florida

Some of the most popular spring break destinations are also the most dangerous for students and families traveling over the next several weeks.

Orlando, Florida; Lake Havasu, Arizona and South Padre Island in Texas are ranked in the top 25 most dangerous places to spend spring break, according to a study that evaluated the risk of violent crimes, murder, rape and fatal car crashes in 25 U.S. cities.

Whether groups decide to travel or stay in town, there are risks associated with high volumes of people in one place anywhere in the country, and this is especially common in areas where the majority of travelers are minors and young adults.

Some of the most common threats spring break vacationers face are disorderly conduct and assault arrests, citations involving alcohol abuse like underage drinking and DUI, possession charges and property damage.

During spring break at beaches in the Gulf Coast last March, approximately 1,000 people were sent to jail – not warned or cited – for underage drinking. Police had to enforce this type of zero-tolerance policy due to the number of fatal drug and alcohol cases they were facing.

Those are just a few of the dangers spring breakers can pose to themselves, outside factors that could contribute to a dangerous vacation are kidnappings, theft and other violent crimes that may result from existing issues in the area, even if there are no travel restrictions in place.

Rocky Point in Mexico is sought after among Arizona residents who are looking for a nearby, affordable beach vacation. Despite its popularity, however, Rocky Point has had its share of dangerous incidents at the border and in tourist-heavy locations at the time.

In December 2013, a shooting involving Mexican police and military personnel left five men dead near a luxury hotel in Rocky Point.

To address possible hazards in neighboring areas, universities and government agencies alike are taking initiatives to prevent dangerous spring break situations.

The University of Arizona hosted its eighth annual Spring Break Safety Fair the first week of March, before spring break. The University of Arizona Police Department and Associated Students of the University of Arizona run the event to give students travel and safety tips no matter where they decide to spend the break.

Parents and students are advised to take the proper measures, such as sharing all travel information with someone at home, using the buddy system and staying alert, to ensure that spring break is more fun than trouble.

Corso Law Group knows that more often than not, fun times anywhere can easily lead to mistakes and accidents.

Don’t handle legal trouble on your own, call Corso Law Group anytime for help (480) 471-4616.

Imagine facing up to 60 years behind bars for protecting yourself during a domestic dispute incident.

That’s the legal predicament Marissa Alexander was convicted on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Jacksonville, Fla. in 2012.

Alexander fired a warning shot in the direction of her estranged husband and his two kids after she said they had been fighting and he threatened to kill her that day. The shots hit the wall and no injuries resulted from the gunfire.

She was sentenced to 20 years, three counts served concurrently adding up to 60 years in prison, but an appeals court tossed the conviction, claiming the judge made a mistake in shifting the burden to Alexander to prove she acted in self-defense. The jury found Alexander guilty in under 15 minutes of debate.

The same court that ordered a retrial appealed the 60 year sentencing and said that when a defendant is convicted of multiple counts of the same crime, judges must make the sentences consecutive, not concurrent, which would triple Alexander’s original 20 year conviction.

Others, such as Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei, disagree and argue that the court is simply following Florida’s state sentencing laws, and that 60 years is the proper sentencing.

The prosecutor for Alexander’s case is Angela Corey, the same prosecutor who has gained local and national infamy for her rulings on the George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn cases in Florida.

Corey initially offered Alexander a deal of three years in prison if she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, but Alexander rejected the plea claiming she hadn’t done anything wrong.

Alexander was not eligible for Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” defense which is an NRA-backed law that provides protection to those seeking to claim self defense after legal altercations involving the use of firearms.

While several states have their own “Stand Your Ground” laws, this defense has become particularly controversial in Florida. The cases of George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn are being compared to Alexander’s because they all are based on the inconsistencies of this defense.

Zimmerman shot and killed 17 year old Trayvon Martin, who Zimmerman attacked because he found the teen to be suspicious while walking the streets of his neighborhood one evening,was able to use the Stand Your Ground defense in his case. Charges against him have been acquitted.

Similarly, Dunn fired multiple shots and killed 19 year old Jordan Davis for playing music too loudly in his SUV parked at a convenience store and, while he didn’t use the Stand Your Ground defense, Dunn claimed self defense in his case. He has been convicted on three counts of attempted murder and then some, but his exact sentencing has yet to be determined by Corey and the court and it’s estimated that he will spend only 60 years in prison, the same sentencing that Alexander currently faces.

Both of these men shot and killed innocent teens.

