Fortunately, judges are beginning to crack down on such operations. Defense attorneys for Kerron Andrews, a Baltimore man charged with attempted murder in 2014, discovered he had been located via the warrantless use of a cell site simulator. In March, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals threw out all evidence in the case gathered with the device, in what is possibly the first appellate decision concerning the use of Stingrays. Further prosecution of the case may be impossible.

Hoping to build on that ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation investigated the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Milwaukee man Damian Patrick. In response to an amicus brief the two organizations filed recently, the government admitted that the Milwaukee P.D. used a Stingray without a warrant to locate Patrick. The police first told Patrick that an anonymous source had told them of his whereabouts and later implied the information came from his service provider, Sprint.

In 2014, police used a cell site simulator to locate murder suspect Robert Copes at his apartment home and discovered the blood of the murder victim in the apartment. On April 25, 2016, Circuit Judge Yolanda Tanner reluctantly threw out that evidence because police had not obtained a search warrant, despite having court permission to use the Stingray.

Clearly, judges are quite concerned about the pitfalls of widespread use of cell site simulators, and if police want to avoid jeopardizing prosecutions, they must be very careful to obtain proper permission before using them.

Eight gay couples who were married in states that recognize same-sex marriages joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in filing suit against Florida. Their lawsuit argues that the state unfairly discriminates against them by not recognizing their marriage, violating the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a response asking the federal judge in charge of the case to throw it out. This is no surprise. Arguably, it is required of her office. But it is her choice of words that has some gay marriage advocates expressing indignation.

Bondi’s legal brief included the following: “The Court should also deny the preliminary injunction motions because there is no likelihood of success on the merits, there is no immediacy requiring a preliminary injunction and disrupting Florida’s existing marriage laws would impose significant public harm.”

On May 30, the attention of gay rights activists and the news media turned to that last word: “harm.” Some took it as evidence of the attorney general’s malice, bigotry or outdated prejudice.

In response, Allen Winsor released a statement from the attorney general’s office. It clarified that, “Florida is harmed whenever a federal court enjoins” – that is, prevents – “enforcement of its laws … Florida’s voters approved a constitutional amendment which is being challenged, and it is the attorney general’s duty to defend Florida law.”

Perhaps Bondi should have chosen her words more carefully. But what is truly important and interesting about this case is not the attorney general’s position on it, but the stakes for Florida family law and for Florida same-sex couples. In states where gay marriage is not recognized, the issues couples face are diverse.

First, of course, is the fact that many Florida same-sex couples wish to marry but cannot. Then, like the plaintiffs in this case, some are married under the laws of recognizing states, but live in a non-recognizing state. Still other couples – at least one of whom has filed a separate lawsuit against Florida – were legally married in another state but wish to divorce. The spouses are unable to do so because their marriage is not legally recognized in the Sunshine State.

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down both a federal law preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages for federal benefits and a California law banning same-sex marriage. Since then, efforts to fight such bans have gained momentum state by state. 

Many Floridians are anxious to see the outcome.

Contact a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

According to bill sponsor state Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, the law would have prevented Americans from having their rights violated by foreign law. Gov. Rick Scott released a statement in support of the bill, saying it would make it clear that citizens’ constitutional rights would be protected. However, opponents maintained that the bill was unnecessary because rights and protections are already directly guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.

Opponents of the bill were also concerned that it would tarnish Florida’s reputation as a center for international dispute resolution and unnecessarily complicate Florida divorces for foreign couples residing in the state, for instance if the couple had an antenuptial agreement holding that foreign law would apply in the event of a divorce.

The bill was opposed by the American Bar Association, the International Law Section of the Florida Bar, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, and several other civic, religious and professional organizations.

Contact a Jacksonville divorce lawyer with Richard D. Zasada, LLC or visit http://www.zasadalaw.com/

The post Proposed Family Law Legislation Fails to Move Forward in Florida Senate appeared first on Richard D. Zasada, LLC.