Criminal Defense Category Archives — St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Attorney — Hanlon Law

Florida Court Discusses Enhanced Sentences and Probation Conditions

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:32:48 +0000

Federal sentencing disputes often turn on nuanced constitutional questions and technical compliance with statutory requirements, both of which can significantly alter the outcome of a criminal case. When courts impose enhanced sentences or include probation conditions that extend beyond what the law permits, defendants may have strong grounds for appellate relief. A recent Florida decision highlights how these issues intersect, particularly where a trial court relies on judicial fact-finding to enhance a sentence and includes probation terms that were never properly pronounced in open court. If you are facing criminal charges or questioning the legality of a sentence, it is essential to speak with a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and evaluate your legal options.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the defendant was convicted in the trial court of grand theft of a motor vehicle and received a split sentence of imprisonment followed by probation. The trial court also imposed a habitual felony offender enhancement based on the defendant’s prior convictions, which increased the defendant’s sentencing consequences. After sentencing, the defendant sought appellate review of both the enhanced sentence and certain probation conditions contained in the written order.

Habitual Offender Enhancements

The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by making the factual findings necessary to support the habitual felony offender enhancement instead of submitting those issues to a jury. The defendant further asserted that a condition in the probation order included requirements that were not orally pronounced at sentencing and therefore could not properly be imposed through the written order alone.

The court first addressed the constitutional challenge to the habitual felony offender enhancement. Rather than deciding whether recent authority required a jury determination of the enhancement factors, the court applied harmless-error review. Under that standard, the question was whether the record showed beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found that the defendant qualified for habitual felony offender treatment.

The court examined the evidence introduced at sentencing regarding prior convictions and emphasized that the defendant did not make a contemporaneous objection to the State’s proof and did not later argue in a motion to correct sentence that the State had failed to meet its burden. Based on that record, the court concluded that any error in failing to present the enhancement issue to a jury was harmless.

Challenges to Probation Conditions

The defendant also contended that the conditions of his probation, which required him to work diligently at a lawful occupation, to advise an employer of his probationary status, and to support dependents as directed, went beyond the standard statutory conditions of probation and therefore qualified as special conditions that required oral pronouncement in open court. The appeal also raised the issue of a scrivener’s error in the written judgment, which incorrectly stated that the defendant had entered a guilty plea.

In response, the court explained that standard probation conditions established by statute do not require oral pronouncement because a defendant is on constructive notice of them. Special conditions, by contrast, are not automatically authorized and must be stated at sentencing before they may appear in the written probation order.

Applying that framework, the court determined that the requirement that the defendant work diligently at a lawful occupation did not adequately track the statutory language, which includes flexibility based on whether employment is possible. Because the wording used in the order imposed a more demanding obligation, the court held that the condition had to be modified.

The court also ruled that requiring the defendant to advise an employer of probationary status was not a standard statutory condition and therefore had to be stricken because it was never orally pronounced. Finally, the court remanded for correction of the scrivener’s error in the written judgment while otherwise affirming the conviction and most of the sentence.

Meet with a Seasoned St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a crime or believe a sentence or probation order was imposed improperly, it is in your best interest to seek legal guidance as soon as possible. The seasoned St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are prepared to review the facts of your case, identify sentencing and probation errors, and advocate for your rights at every stage of the proceedings. Contact our St. Petersburg office online or call 727-289-0222 to schedule a confidential consultation and discuss your legal options.

The post Florida Court Discusses Enhanced Sentences and Probation Conditions appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Explains Challenges of Postconviction Claims

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 13:07:34 +0000

In Florida, prisoners sentenced to death often attempt to raise postconviction claims based on newly discovered evidence or alleged constitutional violations. However, courts closely scrutinize such filings, particularly when a defendant files successive motions decades after conviction. A recent decision by a Florida court illustrates how difficult it can be for a prisoner to prevail on such claims when the evidence was available at the time of trial or when the record otherwise refutes the allegations. If you are facing a serious criminal charge, an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and present a full defense at trial.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and sexual battery stemming from the 1992 death of a two-year-old child. The prosecution’s evidence showed that the child suffered severe blunt force injuries while in the defendant’s care, and the medical examiner concluded that the cause of death was a cerebral hemorrhage resulting from four separate blows to the head. The defendant, however, testified that the child experienced a medical emergency while another person was present in the apartment and that he accidentally dropped her in the shower while attempting to revive her. The jury rejected this account and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed.

