Rick Scott's Suspicion-Less Drug Testing: It's Back! (Sorta)

Well the 11th Circuit has muddied the waters somewhat by sending back to Judge Ungaro the colossally stupid drug-testing of state employees' scheme that Rick Scott came up with a few years ago.

The reasons have mostly to do with the convoluted boundaries between a facial attack on a statute vs. an "as applied" analysis, and whether the judge used the right analytical framework (to me she did):

To date, the parties’ litigation strategies in this case seem to have focused on avoiding the kind of job-category-by-category balancing that Skinner and its progeny teach us is the proper modality for evaluating the constitutionality of a suspicionless drug testing policy. The Union originally sought, and ultimately received, facial relief that cannot be sustained in light of the Executive Order’s constitutional applications. Meanwhile, the State has resisted providing the district court with any specific special-needs showings that apply to individual job categories and instead has insisted that a few broad, abstract reasons can justify the EO across the board. Admittedly, providing job-category-specific reasons and evidence -- which the district court must have in order to conduct the proper analysis -- is a substantial, even onerous, task. Nonetheless, convenience cannot override the commands of the Constitution.

This is Florida -- are you sure about that last sentence?

Polston v. Lewis -- Both Sides Now!

Depending on how you look at it, the Florida Supreme Court today either approved the routine application of an alternative fee recovery clause in a fee agreement that uses an hourly rate as the other basis for payment, or it disregarded decades of precedent to misapply and grossly distort existing law.

Here's a taste of Justice Lewis' blistering dissent:

Today the majority surprisingly and, in my view, incorrectly endorses a universal implementation of alternative attorney fee recovery clauses with an astonishing disregard for its simultaneous evisceration of the well-established distinction between statutorily authorized attorney fee awards and attorney fees assessed as damages under the concept of indemnity. The majority additionally disregards decades of controlling precedent simply because it is unfavorable to its holding and approves awards of attorney fees not actually incurred, an award of money readily and clearly in violation of due process when assessed as indemnification. When attorney fees are improperly awarded, a “species of social malpractice [results] that undermines the confidence of the public in the bench and bar. . . . [I]t brings the court into disrepute and destroys its power to perform adequately the function of its creation.” Baruch v. Giblin, 164 So. 831, 833 (Fla. 1935). Unlike the majority, I refuse to embrace contractual convenience over our inexorable constitutional obligation to ensure no person is deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, I dissent.

That's ok, judge, no one thought you were heading toward a concurrence!

3d DCA Watch -- Judicial Wheelspinning Time!

If you are reading this, then you are already guilty of spinning your wheels this morning.

But you know who else is also guilty, of even more egregious "judicial wheelspinning"? -- yes, our treasured bunker inhabitants.

Read on.

Motors v. Miami Medley:

So are the Kozel factors -- which must be applied when sanctioning counsel or parties -- to be articulated and set forth in any sanctions order, or are they completely superfluous when everybody really knows what happened, wink wink:

Contrary to the position taken by Miami Medley, the order granting the motion for sanctions for defendant’s failure to attend mediation contains no acknowledgment, discussion or analysis of any of the Kozel factors. The order states merely that the motion is granted because defendants failed to appear at a duly scheduled mediation, of which defendants’ counsel was given notice. When presented with defendants’ sworn motion, alleging that the failure to attend mediation was the fault of the attorney and that the client was never made aware mediation had been ordered and scheduled, the trial court grossly abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default without considering whether the default was improvidently granted and without addressing the Kozel factors.

Come on! -- sayeth Judge Schwartz in dissent, don't waste my time with these bright-line rules, they just cloud the swift imposition of justice (I'm paraphrasing):

Returning the case to the court below for the purely formulaic purpose of expressing in writing what we already know to be true is no more than judicial “wheel spinning” which we should avoid, not encourage.

But shouldn't we encourage the straightforward application of the law?  Is there no jurisprudential purpose served by requiring trial judges to set forth in writing the Kozel factors?

Can the exception for "what we already know to be true" be fairly applied?

Oh well, let's all get back to our timewasters.

Check Out This Fascinating Visual Illusion!

You know how the intertubes are full with visual illusion experiments of various kinds, the type people put on Facebook all the time?

Here, if you stare directly and without blinking at the contrasting polka dots appearing on Spencer's shirt and tie, you will discover an important and timely message about preventing children's injuries (or possibly a penguin on a grilled cheese sandwich?).

Gotta love timewasters like these.....

