🔥 Description Meta

Tampa Drug Crimes Defense – If you are facing charges for drug conspiracy or possession with intent to distribute, the most critical element of the government’s case is often the one hardest to prove: Knowledge. In the federal system, and specifically within the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuit (which covers Florida), simply being near drugs or even transporting them is not enough to prove a crime.

The Landmark Case: United States v. Terry Pierre Louis – Tampa Drug Crimes Defense

The case of United States v. Louis, 861 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2017), remains one of the most significant victories for the defense regarding the “Knowledge” element in drug trafficking cases. It serves as a shield in Tampa Drug Crimes Defense for individuals who are present during a crime but have no specific knowledge that controlled substances are involved.

Frequently Asked Tampa Drug Crimes Defense Questions: Drug Conspiracy and the Element of Knowledge

Understanding the Burden of Proof in a Tampa Drug Crimes Defense: Knowledge Requirement

The following table illustrates the gap between what the government suspects and what the government must prove in a Tampa drug trafficking case based on the Louis decision.

Federal vs. Florida State Drug Laws

Whether your case is in the Middle District of Florida (Federal) or a Hillsborough County courtroom (State), the “Knowledge” element is a cornerstone of your defense.

• Federal Statutes: Most federal drug trafficking cases fall under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Conspiracy) and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Distribution).
• Florida Statutes: State charges often involve Florida Statute 893.135, which carries heavy mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking.

For more information on the specific penalties associated with these charges, you can visit the Official Website of the Florida Legislature.

The Role of a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

When the government relies on theories like “entrustment” or “guilt by association,” you need an attorney who understands how to apply appellate decisions like United States v. Louis to your specific facts. I have spent my career dismantling the government’s assumptions and holding them to the highest standard of proof.

If you have been charged based on “mere presence” or find yourself accused of a conspiracy you didn’t know existed, you need a defense built on local experience and national precedent.

• Learn more about my experience: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. Bio Page
• Schedule a confidential consultation: Contact Our Tampa Office

Why the “Louis” Drug Case Matters to You

The Louis decision is a reminder that the system is designed to protect the innocent from being swept up in broad law enforcement stings. In that case, Customs and Border Protection had watched a vessel for four days, found nothing, and eventually arrested a man who was simply doing his job moving boxes for his employer.

Because the government could not provide a single witness to say they told Louis there were drugs in those boxes, and because there was no “wiretap” evidence showing he discussed cocaine, his conviction could not stand. We use these same strategies to protect our clients today.

Professional Legal Assistance in Tampa

If you are under investigation by the DEA, FBI, or local Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, do not wait for the government to build their case. Reach out to a lawyer who knows how to fight drug conspiracy charges.

Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

2102 W Cleveland St

Tampa, Florida 33606

Call: (813) 222-2220

Full Text of the Opinion: United States v. Terry Pierre Louis

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERRY PIERRE LOUIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11349 | July 10, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, District Judge.

WILSON, Circuit Judge:

Terry Pierre Louis appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Louis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the government failed to prove he knew the boxes placed in his car contained a controlled substance. After thorough review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree. Because a reasonable jury could not find that Louis had the requisite knowledge based on the evidence presented at trial, we reverse his convictions.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 2015, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) received a tip that the M/V Sea Hauler, a coastal freighter that exports goods from Miami to Haiti, was returning to Miami carrying narcotics. When the ship arrived, CBP agents boarded and searched it for four days but found no narcotics. During this time, the crew remained on the ship. Louis, an employee of the ship’s owner, helped provide food to the confined crew.

Following the unsuccessful search, agents set up surveillance. An agent saw a deck watchman carry two large cardboard boxes from inside the ship. Later, a forklift moved the boxes off the freighter. The ship’s owner then directed a car—driven by Louis—to park near the boxes. The owner opened the passenger rear door, and two men loaded the boxes inside. Louis began driving slowly toward the front of the shipyard while the owner walked alongside.

As the car exited the shipyard, unmarked law enforcement vehicles moved in with sirens and lights. Louis stopped the car, jumped out, and fled. He was quickly apprehended. Inside the car, the boxes were found to contain 111 bricks of cocaine.

II. DISCUSSION

To support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute or possession with intent to distribute, the government must prove the defendant knew the substance involved was a controlled substance. United States v. Ohayon, 483 F.3d 1281, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007).

The government argues that Louis’s flight and his presence during the loading of the boxes prove his knowledge. We disagree. While flight and presence are evidence of “consciousness of guilt,” they do not prove that a defendant knew he was involved in a drug crime as opposed to some other illegal activity, such as transporting stolen goods or un-manifested cargo.

We also reject the government’s “entrustment” theory. The government argued that because the cocaine was worth millions of dollars, a “prudent smuggler” would not entrust it to an innocent driver. However, the evidence showed Louis was in the car with the boxes for only a very short time and was never left alone with them. Under these facts, the inference of knowledge from the value of the drugs is too speculative to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because the government offered no evidence that Louis saw the contents of the boxes, heard any conversations about drugs, or was told what he was transporting, the evidence is insufficient.

REVERSED.

Visit our About Page for more information on our firm’s history of defending high-stakes drug cases.

The End of ‘Plain Smell’ Justification: New Cannabis Ruling Alters Probable Cause for DUI-Drug Arrests

A recent, transformative decision from the Second District Court of Appeal, Darrielle Ortiz Williams v. State of Florida, has dramatically shifted the legal landscape for cannabis-related cases in Florida. This ruling, which dismantled the “plain smell doctrine,” is a game-changer for anyone facing a DUI-Drug (DUID) charge based on cannabis in the Tampa Bay area.

The foundation of the court’s decision is that legislative changes have made cannabis legal in multiple forms (medical marijuana, hemp), meaning the odor of cannabis is no longer immediately indicative of criminal activity. As a result, the court held that smell alone cannot provide probable cause to search a vehicle.

For DUID cases, this creates an essential new line of defense. The State’s case against you for DUID is a two-part equation: first, that you possessed the drug, and second, that you were impaired by it. Often, in a cannabis DUID stop, the officer’s initial reason for searching the car and finding the drug was the smell alone. Now, if the initial search for the drug was illegal (based only on smell), the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine should apply to suppress the drug and any subsequent admissions.

While judges in the case recognized the State’s compelling interest in removing impaired drivers from the road, the majority’s holding makes clear that this safety interest cannot override the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment. If you were stopped, searched, and arrested for DUID after the odor of cannabis was detected, your defense strategy must immediately incorporate this new, powerful precedent.