Continue reading →

The post Florida Court Explains Challenges of Postconviction Claims appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Court Discusses Severance and Bifurcation in Florida Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:38:35 +0000

In Florida criminal proceedings, a defendant charged with DUI and related offenses may face significant challenges if the prosecution seeks to introduce prior convictions. These prior convictions can enhance the severity of the charges and potentially bias the jury. Federal and state courts must carefully balance the government’s evidentiary needs with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, as demonstrated in a recent Florida DUI case, which discussed the limits of severance and the proper use of bifurcated proceedings when prior DUI convictions are at issue. If you are charged with DUI or driving with a suspended license, a skilled Pensacola DUI defense attorney can advocate for legal safeguards that preserve your rights throughout the process.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged by information with two separate offenses arising from a single driving incident. The first count alleged driving under the influence (DUI) as a second or subsequent offense. The second count charged the defendant with knowingly driving with a license that had been suspended, canceled, or revoked. The prosecution intended to introduce evidence of a prior DUI conviction, specifically a judgment reflecting that the sentence included a six-month suspension of driving privileges. This judgment was offered to prove that the defendant had knowledge of her license suspension, a necessary element of the second charge.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to sever the two counts for separate trials, arguing that evidence of the prior DUI conviction would be prejudicial and could improperly influence the jury’s evaluation of the current DUI offense. The defense also requested bifurcation of the proceedings to ensure that the jury would only consider the prior DUI conviction if it first found the defendant guilty of the current DUI charge. The government opposed severance but agreed to bifurcated proceedings as to the prior conviction.

It is further reported that the defendant cited Florida law requiring bifurcated proceedings in cases involving subsequent DUI charges, pointing to precedent mandating that juries should not hear about a defendant’s prior DUI unless and until they determine guilt for the new offense. The defense argued that including the prior DUI conviction in a single unified trial would unfairly prejudice the jury by creating the impression that the defendant had a predisposition to commit the charged offenses.

Severance and Bifurcation in Florida Criminal Cases

The federal magistrate judge denied the motion to sever but granted the motion for bifurcation. In evaluating the severance request, the court applied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a), which allows for severance if a joint trial of offenses would cause significant prejudice. The court acknowledged that joinder of the two charges in a single information was proper but emphasized that the defendant bore a heavy burden to show that a joint trial would result in specific and compelling prejudice. Citing Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court found the defendant’s claim of prejudice to be speculative and insufficient to justify severance.

The court also held that any risk of unfair prejudice from admitting the prior DUI conviction could be adequately cured through redaction. Specifically, references to the DUI charge would be redacted from the certified conviction and driving record introduced into evidence, thereby mitigating the potential for bias while still allowing the government to establish the defendant’s knowledge element for the license suspension charge.

In contrast, the court granted the defendant’s request for bifurcation. The court recognized that Florida law, particularly as articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Harbaugh, requires a bifurcated proceeding for subsequent DUI offenses. Under this approach, a single jury determines guilt for the present DUI charge before it is permitted to consider any evidence of prior DUI convictions. The court therefore ordered bifurcation to comply with this precedent, ensuring that the jury would hear about the prior DUI only in a second phase of the trial, and only if necessary.

Speak with a St. Petersburg DUI Defense Attorney Today

DUI cases involving prior convictions present complex legal challenges that can impact trial strategy and a defendant’s right to a fair proceeding. If you are facing DUI or license-related charges in Florida, the skilled St. Petersburg DUI defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are committed to protecting your rights and providing strategic, results-driven representation. Contact our St. Petersburg office today at 727-289-0222 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Court Discusses Severance and Bifurcation in Florida Criminal Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Explains Grounds for Suppressing Evidence in Criminal Matters

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 18 Mar 2025 18:09:51 +0000

Federal law enforcement agencies often conduct searches based on complex, ongoing criminal investigations. When those investigations involve serious allegations like stalking, attempted murder, or drug and firearm offenses, the legal justifications for search warrants are often contested in court. A recent Florida decision demonstrates how federal courts evaluate motions to suppress evidence, particularly when the probable cause supporting a warrant is challenged. If you are charged with a federal offense, it is important to understand what evidence the prosecution may use against you, and you should talk to a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is reported that federal law enforcement began investigating a series of incidents between 2019 and 2023, allegedly targeting two victims. The incidents included attempted poisoning, two vehicle arsons, a hit-and-run, and the mailing of a threatening letter. It is alleged that these acts were part of an orchestrated effort by one victim’s estranged spouse to harass and intimidate her. In connection with the investigation, four individuals were charged for their alleged participation in this long-running plot.

