COLORADO LAW. Colorado regulates certain professional license holders including mental health therapists/counselors. The law contains an extensive list of actions that are deemed “unprofessional conduct”. Engaging in one or more of these activities can subject the license holder to discipline by the regulatory board up to and including revocation of one’s license. In 2019 Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy law (MCTL). The law added the following to the list of unprofessional conduct:

                 “Engaging in conversion therapy with a patient who is under eighteen years of age”

         Colorado law defines conversion therapy as:

• “Conversion therapy” means any practice or treatment by a licensee, registrant, or certificate holder that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

The law also provides that conversion therapy does not include therapy or counseling as long as the counseling does not seek to change sexual orientation or gender identity.

         Finally, Colorado law has a religious ministry exemption. Provided certain criteria are met, a therapist who is engaged in a religious ministry is exempt from the regulatory board’s jurisdiction. Therefore the therapist would be free to engage in conversion therapy with no consequences for his or her license.

         THE PLAINTIFF. Kaley Chiles filed suit against the state of Colorado challenging the MCTL. She is a licensed professional counselor in the state of Colorado. She first filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Colorado. She sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law claiming among other things that the law infringed on her rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. The District Court denied her request for the injunction. She appealed that decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit. That court upheld the lower court’s decision.

         Ms. Chiles then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

         WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID. In an 8-1 decision the Court said that the law did in fact regulate speech based on viewpoint, not just conduct. In other words, her right to say things that were contrary to a viewpoint favored by the state cannot be infringed by calling it conduct. It is what she was saying, not what she was doing. The Court sent the case back to the trial court to apply a different test or standard to the law, as discussed below. As a side note, the Supreme Court did not issue her requested injunction, so as of now the law is still in effect technically.

         RATIONAL BASIS VS. STRICT SCRUTINY.  To fully explain the course of this case through the courts, we first need to discuss the levels of scrutiny used by the courts. When a person challenges a governmental action, e.g.. a law or regulation, there are three distinct tests used by the courts to decide the constitutionality of the action.

         The first is the rational basis test. This is the most lenient of the three tests. The question for the courts is whether or not the action has a rational basis. Is there a legitimate governmental interest involved? Is the action rationally related to that interest? The relationship between the action and the government’s reason for imposing it cannot be arbitrary. In these cases, the burden is on the challenger to prove that the action is irrational. This test was applied by both the District Court and the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ms. Chiles’ case.

         As its name implies, strict scrutiny is the highest level applied by the courts and the one the Supreme Court used in this case. It is usually reserved for laws that restrict the most fundamental rights, e.g. right to privacy, freedom of speech and religion. In strict scrutiny analysis, the government must prove the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a “compelling government interest” using the least restrictive means. What is a compelling state interest? While the courts have never set out a clear-cut definition of the term, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Sherbert v Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)(state’s denial of unemployment benefits to one who refuses work on the Sabbath for religious purposes, is unconstitutional. State’s assertion of administrative convenience — that is, that it would be easier to deny benefits to all than to ascertain which workers’ actions were sincere — neither met a compelling governmental interest nor even the least restrictive means test.) Narrowly tailored means that if the government action encompasses too much (is overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. Finally, least restrictive means exactly what it says, namely there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.  Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (Court held that the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress’ first attempt to make the Internet safe for minors by criminalizing certain Internet speech, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available),

         Another example of application of the strict scrutiny test is Brunson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992). Tennessee law prohibited campaign signs, posters, distribution of campaign materials and solicitation of votes for or against any candidate within one hundred feet of any polling place. The state was sued, claiming the law violated the right of free speech. The Court said it had to reconcile the right to engage in political discourse with the right to vote. The Court held that the state: had a compelling state interest in protecting voters from confusion and undue influence, it was narrowly tailored to address the interest to be protected, the one hundred foot requirement does not impose a significant impingement on the first amendment.

         THE LOWER COURT DECISIONS.

                 THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION

The case began in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. As part of her lawsuit Ms. Chiles sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the MCTL prior to having a trial. She alleged that the MTCL “prohibits her ability to assist minor clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their physical bodies”, in essence to “cure” gays and dissuade those with transgender ideation. She argued that because she only performed “talk therapy” the law was infringing her freedom of speech. This distinction was relevant because some conversion therapists have used procedures such as brain surgery, chemical castration, and aversion therapy.

The District Court denied that request in a detailed twenty-page Order. The first issue addressed by the court was the question of what exactly the law regulated. Colorado argued that it regulated professional conduct, not speech. Ms. Chiles of course argued that the law regulated her speech, i.e. it regulated what she could say in the course of her talk therapy. Deciding this issue determines what test the court ultimately applies to the MCTL, rational basis or strict scrutiny.

The District Court held that the law regulated professional conduct. The Court’s opinion cited a number of cases holding that regulation of professional conduct are constitutionally permissible even though that conduct incidentally involves speech. First Amendment heightened scrutiny does not apply to incidental regulation of professional speech that is part of the professional practice. Therefore strict scrutiny was not applicable and the court applied the rational basis test

Applying the rational basis test to the case, the Court held that the MCTL had a legitimate interest, i.e. harm to minors and the law has a rational approach to preventing that harm.

THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

         The 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the rational basis test was the correct test to use. The decision holds that the MCTL passed the rational basis test and was therefore constitutional.

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

         As referenced above, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that the strict scrutiny test must be used. 

         WHAT’S NEXT. The case will now be sent back down to the first court that heard the case, the federal District Court in Colorado. That court will then have to apply the strict scrutiny test to the matter. I would imagine the court will require further legal submissions and may need to conduct further hearings. Keep in mind that the case has not even proceeded to a trial. All of the proceedings so far have been based on the court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction.

         Marlon Manuel Diaz was stopped for violating Florida’s handicapped parking law. After he was stopped, things got much worse for Mr. Diaz. Pursuant to local Sheriff’s department policy, deputies asked him step out of the car. Before doing so, he told the deputies he had a handgun and had no permit for it. After he got out of his car, deputies saw the gun, confiscated it and arrested him. The deputies then did an inventory search of the car and found drugs. They charged Mr. Diaz with trafficking fentanyl (four grams or more) possession of methamphetamine and carrying a concealed weapon.