The Dual Nature of Cannabis DUID Stops

To understand the impact of Williams on DUID cases, it is critical to distinguish between the two separate legal standards at play during a cannabis-related traffic stop:

1. Probable Cause to Search (for Possession): This relates to the officer’s right to search your vehicle for illegal drugs or contraband. This is the standard directly addressed by the Williams ruling. Post-Williams, the smell of cannabis alone is insufficient.
2. Probable Cause to Arrest (for Impairment/DUI): This relates to the officer’s belief that you are operating a vehicle while your normal faculties are impaired. This is established through signs of impairment (erratic driving, slurred speech, poor performance on Field Sobriety Exercises, etc.).

Before the Williams ruling, the two were often conflated to the detriment of the driver. An officer would smell cannabis (Probable Cause to Search), conduct a search, find the drug (Possession charge), and then use the subsequent finding of the drug, combined with some observable signs of impairment, to justify the DUI arrest.

The new ruling separates these two inquiries entirely. An officer may have a valid basis for a DUID investigation (e.g., swerving across lane markers), but they no longer have an automatic basis to search the vehicle simply because they smell cannabis. This has enormous consequences for the evidence the State is allowed to use against you.

How the “Poisonous Tree” Doctrine Kills DUID Cases

The most significant legal weapon a DUI defense attorney has in the wake of Williams is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, as discussed in the context of the Exclusionary Rule.

In many DUID cases, the evidence is gathered in a specific sequence:

• Phase 1: Traffic Stop: Officer observes a traffic infraction.
• Phase 2: The Smell: Officer detects the odor of cannabis.
• Phase 3: The Illegal Search (The Poisonous Tree): Officer uses the smell as the sole basis for searching the vehicle, claiming probable cause.
• Phase 4: Evidence Found (The Fruit): Officer finds a bag of illegal marijuana, a vaporizer containing THC, or a pipe with illegal residue.
• Phase 5: The DUI Arrest: The officer uses the physical evidence (the drug) plus their observations of impairment to complete the DUID probable cause affidavit.

If the officer cannot articulate any factors beyond the smell to justify the Phase 3 search (which is now illegal), the search is deemed unconstitutional. When that happens, the physical drug evidence found in Phase 4 is suppressed. Without the physical evidence of the drug, the State’s ability to prove the “D” for Drug in the DUID charge is severely compromised, often leading to a dismissal or a significant reduction in charges.

The ruling forces police to conduct a thorough impairment investigation first (Field Sobriety Exercises, DRE consultation) before resorting to a search, especially if the only initial indicator is smell.

Probable Cause Paradox: Analyzing Judge Atkinson’s Concurrence

To fully grasp the depth of the Williams ruling, a DUI defense lawyer must appreciate the concurring opinion by Judge Atkinson, which focuses on the logical flaw of the old rule.

Judge Atkinson argued that the definition of “probable cause” is rooted in the concept that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed. Given the legalization of hemp (which looks and smells identical to illegal cannabis) and medical marijuana, when an officer smells cannabis, the evidence is at “equipoise”—meaning the possibility that the source is legal is equal to the possibility that the source is illegal.

In this state of equipoise, the officer cannot rationally conclude that it is “more likely than not” that they will find illegal contraband. Therefore, the probable cause standard cannot be met.

This legal logic is devastating to the old doctrine. It means the issue isn’t just about technical legal changes; it’s about the fundamental impossibility of establishing probable cause when the evidence (the smell) points equally to a legal and an illegal conclusion. This argument provides a powerful tool for your DUI defense attorney to argue that the search was inherently unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Building a DUID Defense in the Post-Williams Era

The Williams ruling adds a crucial layer to the defense strategy for DUID cases. A comprehensive DUI defense now involves two major simultaneous challenges:

Challenge 1: The Search and Seizure (The Fourth Amendment)

This is the Williams Challenge. Your lawyer will aggressively file a Motion to Suppress, focusing exclusively on the circumstances leading up to the discovery of the drug. We will demand proof of all “additional factors” (beyond the smell) and use video evidence to dismantle the officer’s claims of erratic driving or furtive movements. If the search is suppressed, the DUID case is severely weakened or dismissed.

Challenge 2: The Impairment Evidence (The DUI)

Even if the search is deemed legal, or if the officer had enough evidence of impairment before the search, your lawyer will still challenge the State’s evidence of impairment. This involves:

• Field Sobriety Exercises (FSEs): Challenging the officer’s instructions, the roadside conditions, your pre-existing medical conditions, and the officer’s scoring of your performance.
• Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Testimony: DRE evidence is often subjective and based on a 12-step protocol. We challenge the DRE’s training, the administration of the tests, and the final opinion on impairment.
• Blood Test: Scrutinizing the chain of custody, lab procedures, and the specific THC levels, arguing that the mere presence of THC does not prove impairment at the time of driving.

In short, the Williams ruling provides a vital, pre-trial method to eliminate evidence, while the traditional DUID defense challenges the core element of the crime: whether you were truly impaired while driving.

Public Safety vs. Constitutional Rights: The Dissenting View

It is important to acknowledge the dissenting views in the Williams case, particularly those that focused on the impact on public safety. The dissent argued that requiring additional factors beyond the smell of cannabis places an undue burden on police officers who are trying to prevent impaired driving.

Judge Villanti, for example, noted the State’s compelling interest in ensuring drivers are not operating vehicles while impaired by cannabis. The fear expressed was that by eliminating the “plain smell” tool, the court was handcuffing officers and making it harder for them to remove impaired drivers from the road.

While this public safety concern is understandable, the majority opinion correctly held that the desire for efficient law enforcement cannot override the clear command of the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution mandates probable cause; it does not promise law enforcement an easy path to a search. The decision clarifies that if public safety concerns are truly warranted, the officer is free to investigate impairment via standard FSEs and observation—they just cannot conduct an invasive search without more evidence than smell.

Conclusion: Your Right to an Unimpaired Defense

The Williams v. State ruling is a profound victory for Fourth Amendment protections that directly impacts how DUI-Drug cases involving cannabis will be defended in Tampa and across the Second District. The automatic link between the odor of cannabis and a vehicle search has been constitutionally severed.

If you are facing a DUID charge, the key question your lawyer must answer is: Did the police have a legal basis to find the drug evidence used against me?

