Wednesday, July 27, 2016


Battling City Hall, the Wright Choice

            It is not often, in fact, never actually, that I write about court cases because frankly I find them quite boring.  Well, if I am involved in the case they are not so boring but to the sit and watch someone else’s case is pretty much like watching paint dry.   This case is different, at least to me.  I am not involved but a good friend of mine is.  James B. Wright v. The City of Miami Gardens and City Clerk Ronetta Taylor, Miami Dade County Circuit Court Case Number 2016-016248-CA-01.  The case was heard today in front of the Honorable Judge Bronwyn Miller who is perhaps one of the most well liked and respected judges in Miami-Dade County and who happened to preside over my very first legal victory when I sued Florida Power and Light for crashing into my car.  The City was represented by heavy hitter J.C. Planas and James had slugger Jason Murray in his corner. 


James B. Wright


            James wants to be Mayor of the City of Miami Gardens in North Miami-Dade County and a fine Mayor he will be.  For those of you who do not know Miami Gardens, is no garden at all.  Miami Gardens is home to high crime and poverty.  The City suffers from a lack of leadership and direction that James wants to and will correct.  Miami Gardens Police Officers are overwhelmed.  One commented to me recently that they have gone from crime fighting to crime maintaining, meaning they are not stopping crimes they are just writing reports of crimes.  I have no doubt with a little house cleaning James is the man for the job. 
            In order to be on the August 30th, 2016 ballot for Mayor, James had to qualify by June 2, 2016, which he did.  Here’s the rub.  After the qualifying period ended the City of Miami Gardens disqualified him because it received his filing fee check back from Wells Fargo.  Apparently Wells Fargo could not locate James’ campaign account and simply returned the check to the City.


The hearing was in courtroom 6-1, the Al Capone room

            Jason Murray stated first and came out swinging with his argument.  He made a very compelling and passionate argument that to disqualify James from running for Mayor would be inconsistent with our American Jurisprudence.  That the real issue in the case is that the City does not want to pay for the costs to have the ballots reprinted.  Murray knew he had case law that might run afoul of his position and made a very distinguishing analysis of why it should not apply to James.  Murray also argued that any costs the City might incur could be avoided by rescheduling the election in November because those ballots have not been printed. 
The statute at issue, §99.061(7)(a)(1), is very clear.  If a candidate’s check is returned by the bank for any reason the candidate must pay the filing fee by the end of the qualification period or be disqualified.  The problem in this case is that the City Clerk did not notify James until after the qualifying period ended.
Murray provided undeniable proof that James had an established campaign account, there were sufficient funds in the account and the check in question was never presented against his account.  These facts are not in dispute, Judge Miller correctly noted that this is a case of “wrongful dishonor” and “there is no bounced check in this case.” The only entity at fault in this case is the bank that wrongfully dishonored James’ check.
Planas relied on a strict reading of statute §99.061(7)(a)(1) and argued that “yes, the bank messed up” but “there is no remedy here, no remedy at all.”  Planas further argued that the facts in James’ case are just like the case law and the Court is bound to follow that case law.  The case law Planas is referring to is Levey v. Detzner, 146 So.3d 1224 (1st DCA, 2014) that involved a candidate who had a filing fee check returned because her campaign account had a hold placed on it.  The check James wrote was never presented to his account for payment as noted above.
Judge Miller is expected to issue a ruling tonight or tomorrow morning.  Whatever her ruling is this case will go on as both parties made it clear today that an appeal would be filed in the District Court of Appeals.  In my opinion, Murray had the more compelling argument today and may have given the Judge just enough to rule in James’ favor. 
To deny James Wright to be on the ballot would be a shame and an overly harsh outcome.  It would not be a loss to James because he will go on and be successful in other ways.  James will surely run for Mayor in the next election. The real losers here are the citizens of Miami Gardens who would be prohibited from selecting James Wright as their next Mayor, a mayor they so desperately need. 

