Charter Control over Annexation- Provisions Must Be in Charter Itself

In Village of Wellington, et al, v Palm Beach County, here's the opinion, the 4th DCA upheld a circuit court's findings on the powers of charter counties to control and limit annexation. There's a good discussion of the interaction of the various constitutional and statutory provisions, but the bottom line is that the Charter provision itself must provide the actual annexation rules if they are to supersede the statutory provisions or municipal charters. The Charter can't just empower the County Commission to adopt later ordinances to govern annexation.

More to This Than Meets the Eye: Dec Action to Challenge Plat Approval

In McCarthy et al v. Hillsborough County, etc al, here's the link, the Second DCA issued this unfortunately short opinion that masks a serious issue that needed serious public analysis:

PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of certiorari without prejudice to the
petitioners seeking declaratory relief in the circuit court.

Here's the hook: the 2d tier cert was a challenge to the circuit court's denial of a cert attack on the Hillsborough County Commission's approval of a plat in a non-quasi judicial proceeding.

The critical sub-issue is this: under City of Boyton Beach v. Park of Commerce, _____, the Florida Supreme Court held that the site plan decision under review was quasi-judicial in nature. The opinion included language stating broadly that all land use decision were quasi-judicial. But a footnote cited to the Snyder case, noting that the same analysis applied. Snyder, of course, involved a rezoning, and there is are statutory requirements that rezoning ordinance be adopted by ordinance (which involves a hearing). The statute involving plats, as well as the Hillsborough County land use regulations, do NOT have such an explicit provision. However, the platting statute (Chapter 177) does require the local governing board to approve a plat, and other provisions of Chapter 125 and 166 provide that the only way for local governments to act are through ordiances or resolutions, and both those statutes and the Sunshine Law require those actions to be taken at public meeetings - but not necessarily after "public hearings."

Also complicating matters is the whole bizaare history of whether and when plat approvals are ministerial; under the statute, they are if the plat meets the objective, ennumerated standards, but most local subdivision ordinance add additional requirements that may include some discretionary criteria.

Here (based on information I have that's not in the opinion), the Hillsborough County Commission approved the plat at a public hearing, but did not allow affected neighbors to introduce evidence against it. Neighbors challenged by cert under Park of Commerce, claiming violations of due process and essential requirements of law. Circuit court denied, stating that the hearing wasn't quasi-judicial in nature, and the appeal followed.

What we don't know is whether the lower court held that the plat approval wasn't quasi-judicial under the structural analysis of Bloomfield v. Mayo, which holds that you look to see whether the delegating statute or ordinance requires notice and a due process type hearing, or under the so-called functional analysis that comes from Snyder, under which the court looks to see whether the local government was applying versus making policy, and implies and requires quasi-judicial procedures if they are.

Clearly, the County did not offer the incidents of a quasi-judicial hearing, and now the courts have held that a dec action, rather than cert, was the proper remedy. The question is how broadly this holding reaches.

Facially Valid Equal Protection Claims Must be Heard in Enforcement Proceedings

In Powell v. City of Sarasota, here's the link, http://www.2dca.org/opinion/September%2013,%202006/2D05-4850.pdf, the Second DCA held that a nuisance abatement board violated the law by not permitting a defence of race-based selective enforcement, and that the Circuit Court violated the essential requirements of law in not overturning on that basis.

While the court cited the statute, which requires that a defendant be permitted the opportunity to present evidence in defense, this is clearly a due process requirement as well.

Florida Cyber Crime Unit Gets State-of-the-Art Tool

Tallahassee Police Department Cyber Crimes Unit tallahassee.com - www.tallahassee.com

"Hard drive duplication is one of the first and most necessary steps required to perform an in-depth computer crimes investigation. Without evidence of a crime being committed, it is nearly impossible to successfully prosecute a case. Crime laboratory technicians duplicate the hard drive copying all of the data to a 'clean' drive for forensic analysis. . . .

The Logicube Forensic Talon is a high-tech portable hard drive duplication system that is deployed to the scene of a cyber crime. Without seizing the business's affected computer, investigators connect it to the Logicube. The Logicube accesses the target computer's hard drive and scans all of the data on the disc at the bit (ones and zeroes) level. Based on the scan of the target hard drive, the Logicube generates a unique, secure, non-duplicatable number-letter combination using a mathematical algorithm. The instrument then forensically duplicates the contents of the target hard drive copying it to a "clean" hard drive attached to the Logicube.

At the completion of the process the Logicube then scans the resulting copy of the hard drive and generates a second unique number-letter combination using the same mathematical algorithm. The two generated number letter combinations from the target computer and the forensic duplicate are compared and if they are the same number then the duplication was successful and the resultant evidence can be used for prosecution."

One Stop Therapy: Solving your loved one's legal problem and the behavior that caused it

Does your loved one have a history of problem behavior?

Please understand: Many people are just at the wrong place, at the wrong time and are wrongly accused of being on the wrong side of the law.

Yet many criminal defense clients have a long history of problem behavior. Their families are frustrated because the person seems to repeatedly do things that doesn't make sense. The person in question isn't necessarily "crazy" (as in thinking they are Jesus or possessed by aliens) but their behavior has caused problems in several areas of their life. Usually, the problem behavior is the result of "brain illness" - a real medical problem that can't just be talked away through counseling alone.

One Stop Therapy is a program designed by me after many years of studying people accused of crimes. The goal of One Stop Therapy is simple: Solve the problem behavior that created the legal problem and solve the legal problem at the same time.