At DUI2Go.com, we are ready to apply the Williams Challenge immediately to your case. We specialize in DUID defense, combining an aggressive challenge to the legality of the search with a rigorous defense against the State’s claims of impairment. Don’t let your case be built on the “fruit of a poisonous tree.”

Contact us today for a confidential consultation. We will use this new, powerful legal precedent to ensure your rights are upheld and fight for the best possible resolution, including the dismissal of charges.

Florida’s medical marijuana laws provide important protections for qualified patients under Florida Statute § 381.986. However, even lawful patients face potential criminal liability if they unknowingly cross the line into prohibited conduct. Missteps involving firearms, employment, driving, or possession outside of legal guidelines can lead to criminal charges.

At the Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr., we help patients, families, and professionals navigate the complex intersection of medical marijuana and Florida’s criminal justice system.

Key Legal Risks for Medical Marijuana Patients

1. Firearm Possession

Even if registered under Florida’s program, medical marijuana patients may face conflicts with firearm laws. Federal restrictions classify marijuana as a Schedule I drug, creating legal tension with Florida Statute § 790.23. Gun ownership and cannabis use can lead to serious consequences.

2. Controlled Substances Violations

Patients must strictly follow purchase and possession rules. Exceeding limits or transferring cannabis to others may result in charges under Florida Statutes.

3. DUI and Operating Vehicles

Driving under the influence of cannabis is treated similarly to alcohol-related DUI offenses. Patients accused of impaired driving face fines, license suspensions, and even jail.

4. Employment and Background Checks

Even lawful patients may face job-related consequences. Criminal charges, especially involving firearms or trafficking allegations, can complicate background checks and professional licensing.

Why You Need a Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer

As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands how state law, federal law, and medical cannabis regulations collide. With decades of courtroom experience, he has successfully defended patients, professionals, and families facing marijuana-related criminal allegations.

Call to Action

If you or a loved one faces criminal exposure related to Florida’s medical marijuana program, contact us immediately.

Call (813) 222-2220 or use our Contact Form to schedule a confidential consultation.

• Traffic Stop Turned Unconstitutional Search
• Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer
• Don’t Bring a Taser to a Gunfight at a Growhouse
• Florida 893 Drug Statute Constitutional Says Florida Supreme Court
• Florida Medical Marijuana Law – Complete Proposed Text of Senate Bill

Medical Marijuana, Firearm Rights and Criminal Liability

Florida’s medical marijuana program has given thousands of patients access to treatment that improves their quality of life. Yet, patients who use medical marijuana face a serious and often overlooked issue: federal firearm restrictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and (d)(3). These laws classify medical marijuana users—despite being legal under Florida law—as “unlawful users of controlled substances,” making it a federal crime to own, purchase, or even attempt to buy a firearm.

Recent rulings have challenged the constitutionality of these laws, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen (2022) and Rahimi (2024) decisions reshaped the Second Amendment framework. Florida courts are now grappling with whether medical marijuana patients should be treated like dangerous individuals or felons, or whether they should enjoy full constitutional rights without risking criminal liability.

At the Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr., we help clients navigate the complex intersection of Florida medical marijuana laws and federal firearms statutes. If you are a Florida patient who owns or wants to own a firearm, understanding your legal exposure is crucial.

Contact Casey today for immediate guidance.

Learn more about Casey, a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer.

The Federal Law at Issue

• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3): Makes it unlawful for any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess firearms or ammunition.
  Read § 922(g)(3) on Justia
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3): Prohibits the sale or transfer of a firearm to anyone known to be an unlawful drug user.
  Read § 922(d)(3) on Justia

Because marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, Florida patients who lawfully use cannabis under state law are still considered unlawful users federally.

Second Amendment Framework

The current debate revolves around the Second Amendment and whether these firearm restrictions are constitutional. Several landmark Supreme Court cases control this area:

The Florida medical marijuana case recently highlighted that comparing patients to felons or dangerous individuals may not be “relevantly similar” under Bruen and Rahimi. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal, giving medical marijuana patients a path forward to challenge firearm restrictions.

Criminal Liability for Florida Medical Marijuana Patients

Even if your marijuana use is legal under Florida Statute § 381.986 (Medical Use of Marijuana), firearm ownership creates federal risk. Violations of § 922(g)(3) can lead to:

• Up to 10 years in federal prison
• Fines up to $250,000
• Permanent loss of firearm rights

Read § 381.986 on Justia

This creates a dangerous trap for patients who believe state legality shields them from federal prosecution.

Table: Comparing Florida Medical Marijuana and Federal Laws

Expanded Q&A: Florida Medical Marijuana and Firearms

Can Florida medical marijuana patients legally buy guns?

No. Even though Florida allows medical marijuana under § 381.986, federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibits firearm ownership by unlawful users of controlled substances. Gun dealers also require buyers to complete ATF Form 4473, which specifically asks about marijuana use. Answering “no” when you use marijuana can be prosecuted as perjury or making false statements.

What did the Eleventh Circuit decide in the Florida case?

The court ruled that medical marijuana patients cannot automatically be compared to felons or dangerous individuals—the analogues used by the government under the Bruen/Rahimi test. The case was sent back for further review, meaning the plaintiffs’ claims survived dismissal. This is a significant opening for future challenges to § 922(g)(3).

What happens if I lie on the ATF firearm purchase form?

If you answer “no” to marijuana use while being a lawful patient, you may face charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) for making false statements, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Can I be prosecuted in federal court just for owning a gun and having a Florida medical marijuana card?

Yes. Even possession alone can violate § 922(g)(3). While prosecutions may be rare, the law remains enforceable, and federal agents have pursued cases when guns and marijuana are discovered together.

Does the Bruen case mean Florida marijuana patients can now own guns?

Not automatically. Bruen set the framework requiring the government to show historical analogues, but each case depends on how courts apply it. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling only means that the government must try harder to justify the law; it did not outright legalize firearm possession for patients.

Could the Supreme Court eventually strike down § 922(g)(3)?

Possibly. The Court has signaled in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi that firearm restrictions must be consistent with history. Since there were no Founding-era laws disarming people for lawful medicinal use of substances, the government’s argument may weaken. This could eventually lead to a nationwide ruling.

Does having a medical marijuana card in Florida put me on a list for federal firearm bans?

Yes. Florida’s registry of medical marijuana patients is not directly shared with the federal government, but if federal authorities obtain that information, it can be used against you. Gun dealers also cross-check purchase forms with federal law.

