PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER - 10-20-life - CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: Reeves v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S239 (Fla. May 18, 2007). Consecutive sentences are allowable for a PRR minimum mandatory and a CPP sentence that does not exceed the statutory maximum.

In McDonald v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S243 (Fla. May 28, 2007), the court held that a PRR sentence must be concurrent with a 10-20-life sentence, even if the 10-20-life sentence is the lesser sentence.

PLEA BARGAIN - BREACH BY STATE: Mehl v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1233 (Fla. 4th DCA May 18, 2007). Behl is charged with 84 counts of unlawful sale of securities without a licence. He bargains with the state and the state agrees that certain victims will not testify at the sentencing hearing, and that the state may not argue that Mehl’s points on the score sheet would have been higher had the state filed other charges. At the sentencing hearing, the defense makes arguments and the state breachs the agreement. The court found that when a breach occurs there are two options depending on the severity of the breach: reverse for a new sentencing before a different judge, or allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea. In this case, the court returned the case for a sentencing before a different judge and - get this for a legal fiction - the new sentencing judge shall not know what the former sentence was. Also, the State argued that the defense "opened the door" to the prohibited testimony and argument. The court dismissed this argument because the agreement only addresses what the state cannot do, and places no limitations on the defense.

INSANITY - 5th AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE: State v. Rogers, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1240 (Fla. 4th DCA May 18, 2007). When the court appoints psychiatrists to examine a Defendant who asserts an insanity defense, any discussion about the case’s facts to the expert are protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. In this case, Rogers hired his own expert, when this happens there is no 5th amendment privilege.

CITIZEN-INFORMANT vs. ANONYMOUS TIPSTER (TRILOGY): There were three cases in the May 25 issue dealing with whether a cop could validly stop someone based on a tip. In Manning v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1277 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2007), the victim called the cops when he discovered his home had been burglarized and that a TV had been stolen. When the cops were at his house, a neighbor tells the cops that he saw a gold car parked at the victim’s house. The neighbor then sees the same car and tells the cops "that is the car" and confirms that the driver was the same person he saw in the car earlier. The cops stop Manning and they see a TV in his car; Manning is charged with the burglary. The Court held that because the neighbor was a citizen-informant and not an anonymous tipster, the cops did not have to corroborate any information the neighbor gave before they stopped Manning. Further, the information the victim and the neighbor gave to the cops was enough to provide the cops with a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed.

In Chaney v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1278 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2007), an unknown gentleman approached a cop at the police station and told the cop that he was working that day restoring a home and he saw what he suspected to be several drug deals. The man described the scene as follows: a gray house with a chain link fence, with a black male wearing a red jersey shirt sitting in front of the house, accompanied by a black female wearing white. The cops go to the location, see the two people, put Chaney in handcuffs and search him, they find drugs in his pocket. The Court found that the guy who came to the station was closer to a citizen-informant than an anonymous tipster. Because the cops did not have to do anything to corroborate the information, they could legally detain Chaney. However, the cops went too far. The information the guy gave at the station gave the cops reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime had been committed, but did not provide probable cause to arrest. Therefore, the drugs the cops found should have been suppressed.

Finally, in Castella v. State 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1285 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2007), Gardiner case, two cops were working an off-duty marine detail and were eating at a restaurant along the intracoastal. A very excited, unidentified man approached them and told them there was serious boat accident. The cops went to the scene, made contact with Castella, and eventually initiated a DUI investigation. The state charged Castella with felony boating under the influence. Again, the Court found that the unidentified individual was more like a citizen-informant than an anonymous tipster. The court focused on the fact that the individual reported that there was a serious accident, not that anyone had committed a crime. However, even if the tip had been anonymous, the cops could still do an investigation based on the "community caretaking doctrine," which although typically applies to warrantless inventory searches of automobiles that are creating a danger, nuisance, or invitation to vandalism, could be applied in this case where the cops are gathering information about an accident, not about criminal activity.

PROBATION VIOLATION - NOT FOLLOWING PROBATION OFFICER’S ORDER: Miller v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1308 (Fla. 2d DCA May 25, 2007). Miller is on probation and is also under investigation for committing a sex crime on a minor. Miller consistently calls the minor’s grandmother to the point that she goes to Miller’s probation officer and complains. The officer orders Miller to stop calling. Miller, however, persists in making the calls. Eventually, the court finds that he violated a term of his probation by not following his probation officer’s order. The court found that a no contact order cannot unilaterally be imposed by his probation officer. Only a court can set this type of special conditions of probation.