         His lawyer filed a motion to suppress all of the drugs and the statements he made to the deputies. He argued that the deputies did not have probable cause to believe that he committed a traffic violation nor did they have reasonable suspicion to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. Therefore, the lawyer argued the stop was an illegal search and seizure. The trial judge agreed, granting the motion and the State appealed.

         The uncontradicted testimony at the hearing showed the following: The deputies saw Diaz operate his car and then stop or park in a designated handicap spot. The car had neither a handicap placard nor a license plate designated as a handicap plate. As he began driving away, deputies initiated the stop. When asked, he did not provide them with a disabled permit, a driver’s license or state ID card indicating a disability. Diaz then told them he was not disabled and apologized for parking where he did. There was a passenger in the vehicle. Diaz did not claim she was disabled. Deputies testified that they had observed the passenger prior to her entering the car and saw no evidence of her being disabled.

         In granting the motion to suppress, the trial court judge stated that because the deputies only saw Diaz in the parking spot “for two minutes” there was insufficient evidence to prove Diaz had committed a “clear traffic violation”. The judge added that under Florida law, a person can temporarily park in the space if he/she is chauffeuring a disabled person and are loading or unloading that person.

         The appellate court disagreed with the trial judge on every aspect of his ruling. As to the “no clear traffic violation”, the court said yes there was. Diaz admitted he was not disabled and never produced any type of documentation showing that he was entitled to park there. He presented no evidence that he was transporting or picking up a disabled person. The statute does not require officers to wait a specific amount of time to initiate the stop. All that is required is that a traffic violation occurred.  It is an objective test. Even if the deputy had a hunch, a gut feeling or a suspicion that Diaz may have been up to no good and used this two-minute parking mishap as an excuse to stop Diaz, the issue is whether or not there was a traffic violation.

         It’s easy to see that Mr. Diaz’s day would have turned out better if he had simply parked in a different spot. Instead, he is in prison.

         The lesson to be learned is do not make yourself an easy target for law enforcement. Something as simple as parking in the wrong spot can have bad consequences.

         You may read about Mr. Diaz’s case at State v. Diaz, 395 So.3d 622 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

         If you find yourself facing criminal charges your personal liberty is at stake. Call the Kessler Law Firm for experienced, professional and assertive representation. Given the stakes, you should settle for nothing less.

         Put yourself in Timothy Hickman’s shoes. He was a passenger in a car driven by a female (no indication of the relationship). They were parked, backed in at the dead end of a two-lane unmarked street, adjacent to a vacant lot and next to a no parking sign. A citizen called the police to report this and express the concern that the car was “casing” the neighborhood. When the responding officer approached the car, the driver lowered her window.

         At that point the officer saw drugs and drug paraphernalia in open view. A subsequent search incident to the arrest revealed drugs in a backpack at Hickman’s feet.

         Mr. Hickman’s defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in Hickman’s backpack. The trial judge granted the motion saying that “no clear evidence showed that there was a parking violation.” As an alternate basis for granting the motion, the judge held that the parking violation did not “motivate” the officer to approach the car.

         The State appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge. The appellate court’s opinion noted that there was plenty of evidence to show the car was parked in a no parking zone: the officer’s testimony; a picture of the sign; dash cam footage from the patrol car showing the car’s proximity to the sign. In fact, defense counsel even finally conceded that the car was parked in a no parking zone.

         The more important part of the opinion deals with the trial court’s ruling that it was not the parking violation that motivated the officer to approach the car. The appellate court reiterated Florida law in this regard. A traffic stop is a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The stop is reasonable under that Amendment if the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. The test is purely objective. The question is “Was there a traffic violation?”   The officer’s subjective motivation, suspicion, hunch or even animosity towards you does not matter. As the court so succinctly put it:

                 Here, probable cause existed for the stop because Tomkin’s car was parked illegally. The officer did not, therefore, violate Hickman’s Fourth Amendment rights. Hickman at 219.

         The lesson to be learned: do not make yourself an easy target for law enforcement. If Mr. Hickman and his companion followed that advice, he would not be serving twenty years in prison. You may read about Mr. Hickman’s case at 363 So.3d 217 (Fla. 6^th DCA 2023).

         If you find yourself facing criminal charges your personal liberty is at stake. Call the Kessler Law Firm for experienced, professional and assertive representation. Given the stakes, you should settle for nothing less.

This would appear to be pretty straightforward. However, as we noted in our prior post, there have been numerous court decisions interpreting virtually every aspect of Miranda. One area that would appear to be simple, but which has spawned a lot of the court decisions is whether or not the suspect has properly invoked their rights under Miranda.

In Davis v. United States, 514 U.S. 452 (!994), the United States Supreme Court held that a suspect’s response seeking to invoke Miranda rights must be “clear and unambiguous”. In the case the defendant Davis, after being read his Miranda rights said “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer”. Law enforcement sought clarification from Davis and he finally responded that he was not asking for a lawyer. The questioning then continued. The Supreme Court ruled that Davis had not made a clear and unambiguous request for a lawyer, i.e. the mere mention of “a lawyer” is not enough.

One of the most famous (or infamous cases) is a case from Louisiana, State v. Demesme. Twenty year old Warren Demesme was being questioned in connection with 2 sexual assault cases involving minors. Records indicate he volunteered for both interviews, which were recorded.  During the second interview he allegedly made incriminating statements to the police. The recordings show that he admitted one of the assaults but denied the other. But before making the admission, he alleged he asked for a lawyer, however no attorney was provided.

 He later moved to have the statements ruled inadmissible at trial.  He argued that under Miranda any statements he made after his request for a lawyer was denied should be excluded from the trial. The state argued that his request for a lawyer was nonsensical or ambiguous or both so therefore there was no Miranda violation. The trial court ruled against him and said the statements were admissible at trial. He appealed that decision through the Louisiana appellate courts, including the state supreme Court. This latter court held that his request for an attorney was not clear and unambiguous. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

So what exactly did Mr. Demesme say when he asked for an attorney? The transcript of the interview contains the following:

        “If y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause that is not what’s up.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled against Demesme by a 6-1 vote. 5 of the 6 judges did draft a written opinion explaining their decision. One, however, did. In that opinion, the judge wrote,

        “In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview…”

There has been a lot of commentary about this case. Most seem to agree that the defendant was using the slang term “dawg” which is akin to “dude” or “bro” and that a comma after the word lawyer (along with the spelling) would have helped. What is the lesson to be learned here? Words matter! Below is a discussion of how to properly invoke your rights. Do not ad lib, or use slang or use more words than necessary . Be direct, to the point and once you do it, stop talking.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. We strongly suggest that you properly and fully invoke your rights when you are asked. To do so say “I will not answer any questions and I want a lawyer now”. DO NOT use phrases like “Do I need a lawyer?” What will a lawyer do for me?” and so forth.