What about recreational marijuana if it becomes legal in Florida?

Recreational legalization would not change federal law. Unless marijuana is rescheduled or descheduled federally, all users—recreational or medical—remain prohibited from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(3).

Are there any defenses to firearm charges for marijuana users?

Yes. Possible defenses include: Challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under Bruen/Rahimi. Arguing that marijuana use was not “current or ongoing.” Contesting the evidence connecting firearm possession with marijuana use. Each defense is fact-specific, and a board-certified criminal trial lawyer can evaluate your case.

What should Florida patients do if they already own guns?

Seek immediate legal advice. Disposing of firearms improperly could create liability, but continued possession risks federal prosecution. An experienced attorney can help you navigate the safest path forward.

Table: Potential Defenses for Patients Charged Under § 922(g)(3)

Practical Guidance for Florida Medical Marijuana Patients

1. Be honest on ATF forms – False statements create separate crimes.
2. Consult an attorney before firearm purchases – Criminal exposure is real.
3. Follow both state and federal law – Florida may allow marijuana, but federal courts have the final say on firearms.
4. Stay updated on case law – The legal landscape is shifting rapidly.
5. Seek legal defense immediately if charged – Early intervention can shape outcomes.

Call to Action

The intersection of Florida medical marijuana laws and federal firearm prohibitions is one of the most complex and evolving areas of criminal law. Patients face serious consequences if they misstep, even when they believe they are following Florida law.

If you are a Florida medical marijuana patient concerned about your firearm rights, do not wait until charges are filed.

Contact Casey today for a confidential consultation.

Learn more about Casey, Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer.

Prosecutors in drug cases have great discretion when it comes to filing, adding, reducing, or even dismissing criminal charges. This prosecutorial discretion gives prosecutors the ability to negotiate with a vast amount of tools. The negotiated plea offer, therefore, is one of the most prevalent and important tools to the State. We know that a defendant never wants a prosecutor to begin negotiations with: “We want the maximum sentence!” So here is a list of the top three things that anger prosecutors and what we can do to help:

1. Serious Charges

The defendant who is charged with a “serious” offense starts off on the wrong side of the prosecutor. Most notably, cases that involve minors as victims, death or serious bodily injury to others, and high levels of fraud or theft have prosecutors seeing red. Because of the serious nature of these charges, prosecutors will often typecast a defendant and ignore anything remotely positive or good about them.

What we can do:
Our firm always approaches each case with great attention to detail. We will look for ways to dismiss the charges when legally justified—such as statute of limitations issues, immunity, or double jeopardy. If dismissal is not possible, we pursue lesser included charges or prepare to fight in court with a well-crafted trial strategy.

2. New Charges While a Case is Pending

No matter the severity of a crime, prosecutors get downright Hulk-like if a defendant is charged with a new offense while on pre-trial release. When this happens, prosecutors often file a motion to revoke bond and typically increase the severity of their plea offer. The new charges signal to prosecutors that the defendant is not taking their case seriously.

What we can do:
We can challenge the basis of the new arrest or seek to reinstate bond if it was revoked. Our firm will evaluate all possible defenses to the new charge and may negotiate a wraparound plea deal. The goal is to minimize exposure and avoid stacking penalties across multiple cases.

3. Failures to Appear

There have been times when I’ve shown up to court but my client did not. This relatively minor act makes prosecutors’ blood boil. A failure to appear can result in an additional criminal charge and weaken the defendant’s negotiating position. A prosecutor may double down on their sentence recommendation or oppose any further leniency.

What we can do:
We will advocate for you in court and explain any mitigating reasons for your absence—car trouble, illness, or miscommunication. If a capias (arrest warrant) is issued, we’ll file a motion to withdraw it to help avoid jail time. Our goal is to keep you out of custody and your case on track.

If you’re facing drug charges in Florida, every move matters—especially when prosecutors are already on edge. I’m W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with decades of experience defending clients in high-stakes cases. Don’t give the State any extra ammunition. Call me today at 813-222-2220, read more about my credentials, or send a confidential message here. Let’s take action before the prosecution does.

3 Mistakes That Make Prosecutors Furious in Drug Cases | Florida Criminal Defense Attorney Explains

Avoid the top 3 things that instantly anger prosecutors in Florida drug cases. Criminal Defense Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. breaks down what not to do if you’re facing drug charges—and how to protect your freedom. Learn more at https://drug2go.com/

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do prosecutors get angry when new charges are filed during pretrial release?

When a defendant is arrested again while already out on bond, prosecutors may view it as a sign that the person is disregarding the court process. This often results in a revoked bond and a harsher plea offer. Prosecutors may also feel embarrassed or pressured if they previously recommended leniency. Contact our office quickly if you’re facing this issue so we can take immediate legal action.

What happens if I miss a court date in my drug case?

Missing a court date can trigger a warrant for your arrest and, in some cases, result in a new criminal charge for Failure to Appear. Prosecutors see this as a disrespectful act, which often increases the severity of any plea deal. However, if the failure was accidental or unavoidable, we can often file a motion to withdraw the warrant. Learn how Attorney Casey Ebsary handles these situations.

Can a drug case be dismissed if the evidence was obtained illegally?

Yes. If the police obtained evidence through an unlawful search or seizure, we can file a motion to suppress. If successful, the State may not have enough remaining evidence to continue prosecuting the case. This is one of many ways our firm protects your constitutional rights in court.

Do prosecutors have to offer me a plea deal in my drug case?

No, prosecutors are not legally required to offer a plea deal, but most do because trials are time-consuming and costly. The nature of the charges and your criminal history will heavily influence the offer. A strong legal defense can improve your negotiation position. Schedule a consultation with Casey the Lawyer to learn how we negotiate.

Will prosecutors treat me differently if my charge involves fentanyl or opioids?

Yes. Drug cases involving fentanyl, heroin, or synthetic opioids tend to anger prosecutors more due to the ongoing overdose crisis. These substances carry severe mandatory minimums in Florida. We explore every avenue—from constitutional defenses to diversion eligibility—to protect your future and freedom.

What if this is my first drug offense—will I still make prosecutors mad?

First-time offenders are less likely to face an angry prosecutor, especially if the charges are minor. However, behavior like failing to appear in court or getting re-arrested can quickly turn a manageable case into a difficult one. That’s why proactive legal representation is critical. Reach out today before your situation escalates.

Why do prosecutors get upset by “serious charges”?

Prosecutors are often under pressure when handling serious charges such as drug trafficking, overdoses resulting in death, or cases involving minors. These offenses carry mandatory minimums and generate public scrutiny, which can limit the prosecutor’s flexibility in negotiations. As a result, they may approach the case more aggressively and refuse to consider diversion or reductions. Our firm knows how to challenge the evidence, highlight your personal background, and shift the focus toward a fair resolution—learn more here.

What is a “wrap offer,” and why would it help if I have multiple drug charges?

A wrap offer is a plea deal that resolves all pending charges in one agreement, often allowing a more favorable sentence than if the cases were handled separately. Prosecutors may offer these to streamline the court calendar or to avoid the risk of losing at trial. When properly negotiated, wrap deals can reduce jail time, consolidate probation, and avoid mandatory minimums. Contact us to see if this strategy could help your case.

Is it better to explain myself directly to the prosecutor?

No, speaking directly to a prosecutor without legal counsel is risky and can make things worse. Prosecutors are trained to listen for admissions and may become irritated if they believe you are minimizing the charges or evading responsibility. Your attorney knows what to say, how to say it, and when to push back or seek a better offer. Let Casey the Lawyer do the talking for you.

How can your firm help calm down an angry prosecutor?

We know how to defuse prosecutorial frustration by staying professional, presenting strong legal defenses, and offering strategic alternatives. Our experience shows that even hostile prosecutors can be persuaded with the right mix of facts, law, and diplomacy. Whether it’s clarifying a misunderstanding or showing why harsh punishment is unnecessary, we aim to shift the case back toward fairness and resolution. Reach out now so we can start building your defense.

When prosecutors are angry, they push harder for the harshest penalties—but with the right defense, you can shift the momentum in your favor. Whether you’ve missed court, picked up new charges, or are facing serious allegations, we know how to manage the damage and protect your record. Don’t wait until it’s too late—contact me now or call 813-222-2220 to set up a free consultation. You can also learn more about my experience and courtroom credentials here. Let’s start building your defense today.

Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (4 to 14 Grams) – Florida Statute 893.135(1)(c) – Charge Code DRUG3912

Charged with Drug Trafficking in Florida? A conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (4 to 14 grams) under Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(c) DRUG3912 carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 3 years and a $50,000 fine — even if you never intended to sell or distribute the drugs. If you’ve been arrested for this serious felony charge, it’s time to speak with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who understands Florida’s complex drug laws.

Florida’s DRUG3912 Charge Explained

• Charge Code: DRUG3912
• Statute: Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(c)
• Offense: Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (4 to 14 grams)
• Felony Level: First-Degree Felony
• Jurisdiction: Commonly charged in Hillsborough County and throughout Florida

What Is Considered “Trafficking” Under Florida Law?

In Florida, trafficking isn’t just about selling drugs. You can be charged with trafficking simply for possessing a minimum quantity of specific controlled substances.

For opiates and opioid derivatives, the law sets the trafficking threshold at just 4 grams. This includes:

• Oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet)
• Hydrocodone (Vicodin, Norco)
• Heroin
• Hydromorphone (Dilaudid)
• Morphine
• Opium and its derivatives
• Fentanyl and analogs

Even if the substance is mixed with fillers, Florida law considers the total weight of the mixture, not just the pure drug.

Special Focus: Fentanyl and Its Impact on Drug Trafficking Cases

Fentanyl is an especially dangerous drug and a primary target under Florida’s trafficking laws due to its potency and the lethal risk it poses. Even small amounts of fentanyl or its analogs can easily exceed the 4-gram trafficking threshold. Additionally, fentanyl mixtures (like counterfeit pills) often lead to unintentional trafficking charges, even if you were unaware of the presence of fentanyl.

Fentanyl-related Trafficking Penalties

If you are caught trafficking fentanyl, the penalties are the same as for other drugs, but the seriousness of the offense is heightened. The presence of fentanyl often leads to heightened scrutiny, especially if the trafficking leads to harm or death.

Common Controlled Substances Under DRUG3912

Florida law targets various illegal drugs under the trafficking statute. Common substances associated with DRUG3912 charges include:

• Heroin
• Fentanyl and Fentanyl Analogues
• Oxycodone
• Hydrocodone
• Morphine
• Hydromorphone
• Opium

Even if a substance contains a mixture of these drugs, it’s the total weight that determines the charge, not the concentration of the active ingredient.

Penalties for Drug Trafficking (4 to 14 Grams) in Florida

Florida law imposes mandatory minimum sentences based on the weight of the controlled substance involved. Here’s how that breaks down:

Mandatory Minimum Sentences Under § 893.135(1)(c)

Judges have no discretion to go below these minimums unless you qualify for a legal exception, such as substantial assistance to law enforcement.

Elements the State Must Prove

To convict you under Florida Statute 893.135(1)(c), prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you:

1. Knowingly:
   • Sold,
   • Purchased,
   • Manufactured,
   • Delivered,
   • Brought into Florida, or
   • Possessed
2. A controlled substance listed in the statute (such as heroin, hydrocodone, or oxycodone)
3. In a quantity of 4 grams or more (up to 14 grams)
4. With knowledge of the substance’s illicit nature

Even without direct proof of a sale, simply possessing 4 grams or more of certain drugs can result in trafficking charges.

Understanding Possession: Actual vs. Constructive

There are two primary forms of drug possession in Florida law:

Actual Possession

• The drug is on your person (in your pocket, purse, etc.), or
• Within your immediate control (e.g., under your car seat)

Constructive Possession

• The drug is in a place you control (like your house or glovebox), and
• Prosecutors must prove you knew it was there and had control over it

Constructive possession cases can be successfully challenged with the help of a seasoned attorney.

Legal Definitions You Need to Know

Understanding how Florida defines certain terms is critical:

• Sell – Exchange for money or something of value
• Purchase – Acquire by paying money or other value
• Manufacture – Produce, prepare, or package a controlled substance
• Deliver – Actual or attempted transfer of a substance
• Possess – Exercise of control over a substance, even without ownership

Top 5 Defenses to Florida Drug Trafficking Charges

1. Lack of Knowledge
   You didn’t know the substance was present or illegal. Especially powerful in constructive possession cases.
2. Unlawful Search or Seizure
   Evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches may be suppressed.
3. Entrapment
   You were persuaded or tricked into committing the offense by law enforcement.
4. Insufficient Evidence of Weight
   The total mixture must exceed 4 grams. Lab errors or flawed weighing can be challenged.
5. Chain of Custody Issues
   Mishandling or improper documentation of the seized drugs can result in suppression of evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions About DRUG3912 – Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (4 to 14 Grams)

What does DRUG3912 mean under Florida law?

