TO KILL A RABBI

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

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.

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

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.

Why I Would Never Encourage My Children To Become Police Officers

Being a cop is a great job, I thoroughly loved it for the first ten years or so. As a police officer, I was able to help countless people, made some of my best friends and became a member of a life long fraternity. I worked with people who I will never forget as long as I live, people that on more than one occasion saved my life, came to my aid and stood by me in difficult times. No matter where I go, New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, whenever I identify myself as a police officer to a police officer I get treated differently.

There were also plenty of people I couldn’t help, people I could do absolutely nothing for but say a prayer over their body, people that met their maker in my presence by their own hand or that of another. These are the people that haunt me daily. I was twenty years old, never had a real job in my life and I was given a gun, a modest amount of training and basically told to go forth and enforce the law, protect society and serve the community.   I was a rookie policeman in Miami in the 1980’s a time when death and crack cocaine was everywhere. It ruled the life of many and ended the life of many more.

My father was a cop, my grandfather was a cop and my great uncle was a cop. I was the third generation in a line of cops, the first in my department and I truly hope I am the last of that line. My father was a cop in the 1960’s, my grandfather and uncle in the 1940’s and 1950’s and all killed people in the line of duty. As a rookie I worked with many old timers that killed in the line of duty, some more than once. I looked at these men in awe, sort of idolized them as old gunslingers of the Wild West. These men never spoke of their shootings, all our information came from rumors. One memory sticks out in particular, in the last years of his career, this person worked the front desk at a regional substation.   He was a devout Christian, read the Bible constantly during down time and never said more than five words to me when I worked with him. He was a big man, one that could easily beat you to death as sure as he could shoot you, yet he was quiet and gentle. Even in his last years on the job, he was nothing short of an intimidating physical presence. I never gave a thought to the emotional trauma these men were exposed to, they were crime fighters and they showed no emotion. My father never spoke of his shootings and the only one I recall was when I was about ten years old. My father shot and killed a man and was placed on three days administrative leave per policy so we got to start our vacation three days early that year. It wasn’t until many years later, when I became a policeman that I discovered what happened that night. My father didn’t tell me, I pulled the police report and read it for myself.

My father was dispatched to a dispute between two males in a project area. When he arrived, one man armed with a knife chased another into a house. The subject had already stabbed the victim at least once. My father followed them in and in a dimly lit bedroom, no more than a few feet apart, three men’s lives crossed and were changed forever. After ignoring commands to drop the knife, the subject was standing over the victim who had fallen on a bed, the knife was reared back, over his head ready to plunge into the victim again when my father fired. The subject was shot twice, once in the neck and once in the torso and he died. My father never spoke of this shooting, not when I was a child, not when I applied to be a police officer, not even when I graduated the police academy, never, ever. Then again, under the reigning school of thought he wasn’t supposed to. My father, like many of his generation, they were expected to take their three days off and report back to work thereafter. They weren’t touchy, feely men, they were hardcore crime fighters, expected to do society’s dirty work and feel nothing. Like many of these shootings, this shooting was up close and personal, only a few feet apart with time to look into the face of the life you’re taking. The subject in my father’s shooting was a bad guy, he was intent on killing his victim and this was a “good shooting,” but is there ever really a good shooting?

When I was a patrolman, I was dispatched to a call reference a man lying on the side of the road. When I arrived I found an eighteen-year-old kid lying on the shoulder in a condition, technically termed in police language as “shot to shit.” This kid had so many bullet holes in him I don’t know how he was still alive.   I stood over him, the only thing I could do is ask for an ETA on rescue, several times. Then he spoke, he asked me “Is it bad?” I replied, “It aint good!” He asked me to tell his mother and I kneeled down next to him, wrote down his name, address and mother’s name. I remember feeling helpless, I was relieved when rescue finally arrived so someone could do something for this kid. He died at the hospital. He wasn’t a good kid, he was a player in the drug trade and was taken out by a rival. I remember everything about him, his name, where he lived, what he was wearing, how he sounded and the look of coming death in his eyes. He was three years younger than I was, I was twenty-one.

I was dispatched to an armed robbery at a gas station in the wee hours of the morning where I found a pool of blood next to a gas pump and nothing else. The attendant told me the guy who was shot drove off. A few minutes later the victim showed up at the hospital, another officer secured the scene and I went to the hospital to interview the victim. The hospital staff was preparing him for an airlift to the trauma center, he was alert and talking. He told me a man with a gun approached him while pumping gas, the man demanded his wallet and he handed it over to him. When the subject was walking away, he turned and shot the victim in the head. I asked him what it felt like, he said it was like getting hit in the head with a 2x4 and he has the worst headache he’s ever had but otherwise he felt ok. He was twenty-five years old.

On October 30th, 1993, I was at NW 54 Street and 7th Avenue when I got a call from my homicide partner. One of my academy classmates was shot in an armed robbery. She was beautiful, with two young children and was nothing less than a wonderful person. The subject took three dollars, a set of keys and my friend’s life. She was thirty-four years old. I visit her every chance I get.

When I was in homicide I got to see a side of society few get to witness, and that is the damage humans can inflict upon one another. I’ve seen people literally ripped apart in car wrecks, shot by every caliber of handgun imaginable, crushed to death and beaten by those who supposedly loved them. Death was my occupation and it was plentiful, it takes a toll on you, it has to. When death and destruction become routine it changes you, you are desensitized, more accepting of tragedy, less compassionate.

My children are eighteen and nineteen, almost the age I was when I became a policeman. They are both in great colleges and thankfully pursuing other interests. If they decided to become police officers on their own, I’d be supportive and proud, however if they ask for my counsel, I’d give them the talk I didn’t get.

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.

Long Time, No Blog!

Its been quite awhile since I wrote anything on this blog.  A little more than eight years!  A lot has happened in the past eight years to say the least.  My law practice has changed and concentrated on personal injury, criminal defense and family law.

Our personal injury cases are usually motor vehicle accidents involving death and catastrophic injuries as a result of someone else’s negligence. My accident reconstruction experience allows my to thoroughly examine defense evidence and experts to find flaws in their analysis. I have been certified as an expert witness in several areas.

Our criminal defense practice involves representing individuals charged with violations of criminal statutes in both state and Federal courts.  Because of my police and training background I am able to review investigations for errors and omissions that are not normally obvious to others lawyers. I was a police instructor in several areas, including DUI and actually taught and certified police officers in DUI procedures and standardized field sobriety testing.  This advanced knowledge of how police officers are taught to engage in traffic enforcement activities allows me to aggressively and completely defend individuals charged with DUI, criminal traffic crimes as well as other crimes. I know how police officers think and how they go about conducting investigations and this gives me a significant advantage in my aggressive defense of my clients.

Our family law practice involves all aspects of family law with the exception of adoptions and termination of parental rights.  I represent clients in complex, high net worth divorce and child custody matters as well as domestic violence allegations.  I work with several experts in tax, accounting and psychology to form a case profile most beneficial to my clients.  Although, most experts and myself agree that it is best for parties to resolve divorce and child custody matters through mediation that is not always possible.  My considerable trial experience helps to ensure the best possible results for my clients. Domestic violence allegations are particularly pretentious and highly emotional matters that often require an aggressive defense.