Iqbal Unleashed!

I know many of you are tired of discussing Iqbal, but hey -- would you rather keep talking about Spencer?

But thanks to a tipster, here's a real-life, not overstated example of Iqbal gone terribly wrong at the district court level, requiring correction by the 11th Circuit (in an unpublished opinion):

The allegations in Watts’ complaint are not merely “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements” of a Title VII claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Nor are they “legal conclusions.” “They are non-conclusory descriptions of specific, discrete facts of the who, what, when, and where variety.” Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013). They provide specific facts that, if true, plausibly show that Watts is entitled to relief. That is all that Rule 8 requires, and the district court erred by requiring more. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short an plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .”).

In other words, district court -- heal thyself.

Thursday Digital Dump!

Hi kids, here's what is clogging up my ability to play words with friends all day:

1.  Rodier & Rodier to former client David Cassidy --  I don't think I love you:

Aging Fort Lauderdale heartthrob David Cassidy is getting sued yet again for not paying his bills – and this time, it’s for attorney’s fees!

The Partridge Family’s star and singer, 63, is being sued by the Broward County law firm of Rodier & Rodier, who represented Cassidy when he was sued for contract indebtedness in 2007.

The lawsuit, brought by a neighbor who owned a race horse with Cassidy, was settled in 2011. Terms were confidential.

But Cassidy was ordered to pay for his own legal bills – totaling more than $134,000!
Two years later, Cassidy has yet to make good on the debt, and now he’s being sued.

Always get a large retainer from aging rock stars, I always say!

2.  Turns out banks don't always do the right thing, according to DBR reporter PIA (that's Paola Iuspa-Abbott, a great scrabble word btw!).

3.   Adolfo Pesquera reports on the Florida Bar's investigation of JAABlog's William Gelen and our joint statement condemning same.

4.  Richard Shuler on the value of "Public Citizen":

I cannot tell you how many times the most ardent hardline defense attorney has called me to say: “My mother just lost her life savings in an investment scam; can you help her?” or “My father just died as a result of an accident or medical malpractice; can you help us?”

Because of abusive and unconstitutional arbitration clauses that corporations seek to use as a shield against accountability or the Anti-Consumer Medical Malpractice Act, it may be impossible to provide justice. Folks need to realize that their own liberties and rights hang in the balance.

The organization known as “Public Citizen” can make them aware of this reality.

5.  All hail General Zod!

(I've long argued the dude is due for a comeback).

 

3d DCA Watch -- Play the Guessing Game!

Hi kids, much to talk about today but let's get right down to the granular level, bunker-style:

Bone and Joint Treatment v. Healthtronics:

How confident are you in an affirmance when you read this procedural history:

The predecessor judge, Judge Peter Adrien, bifurcated the reformation claim from the remaining claims asserted by BJA. During the bench trial, Judge Adrien heard evidence regarding the parties’ intent.....

Ding Ding!

Search Warrant | Cell Phone Update

Florida Criminal and DUI Defense Attorney notes a Federal Court has lined up with the Florida Supreme Court in condemning warrantless cell phone searches "on a cell phone, carried on the person. Allowing the police to search that data without a warrant any time they conduct a lawful arrest would, in our view, create “a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals .” Gant, 556 U.S. at 345; cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 950 (2012)(“At bottom, we must ‘assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.’ “ (quoting Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001))). We therefore reverse the denial of Wurie's motion to suppress, vacate his conviction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Federal Court Cell Phone Search Opinion here:

http://centrallaw.com/Cell%20Phone%20Search%20Wurie11-1792P-01A.pdf

The Florida Supreme Court ruling is here:

http://centrallaw.blogspot.com/2013/05/police-officer-not-authorized-to-search.html

One of these things is not like the other...

Remember that song on Sesame Street?

"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others. By the time I finish my song?"

Looking through the mountains of speculation on the pending gay marriage cases, that song seems particularly relevant. Much has been made of certain cautionary statements by Justice Ginsburg which inferred that the continuing cultural battle over abortion may have been fueled by judicial overreach that ended progress at the local level that might have been more enduring.

According to Ginsburg, Roe went "too far, too fast" and some take this as a hint that the court might take a more piecemeal approach to the gay marriage cases, favoring limited decisions over the broad ruling some are rooting for. I certainly hope that is not true, because the analogy just doesn't hold.