DRUG3912 is the Florida offense code for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs where the total weight is 4 grams or more but less than 14 grams. This typically involves opioids like heroin, oxycodone, or hydrocodone. The charge is a first-degree felony and comes with a mandatory minimum of 3 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. Even if you didn’t intend to sell the drug, you can still be charged based on weight alone.

Can I be charged with trafficking just for having pills or a small amount?

Yes. In Florida, drug trafficking charges are based on the total weight of the substance, including any fillers or inactive ingredients. For example, having just a few opioid pills can easily exceed 4 grams. This means even a person struggling with addiction — not selling — can face severe prison time.

Is intent to sell required for a trafficking charge in Florida?

No. Intent is not required for a trafficking charge under Florida Statute 893.135(1)(c). Simply possessing the threshold amount (4 grams or more) is enough to trigger a trafficking charge. That’s why people are often surprised to face such serious penalties for simple possession.

What is the mandatory minimum sentence for DRUG3912?

The mandatory minimum for DRUG3912 is 3 years in Florida State Prison and a $50,000 fine. Judges have no discretion to go below this sentence unless the defendant provides “substantial assistance” to law enforcement. Without such cooperation, the sentence is automatic upon conviction.

Can the weight be challenged in court?

Yes. Your attorney can challenge the lab testing procedures or argue that the mixture included legal substances that should not count toward the total weight. Mistakes in weighing or improper evidence handling could reduce or dismiss the charge. Every gram matters in trafficking cases.

What if the drugs weren’t mine or I didn’t know they were there?

This is a common and powerful defense. If the drugs were found in a shared space — like a car or apartment — prosecutors must prove you had knowledge and control of them. If they cannot, the case may be dismissed due to insufficient evidence of possession.

Can the police search my car or home without a warrant?

Only under certain circumstances. If law enforcement violates your Fourth Amendment rights, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence. Illegal searches are a leading reason trafficking charges get dropped or reduced.

What is substantial assistance and can it reduce my sentence?

Substantial assistance means helping law enforcement catch other drug traffickers. If you qualify and the State agrees, your sentence can be reduced below the mandatory minimum. However, this option carries serious risks and should only be pursued with a lawyer’s advice.

Can I get drug court or probation instead of prison?

Not usually for DRUG3912. Because of the mandatory minimum sentence, drug court and probation are generally not available unless the charge is reduced or you provide substantial assistance. An experienced attorney may be able to negotiate a lesser charge like possession.

What should I do right now if I’ve been charged with trafficking?

Call an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. Do not speak to law enforcement without legal representation. Your attorney can review the legality of the search, examine the evidence, and begin building a defense to avoid harsh mandatory sentencing.

Why Hire W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer based in Tampa, Florida. With decades of experience and a deep knowledge of Florida’s drug laws, he defends clients charged with serious felonies — including trafficking under DRUG3912.

What You Get:

• Aggressive representation in court
• A thorough review of search and seizure legality
• Experience negotiating with prosecutors and challenging mandatory minimums
• Personal, one-on-one attention from an experienced litigator

Contact Us Now for a Free Case Review

Facing a trafficking charge can upend your life. Don’t fight it alone.

Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr.
Call Now: (813) 222-2220 or 1-877-793-9290

Original Post from 2018 Updated Above to 2025

Drug Trafficking

Trafficking 4 to 14 Grams Morphine, Opium, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone

“shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years”

If you have been charged with DRUG3912 TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS 4 TO 14 GRAMS you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney for FREE at 813-222-2220 to fight for you or a friend.
Trafficking drugs under Florida is based upon the weight of the substance, not the actual conduct of the person who has been charged. The crime can be committed even if no drugs were actually sold to anyone. The mere possession of a scheduled compound, in the requisite amount can generate a charge of drug trafficking.

“Constructive possession means the controlled substance is
in a place over which the (defendant) has control,
or in which the (defendant) has concealed it.”

Form Code: DRUG3912

Florida Statute: 893.135.1C1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 1st

Description: TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS 4 TO 14 GRAMS

Trafficking 4 to 14 Grams Morphine, Opium,
Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone

DRUG3912 TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS 4 TO 14 GRAMS is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL


893.135 Trafficking; mandatory sentences; suspension or reduction of sentences; conspiracy to engage in trafficking.

(1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13:

(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in illegal drugs,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:

a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

“To prove the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, the State must prove . . .”

Florida Jury Instruction on TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS

§ 893.135(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

            Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) or any mixture containing (specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.

            To prove the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

            1.         (Defendant) knowingly

                                    [sold]

                                    [purchased]

                                    [manufactured]

                                    [delivered]

                                    [brought into Florida]

                                    [possessed]

                        a certain substance.

2.         The substance was [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [herion] [(specific substance alleged)]].

3.         The quantity of the substance involved was 4 grams or more.

            See State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1987).

4.         (Defendant) knew that the substance was [[morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)]].

            If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., the following bracketed language should be given instead of element 4 above.  For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold (specific substance alleged), the alternate element 4 would be given.

[4.        (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.), but actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] (specific substance alleged) or a mixture containing (specific substance alleged).]

            Definitions.  Give as applicable.

            Sell.

            “Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.

            Manufacture.  § 893.02(13)(a), Fla. Stat.

            “Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly.  Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.

            Deliver.  § 893.02(5), Fla. Stat.

            “Deliver” or “delivery” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.

            Possession.

            To “possess” means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over the thing possessed.

            Possession may be actual or constructive.

            Actual possession means:

a.         The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or

b.         The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or

c.         The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.

            Give if applicable.

            Mere proximity to a controlled substance is not sufficient to establish control over that controlled substance when it is not in a place over which the person has control.

            Constructive possession means the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) has control, or in which the (defendant) has concealed it.

            In order to establish constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) does not have control, the State must prove the (defendant’s) (1) control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled substance was within the (defendant’s) presence.

            Possession may be joint, that is, two or more persons may jointly possess an article, exercising control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article.

            If a person has exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed.

            If a person does not have exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed.

            Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance.  Give if applicable.  § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.

            Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an element of the offense of (insert name of offense charged).  Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense.  (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense.  However, you are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance.

