defense attorney Fort Lauderdale

September 15, 2024

Misdemeanor vs. Felony DUI in Florida: What’s the Difference?

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

If you’ve been charged with driving under the influence (DUI) in Fort Lauderdale, you may be wondering whether you are facing a misdemeanor or felony charge. The distinction between the two is crucial, as it can greatly impact the penalties you face and the long-term consequences on your life. As a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney, I often get asked about this difference and how it affects the defense strategy.

What Is a Misdemeanor DUI?

In Florida, most DUI charges are classified as misdemeanors. This is especially true for first-time offenders. A misdemeanor DUI generally occurs when someone is caught driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher or is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination, without causing significant harm to others.

March 20, 2024

“How Much Jail Time Will I Get for Domestic Violence in Florida?”

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

For those arrested for domestic violence in Fort Lauderdale, one of the first questions is, “How much jail time will I get?”

As Broward domestic violence lawyers, it’s impossible to say for certain without examining the specifics of your case, but what we can say is this:

You will probably be held in jail at least until your first appearance – even in misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Ideally, that first appearance is within 24 hours of the arrest, though it can take longer if the arrest occurred early in the weekend or right before a holiday.
You will likely be granted the opportunity to be released on bail. However, your release will probably be dependent on a number of special conditions, such as having no contact with the alleged victim, relinquishing possession of any firearms, and possibly GPS monitoring.
An arrest doesn’t automatically mean you’ll be convicted or even charged. Hire a defense lawyer who can engage prosecutors in talks early, presenting factual defenses, legal issues and mitigating circumstances. This can sometimes sway prosecutors early on not to file charges or to file lesser charges – both of which minimizes your risk of jail time.

Now, let’s say you are convicted for domestic violence. You will probably serve some jail time, but the exact amount can vary widely.

One of the reasons for that is that “domestic violence” doesn’t refer to a single crime. It can involve anything from threats, harassment and stalking to kidnapping, sexual battery or felony battery. What differentiates it as an act of domestic violence is the relationship between the two parties. A violent act is considered one of domestic violence if the accuser and accused are family or household members who live together or used to live together as a family OR they share a child together (regardless of whether they ever lived together). Continue reading

November 8, 2023

Could Florida Gun Possession Under Domestic Violence Restraining Order be Legalized?

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to uphold a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms.

The case is U.S. v. Rahimi, and it involves a Texas man accused of striking his girlfriend during an argument and later threatening to shoot her.

As Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers who have represented defendants in matters of domestic violence, domestic violence restraining orders, and unlawful firearm possession, we’ve been watching the case closely. Although it comes down to federal law (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)) and we primarily handle state-level cases, there could certainly be some ripple effects if the justices err on the side of the right to bear arms.

Despite the conservative bend on the bench and the fact that justices expanded gun rights last year, many legal scholars are concluding it unlikely justices will go against the grain on this federal law in the Rahimi case. A federal appellate court in that matter struck down a 1994 federal ban on firearms for those under court order to stay away from their partners or spouses.

Whatever they decide, it could have implications for lots of other cases – including a pending matter involving President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. The younger Biden is facing criminal charges for purchasing a firearm while addicted to drugs, something that is also prohibited under federal law, though less commonly enforced as the domestic violence restraining order restriction.

As noted during the SCOTUS oral arguments, the existing federal background check system has blocked some 75,000 gun sales to those subject to domestic violence protection orders over the last 25 years.

What the Federal Law Says

The federal law says it’s unlawful for a person who has a protection order (a Florida judgment of injunction for protection of domestic violence meets this definition) in effect to possess guns or ammunition, to ship or transport guns or ammunition interstate, to receive any that have been so shipped or transported, or to have any that have been seized returned to them. The respondent in that case must be identified as an “intimate partner” (spouse, ex-spouse, co-parent, or person who lives/has lived together with victim). There are exemptions for police and active military members who who are required to possess service firearms as part of their job.