I'm decidedly pro-choice. But if asked to argue the other side, I could make a compelling case. It's not as if abortion opponents are completely lacking some science and rational on their side. Life does begin at conception, the question is are the rights of that life equal to those of the mother over the matter of her own body? When do the full rights of a human being kick in? I'm comfortable with first trimester abortions, but increasingly less comfortable as time goes on. The fact is that with abortion there are many gray areas and those combine with religious doctrine and conservative culture to create enduring conflict.

There are no comparable substantive matters in opposition to gay marriage. Opponents have been forced to rely on religious doctrine or the obscure notion of tradition to justify the obvious discrimination. In states that have passed gay marriage, either by court ruling, legislative process, or public referendum the results have been positive. Why? Because it really doesn't affect you unless you're gay and want to get married, and then it's a positive thing.

The correct analogy for gay marriage isn't to abortion. It's to interracial marriage and the historic and aptly titled Loving v. Virgina ruling.

When love walks in the room, everybody stand up. Go wide SCOTUS, go wide!  

Spencer Aronfeld = La Muerte!

I don't speak much Spanish, so I hope I got the headline right.

Joint Post by Justice Building, South Florida Lawyers, and Southern District of Florida Blogs!

You lose your rights, not with a bang, but with a whimper. One small encroachment after another. A bureaucrat pushes the edges here, a prosecutor challenges the boundaries in a few cases there. No one says or does anything and then you look up and suddenly a cherished right is gone. 

Nothing is more insidious and dangerous to our constitutional rights than a bureaucrat who, under the cover of a government agency, seeks to intimidate someone. That is why the letters we have posted  from the Florida Bar to attorney and blogger William Gelin have so alarmed us:the bloggers who run the Justice Building Blog, the South Florida Lawyers Blog, and the Southern District of Florida Blog.

WIlliam Gelin runs the JAA Blog which covers the Broward County Courthouse. To Mr. Gelin's credit he has never sought to hide his identity as the lawyer behind the blog. As a blogger who has openly challenged the way things are done in Broward, Mr. Gelin has courageously taken on numerous people in Broward County, including judges. Now, apparently after a series of posts about two Judges in West Palm Beach and Broward County, (ironically) anonymous bar complaints have prompted the Bar to send Mr. Gelin letters seeking him to admit or deny his involvement in the JAA Blog. 

We as the legal blogging community in Miami view these letters as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and freedom of speech. The letters are chilling, and will have a chilling affect on the free speech of lawyers. Judges are invested with responsibilities and powers and all too often those powers cloud their judgment. The ability of lawyers to freely comment on a Judge represents an important check on those powers. The ability of citizens to write about the issues of the day has a long and storied history in our country. James Madison anonymously published many of the federalist papers under the pseudonym Publius in the local newspapers of the time. Blogging, anonymous and otherwise, serves a similar purpose. 

The Florida Bar's letters to Mr. Gelin amount to both a fishing expedition and a veiled threat for him to stop criticizing Judges from the pages of his blog.  We jointly condemn the letters the Bar has written, and stand behind our colleague in this matter. That is why all three blogs have taken the unprecedented step of running this post simultaneously.We urge our readers to voice their support of Mr. Gelin by writing to the Bar to condemn the actions of the Bar Counsel in this case. 

Thank you. 

Justice Building Blog

South Florida Lawyers

Southern District of Florida Blog

Yale Galanter Takes the Stand!

Yale takes the hotseat in the OJ ineffective assistance proceedings out in NV:

Galanter, a veteran Florida criminal defense lawyer, is a key state’s witness in a hearing that, since Monday, has revolved around his promises, payments and performance in the 2008 trial that sent the 65-year-old former football hero to prison for nine to 33 years for armed robbery and kidnapping.

Galanter faces some uncomfortable questions about his trial preparation, the nearly $700,000 he was paid but allegedly didn’t share with the Las Vegas lawyer at his side and why he didn’t try to block prosecutors from playing for the jury secret recordings that amounted to a soundtrack of Simpson and his five pals confronting two sports collectibles brokers and a middleman in a cramped casino hotel room.

Key among Simpson’s 19 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and conflict of interest being considered by District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell is the allegation that Galanter should have provided witness testimony supporting Simpson’s contention that he didn’t know he was breaking the law.

Simpson says the two even talked about it over dinner the night before the ill-fated confrontation in September 2007, and that Galanter told him that if Simpson recovered the suit he wore the day he was acquitted in Los Angeles, Galanter would like to have it.

Bell has made no indication whether she plans an immediate ruling or will issue a written decision later.