            If from the evidence you are convinced that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) guilty.

            If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) not guilty.

            See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991).

            If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

            Enhanced penalty.  Give if applicable up to extent of charge.

a.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 4 grams or more but less than 14 grams.]

b.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 14 grams or more but less than 28 grams.]

c.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms.]

d.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 30 kilograms or more.]

Lesser Included Offenses

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245].  See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)].

Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Trafficking drugs in today’s complex legal landscape rquires an understanding the nuances of the law. My focus is on providing insightful analysis and understanding of legal matters, particularly those involving controlled substances and evolving legal definitions. The recent case of Pryce M. Campbell v. State of Florida (No. 2D2023-0651), where the distinction between legal hemp and illegal cannabis played a pivotal role, exemplifies the intricacies of these issues. Whether you are navigating similar challenges or simply seeking clarity on legal proceedings, you’ll find valuable information and perspectives here. Connect with me for further inquiries. I have included the complete court ruling at the bottom of this page.

Are you facing charges for felony possession of cannabis in Hillsborough County, Florida? The legal landscape surrounding cannabis is constantly evolving, and a conviction can have severe consequences. If you’re seeking experienced legal representation, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is here to help. With decades of experience in the Florida legal system, I am dedicated to providing aggressive and effective defense strategies tailored to your specific situation. Contact me today at 813-222-2220 for a consultation.

Trafficking Drugs at Tampa International Airport?

Why was Campbell arrested?

Campbell was arrested because police found two large duffle bags in his possession at Tampa International Airport that contained fifty vacuum-sealed bundles of a green, leafy substance. They suspected this substance to be cannabis, and after obtaining a warrant, seized the bags. Subsequent testing of one sample from these bundles confirmed it contained cannabis, leading to his arrest and charges for trafficking in cannabis.

The Facts

The Case of Pryce M. Campbell: A Detailed Summary Introduction

Pryce M. Campbell was arrested and charged with trafficking in cannabis between twenty-five and two thousand pounds. His case, Pryce M. Campbell v. State of Florida (No. 2D2023-0651), was appealed, and the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, ultimately reversed his trafficking conviction. The central issue revolved around the sufficiency of evidence presented by the State of Florida to prove the quantity of cannabis involved, especially in light of the legalization of hemp.

Events at Tampa International Airport

On July 13, 2022, Tampa International Airport Police Department was conducting narcotics interdiction and monitoring United Flight 314, which arrived from Denver, Colorado. A drug interdiction team, including three detectives and a K-9 unit, was present. After the flight arrived, the K-9 unit performed a “run” on three trailers of luggage. The K-9 “alerted” to two identical large, soft-sided duffle bags. These bags were then placed on the baggage claim conveyor belt. Detectives observed Pryce Campbell claim the two duffle bags. He was stopped by detectives before he could exit the airport and identified himself as the owner of the bags. Campbell was initially allowed to leave, but the detectives seized his two bags and obtained a warrant to search them.

Discovery and Testing of the Contents

The following day, after obtaining a warrant, the detectives searched the duffle bags. Inside, they found two large vacuum-sealed packages, each containing twenty-five smaller, identically packaged vacuum-sealed bundles of a green, leafy substance. Each of the larger vacuum-sealed packages weighed 32.57 pounds. Due to suspicion that the substance was cannabis, a sample was taken from two of the smaller bundles, one from each duffle bag, and sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) lab for testing. Importantly, a sample was not taken from each of the fifty individual bundles. The lab analyst ultimately tested only one of the samples, which weighed 24.47 grams plus or minus 0.15 grams, and concluded that the substance contained cannabis.

Arrest and Charges

Following the positive lab test for cannabis in the single sample, Campbell was called back to the airport and arrested. He was charged with one count of trafficking in cannabis in an amount exceeding twenty-five but less than two thousand pounds. At trial, Campbell testified that he believed the bags contained hemp, which he had purchased in Oregon. He claimed to have bought fifty bundles of hemp for $50 each, stating that purchasing marijuana would have been significantly more expensive.

Legal Arguments and Court Decision

Campbell’s defense focused on the argument that the State failed to prove the requisite amount of illegal cannabis for trafficking because only one of the fifty packages was chemically verified as cannabis. He pointed to the changes in Florida and federal law that legalized hemp, arguing that law enforcement was required to chemically test every individually wrapped package to establish the statutory threshold weight for trafficking in a controlled substance.

The court agreed with Campbell’s argument.The court noted that until July 2019, cannabis was defined to cannabis with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration below 0.3 percent—was removed from the definition of marijuana and legalized. The court emphasized that legal hemp and illegal cannabis are indistinguishable by appearance, texture, and odor.

Therefore, chemical testing to determine the THC content is now necessary to avoid misidentification.Because only one bundle from Campbell’s bags was chemically verified as illegal cannabis, and an inference of illegal cannabis could not be extended to the remaining untested bundles, the State did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the remaining bundles contained illegal cannabis. As a result, the court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Campbell’s motion for judgment of acquittal for trafficking in cannabis.

Outcome and Remand

The court reversed Campbell’s conviction for trafficking in cannabis. However, the court found that the State did establish that Campbell was in possession of illegal cannabis weighing less than twenty-five pounds, based on the 24.47-gram sample from one bundle that tested positive for cannabis. Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court with directions to reduce Campbell’s conviction to felony possession of cannabis and to resentence him accordingly.

Implications of the Tampa Airport Drug Trafficking Case

This case highlights the importance of precise identification and measurement in drug trafficking cases, especially when legal and illegal variants of the same plant exist. It underscores the burden of proof on the State to establish that each package contains illegal cannabis in order to meet the statutory weight threshold for trafficking. Furthermore, it demonstrates how changes in legislation, such as the legalization of hemp, can significantly impact legal proceedings and evidentiary requirements.

10 Q&A based on the Airport Bust

What was Pryce Campbell’s initial charge?

Pryce Campbell was initially charged with trafficking in cannabis in an amount exceeding twenty-five but less than two thousand pounds. This charge stemmed from the discovery of two large duffle bags in his possession at Tampa International Airport containing numerous vacuum-sealed bundles of a green, leafy substance. The State believed this substance to be cannabis, leading to his arrest and subsequent charges.

Why did the police seize Campbell’s luggage at the airport?

