Reasonable seizure, unreasonable search

So held the Florida Supreme Court in Smallwood v. State, No. SC-1130 (Fla.. Sup. Ct. May 2, 2013). The court held that although police officers could seize a cellphone incident to an arrest, a search of the contents thereof required a warrant.

MORE IMPORTANT RULE CHANGES FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ON E-MAIL SERVICE--PLUS A SPELLING LESSON

Today, the Supreme Court amended Rule 2.516 regarding e-mail service in several important respects. Here’s a summary of the rule changes:

• Parties can stipulate to methods of service other than email.
• The “Designation of email address(es)” need NOT be a separate pleading; rather an attorney must designate his or her e-mail addresses upon appearing in a proceeding.

And the spelling lesson? The only proposed change the Court rejected was to spell e-mail without the hyphen. E-mail is to be spelled WITH the hyphen, not without.

ABA approves judge use of social media.

On February 21, 2013, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 462, entitled "Judge's Use of Electronic Social Networking Media." Unlike Florida, see Florida Sup. Ct. Jud. Eth. Adv. Comm. Op. 2009-20 (2009) (judge many not include lawyers who may appear before judge in social network or permit such lawyers to add judge to their social network circle), the ABA takes a more balanced approach:

Judicious use of ESM [electronic social media] can benefit judges in both their personal and professional lives. As their use of this technology increases, judges can take advantage of its utility and potential as a valuable tool for public outreach. When used with proper care, judges' use of ESM does not necessarily compromise their duties under the Model Code any more than use of traditional and less public forms of social connection us as U.S. Mail, telephone, email or texting.

Formal Op. 462 at 4.

Fourth DCA Certifies Question of Whether Judge can be Facebook friend with Prosecutor

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has certified the following to be a question of great public
importance:

Where the presiding judge in a criminal case has accepted
the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook “friend,”
would a reasonably prudent person fear that he could not
get a fair and impartial trial, so that the defendant’s motion
for disqualification should be granted?

DOMVILLE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, No. 4D12-556 [January 16, 2013]

Florida Supreme Court delays mandatory e-filing....again.

By order dated November 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Florida once again changed the date on which e-filing rules will become effective. After considering the status report by the Florida Courts E-filing Authority, and the response by the Florida Courts Technology Committee, the Court ordered that the e-filing rules will be mandatory as follows:

• In the Supreme Court on February 27, 2013;
• In the Second District Court of Appeal on July 22, 2013
• In the Third District Court of Appeal on September 27, 2013; 
• In the Fourth District Court of Appeal on October 31, 2013;
• In the Fifth District Court of Appeal on November 27, 2013; and 
• In the First District Court of Appeal on December 27, 2013. 

The Court further ordered that the Chief Justice may make e-filing rules effective earlier on a voluntary basis in the Supreme Court by administrative by order of the chief justice. Similarly, each district chief judge may order that e-filing rule be effective earlier on a voluntary basis.

Apps for Attorneys

The Indiana Law Journal has a very nice annotated list of apps for lawyers.

Fourth Rule Change in a Month: New Judicial Administration Rule 2.514 Governs Computation of Time

Today, the Florida Supreme Court adopted Rule of Judicial Administration 2.514 governing computation of time in all state court proceedings. The computation itself remains essentially the same as it had been under current rules 1.090 and 9.420, but clarifies that the 5 days additional time for mailing also applies to service by email. Oddly, though, this new rule 2.514 goes into effect October 1, 2012, one month AFTER the new email service rule goes into effect.

This is the fourth rule change adopted by the Court over the last month, the prior changes being:

• service by email (effective September 1, 2012);
• electronic filing (October 1 in appellate courts; April 1, 2013 in civil); and
• electronic discovery (September 1, 2012)).