Do not forget, one of the rights you have invoked is the right to remain silent. Make sure you remain silent. If after you have invoked this right you reinitiate contact with law enforcement, you have now waived your right and the interrogation can start again. See, e.g. State v. Gafford, 415 So.3d 1224 (Fla. 6^th DCA, 2025).

While it may not be ok, interrogators have been known to try various tactics to get you waive your rights. They will say things such as “We just want to get your side of the story”, “Maybe you can tell us things that will mitigate your situation”, “Once lawyers get involved, we can’t talk to you”, “It could be hours until a lawyer can get here”. Also remember, law enforcement can legally lie to you e.g. “We talked to so and so and they told us what you did”, “We found your dna/fingerprints/blood at the scene” and other things to heighten your stress.

A custodial interrogation can be a very stressful setting. Your interrogators are trained for this, you are not. Your interests are best served by invoking your right to remain silent, adhering to it and getting advice from an attorney.

If you find yourself facing criminal charges, your personal liberty is at stake. Call the Kessler Law Firm for experienced, professional and assertive representation. Given the stakes, you should settle for nothing less.

         WHAT IT IS: The decision is premised on 2 Amendments to the U.S Constitution: the 5^th (self-incrimination clause); the 6^th (right to an attorney).

                 “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”

A person can waive these rights if he/she makes a knowing (he/she understood the rights) and voluntary waiver of the rights.

WHAT IT DOES: The Court then established a rule of evidence that holds if law enforcement fails to comply with the requirements, a confession obtained from the interrogation cannot be used against the individual. However, as discussed below, it does not provide a get out of jail free card. The Miranda decision itself and subsequent court decisions have set the parameters for its applicability.

WHAT IT DOESN’T DO: First, it does not apply to all interactions with law enforcement. The decision holds that it only applies to “custodial interrogations”. Miranda warnings are required only if a defendant is in custody. This means that the individual is not free to leave or that a reasonable person would conclude he/she is not free to leave. Second there must be an interrogation. When law enforcement begins to ask questions that could lead to self-incriminating answers, it is interrogation.

There are certain circumstances where Miranda does not apply even though it may appear to be a custodial situation. For example, the routine-booking exception permits officers to ask standard booking questions, such as questions regarding the defendant’s date of birth, address, height and weight, etc.Under the public-safety exception, officers don’t have to provide Miranda warnings before asking a suspect about the location of a weapon that poses an imminent threat.

Police don’t need to provide Miranda warnings before making a suspect stand in a lineup, give a blood sample, or even recite a phrase for the purpose of making a voice identification, although a search warrant may be required

OTHER ISSUES: It would seem to be a simple matter: you’re in police custody, they are about to begin your interrogation and they read you your Miranda rights. They then ask you if you understand those rights. What you say next is vitally important. To properly invoke your Miranda rights, you must explicitly, clearly, and unambiguously state to law enforcement that you wish to remain silent or want an attorney. Say, “I am invoking my right to remain silent” or “I want a lawyer”. Once these rights are invoked, all questioning must cease immediately. DO NOT say things like “Do you think I need a lawyer?” “Maybe I should have a lawyer” or words to that effect. There are numerous court decisions that have held that such unclear or ambiguous comments are not enough to invoke Miranda protections.

Also once you have clearly and unambiguously asserted your right to remain silent, remain silent. We have seen scenarios in which once a suspect has properly asserted his/her rights, the suspect is told that it will take some time to get a lawyer present. An officer then stays in the room with the suspect and begins to chat with the suspect about innocent topics, e.g. fishing, the weather, etc. The suspect engages in these conversations with the officer. As the conversation goes on, the suspect “warms up” to the officer and sees the officer as friendly. The suspect’s decision to remain silent begins to soften and he/she decides to go ahead and take back the Miranda decision.

         If you find yourself facing criminal charges, whether or not there is a “confession”, your personal liberty is at stake. Call the Kessler Law Firm for experienced, professional and assertive representation. Given the stakes, you should settle for nothing less.

A first conviction is punishable by imprisonment for up to 30 days or by a fine of $500, or by both a fine and imprisonment

A second or subsequent conviction is punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days or by a fine of $1,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. If you are convicted of a second or subsequent violation that occurs within 5 years after the date of a prior conviction for a violation of this section shall have your driving privilege revoked for at least 180 days but no more than 1 year. Law enforcement officers have broad discretion to arrest or cite drivers on the spot based on driving history and circumstances. Also, unlike “normal” speeding tickets, this requires a court appearance. You can’t just mail in the fine.

As you can see, this is not your father’s speeding ticket…this is a criminal offense and you can face jail time. Aside from jail time and a fine, a conviction can negatively impact other areas of your life. Your job could be put in jeopardy. Will your employer be understanding while you miss 30 days of work? Does your job involve driving on behalf of your employer? Do you really think your employer or your employer’s liability insurance carrier will put you behind the wheel of a company vehicle again? Do you have a professional license that may be put at risk? What about your insurance rates?

Most importantly, what about the possible physical harm you could cause to others or yourself? Having an accident at those speeds can cause catastrophic injuries and/or death. Does the “thrill” of driving that fast outweigh the damage you may cause both your family and loved ones and the family and loved ones of innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong lace at the wrong time.

If you find yourself facing criminal charges, your personal liberty is at stake. Call the Kessler Law Firm for experienced, professional and assertive representation. Given the stakes, you should settle for nothing less.

Thousands of Florida drivers lose their driving privileges each year because of unpaid traffic tickets, court fines, or other court-ordered financial obligations. Once a license is suspended, everyday responsibilities such as commuting to work, attending school, or caring for family members can become significantly more difficult.