Patrick J. McGeehan, Esq. is a criminal defense and family law attorney in Miami, Florida. He has over 20 years of law enforcement experience in the South Florida region. Mr. McGeehan was a police instructor in several areas as well as a court certified expert witness in D.U.I., speed measurement, accident reconstruction and other law enforcement fields. Mr. McGeehan has been featured on numerous national news networks, radio and print media regarding his legal work. He can be reached at the Law Offices of Patrick J. McGeehan, P.A., One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3760, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-577-4933, patrick@pjmlawyer.com; www.pjmlawyer.com.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016



A rabbi from Brooklyn crosses paths with a thug from Miami; it sounds like the beginning of a bad novel. Instead, it was the end of a good life. On August 9th, 2014, Rabbi Joseph Raksin was shot and killed while walking to temple. The investigation and subsequent prosecution of the suspected killer has left the community in uproar.
The Miami-Dade Homicide Bureau has some of the best detectives in the country. Still, for more than a year, there were no arrests in this high-profile, politically-charged case.  Some thought was a robbery gone wrong, but others thought to be a hate crime.  Then, on December 9th, 2015, the authorities held a press conference. With a mug shot and a poster full of charges, the State Attorney announced the arrest of Deandre Charles as the suspected killer. They cited evidence including cell phone records, DNA from the crime scene, and a sketch of the killer.
Deandre Charles is a black kid from Miami Gardens. He attended Miami Norland High School. He was 14 years old at the time of Rabbi Raksin’s murder. Miami Gardens is a troubled section of North Miami-Dade County where good citizens deal with shootings, robberies, or murders every day. The area produces cold-blooded killers, even 14-year-old killers. The case sounds good, right? We've got a murderer here!
The State believes its case is solid. On March 23rd, 2016, there was a hearing on Charles’ motion for bond - this is where Charles asks a judge to be released on bond prior to trial and if granted, the release conditions would be listed in the judge’s order.  At the hearing, the State shared details of their case against Charles. What they shared was less than compelling and a lot less than a solid murder case.
First, the DNA evidence: at the time of the murder, DNA evidence was collected from the crime scene and the rabbi's clothes. Six days after the killing, the police stopped a car that was seen near the crime scene. Charles was a passenger in the car during the stop. Police impounded the car and collected additional DNA samples. The DNA recovered by the police from the scene, the car used in the murder, and the rabbi’s clothing was a mixture, meaning the samples each contained DNA from multiple people. DNA experts from Florida International University testified that the DNA recovered was consistent with Charles’ DNA, but they also found consistent with half the world’s population. The DNA literally could have come from anyone, Charles, you, or me.
A cellphone owned by Charles’ mother, pinged near the scene before and after the murder. Charles and his family live in the area, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the cell phone would "ping" in the area. An informant named three persons involved in the murder, Deandre Charles' name wasn’t among them. A witness, who later identified Charles in a photographic lineup, described the person he saw running from the scene as a tall, thin black man and in his twenties. Charles was 14.


Oh, and that sketch? The witness drew it, not a police sketch artist.  To be kind, I would describe the sketch as simple, child-like. It looked more like a cartoon than a person. The Judge being kind described it as “folk art.” It doesn't look like is Deandre Charles or anyone else for that matter.
When the police interviewed Charles, he denied any involvement and told investigators he was at home. There were no witnesses to the actual murder. Other than the witness identifying Charles in the vicinity, there is no direct evidence presented that even places Charles at the scene of Rabbi Raskin's murder. And though the single witness puts Charles in the area, his mere presence doesn't mean that he committed the crime.
Judge Jason Bloch heard this evidence at the hearing. In order to deny a bond request, the State must present evidence that meets a higher standard than that which is necessary to convict at trial. Judge Bloch ruled that the State did not meet this standard, and his order allows for Charles' conditional release, once Charles posts a $300,000 bond.  Many in the community are angry that the subject in the rabbi's murder may bond out and be under house arrest instead of in jail before his trial. Some have questioned Judge Bloch's ruling.   But is it the judge who is to blame or are the authorities who brought forth a questionable, entirely circumstantial case?
Can one be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence? Yes. Did Deandre Charles murder Rabbi Joseph Raskin? Maybe. Can the State of Florida prove this? Hardly, at least at this time the State’s case looks to be rather weak. Under the circumstances and reviewing the evidence presented, most judges would have reached the same conclusion as Judge Bloch.  What Judge Bloch did was look at the evidence presented to him by the State and not the person accused, the victim, nor the politics involved.  And Charles? He is still in jail, unable to post the $300,000 bond.