It is alleged that on June 23, 2024, one of the victims was confronted in her driveway by an unidentified man who pointed a silver pistol at someone emerging from her home before fleeing in a black SUV. Surveillance footage allegedly captured a white Tesla—registered to the defendant, driving in proximity to the SUV both before and after the incident. It is reported that the investigation linked the defendant to the white Tesla, which had also been observed parked next to another vehicle registered to him at his residence. Based on these observations and other circumstantial evidence, federal agents obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s home and person on June 24, 2024.

It is further reported that during the execution of the search warrant, agents recovered a silver 9mm pistol, a rifle, a loaded Glock, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and several bags containing what was later determined to be cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. Allegedly, the defendant was charged in a superseding indictment with possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from the search and raised five objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Grounds for Suppressing Evidence in Federal Criminal Cases

On review, the court evaluated the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, along with five objections he raised to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court conducted a de novo review where required, focusing primarily on the sufficiency of the probable cause and the legal standards governing suppression under the Fourth Amendment.

First, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction or that the federal investigation was unrelated to the warrant. The court noted that the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant laid out a coherent narrative linking the June 2024 assault to an ongoing murder-for-hire and stalking plot. Under Illinois v. Gates, probable cause requires only a “fair probability” that evidence of a crime will be found, and the court found that standard satisfied.

Second, the court addressed the defendant’s claims about allegedly misleading descriptions of surveillance footage. The defendant asserted that the white Tesla and Dodge Ram were only in proximity for 15 seconds, contradicting the implication of coordinated movement. However, the court found that the defendant failed to submit the footage or adequately challenge the affiant’s interpretation. Courts afford considerable deference to the issuing magistrate’s interpretation of the facts, particularly when supported by circumstantial evidence.

Third, the court upheld the finding of a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s home and the criminal activity. The Tesla was linked to the home by registration, and another vehicle connected to the investigation was observed in the defendant’s driveway. The court emphasized that evidence of instrumentalities of crime—including firearms, electronic devices, and clothing—was likely to be found at the residence.

Fourth, the court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing. Under Franks v. Delaware, a hearing is required only if the defendant shows that the affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods essential to the finding of probable cause. The defendant claimed the affiant omitted the date of a key photograph, but the court held that even with the omitted date, probable cause remained intact. The date’s omission did not rise to the level of intentional or material deception.

Finally, the court declined to reach the applicability of the good faith exception under United States v. Leon because it had already determined that the warrant was supported by probable cause.

Ultimately, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the motion to suppress, allowing the evidence seized during the search to be used in the prosecution.

Consult an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney Today

When federal authorities initiate an investigation, defendants must be prepared to challenge the legality of government actions at every stage. If you are facing serious federal charges or under investigation, you need experienced counsel with deep knowledge of constitutional law and criminal procedure. The skilled St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are committed to defending your rights with diligence and precision. Contact our office at 727-289-0222 or complete our online form to schedule a consultation today.

The post Florida Court Explains Grounds for Suppressing Evidence in Criminal Matters appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Protects the Right to Judicial Review in Juvenile Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Sat, 20 May 2023 12:41:45 +0000

The Florida courts and legislature treat juvenile offenders differently than adults who commit crimes. For example, if a juvenile offender receives a sentence of over twenty years in prison, they are entitled to judicial review. The right to judicial review was the subject of a recent Florida opinion delivered in a grand theft auto case, and the trial court’s failure to elucidate that right in the sentencing order constituted grounds for remand. If you are a minor charged with a crime, it is smart to speak to a St. Petersburg juvenile crime defense attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple crimes arising out of the theft of a vehicle and the burglary of a dwelling. He entered an open guilty plea, after which he was convicted of the charged offenses. He received a prison sentence of 35 years, followed by 16 years of probation. He then appealed.

The Right to Judicial Review in Juvenile Cases

The defendant raised multiple grounds on appeal. The court rejected each of his arguments in turn but remanded the matter for two specific purposes. First, the court noted that the trial court must enter a written order that allows for the judicial review of the defendant’s sentence after twenty years, as required by the Florida Statutes. Although the topic of judicial review was discussed during the sentencing hearing, the court failed to provide a written order to that effect. Therefore, the court held that it was necessary for the trial court to rectify this omission by issuing a written order.