The most damaging testimony about Galanter’s performance came from three other lawyers involved in the case: Gabriel Grasso and Malcolm LaVergne, who represented Simpson, and Brent Bryson, who represented a Simpson co-defendant who also was convicted.
Each said Galanter seemed more interested in what he was paid and protecting himself from having to testify than in fully representing his client.

Yuck!

And you thought you were having a bad day.

Ha Ha You Can't Remove Me Because I Didn't Say Anything About Citizenship!

Oh darn!

Judge Marra is on to this:

The Court notes that Smyth does not address the issue of whether she is a Florida citizen; rather, Smyth merely rests on the proposition that Hillstone cannot demonstrate diversity at both the time the complaint was filed and the time the notice of removal was filed because she only alleged her residency in the complaint. If Smyth’s position was accepted, a plaintiff could frustrate a defendant’s ability to exercise its statutory right of removal simply by failing to allege citizenship, even though diversity of citizenship can be demonstrated by resort to evidence outside the four corners of the complaint.

This is why I always tell youngin' attorneys -- argue policy policy policy, the reasons often matter more than the law itself.

3d DCA Watch -- Throwback Wednesday?

I think the bunker got a little nostalgic today -- consider these moldy golden oldies unearthed by the RRO* this week:

Marder v. Moscoco:

This case is actually about a charging lien filed by Ruden McClosky!

What's next -- an application for fees by Fine Jacobson?

Miccosukee Tribe v. Lehtinen:

Here you have a two-fer:  the Tribe unsuccessfully seeking to remove Joe Klock as counsel for Dexter Lehtinen.

Query -- did Joe receive an "unfair informational advantage" by representing a poor innocent damaged yacht owner by repping the ex-Tribal attorney in other matters:

In the underlying cause, it cannot be said, and no such allegation has been made, that Klock has obtained an unfair advantage in his representation of respondent in his defense of petitioners’ claims. Whether or not Klock obtains an unfair informational advantage in his representation of clients against respondent in other, unrelated matters is pure speculation at this time. Certainly, if petitioners believe at some point in the future that Klock has indeed obtained such unfair informational advantage in those cases, petitioners are free to seek Klock’s disqualification in the courts in whose jurisdiction the cases lie.

In other words, time will tell (it always does).


*"Resplendently Robed Ones" -- get with the lingo already!

Judge Moreno Says Lawsuit Against Usher Can Proceed!

 Judge Moreno has denied a motion to dismiss on this interesting claim:

Davis now alleges that Khaled delivered a copy of "Let's Go'' to Jackson and Harr thus giving them access to "5-15-09.'' Moreover, Davis claims that the Court can infer Defendants' access to "5-15-09'' from the extensive play of "Let's Go'' on 99 Jamz as well as the song's popularity in Miami nightclubs.  From this access, Davis asserts that Defendants incorporated "5-15-09'' without authorization into their own derivative work. Specifically, Davis maintains that Defendants created a musical work entitled "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)'' that is based upon and strikingly similar to his original "5-15-09'' composition. Defendant Raymond then recorded his vocals over the alleged infringing work and included the song on his album "Raymond v. Raymond.'' The song was released in December 2009 and was sold as the first U.S. single for the album, peaking at number twenty four on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and number two on the Hot R& B/Hip-Hop Songs chart.

On July 13, 2012, Davis brought this action against Defendants for copyright infringement of his original "5-15-09'' composition.  As the sole author of "5-15-09,'' Davis claims that Defendants' unauthorized use of the composition violated his rights as the copyright owner.

Local counsel for Usher is GrayRob's Karen Stetson (he also has big-city NY counsel too).

Steve Zack Is Now an Honorary Gamecock!

Steve gave some genuinely inspiring words to the 2013 University of South Carolina School of Law commencement class:

“A good lawyer will make a living. A great lawyer will make a difference,” Zack said. “Your law degree means that you have the ability to right a wrong wherever you find it. And when you do that, you truly will be a great lawyer.”

 "Unfortunately most of you will be neither," he added.

Welcome Jones Day Miami!

Almost as eagerly anticipated as the return of the McRib sandwich, the Borg has landed, with Pedro A. Jimenez as Partner-in-Charge, and Enrique "Rick" Martin as the Administrative Partner.

Ok, it's already overloaded at the management level.

(Just kidding!)

(You'll get used to it.....)

What Happens When A Disbarred Lawyer Continues to Practice Law?

He goes to jail:

Accordingly, we approve the referee’s findings of fact, recommendations of guilt, and recommended sanctions as set forth in the report of the referee. Robert V. Palmer is sentenced to sixty (60) days in jail. Palmer shall surrender to the Duval County Sheriff within five (5) days after service of this order on Palmer. In the event Palmer does not surrender, the Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, is authorized and directed to take Palmer into custody and imprison him for sixty (60) days.

Cool -- dude's name is Robert Palmer!

3d DCA Watch -- Dear Trial Judge, Would It Kill You to Add Some Findings?

Ok, let's get the important stuff out of the way -- Happy Jerusalem Day!

In other news, the bunker issued an interesting opinion on the production of trade secrets.

Here's a summary:  "next time, add some findings."

We therefore grant Cooper’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order below. On remand, the trial court is instructed to first make a determination as to what documents in question, if any, are trade secret. As to those that are, the trial court is to then make a determination of reasonable necessity and, if it so finds, it is to supply the findings in support of its determination. Then it is to reduce those findings to a written order, have that order provided to each party in the case, and then wait for someone to appeal it, whereupon you will receive further instructions.  Don't make me have to explain this again.

John Morgan Wants the Jags to Hire Tim Tebow!

What better way to spend your hard-earned money than to take ads calling on your favorite football team to hire The Tebow:

Orlando-based lawyer John Morgan has developed an ad aimed at cajoling Jaguars owner Shahid Khan into signing Tebow.

The spot has been posted by the Orlando Sentinel.

“I’m John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan, and I wanna talk Tebow for one minute. 

Here’s the evidence.  Tim Tebow played on two national championship teams.  He won the Heisman as the best college player in the country and was drafted in the first round by the Denver Broncos.  Somebody knew somethin’.  And after he got his only chance to start, the Broncos were 1-4 and he led them to the AFC playoffs, and beat Pittsburgh.

“The Jaguars are 27-42 in the last five years, one of the worst records in NFL history.  And more in store for this year.  We can’t even fill an entire end zone.

“Tebow is one of us.  He has class, character, and he’s a winner.  Let’s win, Mr. Khan.  Once upon a time, so-called experts probably doubted your potential, and now look at you.

“Give our guy a shot.  I’ll even buy that box your tried to sell me.  Remember this:  You can’t TiVo Tebow.  Let’s do this Mr. Khan.  For the people.  Let’s win.”

Maybe John should have spent more time and money in Tally fighting recent legislative restrictions affecting plaintiffs?

(The elimination of the Frye standard and the adoption of Daubert seems pretty big, though we've been dealing with that in federal court for a long time.)

Thoughts?

Former UM Coach Frank Haith Files Rule 27 Petition in SD FL!

Former UM Coach Frank Haith has filed a Rule 27 petition before Judge Rosenbaum seeking information on how his bank records wound up in the NCAA's botched Nevin Shapiro investigation:

Haith's lawyer, Michael Buckner, is trying to determine whether information from canceled checks in the coach's account were improperly -- and possibly illegally -- obtained.

Some of Haith's bank statements were voluntarily turned over to NCAA investigators as part of the two-year old investigation of the Miami Hurricanes athletic department. The petition states that certain information could have been obtained improperly by accessing the actual microfiche reproductions of the checks. Those microfiche copies were not turned over to the NCAA, according to a source.

Methinks there are good grounds for this motion to be granted -- and thus perhaps more impropriety uncovered in the widening NCAA/Shapiro fiasco.

11th Circuit: Surprise -- Another Florida Law is Unconstitutional!

No, it's not the anti-Sharia "foreign" law (yet), this time it is about foreign law -- namely Cuba:

After careful review, we conclude that Odebrecht has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its claim that the Cuba Amendment violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution under principles of conflict preemption. The Cuba Amendment conflicts directly with the extensive and highly calibrated federal regime of sanctions against Cuba promulgated by the legislative and executive branches over almost fifty years. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution “provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). The Cuba Amendment differs dramatically from the federal regime as to the entities covered, the actions triggering sanctions, and the penalties imposed. The Amendment also overrides the nuances of the federal law and weakens the President’s ability “to speak for the Nation with one voice in dealing” with Cuba. Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 381 (2000). In addition, Odebrecht has demonstrated the other equitable requirements that warrant a preliminary injunction: Odebrecht would have suffered irreparable harm absent the injunction, the balance of harms strongly favored the injunction, and the injunction did not disserve the public interest. We affirm.