Alexander, on the other hand, did not kill or even injure anyone and has been denied protection from Stand Your Ground. She could spend the same amount of time in jail as Dunn while Zimmerman walks free.

Congresswoman Corrine Brown is one of many supporters who believe that 60 years is in no way the proper result for Alexander and are demanding that those in power, especially Corey, exercise their legal discretion with fairness and justice in Alexander’s case.

A group of Florida ministers also support Alexander’s case and have been trying to push Corey to offer Alexander the original three-year sentence once more.

Alexander posted $200,000 bail and has been released on strict house arrest including the use of an ankle location-monitoring device for the time being.

The retrial is scheduled for July 2014; however, Alexander’s attorney Bruce Zimet has been working toward another chance at proving that Alexander should be protected under the Stand Your Ground law, arguing that erroneous instructions regarding self defense were given to the jury originally.

Circuit Judge James Daniel announced a hearing will take place May 16 to determine if Alexander will be granted this protection. If she is protected by Stand Your Ground, immunity will be granted and a new trial will not follow, MSNBC reports.

Imagine you’re driving home when you’re pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Your headlight is out. A broken headlight isn’t a big deal, right? In a case that’s quickly gaining attention throughout the country, that broken headlight could land one Florida law official in the spotlight.

According to the Huffington Post, Zoe Brugger, a 28-year-old mother, was ordered to lift up her shirt and shake out her bra after she was pulled over for the broken headlight. Officer Dustin Fetz claimed Brugger was acting “suspicious” and he wanted confirmation that she was not carrying narcotics.

Was Brugger acting suspicious? Is looking “suspicious” a valid excuse to order a woman to lift up her shirt and shake out her bra?

According to Terry v. Ohio, police officers are allowed to conduct searches if they feel a threat is being posed to their safety. The concept of a pat down is so officers can complete an over-the-clothes search of a person, including squeezing anything found in pockets. To complete a more detailed search, an officer must have probable cause to support his belief that the person holds something illegal.

So why did the search continue? Simple. Brugger consented to the search – the one exception to the rules of performing a search.

The officer did not stop at a bra search either. Fetz also requested to search Brugger’s vehicle. When Brugger responded no, Fetz conducted the search anyway.

“I felt humiliated,” Brugger told CNN. “I wish I had known my rights.”

Know Your Rights and Stand Up for Them

Learning your rights and having a basic understanding of the law is the greatest tool people can equip themselves with. Most people do not feel comfortable telling an officer “no” and they mistakenly believe that if they cooperate, the officer will go easy on them.

But police officers do not always administer the law in a way that aligns with policies, procedures and the law. Knowing and protecting your rights is a burden that ultimately falls on YOU.

But that’s still only half the battle. You must also have the courage to stand up for your rights. If you don’t feel comfortable asserting yourself, it’s perfectly acceptable to immediately request an attorney and to refuse anything they ask you to do – especially if something doesn’t feel right or it feels excessive. Remember – the police officer is not there to protect you during these stops.

In Brugger’s case, The New York Daily News wrote that Florida State Attorney Jerry Hill sent a letter to the Lakeland Police Department ordering an investigation and a review of how officers are trained. The police department said in a statement that it didn’t condone the officer’s conduct, and Chief Lisa Womack was looking into the incident.

What Should You Do?

So what is the underlying message from Zoe Brugger’s incident? How should you respond when confronted with a similar incident?

As criminal defense attorneys, we deal with illegal search issues all the time. In the case of Zoe Brugger, it’s clear to see that the original intent of the traffic stop is not what the case became about. So what can you do?

First, asking to speak to a supervisor can help. In Brugger’s cases (and while remaining respectful) she should have repeatedly stated to the officer “I was pulled over for a broken headlight. I would like to talk more about the headlight issue.”

When the officer continued to ask about other issues, announcing that he wanted to search her car, Brugger had every right to say “I would prefer that you did not search my car.”

It’s important to remember, if the reason you’re pulled over is a civil charge like an equipment violation or speeding ticket, you cannot be arrested for a civil infraction. So staying firm and asking to be released is perfectly acceptable. It’s okay to ask, “Am I under arrest?” If the answer is no, you should ask to leave.

Again, if you don’t feel comfortable doing this, then request a lawyer right away and refuse to answer any additional questions until you can speak with an attorney.

The more informed you are about your legal rights, the easier it is to avoid mistreatment. And when you’re not sure about your rights or unable to stand up for them, consulting a criminal defense lawyer is always your best option.