Kevin Emas

In Prophet v. State, the defendant was arrested outside a shared residence after police observed him selling marijuana, and officers obtained consent from two co-tenants to search the home, including the bedroom he shared with one of them, where they found drugs, a firearm, and related items. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that police should have sought his consent because he was nearby in a patrol car, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases on co-tenant consent. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the appellate court affirmed the ruling. The court held that under precedents like United States v. Matlock and Georgia v. Randolph, valid consent from a physically present co-tenant authorizes a warrantless search of shared premises without a duty to obtain consent from or consult a nearby but absent co-tenant. The reasoning emphasized a bright-line rule that police need not take affirmative steps to locate a potentially objecting absent tenant when they already have consent from one on the premises.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Allen Phillips, who was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer, felony battery, and resisting an officer with violence after an encounter with deputies that began with a traffic stop and escalated inside a house where a police dog was deployed. Phillips raised a duress or necessity defense based on the dog's release but agreed to a flawed jury instruction on that defense without objection at trial. On appeal, he argued the instruction constituted fundamental error warranting reversal. The court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the error was not fundamental because the guilty verdicts pertained only to counts involving an earlier incident outside the house, which did not implicate the duress defense, while the jury acquitted or deadlocked on the counts inside the house where the defense applied.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Gilman + Ciocia, a New York-based tax and financial services company, and Virginia Wetherald, a Florida-based CPA and insurance agent, arising from an employment agreement and asset purchase agreement under which Wetherald sold her assets and became an employee. Wetherald sued for breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, and quantum meruit, and the company moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings based on a clause requiring arbitration in New York under New York law. The trial court denied the motion, finding the clause voidable under Florida law and lacking evidence of interstate commerce. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act applies because the agreement evidenced a transaction in interstate commerce through ongoing cross-state services, data sharing, licensing, and stock transactions, preempting inconsistent Florida law under the Supremacy Clause and requiring enforcement of the arbitration agreement.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure