The arrest warrants are the product of a three month investigation involving numerous local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.  The investigation was spearheaded by the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, an initiative established by the GBI in 2002.  The investigation, named Operation Guarding Innocent, is thought to be the largest such operation in this history of Georgia.

Our criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended numerous clients charged with possessing and distributing child pornography. In some cases, an accused individual will be unaware that illegal images or videos were being stored on his computer or electronic storage devices.  Our firm has access to the top computer forensic experts to show this and prove our clients’ innocence. In other cases, the search warrant used by law enforcement to search a person’s home or computer will be defective requiring the suppression of any illegal images or videos found by law enforcement.

In State v. Cosmo, a young military man from Northwest Georgia responded to an online Craigslist ad placed by an undercover agent with the Northwest Georgia Crimes Against Children Task Force. The ad said “Hey guys. We[‘]re back in town and looking forward to return engagements with our old friends . . . drop us a line if you’re interested.” After Cosmo replied to the ad, an agent posing as “Amber” replied that she and her “daughters” provided a “unique service” to “special gentlemen” for a price. Cosmo said that he was interested in sleeping with the mother and maybe the daughters. Only later did Amber tell him that the daughters were minors.

Cosmo at first expressed some interest in the oldest daughter (supposedly 14 years old), but eventually said he was “not comfortable with this underage thing,” that he didn’t do things like that, and that he would prefer just meet Amber. After that, Amber sent several more text messages expressing some disappointment, trying to coax Cosmo back into an arrangement with the daughter included. But Cosmo was persistent and said that he just wanted Amber. Cosmo arranged to have lunch before going to a motel, went to meet the woman, and was arrested when he arrived.

The state charged Cosmo with numerous crimes. The top charge was for intentionally using an Internet service to solicit “a person believed by the accused to be a child, to commit child molestation….” After he was convicted on that charge (under Georgia’s “Computer or Electronic Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act”), Cosmo appealed. The appeals court threw out the conviction because the state hadn’t shown that the defendant had actually attempted to solicit a child.

The Court of Appeals said that criminal statutes have to be read narrowly and that courts must look to the plain meaning of a statute’s text when interpreting it. If two meanings are possible, and one would make a defendant’s actions not criminal, courts must interpret it that way, “in favor of the accused.” This is an important decision because it makes clear that a person cannot be convicted of a crime where his actions are not clearly illegal under the law.

Even if Cosmo had intended to commit a crime by molesting the underage daughter, that was not the crime he was convicted of. Different crimes can carry very different punishments, even when the acts are very similar. Prosecutors have a strong tendency to always charge the crime with the most severe punishment possible, and this decision will help reign them in from getting too creative in their charges.

After throwing out the top charge, the Court of Appeals also threw out the rest of Cosmo’s convictions for pandering and solicitation because the trial court didn’t allow the jury to consider his defense that Georgia law enforcement had illegally entrapped him.

Cosmo testified at trial that he had had other experiences with people online who didn’t turn out to be who they said they were (including one man who was posing as a woman), that he “didn’t believe everything [he] read on the Internet,” and that he wasn’t even sure if the daughters existed. Cosmo tried to argue both that he didn’t try to sleep with the underage daughters, and also that the police entrapped him.

The trial court said that under Georgia law, a defendant can’t claim he didn’t do it, and also that the government entrapped him into doing it. And because Cosmo claimed he didn’t commit a crime, it did not allow him to claim entrapment as a defense. When the Court of Appeals overturned the convictions, it noted that the law in Georgia does indeed say that a defendant can’t make those kinds of alternative defenses, but it pointed out that there is an exception: in those few cases where a logical argument can be made that the two defenses don’t conflict, the defendant has to be allowed to make them.

Most defendants raising entrapment defenses will not be as fortunate as Mr. Cosmo was and will not be allowed to say “I didn’t do it” and “the police made me do it” at the same time. But this case is still important because it makes the fair and commonsense conclusion that defendants have to be allowed to make defenses that actually make sense, and technical rules can’t be allowed to make every honest defense possible.

Our criminal defense attorneys have had extensive experience successfully defending individuals who have been lured into illegal activity by state and federal law enforcement. Entrapment defenses can be very complex and are very difficult to present to a jury convincingly, but a seasoned defense attorney can makes the odds of succeeding on an entrapment theory significantly more likely.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta revealed that the case against the officers began during a street gang investigation by the ATF.  Authorities allege that the officers in question were on the gang’s payroll in return for protection.  Specifically, authorities believe that the officers facilitated drug transactions by escorting dealers. Each drug transaction apparently involved at least five kilos of cocaine.  Under federal law, this amount of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years.

Our federal criminal lawyers have represented numerous law enforcement officers and public officials charged with corruption and related offenses.  Corruption cases are often difficult to handle due to political pressures, community outcry, and intense media coverage.  A good criminal defense attorney will work to protect his client’s reputation in addition to fighting any pending criminal charges.

According to the government, Richardson and Askari were physicians working out of three clinic locations doing business as Atlanta Medical Research Clinic (AMRC). The clinic was owned by Godfrey Ilonzo of Alpharetta, whose wife Bona Ilonzo acted as office manager. They government claims that the four conspired to illegally prescribe the painkiller Oxycodone and anti-anxiety drug Alprazolam to addicts and dealers, without taking medical histories, performing physical exams, or providing adequately explaining other possible treatment options. Patients were reportedly not given exact times for their appointments and were made to wait in their cars until called to come in.

In addition to the drug-related activities, prosecutors also claim that the four individuals laundered money by operating entirely on a cash basis. If true, this would have potentially helped Ilonzo to disguise the volume of drugs sold and the identities of those who were purchasing them. It would also, of course, make it easier to under-report revenues and avoid tax payments. Together, the drug conspiracy and money laundering charges could result in prison sentences of up to 20 years each, and up to $250,000 in criminal fines.

In the past couple of years, the Department of Justice has made a major target of pain clinics, and have prosecuted doctors, pharmacists, and business owners with serious charges including drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. The government has done this despite the fact that licensed and qualified physicians are performing medical examinations and diagnosing patients before prescribing any medications. While these clinics do often cater to low-income individuals and operate volume practices to keep prices low, it is often far from clear that the prescribing physicians or the clinic owners have broken any law.

Charges of illegal prescription drug distribution can absolutely be defended against successfully. Just last year, our Georgia criminal lawyers won the trial of a Georgia physician facing thirty-three felony counts of distributing blank prescriptions. We have successfully represented and counseled numerous other physicians charged with over-prescribing medications or facing state or federal investigations. Because of the potentially large penalties, anyone charged with drug trafficking should immediately seek representation from an attorney experienced in this complex area of law.

In Georgia, when state law enforcement officers want to use an electronic device to intercept or record communications, or to surveil or eavesdrop, they are required by law to obtain authorization from a Superior Court judge. Judicial authorization is also required before using pen registers that record information such as phone numbers dialed or phone numbers from calls received. In order to obtain authorization, the prosecutor assigned to the case must complete a written application and submit it to the judge, who decides whether the prosecutor has shown that the warrant is appropriate.

All warrants for wiretapping and surveillance, must comply with federal law, even if only state law enforcement is involved. The U.S. Criminal Code contains many specific requirements for law enforcement to meet in order for a wiretap to be legal and for the evidence obtained to be admissible in court. Georgia law largely mirrors the federal requirements.

Georgia law requires that a signed warrant application must include all the relevant facts that provide probable cause to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. Further, the warrant must describe all the investigative methods that have already been tried and failed. A wiretap cannot be authorized if other, less invasive means of investigation would work. If a judge authorizes a wiretap without ensuring that it is actually necessary, any evidence obtained may be suppressed at trial. This principle—suppression of evidence—recognizes the principle that law enforcement officers and prosecutors should not be rewarded for violating the public’s rights.

Georgia law also provides that a warrant for a wiretap may not last for a period any longer than twenty days from the date it is issued. In cases where officers obtained a warrant but went beyond this period, the courts have held that the evidence obtained after that twenty day period elapsed could not be used by the government.

Importantly, a wiretap does not provide law enforcement with an open invitation to listen in on all conversations. Generally, if a phone call or other communication is intercepted, officers must take steps to minimize the intrusion by ceasing to intercept conversations that do not relate to a legitimate aim of the investigation. For example, if for several minutes a defendant had a completely innocent conversation and police had no reason to suspect the phone call was related to criminal activity, the police would be required to stop recording. If they fail to do that and then, later in the conversation, criminal activity is discussed, that evidence must be suppressed because the officers recorded the conversation without a legitimate basis.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully suppressed wiretaps in state and federal criminal cases in courts across Georgia.  In our experience, state law enforcement often make errors in maintaining the wiretap recordings, or in the application process.  We have convinced judges to exclude wiretap evidence in several cases where law enforcement did not follow the rules governing this type of evidence.  It is important to challenge this evidence prior to trial by filing the proper motions and requesting a pretrial evidentiary hearing.

According to reports, the Department of Health and Human Services provides federal grant money to state-administered child welfare agencies. In order to receive the funding, states must comply with federally mandated standards. These include requirements for timely initiation of investigations into alleged child abuse. Previously, DFCS failed to meet federal standards and DHHS withheld funding. In order to regain the funding, Georgia was required to show that it had initiated a “Program Improvement Plan,” ensuring that federal requirements would be satisfied. The false statements and document falsification charges arise out of the new records provided to DHHS by the Columbus child welfare office.

Authorities allege that the DFCS supervisor and director submitted false information about the steps that were taken to comply with federal standards. The GBI and Muscogee County District Attorney Julia Slater now claim that the new data was “systematically falsified” and that problematic records were destroyed. The state has not provided any information, however, about why these two women in particular were arrested and what evidence shows fraudulent intent on their parts. For the time being, only the government’s bare allegations are known. Right now, the women appear to face only state criminal charges, but if the federal government believes that it received fraudulent information, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will have jurisdiction and could potentially bring federal charges as well.

Charges of public corruption are often not as clear-cut as the GBI and state prosecutors would like them to seem. Our criminal defense attorneys have a very successful track record representing government employees and officials accused of wrongdoing and have been able to get very serious charges dismissed. Other times, we have succeeded at obtaining not guilty verdicts at trial where we feel prosecutors have wrongfully pressed forward with baseless charges.

We have seen a major initiative from the Department of Justice targeted against pain clinics and similar healthcare facilities in the past several months.  The federal government considers many of these clinics to be operating outside of the law, despite the fact that medical professionals are usually employed in these clinics and making independent assessments about prescribing narcotic pain medication.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended a physician who was charged with over-prescribing medication, and we have consulted with many healthcare clinic owners and operators to assist them in complying with the law and avoiding prosecution.  At this stage of an investigation, it is critical to review the documentation seized by the government and make contact with the federal agents and federal prosecutors before criminal charges are actually filed.

Under Georgia law, bribery is committed when an individual gives or offers a thing of value to a person acting on behalf of the state (or local government) for the purpose of influencing the performance of his or her official function. A state official also commits bribery by accepting a thing of value for such improper purposes.

Cash is obviously within the category of items that are potential bribes, although ultimate the conduct and intent of the person accepting of giving the item in question will determine whether or not it was a bribe under the law. Some items, however, are excluded from the category of “thing of value,” because they are routinely accepted and given in the course of regular interactions with state officials. These items include single meals, awards, food and drinks at certain events, small gifts less than $100 in value, and other trifles that would typically not be expected to influence a public official. Bribery of public officials or accepting bribes by public officials is a felony punishable by a maximum of twenty years imprisonment and a large fine.

Our Georgia criminal lawyers have handled numerous public corruption cases in both federal and state court. One of the key elements of a bribery charge is intent. The State will have to show that the money was given with the intent to influence the official, or received by an official for an improper purpose.  Political contributions and gifts do not constitute bribes.  There has to be something more.

There have not been many bribery charges brought in Georgia recently.  It will be interesting to see how this case develops.

Although all Georgians are encouraged to contact law enforcement if they have reason to believe that a child has been abused, the new law identifies professionals and volunteer workers in a wide variety of settings and now compels them to do so. Those whose failure to report suspected child abuse who are discovered may be found guilty of a misdemeanor and face potential incarceration and other penalties.

Who are Mandatory Reporters?

Before July 1st, generally only trained professionals—primarily medical, social, and childcare workers—were “mandatory reporters” subject to criminal penalties for failure to report abuse. Under the new law, this list expands to include physicians, nurses, and other medical workers; dentists; psychologists, counselors, and therapists; teachers, guidance counselors, school administrators, and most other school workers and volunteers; members of the clergy; law enforcement personnel; and child service organization personnel.

The new mandatory reporting requirements are not limited to those who are employed in certain positions. Even those who are just volunteering in schools, hospitals, or other facilities where children are commonly found are likely covered by the new law. In effect, mandatory reporter status can be applied to anyone who ever has any significant contact with children.

The Consequences of Failing to Report Child Abuse

Mandatory reporters will be held criminally liable if they knowingly and willfully fail to report suspected child abuse.  The punishment is up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

An Overly Broad Law?

The new law does not require that an individual have been told that he or she is a mandatory reporter. Ignorance of the law will be no excuse in a prosecution for failure to report.  Because even volunteers, aides, interns, and other temporary workers are now mandatory reporters, it seems likely that many will not know of their status and the duties the law imposes on them.

When and How Must Mandatory Reporters Contact Authorities?

Mandatory reporters are required to alert authorities when they reasonably believe a child has been abused. Under Georgia law, abuse includes physical injury or death, neglect, and sexual abuse and exploitation. Evidence of abuse can include a wide range of signs including virtually all types of injuries as well as malnutrition and caretakers’ failure by seek medical care for a child. Other signs that mandatory reporters may be required to take note of are lack of supervision for extended periods, hunger, and various behavioral problems. While neglect is considered a type of abuse in Georgia, the law does not indicate at all what level of evidence is actually required to trigger a mandatory reporter’s responsibility to contact DFCS.

When a mandatory reporter believes the child to be in immediate danger, he or she is required to contact law enforcement immediately. Otherwise, the mandatory reporter must make an oral report to DFCS within 24 hours providing the child’s basic information, injuries, and history, as well as other relevant information. Within an facility such as a school, hospital, or other agency, a mandatory reporter who is a staff member should alert the head of the facility, and that person will then be required to make the report to DFCS. After making an oral report, an additional written report is required.

It will be interesting to see if this new law leads to more false reports of child sex abuse.  It will also be interesting to see how broadly prosecutors will apply this new law, and if we will see criminal prosecutions of volunteers who work with kids when child abuse is later uncovered and the volunteer did not do enough to discover it and report it.

This is just the latest in a series of pill mill busts in the Metro Atlanta area in the past year. Though the government has not yet announced charges, or indicated who will actually be charged, in previous cases doctors, pharmacists, and business owners accused of participating in pill mill operations have been charged with crimes ranging from drug trafficking to racketeering and money laundering.

Georgia has increasingly brought criminal charges against healthcare professionals who work in pain management, either as part of a larger medical practice or as a primary specialization. Recently, our criminal defense attorneys represented a Hart County doctor who was charged with 33 felony counts of issuing blank signed prescriptions. After hearing from several state witnesses and then from the doctor himself, the Hart County jury returned 33 “not guilty” verdicts in less than half an hour.