Patrick J. McGeehan, Esq. is a criminal defense and family law attorney in Miami, Florida.  In addition to having over 20 years of law enforcement experience in the South Florida region, Mr. McGeehan was a police instructor in several areas as well as a court certified expert witness in D.U.I., speed measurement, accident reconstruction and other law enforcement fields.  Mr. McGeehan has been featured on numerous national news networks, radio and print media regarding his legal work.  He can be reached at the Law Offices of Patrick J. McGeehan, P.A., One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3760, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-577-4933, patrick@pjmlawyer.com; www.pjmlawyer.com


Thursday, July 14, 2016

Due Process? A Drone Was Used To Blow Up A US Citizen Without Trial This Week


At the end of the day is he any more or less dead? I get your point; do we want authorities to remotely kill citizens? There is no question that deadly force was proper in this instance. The idea of delivering the deadly force was novel and creative. The only other alternative was to send officers in to personally deliver the instrument of death. Of course sending in officers would have placed them a great risk, a risk that was avoided by the robot. In the end I believe this tactic will survive scrutiny. Officers sign up to assume necessary risks not avoidable risks.


Tuesday, July 12, 2016


Today, July 12th, 2016, I made the front page of the Miami Daily Business Review.  Although they spelled my name incorrectly, the topic is important.  I discuss my thoughts on the police based on my experience as a Police Officer in Miami, Florida.  The full article can be found here:

Lawyers Who Wore Badges Lament Shootings of, by Police



Monday, July 11, 2016

Today Is A Beautiful Day



Today, Sunday, July 10th, 2016 is a beautiful day here in South Florida. It is bright, sunny and hot. When I woke up this morning I did not put on a vest, I did not pin on my badge and I did not holster my weapon. That routine ended for me years ago. Today, many of my friends, brothers and sisters in law enforcement carried on that routine with heavy hearts. Despite the somber days we are experiencing I slept very well last night knowing that my brothers and sisters are standing strong and keeping us safe. I promise you this dark, seemingly doom filled storm will pass and you will be stronger.

Over the past couple days I have read lots of stories from officers and civilians around the nation and the world expressing their emotions. An officer from California who is concerned about the feelings he is having and how to channel them. A mother in Miami who is worried about her newly sworn son, a retired officer herself that knows all too well the dangers her boy will face. A police officer in Russia who is outraged someone would actually target police officers. Police officers no doubt have a lot of support. I want to tell each one of them that they will be ok, that we will all be ok.

Since the beginning of policing in America our brothers and sisters have died in the line of duty. Each and every time it is difficult to accept, we mourn, we react, yet police officers continue to report for duty. This time is different, very different. Our emotions are stronger, wider ranging and potentially self-consuming. Police officers are a fraternal bunch, we rely on each other to survive the job and stay alive. This is a time when we will need to lean on one another heavily for some time to come.

Very humbly I offer my advice, not based upon any special knowledge, statistics, or psychological analysis but as a brother. Be self aware, think about your emotions and how you are reacting. Reach out to your brothers and sisters for support. Find a way to channel your energy into positive outlets. Be kind to yourself, talk to your self with compassion and maintain your humanity. On the tactical side, trust your instincts and rely on your training. Have confidence that when the time comes to act you will do the right thing. Make sure your battle rattle is up to par, wear your vest every day and be proficient with your patrol rifle. Seek out all the training you can, even if you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. If you have not already, buy a set of rifle plates and a carrier. They are cheap and offer significantly more protection than your Kevlar vest. But most of all, go home to your family at the end of your tour.

Patrick J. McGeehan, Esq. is a criminal defense and family law attorney in Miami, Florida. He has over 20 years of law enforcement experience in the South Florida region. Mr. McGeehan was a police instructor in several areas as well as a court certified expert witness in D.U.I., speed measurement, accident reconstruction and other law enforcement fields. Mr. McGeehan has been featured on numerous national news networks, radio and print media regarding his legal work. He can be reached at the Law Offices of Patrick J. McGeehan, P.A., One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3760, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-577-4933, patrick@pjmlawyer.com; www.pjmlawyer.com.

SURVIVING AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION



It is always my pleasure to represent members of my former profession in these difficult times. Several years ago I began representing officers and civilian police employees in police department internal investigations. Most of these investigations involve departmental policy violations that usually, at worst, result in paper in the employee’s file. The employee’s supervisor or the department’s internal affairs division conducts these investigations. Most investigations don’t have long lasting consequences, with the exception of bruised pride. Most of these investigations don’t negatively affect the terms and conditions of employment or prohibit future employment.

However, there are more serious investigations involving major policy violations and criminal law violations. The investigations I have been involved in are in the South Florida area, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties specifically. Fortunately, I have been able to achieve favorable or at least non-career damaging results for my clients. Recently as part of another investigation, I reviewed a couple internal affairs investigations where the outcome for the officer was not so favorable. It is these cases that I would like to make some observations on, which may assist someone in surviving an internal affairs investigation. I am familiar with how internal affairs investigations are conducted in my local area so any information herein may not be applicable to your department. These observations are general in nature and do not constitute a complete guide for dealing with all internal affairs investigations.

OVERVIEW OF AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

An internal affairs case starts when someone makes a formal complaint or provides information that an employee is engaged in some type of prohibited conduct. Fortunately, at least in this part of the state, internal affairs divisions don’t seem to be proactively looking to initiate cases against officers the way they do in other regions. If the initial complainant is unable or unwilling to make a formal complaint the Chief or Police, Sheriff, or other management level employee will usually be deemed the complainant.

The case will be assigned to an investigator and then we are off to the races. In Florida the department has 180 days to complete the investigation but there are several circumstances that toll or stall the 180-day time limit. These circumstances are listed in §112.532, Florida Statues (2015), Law enforcement officer’s and correctional officer’s rights. I suggest you review and become very familiar with the Bill of Rights as soon as you are notified you are the subject of such an investigation.

The subject officer is usually the last person interviewed in the investigation. If the investigation involves allegations of criminal conduct it will be reviewed by the State Attorney’s Office for a determination on the filing of criminal charges. If the State Attorney declines to prosecute the officer a disposition will be conveyed to the investigator informing the department to handle the matter internally. At this point you will receive your invitation to visit internal affairs to make a statement. This may be the first time you are aware an investigation is being conducted. As soon as you learn you are the subject of such an investigation contact your attorney or representative of your choice, don’t wait until the day before the scheduled statement.

The investigations I am discussing here are administrative investigations, if your internal affairs statements begins with “you have the right to remain silent,” I suggest you do remain silent and contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. Remember, you have the right to remain silent, you must also muster the ability to remain silent.

YOUR STATEMENT

When your day comes to sit across the table from the internal affairs investigator remember that internal affairs investigators are trained to do their specific jobs just like you are and they go to specialized schools too. The investigator knows beforehand what questions are going to be asked and usually they are prepared with a list of questions including follow-up questions. These questions are specific and narrowly tailored to the issues the investigator has identified as violations, or they should be. The investigator will know the answer to most of the questions they ask and they will be looking for you to give conflicting answers.

The statement will be recorded and you will be read an opening investigative statement by the investigator. DO NOT waive your right to anything, make sure the investigator is following the rules. MOST importantly, do not waive your right to review all the evidence and witness statements the investigator has. I don’t care if there are 50 witness statements and 300 pages of documents, review them all carefully. Ideally, the investigator will provide you with a copy of their file before your statement but I’ve seen plenty of cases where the first time the officer saw any evidence is when they sat down to give their statement.

