Are you an Accomplice if you Don't Stop or Report a Crime?

As any parent and former teenager knows, there's lots of peer pressure to participate in behavior that pushes them to the edge of legality. And kids see plenty of misconduct. But when someone does not actually commit the crime, can he or she still be criminally responsible?
It depends.

In Florida the old accomplice "aiding and abetting" concept is called "principal in the first degree". To aid and abet as a "principal" means to help the perpetrator, or person who actually committed the crime, by doing or saying something that caused it or encouraged, incited or assisted the perpetrator. Before a defendant may be convicted as an aider and abettor, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the defendant assisted the perpetrator but that the defendant had the specific intent to participate in that crime. A principal is subject to the same punishment as the perpetrator. Pretty harsh.

As an experienced criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, I was asked my opinion by Bay News 9 today about a recent high profile case where several teens observed but did not report locker room assaults by some other teammates. While their inaction is reprehensible, there is no duty to report or stop a crime. If they did not join in or facilitate the crime, they merely are witnesses. What if they cheered the perpetrators on? Does that suffice as encouragement under this law? Not likely. How about if they "put them up to it"? That's closer to the technical definition. What if they were look outs or helped plan the attack? Most definitely.

The moral? Kids should always choose their friends carefully. When you hang with those who test the limits, when things go south they go south in a hurry and it may not take much to become a principal.

See the video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1XpFRpuq3o

Read the story at:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/8/12/507720.html?title=New+investigation+sought+in+school+rape+case

High Court Limits Police Vehicle Searches

For almost 30 years, as an exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement to permit a search and seizure, courts allowed police routinely to search the inside of a vehicle, including trunks, glove boxes, consoles and containers, upon the arrest of someone who just had been inside it ("incident to the lawful arrest of a recent occupant"). The mobility of the vehicle and presumed ability of a driver or passenger to hide or destroy evidence of a crime served as the justification to empower law enforcement with such broad intrusion into a citizen's constitutional protection of privacy and against unreasonable searches. That never made sense to me in the usual case where the vehicle's occupant is removed and unable to access it. Well, no more!

The United States Supreme Court ruled this week in Arizona v. Gant, that once someone is arrested and secured out of the vehicle, there is no logic to justify a full vehicle search in the name of preventing the loss or destruction of evidence. The Court allowed an exception where the police reasonably believe evidence related to the crime for which the person was arrested is in the vehicle. So in Gant's case, after an arrest for a traffic offense, police wrongly searched his jacket on the back seat of his vehicle where they found illegal drugs.

Watch to see whether police modify their procedures to allow someone to remain in a vehicle to create the "need" to conduct a sweeping search of its interior....

Of course, other exceptions to the "warrant requirement" still apply: police may search 1) with consent of the person who controls the vehicle, 2) if they see contraband in "plain view", 3) to inventory the vehicle's contents prior to impounding it and 4) in emergencies called "exigent circumstances" typically involving weapons or seeing "furtive", i.e. unusual, movements within the vehicle that signal possible danger or destruction or hiding of evidence. These exceptions have their own bodies of case law and are subject to much interpretation.

Sealing and Expunging a Florida Criminal Record

Sealing and Expunging a Florida Criminal Record is a complex matter. Not just anyone may qualify. The law puts up many barriers. What’s the difference between sealing and expunging? Sealing, as the term implies, means closing the file from public view while expunging means actually destroying or obliterating it.

Threshold eligibility requirements to seal or expunge a criminal record:

• No “adjudication of guilt” (or delinquency in the case of a juvenile charge), meaning a conviction in the case to be sealed or expunged or any prior case as opposed to a “withhold of adjudication” meaning no conviction. This is regardless of whether the plea was “guilty” or “no contest”, which have the same effect for this area of the law.
• If there was a “withhold of adjudication”, the offense was not one greater than a third degree felony or third degree felony or misdemeanor involving any sex offense, obscenity, pornography, intentional child or elderly abuse or exploitation, or telecommunications fraud.
• No prior sealing or expunction.
• If more than one charge, that they arose from the same incident.
• Court supervision or sentence has been completed.

If the charge in question was never filed or dropped, one may seek to expunge that record immediately. If it was resolved with a plea and a “withhold”, ten years must pass before the record may be expunged.

While a sealed or expunged record generally allows a person to “lawfully deny or fail to acknowledge” the record without it being considered deceitful or an act of perjury, one still must disclose it in certain circumstances:

• An applicant for law or law enforcement related employment such as any criminal justice agency, seaport and candidates for the Florida Bar;
• An applicant for employment, licensing or contracting (and any contractor’s employee) with the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Education or other school related entity and child care licensees - in other words, anyone “in a sensitive position having direct contact with children, the developmentally disabled, the aged, or the elderly”.

As you can see, sealing and expunging doesn’t mean closed from all eyes. Indeed, the above entities are required by law to access sealed records, adult and juvenile. Additionally, a prosecutor may reveal the prior record to the court in a subsequent prosecution.

A Quick Primer if You're Stopped for DUI

• You don’t have to say anything to the officer about where you’ve been or what you’ve consumed and they don’t have to read you your “Miranda” rights either for preliminary, roadside questioning when you are first stopped. Just be polite.
• You don’t have to perform any field sobriety “tasks” although that can be used against you, meaning a jury can be told that fact to imply guilt. These may be videotaped.
  
• Nor do you have to give a breath or urine test although that also can be used against you AND this “refusal” to provide a test will result in a DMV suspension for one year (or 18 months if it’s your second refusal, PLUS it’s a misdemeanor if its your second refusal).
• If you “blow” over the limit (.08 or more blood alcohol level or “B.A.L.”) the DMV suspension is for 6 months. Urine testing typically is for low blows to see if drugs are in your system. Even lawfully prescribed or over the counter medications can cause unlawful impairment for DUI.
  
• DMV suspensions begin immediately. Your ticket is a temporary 10 day permit. You must submit a challenge to these DMV suspensions within that time. That will “buy” you an extended driving permit until the administrative review of the suspension is complete, about 5 weeks. If successful, your license is restored pending court action. If not, there’s a 90 day “no drive” period for a first refusal and 30 days on the B.A.L. suspension. After that, you can apply for a hardship permit if you’ve signed up for DUI school and otherwise are qualified.
• If stopped, consider carefully whether to “help them” collect evidence against you vs. the consequences for not doing so.
• When in doubt about your sobriety, don’t drive. Take a cab!