Here is a brief test to see if the person you love fits the One Stop Therapy Program criteria:

□ Did your loved one finish high school?
□ Is your loved one impulsive in matters of money or love?
□ Does your loved one appear to sabotage themselves?
□ Does your loved one make empty promises?
□ Does your loved one have a substance abuse problem?
□ Has your loved one been in substance abuse treatment previously, but it didn't work?
□ Has your loved one ever been prescribed anti-depressants or anti-anxiety drugs?
□ Has your loved one ever sought out or been court ordered to attend counseling?
□ Does your loved one attract people who are a negative influence?
□ Does your loved one make ridiculous excuses for misbehavior?
□ Is your loved one unreliable?
□ Have some family members "written off" your loved one?
□ Has your loved one been arrested before, even if it was a long time ago?

If you marked two or more of the above questions, then your loved one may be a candidate for One Stop Therapy. This does not excuse wrongful behavior nor does it fit every individual's circumstance. However, after having hundreds of clients evaluated by a PhD level psychologist using advanced psychometric testing, most "repeat offenders" have chemical imbalances and other brain illnesses which affect their behavior. This may be why your loved one doesn't get it.

I believe that this approach is the future of criminal law. The merger of pscyhology, psychiatry and law has the potential to actually solve the social problem of crime in over eighty percent (80%) of all criminal cases.

How to Select a Criminal Defense Lawyer Who is Right for You

One of the advantages to lawyer's marketing on the Internet and in the phone books, it that consumers have access to information. Obviously, one of the disadvantages is the asymetry of information: The lawyer has more information and knows how to use it to land a case.

The best phone book ad doesn’t guarantee the best lawyer. For example, a lawyer may have a big, flashy ad that says “DUI Only!” yet that lawyer may not be a criminal law specialist. In fact, there is no specialty in DUI recognized by the Florida Bar Association or the Florida Supreme Court! The only two specialties in criminal law are criminal trial law and criminal appellate law.

Select a lawyer by asking questions before you go to the lawyer’s office. A handy checklist is provided.

Most lawyers in the criminal defense field provide free initial consultations. The free initial consultation has two purposes: 1) explain what a lawyer can do for you, and; 2) what the fee would be if you and the lawyer agree to representation.

Desperate lawyers will offer low money down payment plans, cheap fees and cheap service. The best best criminal defense attorneys are lawyers who will expect their fee up front, they will charge more, and they will have the time to provide the best service. Most importantly, they can answer the questions on the checklist with a ‘yes,’ not an excuse.

Checklist for Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer

• Are you certified by the Florida Bar Association and the Florida Supreme Court as a specialist in criminal law?
• Does your law firm focus on criminal law exclusively?
• Have you handled at least a thousand or more criminal cases?
• Are you a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers?
• Are you a member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers?
• Are you a member of your local Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers?
• Do other lawyers call you when they have questions about criminal law?
• Are you a “Lone Ranger” or do you have a defense team?
• Have you ever led a defense team?
• Have you handled cases like mine in the past?
• Have you had trials in cases like mine in the past?
• Have you practiced law for more than ten years?
• Have you won any cases that have been reported in the Southern Second Edition Case Reporter?
• Are you qualified to handle capital death penalty cases?
• Have you ever won a capital case?
• Have you ever won any motions to dismiss?
• Have you ever won any motions to suppress?
• Have you ever won any judge trials?
• Have you ever won any jury trials?

Now, some of these won't apply in every case: If you or your loved one has been charged with Burglary, then this Checklist for Hiring a Criminal Defense Lawyer can be modified to suit your needs.

11th Cir Ct of Appeal on 1st Amendment/Signs - Know your Standing Doctrine

In KH Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Trussville, here's the link, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals clarified how standing to challenge under the overbreadth doctrine works (at least in the 11th).

Ok, it's yet another billboard case. The ordinance has some serious defects in allowing commercial speech preference over non-commercial speech (off-site billboard ordinances often have this issue). It actually is screwed up enough to read such that any political sign can only be temporary.

When the City denies sign permits, the Plaintiff sues to invalidate the whole ordinance based on overbreadth, and wins in the 11th based on the defects above. The real story is how the 11th tries to "fix" the apparent inconsistencies in some of its earlier opinions.

Here's the upshot: once you're adversely affected by any part of a regulation that implicates the 1st amendment, you have standing to attack any part of the ordinance that also covers your activities (even if that wasn't the basis of the adverse decision) on the basis that it is overbroad as it would apply to other persons and their speech. After noting that the overbreadth doctrine does not eliminate standing requirements for getting into federal court, the opinion lays out this critical set of distinctions:

First Amendment standing analysis may be complicated further by the overbreadth doctrine, which serves as an exception to the prudential principle noted above. Under overbreadth, “a party may bring a First Amendment case asserting the rights of third parties if a statute is constitutionally applied to the litigant but might be unconstitutionally applied to third parties not before the court.” CAMP Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1270-71 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Significantly, the overbreadth doctrine does not relieve a plaintiff from having to establish constitutional standing; it is simply an exception to one of the prudential requirements. See id. at 1270 (noting that“[t]he overbreadth doctrine does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden to prove constitutional standing”). Indeed, a plaintiff may bring an overbreadth challenge to only those provisions of a law or ordinance that “affect activitiesties. " Id. at 1273. In other words, the overbreadth doctrine does not change the statutes or provisions of an ordinance a plaintiff may challenge; she can only contest those which actually caused her injury. Rather, the overbreadth doctrine simply allows a plaintiff to bring a facial challenge to a provision of law that caused her injury, regardless of whether the provision’s regulation of her conduct in particular was constitutional.

Based on this analysis, the Court held that the Plaintiff could challenge not only the sectthe ordinancerdiance that provided the location and setback provisions under which the sign permits were denied, but also could "look through" to the intent and definition sections, which contained the prohibition against signs not permitted and the definitions and provisions that created the violations of the 1st amendment as applied to other speakers or actors.

Again, a critical opinion for anyone who writes, defends or attacks sign ordinances and permits.