If a person is convicted of a domestic violence offense, they are permanently disqualified from possessing a gun or ammunition – and there’s no official use exemption in that case. Even if the case is expunged, the court can still retain that firearm prohibition.

Violate the federal firearm law on this, and you’re facing up to 10 years in federal prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

However, as our Fort Lauderdale defense attorneys can explain, even the repeal of the federal law wouldn’t necessarily mean these prohibitions would magically disappear. That’s because we still have state firearm restrictions for domestic violence injunctions with which to contend.

Florida Firearm Possession Rules for Subjects of Domestic Violence Injunction Continue reading

May 10, 2023

Does Florida Have a “Romeo & Juliet Law”?

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

Young love can be a beautiful thing. Unless, of course, one of you is older than 18 and the other isn’t. Then, it could be a criminal thing. Statutory rape, to be exact.

As our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers can explain, Florida does have a so-called “Romeo & Juliet law,” but it’s not a catch-all for every consensual relationship situation between legal adults and teenagers. It also won’t protect you from criminal charges or conviction. It’s merely a means for the defendant to petition the court not to have to register as a sex offender.

Prior to 2007, the law in Florida was that ANY sexual relations between a minor and someone over the age of 18 was statutory rape – regardless of consent. A conviction meant the older party in the relationship would automatically have to register as a sex offender – and suffer all the lifelong complications that come with that, including difficulty with employment, housing, parental rights, and more.

In 2007, an exemption was introduced – what we refer to as the “Romeo & Juliet law,” codified in F.S. 943.0435.

What’s the Age of Consent in Florida?

First thing’s first: The age of consent for sexual relations in Florida is 18. Minors younger than that are by-and-large considered incapable of consenting to sexual activity.

There a few limited exceptions. Per F.S. 794.05, a minor who is 16 or 17 can consent to sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 24. In that case, no crime is committed. Same with consensual teen relationships between individuals 13 to 17 when there is no more than a 4-year age gap.

However, once the older half crosses the threshold of their 24th birthday, sexual intercourse with a 16 or 17-year-old becomes statutory rape, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Scenarios that would be considered statutory rape under Florida law:
A sexual relationship between a 15-year-old and 18-year-old. (Second-degree felony.)
A sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and a 24-year-old. (Second-degree felony.)
A consensual sexual relationship between a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old. (Even though they’re both teenagers and it’s consensual, the older teen can be charged with lewd lascivious conduct if they’re 4+ years older than their younger paramour. It might literally come down to the month they were each born in. Though if that’s true, the defense might be in a stronger position to negotiate a dismissal or far reduced charge.)

If an adult travels to meet the minor for sex after making arrangements over the phone or internet, this is a second-degree felony – even if you never actually met up. If you’re 21-or-older and impregnant someone under 16, that’s a third-degree felony (contributing to the delinquency of a minor).

No one under 16 can consent to sex.

One (rare) exception is… Continue reading

May 25, 2019

No Easy “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free” Cards, But Fort Lauderdale Defense Lawyers Beneficial at Bail Hearings

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

Cash bail has long been integrated into the Florida criminal justice system as a means of assuring those released from jail post-arrest/pre-trial show up to court, and that risk to the community is minimized.

But criminal justice reform advocates, like those at the ACLU, are calling for an end to the cash bail system, saying it results in disparate outcomes on the basis of income.

Criminal defendants in Florida may be jailed for days, weeks or even months pending trial, and public defenders say many are strong-armed into accepting plea deals on lesser charges – even when they were innocent – just to secure their release from jail.

Who Gets Bail in Florida Criminal Cases?

November 30, 2018

Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Attorney: Competency of Witnesses in Trial

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

Witness testimony is perhaps one of the most powerful – and fallible – types of evidence presented in a Florida criminal trial. One of the most important jobs of a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney is not just to examine the potential weakness in that testimony, but also the competency of each witness.