After you’ve reviewed the entire case file, try to anticipate the questions you are going to be asked and your responses. If your attorney is experienced in internal affairs investigations he or she should have a good idea of the types of questions you’re going to be asked. Think carefully about your response, take your time to think about the question before beginning to answer. Do not try to “wing it” when you walk in for your statement. In administrative investigations, the investigator has wide latitude during questioning and you don’t want to provide any more information than what the investigator asks for. I have seen a few cases where officers brought forward damaging information the investigator was not aware of. Also, you will be told that anything you say cannot be used against you criminally with one huge exception, perjury. You’ll also be informed that if you refuse to answer or cooperate with the investigation, you will face discipline up to and including termination.

So now you are sitting there with the internal affairs investigator, and hopefully your attorney, and here come the questions. The questions should be narrow in scope, so therefore, your answers should be equally as narrow. Ideally, the questions should be yes or no type questions, if so, try to stick to yes or no answers. Avoid answers such as “I do not recall at this time.” Internal affairs investigators are trained to key in on such responses. Sometimes questions cannot be answered clearly with a yes or no and require an added explanation, keep your explanatory answers to a minimum. Going off on a tangent here can be really dangerous, so don’t give an internal affairs investigator more ammunition. The last couple investigations I reviewed involved an officer that went off on a lengthy explanation of why something was done and therefore was not a policy violation when just the simple act of doing what the officer did was a violation in itself. If the violation you are accused of states you can’t do A unless B, don’t try to make a C into a B circumstance.   When the investigator has overwhelming evidence and documentation, including collaborative witness testimony, you did something in violation of a policy and you deny doing it, the sharks will begin to circle. In the investigations I just reviewed, you could tell the exact point in the subject officer’s statement where the officer began lying. The change in voice, tone, fluctuation and character were as obvious as could be. In response, the internal affairs investigator led the officer down the yellow brick road to termination. In other words, don’t try to lie your way through a statement because if the investigator can tell you’re lying they’ll pounce on you.

THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY

In administrative investigations, the role of your attorney is important.   During the actual statement, objections and arguments will get you nowhere fast so the best strategy is to thoroughly prepare before the statement and clarify any issues that need clarifying at the end of the statement, on the record. Although there is no formal procedure for your attorney to ask questions at the end of the statement, I have never been denied the opportunity to ask clarifying questions of my officer. Actually, I never ask if I can ask questions, I just start asking them when the investigator appears finished, the investigators have all, thus far, acquiesced. Your attorney should sit down with you and prepare you for your statement. I don’t mean the morning of your statement either, but long before the statement so if there are any issues that need looking into, they can be done well before the statement. The way I prepare my officers is that I get a full copy of the investigative file, outline it, identify the issues the investigator is focusing on and try to formulate a list of questions I would ask if I was the investigator. If necessary, I also consult a colleague who was an internal affairs sergeant for years. I’ll schedule a meeting with my officer well in advance of the statement and go over all the anticipated questions and the case evidence with them.

In the investigations I just reviewed, the officer’s attorney, a union attorney, said virtually nothing during the officer’s statement and it was obvious the officer was ill prepared to give the statement.   The key to surviving your internal affairs investigation is to be well prepared. Good luck!

Patrick J. McGeehan, Esq. is a criminal defense and family law attorney in Miami, Florida.  He has over 20 years of law enforcement experience in the South Florida region.  Mr. McGeehan was a police instructor in several areas as well as a court certified expert witness in D.U.I., speed measurement, accident reconstruction and other law enforcement fields.  Mr. McGeehan has been featured on numerous national news networks, radio and print media regarding his legal work.  He can be reached at the Law Offices of Patrick J. McGeehan, P.A., One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3760, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-577-4933, patrick@pjmlawyer.com; www.pjmlawyer.com.