Brief of Amicus Curiae for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Florida Public Defender Association.

Argument: It violates the accused’s constitutional rights to be forced to have a probation violation hearings via Zoom or other remote means. The practice offends the right to be present (in the courtroom before the judge, with witnesses, with the accused’s own counsel) and ignores certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure.  Because counsel is remote, it also offends the right to effective assistance of counsel. By way of background: The circumstance of forced remote probation hearings has arisen in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Supreme Court of Florida issued a vast administrative order basically suspending any Florida Rule of Procedure that prohibited remote proceedings. The administrative order permits pleas, status conferences, and motion practice by Zoom.

Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of the Appellee.

Argument: The circuit court correctly concluded that the video recordings should have been suppressed because the State failed to follow minimization requirements. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from unreasonably intruding in citizens’ privacy. Here, the government recorded citizens over the course of several days in a day spa, where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The circuit court correctly found that the evidence should be suppressed here. Amici write to emphasize the unprecedented scope of the surveillance, as well as the importance of suppression here to protect the rights of both defendants and uncharged third parties. Traditionally, the remedy for an unconstitutional search would be suppression in a criminal trial. However, because some of the conduct surreptitiously recorded was perfectly legal, not everybody who was recorded has been charged with a crime. Furthermore, those third parties’ only recourse would be the possibility of a civil suit, which is costly. Indeed, suppression here is essentially the only way to deter the State from engaging in mass surveillance, knowing that many citizens would have little to no recourse. Any other result would encourage an “ends justify the means” approach that this Court has cautioned against.

Brief in Support of Appellant by Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: The trial court erred in barring the defense from introducing evidence to support the basis for the legal opinion Mathis gave to his client. Ambiguity in the statute with regard to mens rea requires the court to insert an appropriate state of mind element. The "knowledge" element of an offense occasionally includes knowledge of a legal "fact." The trial court improperly removed the mens rea element in this case. In the alternative, a mistake of law defense was appropriate in this case. Denying Mathis the right to present this evidence resulted in the denial of his right to present a defense.