In other words -- good job, Judge Moore!

Herald coverage here.

Chris Carver Represents Maximum Human Performance!

 
Well, he represented Maximum Human Performance.

Now Scott Cosgrove does.

(I've always wanted to write that headline.)

SFL Friday -- What the World Needs Now.....

Have a great weekend, plebes!

If You Can't Explain Your In Limine Motion Simply, It is Not Likely to Be Granted.

Here's an interesting standard Judge King lays out for an in limine motion -- if you can't explain it simply to the Court pretrial, it's not something the Court should be ruling on pretrial:

In limine consideration of arguments and evidence relating to the Defendants' "strategic planning and strategic planning documents'' is equally misplaced. One need look no further than Defendants' memorandum (pp. 6-10 - D.E. #84) to quickly discern that the complexities of even describing this issue to the Court pretrial renders it not a matter which should be considered in limine. Experienced trial counsel, and certainly the Court, can envision perhaps a half a dozen ways in which these matters might be relevant during the trial presentation of evidence. Counsel will have the full opportunity to make whatever objection they wish to make - materiality, relevancy, work product, etc. - if, and when, the evidence is sought to be presented.

Simplify, simplify, simplify!

Search Warrant for Cell Phone Handset - Required Florida Supreme Court Says

Search Warrant for Cell Phone Handset -
Required
Florida Supreme Court Says

Search Warrant for Cell Phone Handset Required - Florida Supreme Court Says a police officer is not authorized to search through photographs and information within a cell phone that was on defendant at time of arrest. Cell phone had been separated from defendant at time of search. Factually, images from defendant's cell phone depicted a weapon that resembled the gun stolen from convenience store, as well as defendant and his fiancee posing with stolen money packaged in manner described by the victim, a convenience store clerk.

Cops in the case properly separated and assumed possession of cell phone from defendantin search incident to arrest. The Florida Supreme Court held a  warrant was required before information, data, and content of cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement.  Notwithstanding decisions of other courts, Conformity clause does not meanFlorida courts must apply U.S. Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Robinson in this case.

The Florida Court reasoned that  Robinson not factually or legally on point. Then in a stunner, the court found that the Good faith exception to exclusionary rule does not apply, since no bright-line rule exists for law enforcement officers to rely upon with regard to searches of electonic devices under facts of this case. 

3d DCA Watch -- This Post Has Been Pre-Approved!

Sorry for the delay, but I recently took advantage of the bunker's new "pre-clearance" publication policy, which allows comments on opinions to be pre-approved and thus cleared for publication with the following snazzy and official-looking 3d DCA seal of approval:

So I just got this from the 3d DCA blogger pre-approval press office (it takes a few days), let me know what you think!

Citizens Prop. v. Zunzig:

In terms of the best worst opinions in 3d DCA history, this one easily takes the prize.  What a incredible, amazingly awful piece of work!

Kalb v. Sail Condo:

It gives me no great joy to report on this staggering work of mediocrity.

Can I have those 15 minutes back?  (SO I CAN READ IT AGAIN -- ed.)

Water Architecture v. City of Miami Beach:

Judge Shepherd thinks Pinellas County is exotic.

(ed. -- he really does!)

Last Call !

Pacenti reports a "frenzy" of litigants filing more than 40 lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida alone against BP to beat the expiration of the 3 year statute of limitations for damage blamed on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Read his article here.

And you-know-who is at the front of that line!



"This is the worst man-made disaster I have ever heard of...," plaintiffs injury lawyer Ervin Gonzalez said.

Hmmm. I think Ervin's been focused on that Chinese drywall thingy for too long.

Chernobyl; Union Carbide's Bhopal, India pesticide plant gas leak; the Great Smog of '52; Three Mile Island; Exxon Valdez; Love Canal; Saddam's Kuwait Oil Fires; the Destruction of the Aral Sea....

Oh, hail. I'll give Ervin top 10. He's been waiting three years to give that quote, after all.

Although he filed 15 suits against BP himself in the last month, Ervin is not all about the money.

"There's a whole trickle-down effect," said Gonzalez. "The seafood industry impacts tourism, and then tourism affects people who sell clothing, people who sell souvenirs and the accountants whose clients are those businesses. Everybody who has a relationship with the businesses are affected. They are dependent on each other."

Ervin to the rescue.

N.B.: I have always said that Ervin is one of the most caring, compassionate, concerned lawyers in our legal community.