To help address this issue, clerks of court across the state participate in Operation Green Light Florida, a statewide initiative designed to help individuals resolve overdue court obligations and work toward reinstating their driver’s licenses.

For many drivers, Operation Green Light provides an opportunity to clear up old court debts and get back on the road legally.

What Is Operation Green Light?

Operation Green Light is a program hosted by county clerks of court throughout Florida that allows individuals with delinquent court fines and fees to resolve those obligations and move toward restoring their driving privileges.

When traffic tickets or court fines go unpaid, they are often referred to collections. Once that happens, additional collection surcharges can substantially increase the total amount owed.

During Operation Green Light events, participating clerk offices may waive or reduce those collection surcharges, making it easier for drivers to pay outstanding balances. In some cases, individuals may also be able to enter into a payment plan to begin addressing the debt.

The overall goal of the program is simple: helping people resolve old court obligations so they can become eligible to reinstate their driver’s licenses.

Why Operation Green Light Exists

Operation Green Light was developed in response to the large number of driver’s license suspensions tied to unpaid court debts.

In 2019, Florida law required clerks of court to offer a driver license reinstatement program at least once each year. These programs allow individuals to address overdue fines and court costs while reducing some of the financial penalties that accumulate when debts are sent to collections.

Many license suspensions occur not because of unsafe driving, but because someone fell behind on court payments. By temporarily reducing certain additional costs, Operation Green Light helps remove barriers that prevent people from resolving those debts.

Who Operation Green Light Helps

Operation Green Light primarily helps individuals whose driver’s licenses were suspended due to unpaid traffic tickets or court-ordered financial obligations.

Common situations include:

• Unpaid traffic citations that were referred to collections
• Outstanding court costs from past cases
• Driver’s license suspensions caused by failure to pay fines

For many participants, resolving these obligations can make a significant difference in their ability to maintain employment and manage daily responsibilities.

What Costs Operation Green Light Can Reduce

One of the main benefits of Operation Green Light is the potential reduction of collection agency surcharges added to delinquent court debt.

These surcharges can increase the amount owed by a substantial percentage once a case is referred to collections. During Operation Green Light events, many counties allow participants to resolve their cases without paying those additional collection fees.

However, it is important to understand that Operation Green Light does not eliminate the original fines or court costs associated with a case.

Participants are still responsible for paying:

• The original fines and court costs
• Mandatory state assessments
• Driver’s license reinstatement fees required by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

The exact balance owed depends on the individual case and the county handling the matter.

When Operation Green Light Does Not Apply

Operation Green Light is designed to address license suspensions caused by unpaid court financial obligations. It does not resolve every type of driver’s license suspension.

The program generally does not apply to suspensions related to:

• Failure to pay child support
• Failure to appear in court
• Habitual Traffic Offender revocations
• Certain DUI-related suspensions
• Administrative suspensions issued by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

In these situations, the underlying issue must typically be resolved before a license can be reinstated.

When Operation Green Light Events Take Place

Most Florida counties hold Operation Green Light events once each year, often during the spring. Some counties coordinate their events during the same general time period, although schedules may vary.

In St. Lucie County, the Clerk of Court, Michelle Miller, has scheduled Operation Green Light to take place from March 30 through April 4, 2026.

Information about upcoming Operation Green Light events, including dates, locations, and participation instructions, is usually posted on the website of the Clerk of Court in the county where the ticket or case originated.

Checking the clerk’s website is typically the easiest way to find the most current details about Operation Green Light events in your area.

How to Participate in Operation Green Light

Participating in Operation Green Light is generally straightforward.

Most individuals begin by:

1. Checking their driver’s license status through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
2. Identifying the county where the ticket or court case originated.
3. Visiting that county’s Clerk of Court website to find Operation Green Light event information. For example, individuals with cases in St. Lucie County can check the website of Clerk Michelle Miller for details about the event.
4. Resolving the outstanding balance or establishing a payment plan during the event period.

Once those obligations are addressed, drivers may become eligible to move forward with reinstating their licenses.

What to Do if Operation Green Light Does Not Apply to Your Suspension

If your driver’s license suspension is not related to unpaid court fines or fees, Operation Green Light may not resolve the issue.

In those situations, the first step is determining the exact reason your license was suspended. This information can usually be found by reviewing your driving record through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or by contacting the Clerk of Court in the county where the case originated.

Depending on the circumstances, resolving the suspension may require addressing a missed court appearance, completing court-ordered requirements, or resolving a pending criminal or traffic case.

When a suspension involves a more complicated legal issue, the process for restoring driving privileges can become more involved. In those situations, speaking with a knowledgeable attorney may help clarify the cause of the suspension and identify the steps required to work toward reinstatement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Operation Green Light Florida

Can I reinstate my driver’s license the same day during Operation Green Light?

In many cases, individuals who resolve their outstanding court obligations during Operation Green Light may be able to begin the process of reinstating their driver’s license right away. However, this depends on the reason for the suspension and whether all required fees have been paid.

Even after court obligations are resolved, drivers may still need to pay a driver’s license reinstatement fee to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles before their license becomes valid again.

Do I have to attend Operation Green Light in person?

This depends on the county hosting the event. Some clerk offices allow participants to resolve their cases online or by phone during the Operation Green Light event period, while others may require individuals to appear in person at the clerk’s office.

Because procedures vary, individuals should check the Clerk of Court website in the county where their case originated to confirm how the event is being conducted.

Can Operation Green Light help if I have multiple suspensions?

Possibly. If multiple suspensions are tied to unpaid court fines or fees, Operation Green Light may allow individuals to address those obligations during the event.

However, if one or more suspensions are related to other issues, such as child support enforcement or a failure to appear in court, those matters must typically be resolved separately before a license can be reinstated.

What if I owe fines in more than one Florida county?

Operation Green Light programs are administered by individual county clerk offices, which means drivers must usually resolve obligations in each county where the fines or cases originated.

If a driver owes money in multiple counties, they may need to contact each clerk’s office separately to determine whether those counties are participating in Operation Green Light and what steps are required to resolve the outstanding balances.

A Valuable Opportunity for Florida Drivers

For individuals whose licenses were suspended due to unpaid traffic tickets or court costs, Operation Green Light can provide an important opportunity to resolve those obligations and begin the process of restoring driving privileges.

Because the program is administered by individual counties, anyone interested in participating should check the website of the Clerk of Court in the county where their case originated for the most accurate and up-to-date information about upcoming Operation Green Light events.

To start with, you have the right to remain silent and the right to ask for an attorney. You generally do not have to consent to searches. You need to understand what Miranda rights actually do (and don’t) protect you from.

Statements made under stress or confusion can still be used as evidence, so it’s best to say nothing without an attorney’s advice. Calm, respectful assertion of your rights can protect you long before your case reaches court.

Contact Kessler Law Firm for thoughtful guidance.

Getting arrested is scary. Most people have never been through the system before. You hear words like “arraignment” and “discovery” and are unsure what they mean in your case.

The criminal process in Florida follows a structure:

Arrest → First Appearance → Arraignment → Discovery → Pre-Trial → Trial or Resolution → Sentencing
It is a system with rules and deadlines. It can feel overwhelming. But it is predictable once you understand it.

Here is what actually happens in a Florida criminal case, step by step.

1. The Arrest

An arrest happens when law enforcement takes you into custody because they believe there is probable cause that you committed a crime. Probable cause means they believe there are enough facts to think a crime occurred and you were involved. It is not proof. It is not a conviction.

After arrest, you are usually:

• Taken to jail
• Booked (photographs and fingerprints)
• Placed in a holding cell

In Florida, you must be brought before a judge within 24 hours for what is called a first appearance.

2. First Appearance (Bond Hearing)

This is your first court date. It happens quickly, often the next morning.

The judge does three things:

1. Tells you what you are charged with
2. Determines whether there was probable cause for the arrest
3. Sets bond (or keeps you in custody)

What is bond?

Bond is money or a financial guarantee to ensure you return to court. The judge can:

• Release you on your own recognizance (no money required)
• Set a monetary bond
• Impose conditions (no contact orders, drug testing, travel restrictions)
• Hold you without bond (in serious cases)

This hearing is not a trial. It is not about guilt or innocence. It is about release conditions.

3. The Arraignment

The arraignment is usually your next formal court date. At arraignment, the judge:

• Formally reads the charges
• Asks for your plea

You have three options:

• Guilty
• No Contest
• Not Guilty

In most cases, your attorney will enter a Not Guilty plea. This protects your rights and moves the case forward.

If you have hired an attorney by this stage, your lawyer can often file a written plea of Not Guilty and waive the arraignment, meaning you may not need to appear in court at all. In other cases, your attorney can appear on your behalf, so you do not have to attend personally.

Arraignment is usually brief. There are no witnesses. No evidence is presented.

4. Discovery

After arraignment, the case enters the pre-trial phase. One of the most important parts of this stage is discovery. Discovery is the formal exchange of evidence between the prosecutor and the defense.

This can include:

• Police reports
• Body camera footage
• Dash cam video
• Witness statements
• 911 calls
• Lab results
• Photos
• Prior statements

This is where your attorney learns what the State actually has. Many cases change direction once discovery is reviewed. Sometimes the evidence is weaker than it sounded at arrest. Sometimes it is stronger. Smart decisions cannot be made without seeing it.

5. Pre-Trial Conferences

The pre-trial phase will also include several court dates that are not trials. These are often called docket calls or case management conferences. These hearings are usually short. The judge is not deciding guilt or innocence.

Instead, the court is asking:

• Has discovery been exchanged?
• Are depositions scheduled or completed?
• Are there motions that need to be heard?
• Is the case ready for trial?
• Is there a plea offer?

These court dates keep the case moving. They also create deadlines. This is often when negotiations happen. The prosecutor may extend a plea offer. Your attorney evaluates the evidence, the risks, and the possible outcomes.

Pre-Trial Motions

Sometimes the defense files pre-trial motions to challenge the State’s evidence.

For example, your attorney may:

• Ask the court to suppress evidence from an illegal search
• Challenge a traffic stop
• Argue that statements were obtained in violation of your rights
• Seek dismissal of charges

When this happens, the court schedules a motion hearing. Witnesses may testify. Evidence may be presented. The judge decides whether certain evidence can be used at trial. These hearings can change the direction of a case.

Many cases resolve during the pre-trial stage through:

• Dismissal
• Reduced charges
• Diversion programs
• Negotiated plea agreements

But not every case should be resolved this way. That depends on the facts, the evidence, and your goals.

6. Trial

If no agreement is reached, the case goes to trial. In most criminal cases, you have the right to a jury trial. That means six jurors in most misdemeanor and non-capital felony cases in Florida.

At trial:

• The prosecutor presents evidence first
• Witnesses testify
• Your attorney cross-examines them
• The defense may present evidence (but does not have to)

You are presumed innocent.

The State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury has reasonable doubt after hearing the evidence, they should return a verdict of Not Guilty. If the jury finds you guilty, the case moves to sentencing.

7. Sentencing

Sentencing can happen immediately or on a later date. In many cases, sentencing is scheduled for a separate hearing after a guilty plea or verdict. This gives both sides time to prepare arguments and present mitigation. However, some charges, like DUI, often require immediate sentencing if you enter a plea. That means the judge may impose penalties the same day you resolve the case.

In Florida, sentencing may involve:

• Jail or prison
• Probation
• Fines
• Community service
• Classes (DUI school, anger management, etc.)
• Driver’s license suspension
• Vehicle impoundment

Florida uses a Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet for many felony cases. This is a point system that helps determine the lowest permissible sentence. Judges often have discretion within the legal range. But for certain charges, Florida law requires mandatory minimum penalties. That means the judge must impose at least a specific amount of jail, fines, or other sanctions, even if they might otherwise prefer a lighter sentence.

Things to Remember

• An arrest is not a conviction.
• Charges can be reduced or dismissed.
• Evidence matters more than accusations.
• Early decisions can affect the entire case.

The process moves forward whether you are ready or not. What you do in the first days and weeks after arrest can shape the outcome.

If you are facing charges, the most important step is getting informed and getting guidance early.

• Loss of professional licenses
• Immigration impact
• Housing discrimination
• Firearms rights
• Impact on child custody.
• Driver’s license status
• Professional licensing
• Employment opportunities
• Immigration status

Future sentencing exposure

In DUI cases, penalties may include license suspension, ignition interlock requirements, mandatory classes, fines, probation, and in some cases immediate sentencing upon entry of a plea.

The long-term impact of a conviction should be evaluated alongside the immediate penalty. It’s a strong argument for why fighting charges — rather than just pleading out — is worth it.

If you have been charged with a crime, hiring the right lawyer matters. Criminal defense is not a commodity. Not all attorneys handle cases the same way. Not all attorneys prepare the same way. And not all attorneys are equally comfortable in a courtroom.

Before hiring a lawyer, you should understand what separates one defense attorney from another.

Criminal Defense Is a Specialty

Florida licenses attorneys broadly. A lawyer can practice in many areas without focusing on any one.

Criminal defense, however, is its own discipline. It involves constitutional law, evidentiary rules, motion practice, jury selection, trial strategy, and sentencing law. A lawyer who primarily drafts contracts or handles civil disputes does not approach a criminal case the same way as someone who works in criminal court every day.

Ask how much of the attorney’s practice is devoted to criminal defense. If criminal law is
only a small portion of their work, that matters.

Board Certification

Florida offers Board Certification through The Florida Bar. Board certification in criminal trial law is not automatic. It is earned.

To become board certified, an attorney must demonstrate substantial trial experience, try a required number of cases to verdict, pass a rigorous written examination, undergo peer and judicial review, and complete ongoing specialized education.

Not all criminal defense attorneys pursue board certification. It is voluntary. But it is one of the few objective measures of tested courtroom experience available to the public. If trial experience matters to you, ask whether the attorney is board certified in criminal
trial law and what that certification required.

Trial Experience

Most cases resolve without trial. Every case, however, should be prepared as if it may go to one.

There is a difference between an attorney who negotiates cases and an attorney who is prepared to try them. Prosecutors and judges are aware of that difference. Reputation in the courtroom affects leverage long before a jury is selected.

Ask how many jury trials the attorney has handled. Ask when the last trial occurred. Ask whether the attorney is prepared to take your type of case to trial if necessary.

The answers should be clear and specific.

Local Court Experience

Criminal law is governed by statewide statutes, but cases are handled locally. Each circuit has its own judges, prosecutors, procedures, and administrative practices. An attorney who regularly appears in the courthouse where your case is pending understands how that system operates. That includes knowing how particular judges handle bond, motion hearings, and sentencing issues.

This is not about special treatment. It is about familiarity with procedure and expectations.

Ask whether the attorney regularly practices in the jurisdiction where your case is filed.

Communication and Realistic Advice

A criminal case involves deadlines, decisions, and risk. You should understand the charge, the possible penalties, the strength of the evidence, and the available defenses. During a consultation, pay attention to how the attorney explains your situation. Do they answer questions directly? Do they explain risk clearly? Do they avoid promising outcomes?

No lawyer can guarantee a result in a criminal case. Be cautious of anyone who suggests otherwise.

You should leave the meeting with clarity, not confusion.

• How much of your practice is devoted to criminal defense?
• Are you board certified in criminal trial law? What did that certification require?
• How many jury trials have you handled?
• When was your most recent jury trial?
• Are you prepared to take my type of case to trial if necessary?
• Do you regularly practice in the courthouse where my case is pending?
• How strong is the evidence against me?
• What defenses may be available in my case?
• What is the realistic worst-case scenario?
• Who will attend my hearings and handle my case in court?
• Is trial included in your fee?
• What additional costs could arise?

Bring this sheet to consultations. Take notes. Ask direct questions. Expect direct answers.

Who Will Handle the Case

In some firms, the lawyer who conducts the consultation is not the lawyer who appears in court.

Ask who will attend hearings, who will argue motions, and who will try the case if it goes to trial. Clear expectations at the beginning prevent misunderstandings later.

Fees and Structure

Criminal defense fees are often structured as flat fees, though practices vary. You should understand what the fee covers, whether trial is included, and what additional costs may arise.

The lowest fee is not always the best decision. A criminal conviction can carry long-term consequences. Preparation, experience, and courtroom ability matter.

The Bottom Line

Choosing a criminal defense attorney is not about advertising claims or office size. It is about demonstrated courtroom experience, commitment to criminal defense, knowledge of local practice, and clear, direct advice.

You are hiring someone to stand between you and the State of Florida. That decision should be deliberate.

Ask direct questions. Expect direct answers.

In most criminal cases, the State makes a plea offer. The offer may reduce the charge. It may limit jail exposure. It may involve probation, fines, or a specific sentence in exchange for a guilty or no contest plea.

Accepting a plea ends the case. It also results in a conviction. That decision should be made based on evidence and risk, not pressure.

What a Plea Deal Is

A plea agreement is a contract between the defendant and the State. The defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest. In return, the prosecutor agrees to a defined outcome.

By entering a plea, the defendant gives up the right to:

• Trial by jury
• Confront and cross-examine witnesses
• Require the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Once accepted by the court, the conviction is final in almost all cases.

The Evidence Controls the Analysis

The central question is simple: What can the State prove?

An arrest is not proof. A charging document is not proof. The issue is whether admissible evidence exists that can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Some cases weaken after discovery. Witness credibility issues arise. Stops or searches may be legally defective. Statements may be challenged.

Other cases are supported by strong physical evidence, video, reliable witnesses, or forensic results. A plea offer must be evaluated in light of the actual evidence, not the initial allegation. Trial Carries Risk

If a plea is rejected, the case proceeds toward trial. At trial, the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds reasonable doubt, the proper verdict is not guilty. If the jury finds the State met its burden, sentencing follows.

Plea negotiations reflect compromise. If a defendant rejects an offer and loses at trial, the prior offer is usually no longer available. The potential sentence after trial may be greater than the negotiated offer. That possibility must be part of the analysis.

Criminal History Matters

If you have prior convictions, the stakes are higher.

In Florida, prior record can:

• Increase sentencing scoresheet points
• Trigger mandatory minimum penalties
• Limit eligibility for diversion programs
• Influence a judge’s sentencing decision

Some offenses carry mandatory minimum sentences by statute. In those cases, judicial discretion is limited. The court must impose at least the minimum penalty required by law.

A defendant with no prior record is not in the same position and may have more negotiating leverage than someone with prior convictions.

There Is No Default Answer

Some cases should be resolved by negotiated plea. Others should proceed to trial.

The correct decision depends on:

• The strength of the admissible evidence
• Available legal defenses
• Sentencing exposure
• Criminal history
• Risk tolerance

A plea is a strategic decision. So is a trial.

Your attorney’s role is to analyze the evidence, explain the law, outline the risks, and give a professional recommendation. An experienced lawyer can tell you how the case is likely to unfold and what the realistic outcomes may be.

But the final decision is yours.

No lawyer can force you to accept a plea. No lawyer can force you to go to trial. The choice to plead guilty or proceed to trial belongs to the defendant.

Once entered, a plea is difficult to withdraw. The decision should be made only after you fully understand what rights you are giving up and what consequences you are accepting.

I certainly like some more than others. In more than 35 years as a criminal defense lawyer, I have certainly encountered some police officers who I have learned I cannot trust to do their jobs, or to tell the truth. I have met many who are clearly and openly racist.

I also have had many officers I could call my friends. I have defended several, and defended wives, husbands, sons and daughters of more.

Police officers are people, just like everyone else. But they are also armed and sometimes dangerous. When they break the rules, sometimes people die.

There is systemic racism in this country, and all too often, the police are at its core. That’s the truth, whether we say so or not. We might as well say so.

Johnny Lee Baynes, a judge in Brooklyn since 2005, died on Thursday of pneumonia related to the novel coronavirus outbreak that has plagued New York City and the world. He was 64 years old.

Dozens of lawyers, court officers and clerks crowded onto the wooden benches in Judge Johnny Lee Baynes’ courtroom on March 12 as they waited for the judge to hear cases at his calendar call, the busiest day of his week.

When one lawyer complained that social distancing guidelines weren’t being followed in the jam-packed Brooklyn Supreme Court courtroom, Baynes fired back.

“If you don’t like it, you can leave,” the lawyer recalled Baynes telling her.

It was his last appearance on the bench. Two weeks later, the judge was dead of complications related to coronavirus.

Baynes became a Housing Court judge in 1993 and joined the bench in Brooklyn after he was elected to the New York City Civil Court in 2005. He was named an acting Supreme Court justice in Kings County, and in 2011 he won an election for a 14-year term to the Kings County Supreme Court. Prior to joining the bench, he was a staff attorney for the NYC Housing Authority as well as District Council 37 and the Municipal Employees Legal Services Plan.

When I posted this story on my Facebook page, several people snickered, and the words “justice” and “karma” appeared more than once.

Don Corleone would not have called this “justice,” as he explained to Bonasera. In the opening scene of The Godfather, the undertaker asks Don Corleone to avenge the brutal beating of his daughter by killing the perpetrators. That is not justice, says the Godfather. Your daughter is still alive.

I cannot call it justice that Judge Baynes is dead, and that the coronavirus is what killed him.

But I have learned that justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

In Florida, house arrest is called the Community Control supervision. Florida Statute 948.001(3) defines the program as a form of “intensive, supervised custody in the community.” It is a punishment, but it also is an alternative to a prison sentence.

The terms of house arrest in Florida vary depending on the situation. The probationer must either remain in the home 24 hours a day, or may be allowed to report to school, work and church. In most cases, the probationer must meet regularly with their probation officer to discuss a proposed schedule for the upcoming week or month. It is important that probationer stick to the schedule once it has been approved. Any deviation could result in an accusation and arrest for violation of probation or community control.

Some probationers on community control are required to wear an electronic monitoring device. Even if the probationer has not been ordered to wear a monitoring device, his or her probation officer will make random surprise home visits to make sure the probationer is there as required.

If your probation officer has reason to believe you violated the terms of your community control or house arrest, you may be arrested. You may be arrested when you report to your probation officer, or a warrant may be issued.

Bond is not guaranteed on a charge of violation of community control, but bond is permitted. The decision whether to set bond is within the discretion of the judge. A lawyer with experience would know what information a judge wants to have in order to decide whether to grant or deny bond.

Lots of Florida lawyers “handle” violation of probation and community control cases. If you have been arrested for an accusation involving violation of probation or community control, and you want to be defended, not just “handled,” call a real pro, Michael Kessler.

Wrongful arrests happen every day. We have a long history of successfully defending people accused of violating probation or community control.

I found one article fascinating:

“The effects of solitary confinement have been debated since at least the middle of the nineteenth century when both Americans and Europeans began to question the then-widespread use of solitary confinement of convicted offenders. A sizable and impressively sophisticated literature, now largely forgotten, accumulated for more than a half century and documented significant damage to prisoners. More recently the development of Supermax prisons in the United States and human rights objections to pretrial solitary confinement in Scandinavia revived interest in the topic and controversy over the findings. The weight of the modern evidence concurs with the findings of earlier research: whether and how isolation damages people depends on duration and circumstances and is mediated by prisoners’ individual characteristics; but for many prisoners, the adverse effects are substantial.”

The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature, Peter Scharff Smith, Crime and Justice , Vol. 34, No. 1 (2006), pp. 441-528.

Don’t get me wrong. Strictly speaking, I am not solitary. I have Max, my black lab/pit bull mix. Nor I am I confined. I visit the grocery for supplies. I visit the cemetery to talk with my Dad. When I hope no one is looking, I even sneak in a visit to my Fort Pierce law office.

Since my divorce six years ago, I have also learned that there is a difference between loneliness and solitude. It is rare for me to feel lonely. I am comfortable in my own skin, and I have learned to enjoy solitude. In moderate doses, of course.

Some say the practice of solitary confinement as punishment dates all the back to the monasteries of the Middle Ages. Most scholars agree that the practice became more commonplace in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Phased out by the beginning of the Twentieth Century in most places, the practice saw a resurgence in the 1950’s in America.

Nowadays we still see it is most American prison systems as a means to maintain order, either as an additional disciplinary punishment for violation of prison rules or as ad administrative measure for those inmates who are viewed as especially dangerous, to themselves or others, or escape risks. In some places, convicted sex offenders have the option of choosing solitary confinement to avoid harassment from other prisoners.

