NEW FEDERAL LAW EXTENDS WIRETAPPING FOR NEW MEDICAL THEFT CRIMES

A new Federal Crime of Theft of Pre-Retail Medical Products extends the wiretapping authority of the Federal Government while issuing a directive to the Sentencing Commission to amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to comply with the law, if necessary. The United States Senate passed the new crime bill after the House and is expected to become law when President Obama signs it (as he is expected to do). 

Criminal lawyer Robert Hambrick defends your cell phone records that can be subject to wiretap in Largo, St. Petersburg & Tampa Bay, Florida
Water then Wiretap iPhone.

The Federal Guideline Sentencing Commission supplies summaries of criminal laws and interprets new federal criminal statutes from Congress because it is charged with implementing the sentencing standards enumerated within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Federal Courts. New federal criminal laws often require amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to keep the Guidelines relevant, up to date and even more confusing for Criminal Defense Lawyers in Clearwater who use the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to make unique, strong and effective sentencing arguments in Federal Court in Tampa, Florida.

It’s not unusual for the new criminal law to extend the wiretapping authority so that law enforcement will be able to investigate any violations. The wiretapping authority ultimately rests with Judges who must make a finding of probable cause that a crime may have been committed by signing warrants with sworn affidavits from federal law enforcement officers who seek the wiretap. But the ever increasing number of activities which are defined as crime will inevitably increase the number of approved wiretaps at the expense of privacy.
The new federal Pre-retail Medical Product Theft law as passed by Congress will become binding law once the President signs it. It will expand current criminal federal law in Medical Theft cases in the Middle District of Florida in Tampa because it applies to “…a medical product that has not yet been made available for retail purchase by a consumer…” defining medical product as “…a drug, biological product, device, medical food or infant formula.” 
If you have been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in Tampa in the Middle District of Florida or are being investigated for federal criminal charges call a Clearwater Criminal Attorney as soon as possible for advice, help and defense guidance.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS WHEN FEDS CAN’T SHOW FLIGHT RISK OR SERIOUS DANGER IN TAMPA BAY

Detention Hearings in Federal Court in Tampa can result in an immediate release for a client without the necessity of a motion for Detention Hearing, when the Government fails to establish that a detention of a federal defendant is necessary under the Federal Statute § 3142(f)(2). Call a Tampa Bay Federal Defense Attorney if you believe you’re under threat from a Federal Investigation, Federal Grand Jury or Federal search warrant.


Here is some of the relevant Federal Law on Detention Hearings in Federal Court:

Under the Federal Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), the magistrate must hold a detention hearing on the motion of the prosecutor if the defendant is charged with:
·        a crime of violence.
·        any offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
·        a drug offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more.
·        any other felony committed by a person previously convicted of two or more of the above offenses.
A hearing is also required on a motion of the prosecutor or on the judge’s own motion in cases that involve an allegation of:
·        a serious risk of flight.
·        obstruction of justice.
·        intimidation of a prospective witness or juror.

Determination of Release or Detention

                        [1] Relevant Factors
In order to determine whether any condition(s) will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of others, the magistrate must consider:
·        the nature of the offense charged.
·        the weight of the evidence against the defendant.
·        the defendant’s physical and mental condition.
·        the defendant’s ties to family and the community.
·        whether, at the time of the current arrest, the defendant was already on probation or parole or on pretrial release from another offense.

As you can see a Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney may be able to help make the best arguments for a Defendant’s immediate release at a Federal Detention Hearing in Tampa Federal Court of a Motion for a Bond Reduction or ROR in State Court in Pinellas or Hillsborough County. 


Many Thanks to Attorney Fritz Scheller in Orlando for the following information about Middle District of Florida Detention Hearings which showed some excellent lawyering skills:

St. Paul in Prison - Rembrandt
Rembrandt, Paul in Prison, 1627

Recently, I had a detention hearing before Magistrate Judge Karla Spaulding in Orlando. The client had been detained before another magistrate under 18 USC § 3142(f) at her first appearance upon the government’s motion. The issue before the court was whether the government could even seek detention under § 3142 since the defendant’s crime did not qualify under § 3142(f)(1). Rather than filing a motion for a detention hearing, I moved for the defendant’s immediate release since the government had failed to establish that a request for detention was warranted under § 3142(f)(2). A case that supports this contention is United States v. Ploof, 851 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1988).

At the hearing, the Federal Magistrate agreed, concluding  that since the case did not meet the criteria under § 3142(f)(1), the government had to offer evidence that the case qualified for a detention under § 3142(f)(2). That is, the government had to offer evidence that the defendant either posed a serious risk of flight or a serious risk of danger. Serious risk of danger under that section essentially requires a showing that the defendant poses a risk of obstruction or threat to witnesses. Despite this statutory requirement, the government only offered evidence of the nature of the defendant’s crimes and weight of the evidence against her.