Secondly, the court clarified that it required a remand for the purpose of correcting or clarifying the written cost orders pertaining to the defendant. The charges in this case stemmed from two separate cases, and during the original sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed “standard court costs” for both cases.

The subsequent written orders, though, included specific public defender fees of $500 in one case and $400 in the other. In response to the defendant’s motion to correct sentencing errors, the State indicated no objection to reducing the public defender fees to $100 in each case. Consequently, during the resentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed “standard court costs” along with a $100 public defender fee.

Unfortunately, the written cost orders did not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement, as they indicated additional fees on top of the previously imposed costs. To align the written orders with the oral pronouncement, the court held a remand was necessary for the clarification or correction of the written cost orders.

Talk to a Trusted Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

An adjudication of delinquency can alter the trajectory of a minor’s life. As such, it is important for anyone charged with crimes as a juvenile to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. The trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law have ample experience defending minors and young adults, and if you are a juvenile charged with a crime, we can aid you in seeking the best legal outcome possible. You can reach us at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Protects the Right to Judicial Review in Juvenile Cases appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law

Hanlon Law, PA — Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:50:35 +0000

Pursuant to federal law, people convicted of certain offenses may be deemed career offenders and may face enhanced penalties if they are subsequently convicted of other offenses. One example of an offense that permits a career offender enhancement is a crime of violence. It is not always clear what falls under the umbrella of violent crime, however. In a recent case, a Florida court evaluated whether a Montana conviction for assaulting a police officer constituted a violent crime, ultimately ruling that it did. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is prudent to confer with a St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney who can help you formulate a compelling defense.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with an assault offense and unlawful possession of a weapon arising out of an incident that occurred when he was in a federal correctional institution. He pled guilty to the assault charge in exchange for the dismissal of the second offense. The defendant’s presentence investigation report included, in pertinent part, his Montana conviction for assaulting a police officer.

Reportedly, the sentencing court ultimately deemed the defendant a career offender under federal law, in part due to his Montana conviction being deemed a crime of violence. The defendant objected to the classification of the Montana assault as a crime of violence. The court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 96 months in prison. The defendant then appealed.

Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Under Federal law, a crime of violence is any offense that has an element of the use or attempted or threatened use of physical force or is one of the enumerated crimes, including aggravated assault.

To evaluate whether a crime is a crime of violence, the courts employ a categorical approach, meaning that instead of focusing on the facts that lead to the conviction, they consider whether the underlying offense includes an element of the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force against another person. The court further explained that physical force is akin to violent force; in other words, force that has the potential to cause injury or pain.

In the subject case, the Montana statute defining assault of a police officer provided that a person commits the offense by causing bodily injury to a peace officer or creating a reasonable fear of such injury. Thus, the court found it to be a crime of violence and affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

Meet with an Experienced Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

Violent crimes not only carry significant penalties, but they can also result in sentence enhancement for subsequent convictions. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney to discuss your possible defenses. The experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense lawyers of Hanlon Law are well-versed in what it takes to achieve favorable outcomes in criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can contact us at 727-897-5413 or through the form online to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Violent Crimes as Defined by Federal Law appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Supreme Court Discusses Criminal Convictions in the Context of the Career Criminal Act

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 08 Jun 2022 07:31:29 +0000

Generally, people who are considered career criminals face greater penalties than those with no criminal history. As such, if a person who has multiple prior convictions is found guilty of another offense, they may be subject to sentencing enhancements. While generally, crimes are discrete acts, a person can be charged with numerous offenses for one criminal enterprise. Crimes committed from a single criminal episode do not trigger the Armed Career Criminal Act (the Act) for sentencing purposes, though, as recently explained by the United States Supreme Court in a case in which the defendant had ten prior robbery convictions stemming from a single incident. If you are charged with robbery or any other violent crime, it is prudent to meet with a St. Petersburg violent crime defense attorney to assess your options.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant broke into a storage facility in 1997 and stole from ten separate units. He was subsequently charged with and convicted of ten counts of burglary. In 2014, a police officer entered the defendant’s home and observed the defendant with a rifle in his possession. He was then charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. The defendant was found guilty and determined to be an armed career criminal under the Act, due to his ten prior robbery convictions. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, after which he appealed. The appellate court affirmed his sentence, and he filed a writ of certiorari.

Criminal Convictions in the Context of the Career Criminal Act

The issue the Supreme Court addressed was whether crimes that are committed sequentially as part of a single event occur on different occasions for purposes of imposing a sentence enhancement under the Act. The Court ruled that they did not, and reversed the lower court ruling.

