and a simple “Any weapons in the car?” turns into a search, handcuffs, and a ride you never planned. If that sounds familiar, you are not alone. A recent Miami-Dade appellate ruling explains how those quick questions during a traffic stop can lead to a full vehicle search—and why courts often allow it. The Mayberry Law Firm breaks down what that decision means for your case and how you can still fight the evidence.

What Happened During the Stop

An officer pulled a car over for an expired tag. The sergeant asked standard questions, including whether there were any firearms in the vehicle. You might expect those questions to require Miranda warnings, yet the driver was not under arrest at that moment. The driver said his license was suspended and that a rifle sat in a black duffel on the rear seat. The duffel was visible. The sergeant had the driver step out, frisked him, and placed him on the patrol car’s bumper. After opening the duffel, the sergeant found a loaded AR-15 that was not properly secured. Handcuffs followed, more questions came, and a later search turned up an open beer.

Why The Suppression Order Was Reversed

The trial court suppressed everything after the officer radioed a weapons code. The appellate court said that was the wrong legal yardstick. Here is the logic in plain terms: brief traffic-stop questioning is not the same as a formal arrest; Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation; and asking about weapons for officer safety during a lawful stop does not automatically create “custody.” Because the initial questions and the request to exit the car stayed within the scope of a normal stop, the answers were admissible. Once the officer learned a rifle was in the car and saw the unzipped bag, there was probable cause to search under the automobile exception. Even if a court later decided the stop turned into “custody” sooner than the State admits, the result would not change: the gun and the open container would have been found during a lawful vehicle search incident to arrest or inevitably discovered through routine procedures.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Your smartphone tracks location, searches, and app activity. Police know that. Prosecutors ask judges for “geofence” or “reverse keyword” warrants to sweep up data from every device near a crime scene or tied to a search phrase. If officers linked you to a case using this dragnet, you need to understand how the process works and how a strong defense can shut it down.

What A Geofence Warrant Looks Like

A geofence warrant tells a tech company to produce records for every device within a digital fence around a place and time. Investigators do not name a person. They request dots on a map. After the first round, they ask for more detail about a smaller group of devices, then for subscriber information on the final list. Reverse keyword warrants flip the idea: police pull a list of users who searched certain terms.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Mayberry Law Firm defends people accused of serious felonies across Florida, and that includes fights over statements you allegedly made to police. In Janssen v. State, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction after finding that the Miranda waiver and confession were voluntary. If officers questioned you, slid a form across the table, and raised their voices until you talked, this case shows how courts evaluate those interviews—and how you can still fight back.

What Happened In Janssen

Deputies met the accused at work and asked him to come to the sheriff’s office. He rode in the front seat, unhandcuffed. An officer said he gave Miranda warnings on the way. At the station, video showed a signed Miranda waiver and several verbal confirmations that he understood his rights and chose to talk without a lawyer. During questioning, he admitted sexual conduct with a minor. The trial judge found the officer credible on the timing of the warnings and ruled that the waiver was valid. On appeal, the court accepted those factual findings and upheld the conviction.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Mayberry Law Firm defends people accused of drug crimes and other felonies across Tampa Bay, and you deserve a clear read on what recent decisions mean for your case. A new opinion from Florida’s Second District shows how prosecutors use a traffic stop, a K-9 alert, and your own words to prove constructive possession in a shared car. If officers pulled you over and later claimed the items near your seat were yours, this case explains what the State must show and how you can fight back.

What Happened During the Stop

Deputies stopped a car in Pasco County and ran a K-9 around it. The dog alerted. A search followed. Inside the passenger footwell, at the rider’s feet, deputies found a black case. That case held methamphetamine, fentanyl, a glass pipe, a small baggie, and a cut straw. After receiving Miranda warnings, the passenger answered questions about “the black case between your feet.” He denied selling drugs, yet admitted he had just bought “that meth” and even named a price. The State charged trafficking in meth, possession of fentanyl, and possession of paraphernalia. These facts set the stage for a courtroom fight over constructive possession and a defense request for a judgment of acquittal.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Mayberry Law Firm knows that one moment behind the wheel can change everything. In Baker v. State, No. 1D2024-0407 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 2, 2025), the appellate court upheld convictions for three counts of drug possession after officers found narcotics in a car Baker was driving. The ruling offers a clear reminder: prosecutors rely heavily on the doctrine of constructive possession when contraband is not found in your hand or pocket. Understanding that doctrine—and the many ways to refute it—gives you control over your future.

It Started Off as a Traffic Stop …

According to trial testimony, an officer saw Baker roll through a stop sign, activated emergency lights, and began a slow-speed pursuit. Baker stopped, refused to exit, then bolted, sparking a chase that hit 100 mph and ended only when the vehicle became disabled. Police removed Baker, discovered baggies and pills on the rear floorboard, and spotted a backpack with more substances a few inches away. A passenger denied any link to the items.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

You pull into an Orlando gas station. Police watch you chat with a friend, grab something from your car, and head inside. They flag your window tint, stop you down the street, and ask you to roll down a window. The moment you crack the door an officer claims he smells raw cannabis. Minutes later you are cuffed while another officer digs through a backpack on the passenger seat and finds a gun, four ounces of marijuana, and powder drugs. That is exactly what happened to Travis Simpson. A trial judge threw the evidence out, but Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed. The court said the search was legal because two facts—fresh-cannabis odor plus a neighborhood known for drug deals—created probable cause under the automobile exception.

Why the Ruling Matters to You

Police still lean on the “I smelled weed” line, even though hemp and medical marijuana are now legal in Florida. Simpson’s case shows that, once an officer adds any extra detail—a “high-crime” area, nervous answers, furtive movements—the courts may say probable cause exists. If that thinking goes unchecked, every car that smells like a dispensary purchase becomes fair game for a full-blown search.

Can Officers Really Search on Odor Alone?

The law is in flux. Some districts have held that smell alone is no longer enough because legal hemp smells the same as illegal cannabis. The Sixth District sidestepped the question by treating odor as one brick in the wall rather than the whole wall. Expect prosecutors to copy that playbook:

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Mayberry Law Firm knows that one moment behind the wheel can change everything. In Baker v. State, No. 1D2024-0407 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 2, 2025), the appellate court upheld convictions for three counts of drug possession after officers found narcotics in a car Baker was driving. The ruling offers a clear reminder: prosecutors rely heavily on the doctrine of constructive possession when contraband is not found in your hand or pocket. Understanding that doctrine—and the many ways to refute it—gives you control over your future.

It Started Off as a Traffic Stop…

According to trial testimony, an officer saw Baker roll through a stop sign, activated emergency lights, and began a slow-speed pursuit. Baker stopped, refused to exit, then bolted, sparking a chase that hit 100 mph and ended only when the vehicle became disabled. Police removed Baker, discovered baggies and pills on the rear floorboard, and spotted a backpack with more substances a few inches away. A passenger denied any link to the items.

Those facts set the stage for the prosecution’s claim that Baker “knew” the drugs were present and exercised control over them.

Understanding Constructive Possession in Florida

Possession can be actual or constructive. When officers seize drugs from your pocket, the State argues actual possession. Constructive possession, by contrast, requires proof—beyond a reasonable doubt—of three separate facts:

  1. You knew the contraband was present.

  2. You had the ability to exert dominion and control over it.

  3. You intended to exercise that control.

In shared spaces—cars, living rooms, hotel suites—the State must supply additional evidence tying you, personally, to the narcotics. Florida courts often accept fingerprints, admissions, flight, or exclusive access as that extra link.

How Prosecutors Tied “Plain View” Evidence to Baker

The Baker panel relied on two pillars: “plain view” and “exclusive control.” Because the drugs sat openly on the floorboard of a vehicle Baker drove, the court deemed knowledge and control issues for the jury. The slow chase followed by the sudden high-speed sprint painted Baker as someone with a reason to flee. Together, those facts convinced jurors the substances were his.

Weak Points in the State’s Theory—And How to Exploit Them

The decision might seem one-sided, yet it highlights several cracks you can press:

  • Shared control complicates exclusivity. A passenger occupied the front seat. Cross-examining that witness—or introducing evidence she handled the backpack—could have sown doubt.

  • Distance matters. Items on a back floorboard are farther from the driver than from the front passenger. A clear photo or diagram can help jurors visualize that gap.

  • Fleeing fits many explanations. Fear, suspended licenses, or outstanding traffic warrants may explain sudden acceleration without proving drug knowledge. A defense narrative humanizes the flight and separates it from the contraband.

Five Ways to Challenge Constructive Possession Charges

A smart defense attacks every link in the State’s chain. You can:

  1. Undercut knowledge. If officers found no fingerprints, DNA, or admissions, highlight that absence. Confusion over ownership or sealed containers also weakens the State’s claim.

  2. Contest dominion or control. Show that multiple people had equal or greater access. Rideshare receipts, text messages, or surveillance footage can shift control toward someone else.

  3. Question plain-view claims. Body-cam angles and lighting sometimes exaggerate visibility. Demonstrative exhibits recreate what a driver could realistically see.

  4. Suppress the discovery. An illegal stop or search taints every item seized. Motions under the Fourth Amendment may exclude the drugs altogether.

  5. Move for judgment of acquittal. Even after the State rests, you can argue the evidence fails as a matter of law, forcing a directed verdict. Jurors never deliberate on a count that never reaches them.

Each tactic demands fast action. Witness memories fade, and dash-cam footage can disappear. You strengthen every argument by securing counsel immediately.

Act Now to Protect Your Record and Freedom

Constructive possession may sound abstract, but the sentences are anything but theoretical. Florida’s drug statutes carry steep incarceration terms, driver-license suspensions, and lifelong record damage. By disputing every required element early, you tip the balance toward dismissal, acquittal, or vastly reduced charges.

Ready to Fight? Speak with a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

You deserve a defense that refuses to accept assumptions and refuses to quit. The Mayberry Law Firm stands ready to challenge constructive possession cases across Tampa Bay and throughout the Middle District of Florida. Call 813-444-7435 or reach out through our online form for a free, confidential consultation—because quick, decisive action is the surest path to keeping your future in your own hands.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The rules of evidence are vital to ensuring a fair and just criminal justice system. In Florida, these rules aim to encourage honest testimony and prevent misleading or unfair uses of evidence, particularly in criminal cases where the stakes are high. Among these rules is the prohibition against hearsay, which is generally defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is inadmissible in most cases because the person making the statement is not under oath, cannot be cross-examined, and their demeanor cannot be evaluated by the jury. However, certain exceptions exist, such as statements of identification.

A recent Florida case illustrates the importance of these rules. The defendant, convicted of trespass, attempted second-degree murder, and attempted manslaughter, argued on appeal that written statements accompanying photographs identifying him as the perpetrator were inadmissible hearsay. These statements included detailed accusations and descriptions of the alleged crime, which the defendant contended went beyond mere identification. Despite his objections, the trial court admitted the statements, and he was ultimately convicted based on these and other pieces of evidence.

On appeal, the court reviewed the admissibility of the contested statements. The appellate court agreed that the trial court had erred in admitting the written accusations and descriptions, as they constituted hearsay and were beyond the scope of permissible identification evidence. However, the court upheld the conviction, ruling the error was “harmless” because the improperly admitted evidence was cumulative of other testimony presented at trial. The appellate court reasoned that the jury would have likely reached the same conclusion even without the hearsay statements.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Florida, criminal cases often hinge on whether evidence collected by law enforcement can be used in court. A key tool for defense attorneys is the motion to suppress, which aims to have evidence thrown out because it was obtained illegally. While a successful motion to suppress can be a major win for a defendant, it’s important to understand that these victories aren’t always guaranteed. Even favorable rulings can be appealed by the state, and a recent case highlights the importance of having qualified legal representation throughout the entire legal process.

A recent case in Florida highlights these challenges. The defendant was stopped by deputies for operating a motorized scooter in the middle of the road. The officers claimed to detect the odor of cannabis and demanded that the defendant hand over two packs he was carrying. Rather than comply, the defendant fled, abandoning the packs in a hotel parking lot before being apprehended. Upon searching the packs, deputies found cannabis, trafficking amounts of fentanyl, crack cocaine, cash, and other evidence. The defendant argued that the searches were unlawful, asserting that the deputies needed a warrant to examine the contents of the packs. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress the evidence, seemingly handing the defendant a significant legal victory.

However, the state appealed the trial court’s ruling, and the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court determined that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search because he had abandoned the packs while fleeing from law enforcement. Under the law, individuals can only claim Fourth Amendment protections if they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the item seized. By discarding the packs, the defendant forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy. As a result, the deputies’ search was deemed lawful, and the suppressed evidence was reinstated. With this evidence back in play, the defendant now faces the possibility of significant jail time.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Mandatory minimum sentences are a critical component of federal criminal law, especially in cases involving drug crimes or child pornography. While they aim to standardize penalties, they often result in disproportionately harsh sentences for offenses that may seem less severe. However, these sentences are not entirely immutable. Legal provisions like the “safety valve” allow eligible defendants to receive sentences below the mandatory minimum. A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sheds light on the complexities of qualifying for this relief.

In this case, a Florida man faced a mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine after law enforcement intercepted a package containing nearly half a kilogram of the drug. Upon his arrest, the defendant admitted his involvement and provided additional details about the drug trafficking operation, including acknowledging that he had orchestrated similar shipments in the past. Following his guilty plea, the government agreed to consider his cooperation for a reduced sentence. However, shortly after entering his plea, the defendant was caught facilitating yet another drug shipment, undermining his earlier cooperation.

At sentencing, the defendant sought to qualify for the safety valve, which allows judges to bypass mandatory minimum sentences if specific criteria are met. One key requirement is the “tell-all” provision, where a defendant must truthfully provide the government with all relevant information about the offense. The defendant submitted a written affidavit shortly before sentencing, claiming to have disclosed all pertinent details. Yet, the district court found that the defendant had omitted significant information about the scope of his activities, such as details about other shipments and co-conspirators.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Mayberry Law Firm
3902 Henderson Blvd, #208-136
Tampa, FL 33629
Phone: (813) 444-7435

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Mayberry Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design