As established in the 1928 Florida Supreme Court case of Crockett v. Cassels, a witness must be competent in order to testify in a trial, meaning he or she must be both capable and qualified. That means, as noted in the 1990 case of Rivet v. State and as outlined in in F.S. 90.603, that one is has both sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the nature and obligation of the oath and the ability to perceive, remember and communicate accurate sensory perceptions to the court. This ability is presumed unless proven otherwise by competent evidence. Witnesses may be disqualified if they are unable to:

Communicate to the jury;
Understand the duty to tell the truth;
Perceive and remember events.

A person’s immaturity (being a child) and mental illness or mental disability won’t necessarily disqualify a witness, but as a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney can explain, courts are required to carefully consider one’s threshold in intellectual ability when weighing whether to allow them to testify. Continue reading

February 28, 2017

South Florida Teen Charged as Adult in Fatal Crash Faces Re-Trial

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

The boy was just 15-years-old in November 2015, allegedly driving a stolen Mustang convertible at reported speeds of up to 120 mph as he tried to evade the police officers chasing him, lights flashing.

At the same time, a woman was on her way to pick up her own teenager, a 16-year-old girl who was in dance class. She never saw the convertible that crossed through that intersection. The 46-year-old woman, a mother of two, was ejected from the vehicle and died instantly, according to The Sun-Sentinel. The crash occurred at the intersection of Palmetto Park Road and Northwest Second Avenue, after the teen reportedly ran a red light.

Prosecutors have direct-filed the teen as an adult on charges of vehicular homicide, fleeing the scene of a fatal crash and driving without a license. If convicted on all charges, he faces up to 25 years in prison. His first trial took place in January and ended in a mistrial. Jurors reportedly deliberated for more than nine hours and still were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Continue reading

July 6, 2016

U.S. Supreme Court: DUI Warrantless Breath Tests OK, Blood Tests Not

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down an important Fourth Amendment decision recently in the case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, which dealt with warrantless breathalyzer tests and blood tests, ultimately invalidating implied consent laws that pertain to warrantless blood draws.

Essentially, the court decided that while the government cannot require a person to submit to a blood draw without first obtaining a warrant, the government can require a person arrested for drunken driving to submit to a warrantless breath test.

The case was the result of consolidated appeals from three separate drunk driving arrests in which the defendants were prosecuted – or threatened with prosecution – for refusing to take a blood or breath test. Continue reading

July 2, 2016

Utah v. Strieff – U.S. Supreme Court Expands Lawless Searches

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

In a contentious 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Utah v. Strieff ruled in favor of a cop who seized drugs after an unlawful stop. It was only after that stop the officer learned the defendant had an outstanding traffic warrant. After making an arrest, the officer searched defendant and found drugs and paraphernalia. Plaintiff argued this evidence should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.

However, the majority ruled that although the initial stop was not lawful, which would normally mean any evidence obtained thereafter could not be used against defendant, the court instead chose to apply the attenuation doctrine. This doctrine states that even though the way the evidence was obtained was illegal, such evidence can still be admissible if the connection between the evidence and the illegal method is sufficiently thin or attenuated. The court held that the officer made a good-faith mistake when stopping the defendant, who was leaving a suspected drug house. This was not, the court decided, part of some systematic recurrence of police misconduct and nor would the decision result in the proliferation of dragnet searches for those with outstanding arrest warrants.

Dissenting Justice Sonya Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, had strong words of rebuke for the majority on this issue, saying unlawful police stops, “Corrode all our civil liberties and threaten our lives.” Continue reading

March 30, 2016

Woman Accused of Revenge Porn Against Ex-BFF

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

Typically when we talk about “revenge porn,” it’s an act of cyber sexual harassment committed by former romantic partners. The majority of cases involve men posting sexually suggestive or explicit photographs of their former wives or girlfriends.

But in a recent case out of Illinois, it involves a woman who is accused of posting private sexual images of her former best friend since grade school.

The Daily Beast reports the 38-year-old defendant, Stephanie Kaczmarek, is charged with unlawful dissemination of private sexual images – also known as “revenge porn” – a felony in Illinois. Police announced her arrest earlier this month. Continue reading