The Court noted that, under the Act, people who have three or more prior convictions for specified felonies that were committed on different occasions from one another are considered armed career criminals. It then explained that the ordinary meaning of the word occasion did not mean an occurrence at a precise moment in time. In other words, one might say that the defendant committed numerous crimes on one occasion, but not that on numerous occasions he burglarized a storage unit.

Further, the defendant’s unlawful acts occurred in a single, continuous course of conduct. The Court noted that its interpretation of the word occasion was supported by the history of the Act, as Congress modified that act to state that the prior offenses must happen on occasions that are different from one another.

Talk to a Trusted Florida Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of violent crimes face substantial penalties if they are convicted. If you are charged with a violent offense, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. The trusted St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law possess the skills and resources needed to help you seek a favorable outcome, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact us at 727-897-5413 or via the form online to set up a conference.

The post Supreme Court Discusses Criminal Convictions in the Context of the Career Criminal Act appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Criminal Attorney in St. Petersburg, FL: Protecting Your Legal Rights

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 24 May 2022 15:01:02 +0000

If you have been arrested, you have the right to remain silent. You also have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. You must exercise these rights as soon as possible. Do not answer any questions or make any statements until you have spoken with an attorney.

A criminal attorney is a lawyer who specializes in defending people who have been accused of committing crimes. Criminal attorneys work to protect their clients’ rights, and they may also investigate the case to look for possible defenses. In some cases, a criminal attorney may negotiate with prosecutors to get charges reduced or dismissed. If you have been accused of a crime, it is important to seek legal help as soon as possible so that your rights can be protected. A criminal attorney can explain the charges against you and help you understand your options. If you face serious charges, it’s imperative that you hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

You should keep in mind a few things when choosing a criminal defense lawyer. You want to choose a lawyer who has experience handling cases like yours. Criminal defense lawyers typically specialize in either felonies or misdemeanors. If you have been charged with a felony, you will want to hire a lawyer who has experience handling those types of cases. You also want to choose a lawyer who has a good reputation. Ask around or look online for reviews of potential criminal lawyers. It is important to choose a criminal lawyer who you feel comfortable communicating with. This is someone you will be sharing sensitive information with, so it is important that you feel like you can trust them.

Continue reading →

The post Criminal Attorney in St. Petersburg, FL: Protecting Your Legal Rights appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Experienced Criminal Defense Attorneys Providing Reliable Legal Representation

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 17 May 2022 18:51:09 +0000

If you are looking for an experienced and reliable criminal defense attorney in St. Petersburg, FL, you have come to the right law firm. Hanlon Law has over 20 years of experience representing St. Petersburg clients in various criminal cases. We are dedicated to providing our clients with reliable legal representation every step of the way. We understand that this is a difficult time for you, and we will do everything we can to help you get through this ordeal as smooth as possible.

What to do if you are arrested in St. Petersburg, FL

If you are arrested in St. Petersburg, FL, the first thing you should do is contact a criminal defense attorney who can help protect your rights and ensure that you have a fair trial. Our criminal defense attorneys are experienced in handling all aspects of a criminal case, from pre-trial to appeal. They will work with you to develop a legal strategy tailored to your specific situation and needs. It is always best to have an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side who can give you the individualized attention and care that your case deserves.

Continue reading →

The post Experienced Criminal Defense Attorneys Providing Reliable Legal Representation appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Criminal Lawyer Tips: How to Protect Yourself If You Are Arrested

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 16 May 2022 18:15:29 +0000

Like most people, you probably don’t know what to do if you are arrested. You may feel confused and scared, not knowing where to turn for help. That is why it is important to have a St. Petersburg criminal lawyer on your side. A criminal lawyer will be able to guide you through the process and protect your rights. In this blog post, we will discuss some things that a St. Petersburg criminal lawyer can do for you.

What to do if you are pulled over by the police?

If you are pulled over by the police, the best thing to do is stay calm and be polite. Keep your hands where the officer can see them, and don’t make any sudden movements. If you are asked to step out of the car, do so slowly and carefully. Don’t say anything that could be used against you later on. Remember, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. It’s also important to know your rights. You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to an attorney. If you are arrested, exercise those rights immediately. Don’t try to talk your way out of it or argue with the officers. The sooner you ask for a lawyer, the better.

Continue reading →

The post Criminal Lawyer Tips: How to Protect Yourself If You Are Arrested appeared first on St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog.