Protection of Constitutional Rights | Erik Swenk

As a full-time Hearing Officer for the State of Florida, I do not often get the chance to advocate on behalf of a party. I had the privilege of second-chairing with an outstanding attorney on a significant motion to suppress in a drug and firearms case handled by one of Seminole County’s leading criminal defense firms.

Samantha Lambert, of The Law Office of David A. Webster, P.A., presented a strong, well-supported argument for the motion. There is a balance between prosecuting criminal conduct and protecting constitutional rights — and that balance is what we advocated.

Criminal actions should be prosecuted to protect the public. At the same time, protections against unlawful government searches and seizures must be enforced with equal firmness, or we all lose the integrity of the Fourth Amendment.

After the arguments, Judge Egan reserved ruling and gave both sides the chance to supplement on one pivotal question about plain view, which could then bear on the inevitable-discovery doctrine.

Ultimately, Judge Egan ruled that the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure had been violated. The remedy is suppression of the evidence gained from that search. In this case, the evidence was excluded, and the State dropped all charges.

Not every matter is clear-cut. Facts often make decisions difficult. Weighing the evidence and the arguments from both sides — and deciding fairly under the facts and guiding authority — is work I take seriously in every role I serve.