Certainly, we must recognize that “shelter at home” decrees are not intended to be, and legally speaking are not, punishments. They just feel that way. As I strive to more fully comply with self isolation recommendations from scientists I respect and politicians I don’t, I will keep an eye on the effects this sort of solitary confinement has on me. I will report to you on any interesting developments.

Of course, my staff and I will work to get more comfortable with video-conferencing, so that we can quickly inform our clients of scheduling changes. Postponements have been many. More will surely come.

I am interested in hearing your stories, too. Stay in touch, but stay safe, as best you can.

Meanwhile, our Deputy Clerk Professionals continue to work diligently to ensure your documents are being processed in a timely fashion throughout this evolving crisis.

Document Processing

Documents filed through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal continue to be processed daily. To verify if your documents have been docketed to your case, you may view your case through the Benchmark Court Case Search.

Court Dates & Reminders

Criminal

Starting next week, essential felony court hearings, such as bond, arraignment, and change of plea time served hearings, will be heard from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. in courtroom 2A of the Fort Pierce courthouse with the following judges: Mondays, Judge Schwab; Tuesdays, Judge Belanger; Wednesdays, Judge Roby.

Essential misdemeanor hearings are also being heard periodically. All court dates are continually being updated in Benchmark.

Juvenile

Judge Meadows is holding daily detention hearings at 8:30 a.m. and shelter hearings at 9 a.m. Dependency advisory hearings are also being heard with Magistrate Hammond on Thursdays at 9:30 a.m.

Court Date Reminders

To stay informed, our office offers courtesy text messages and an Amazon Alexa Skill to remind you about upcoming court dates. Learn More and Sign Up.

Certifying Records Online

If you need documents certified, please visit www.stlucieclerk.com/ecertify. Once documents are processed, you can have them electronically certified directly from our website. This convenient service produces secure, reusable e-certified documents. If you need assistance with a record not available online, you may complete an online Public Records Request.

Communicating with Our Office

Whether you practice civil or criminal law, you can conveniently communicate with our professionals by email, phone, or our website’s Live Chat.

We understand the importance our office plays in your business. We hope that these extra measures provide you with added convenience during this time.

Sincerely,

Joe

The police quickly found almost 50lbs of dried basil, however, they will be unable to do anything about it due to red tape.

‘It’s red tape and the fact that dried basil isn’t actually illegal, even in large quantities,’ one officer told us.

This funny story illustrates a serious point: Drug charges are no joke!

A Florida drug arrest threatens your freedom, your civil rights, and even your driver’s license! In fact, any Florida drug conviction, even one for misdemeanor personal use marijuana, results in a mandatory driver’s license suspension.

Lots of Florida lawyers “handle” drug cases. If you have been arrested for a crime involving possession or sale or illegal narcotics, and you want to be defended, not just “handled”, call a real pro, Michael Kessler.

Wrongful arrests happen every day.

We recently saved a client from a wrongful arrest and prevented her wrongful conviction when she was accused of delivery of cannabis edibles. Thorough investigation and understanding of gas chromatography enabled us to destroy the prosecution’s case, prove that the candy was not contraband or illegal drugs, and our client received a written nolle prosse, a dismissal, without even having to shoulder the risks inherent in any jury trial.

In a Florida divorce proceeding, the judge may grant alimony to either party, which alimony may be bridge‑the‑gap, rehabilitative, durational, or permanent in nature or any combination of these forms of alimony.

In any award of alimony, the judge may order periodic payments or payments in lump sum or both. The judge may consider the adultery of either spouse and the circumstances thereof in determining the amount of alimony, if any, to be awarded.

In determining whether to award alimony or maintenance, the judge shall first make a specific factual determination as to whether either party has an actual need for alimony or maintenance and whether either party has the ability to pay alimony or maintenance.

If the judge finds that a party has a need for alimony or maintenance and that the other party has the ability to pay alimony or maintenance, then in determining the proper type and amount of alimony or maintenance under subsections (5)‑(8), then the judge shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

(a) The standard of living established during the marriage.

(b) The duration of the marriage.

(c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.

(d) The financial resources of each party, including the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.

(e) The earning capacities, educational levels, vocational skills, and employability of the parties and, when applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.

(f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.

(g) The responsibilities each party will have with regard to any minor children they have in common.

(h) The tax treatment and consequences to both parties of any alimony award, including the designation of all or a portion of the payment as a nontaxable, nondeductible payment.

(i) All sources of income available to either party, including income available to either party through investments of any asset held by that party.

(j) Any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

If alimony is an issue in your divorce, reach out to Michael Kessler of the Kessler Law firm for help. Experience does make a difference.

The woman was charged with several crimes including battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence and trespassing after “acting irate” toward the restaurant’s other customers, according to a Vero Beach Police Department officials.

An employee at the IHOP told an officer the woman walked into the restaurant around 3 a.m. and yelled at several customers. The employee said that they wanted the police to remove her from the property. After an officer confronted her and asked what happened, she refused to answer. A trespass warning was then issued and she was told that if she returned, she would be arrested.

Shortly after, she walked back inside the restaurant and officers told her she was trespassing The woman “became irate” and allegedly punched the officer on the arm with her fist.

The woman pulled away as officers tried to handcuff, and she “began to shove” an officer. Officers violently took her to the ground and held her face to the floor, cutting her chin before taking her to Jail.

The woman was released on a $4,500 bond, according to jail records.

Crimes against the police carry severe penalties. If she were to get convicted, it would certainly be a life-altering event for her. Fortunately, there is hope for her. A strong defense can overcome accusations of violent crime, even when made by law enforcement officers.

If you are looking for a criminal defense lawyer, you should contact Michael Kessler. He has experience defending all manner of violent crimes, from domestic violence to homicide, and even crimes alleged to have been committed against police.

Violent crime cases can be very complicated, and the stakes are high. That is why it is important to reach out to an experienced local criminal defense lawyer. Attorney Michael Kessler can bring to bear his extensive experience and skills, in and out of court, to strive to get exaggerated charges dismissed or reduced. He also works to limit his clients’ exposure to harsh and unfair punishment.