The issue in this case is whether the State of Florida can haul a sexual predator back into court, after he has completed his entire sentence, to declare him a sexual predator as defined by section 775.21(4)(a) of the Florida Sexual Predators Act (2006),4 in the absence of a statutory recapture provision. I find it cannot and would reverse the order on appeal.
Rumpole wonders: What ever happened to the rule of lenity?
Query: When do you lose almost all of your Constitutional rights and protections?
Answer: When you go for a ride as a passenger in a car.
In State v. Zaldivar the 3rd DCA held that:
Occupants of a private vehicle are traveling together by choice and thus may be assumed to have some personal or business association with one another. Knowledge or suspicion that one of the occupants has been involved in criminal activity occurring within the car, or involving the car itself, serves as a basis for a reasonable suspicion that the other occupants may be participants in that activity.
Poor Mr Zaldivar. Although ably represented by Jason Grey and Juan Mourin, he had the misfortune of being the passenger of a car rather than the driver. And apparently that makes all the difference in the world as the 3rd DCA noted:
Had Zaldivar been the driver and only occupant of the vehicle when it was stopped by the police, the suppression order might stand. But in this case, the police had ample cause to stop Dominguez and the car he was driving. Such a stop includes the legal right to order other occupants to step out of the vehicle.
Conclusion: If you're going to commit crimes in Dade and want the protections of the Constitution, drive yourself and drive alone.
Just where has Miranda and the 4th Amendment gone? They've been dead and buried in this per curiam opinion by the 3rd DCA. In State v. K.F.R, the court stated the following:
The state argues that the mere fact the defendant - a juvenile- was walking down the street in a high crime area, carrying a school book was sufficient reasonable suspicion for the police to stop and search the defendant. We agree. We cannot be blind to the fact that most inner-city youths do not carry school books, much less read. Therefore, the officer was justified in having his suspicions aroused. Furthermore, upon searching the juvenile and not finding any contraband, the officer correctly interrogated the juvenile as to why he was walking while carrying a school book. While Miranda has in the past applied to such custodial interrogations, we hold that the short nature of the interrogation justified proceeding without Miranda. We therefore announce a rule that any reasonably short interrogation periods that are conducted pre-Miranda will be lawful and not subject to suppression.
And finally- for those of you who just can't get the hang of email, we recommend to you Google's new "Gmail Paper" service. When you write us an Email using Gmail, Google now gives you the option of sending the Email via the postal service with paper- a real letter! Click here to learn more and to sign up. We are working with new Chief Judges Brown and Soto so that you can address email and postal letters to "Rumpole, c/o The Gerstein Justice Building" and we will receive the letters.
See you in court, reading our mail.