The police seized Campbell’s luggage after a K-9 unit alerted to two identical large, soft-sided duffle bags he claimed at baggage claim, indicating the presence of illicit substances. Though Campbell was initially allowed to leave, the detectives seized his bags and obtained a warrant to search them due to the suspicion of narcotics trafficking. This action was part of a narcotics interdiction operation monitoring flights from Denver, Colorado.

What was the central issue in Campbell’s appeal?

The central issue in Campbell’s appeal was whether the State of Florida provided sufficient evidence to prove the quantity of illegal cannabis necessary for a trafficking conviction. Specifically, the question revolved around whether the State needed to test every individual bundle of the green, leafy substance or if testing just a sample was adequate. Campbell argued that the legalization of hemp required testing each bundle to distinguish it from illegal cannabis.

How did the legalization of hemp affect Campbell’s case?

The legalization of hemp significantly impacted Campbell’s case because it created a legal substance that is indistinguishable from illegal cannabis by sight, smell, or texture. This meant that law enforcement could no longer rely on these characteristics to identify the substance as illegal cannabis without chemical testing. As a result, the court ruled that each bundle needed to be tested to determine its THC content and legality.

What was Campbell’s defense at trial?

At trial, Campbell testified that he believed the bags contained hemp, which he had purchased in Oregon, not illegal cannabis. He claimed to have bought fifty bundles of hemp for $50 each, asserting that purchasing marijuana would have been significantly more expensive. Campbell’s defense hinged on the idea that he was transporting legal hemp, not illegal cannabis, and that the State had failed to prove otherwise.

What did the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) lab testing reveal?

The FDLE lab tested only one of the samples from the fifty bundles found in Campbell’s luggage, and that single sample tested positive for cannabis. The lab analyst concluded that the tested sample, which weighed 24.47 grams, contained cannabis, but no other samples were tested. This limited testing became a critical point in Campbell’s appeal.

How did the court rule on Campbell’s motion for judgment of acquittal?

The court ruled in favor of Campbell, reversing his conviction for trafficking in cannabis, stating that the State failed to prove the requisite amount of illegal cannabis for trafficking. The court found that since only one bundle was tested and identified as cannabis, the State did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the remaining bundles was also illegal cannabis. As a result, the trial court erred in denying Campbell’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

What was the final outcome of Campbell’s case?

While Campbell’s trafficking conviction was reversed, the court found that the State did establish he was in possession of illegal cannabis based on the one tested sample. Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court with directions to reduce Campbell’s conviction to felony possession of cannabis and to resentence him accordingly. This meant Campbell was still guilty of possessing cannabis, but not of trafficking it.

Why was the “Greenwade” exception no longer applicable in Campbell’s case?

The “Greenwade” exception, which previously allowed for non-chemical identification of marijuana, was no longer applicable because it relied on the assumption that any green, leafy substance with the characteristics of cannabis was illegal. With the legalization of hemp, which is indistinguishable from illegal cannabis, there was an “identifiable danger of misidentification,” thus requiring chemical testing to differentiate between legal and illegal substances. This change in the law invalidated the previous exception.

What was the significance of the court’s decision regarding the burden of proof?

The court’s decision emphasized the State’s burden of proof in trafficking cases, particularly when legal and illegal variants of a substance exist. The ruling clarified that the State must establish that each package contains illegal cannabis to meet the statutory weight threshold for trafficking. By requiring chemical testing of each bundle, the court protected the defendant’s presumption of innocence and ensured that the State could not rely solely on appearance and odor to infer illegality.

What is the legal status of hemp in Florida?

Based on the case, hemp is legal in Florida. It states that the Florida Legislature enacted the “State hemp program” in July 2019, making the possession of hemp legal. It also clarifies that hemp is defined as cannabis with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration below 0.3 percent.

Given the complexities and evolving nature of drug laws, as seen in the Pryce M. Campbell v. State of Florida case, it’s clear that understanding the nuances of legal definitions and evidentiary standards is essential. Navigating these challenges requires informed guidance and a deep understanding of current legislation.

• Florida Drug Court – Sample Agreement
• Constructive Possession of Cocaine in Florida – Conviction Tossed
• Submarine and Defendants Are Sunk | Tampa Cocaine Attorney
• Science and Florida Prosecutors on Cannabis Prosecution
• Drug Dogs | Florida Tosses Search

If you or someone you know is facing similar legal issues related to controlled substances, or if you simply need clarification on the latest legal developments, don’t hesitate to seek expert advice. Contact W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. today for a consultation and ensure you have the knowledge and representation you deserve.\

Drug Trafficking Court Ruling

Opinion_2023-0651 – Download

Facing Fentanyl Charges in Hillsborough County, FL (2025)?

Facing Fentanyl charges in Hillsborough County demands immediate legal action from a skilled Florida drug defense attorney. Whether accused of Fentanyl possession or the much more severe charge of Fentanyl trafficking, the potential consequences under Florida law are devastating. Mandatory minimum sentences tied to specific weights mean even small amounts can trigger years in prison, making experienced legal counsel essential. The synthetic opioid nature of Fentanyl contributes to its danger and the state’s aggressive prosecution.

Introduction: The Alarming Rise of Fentanyl Charges in Hillsborough County

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a Fentanyl-related offense in Hillsborough County, Florida, you are facing one of the most serious legal challenges imaginable. In 2025, Florida law enforcement and prosecutors are aggressively targeting the possession, distribution, and trafficking of Fentanyl due to its extreme potency and devastating impact on communities. A conviction carries severe penalties, including lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences, substantial fines, and a permanent criminal record that can shatter your future.

Get Aggressive Defense Now! | W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

The stakes are incredibly high. You need immediate, experienced, and aggressive legal representation from an attorney who understands Florida’s complex drug laws and the specific landscape of the Hillsborough County criminal justice system.

My name is W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., and I am a criminal defense attorney dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals facing serious drug charges right here in Tampa and throughout Hillsborough County. We understand the fear and uncertainty that accompany a Fentanyl arrest. We are here to provide the powerful defense you need. Don’t face the power of the state alone. Call me immediately at 813-222-2220 for a confidential consultation.

You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. tel:+18132222220 for a free consultation by calling 1-877-793-9290 or by filling out our online contact form. (https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/).

What is Fentanyl and Why is it So Dangerous?

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid approved for treating severe pain, typically advanced cancer pain. However, its illicit manufacturing and distribution have caused a public health crisis. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine and significantly stronger than heroin. Source: DEA – Fentanyl Facts

This extreme potency means even microscopic amounts can be lethal. Many individuals arrested for Fentanyl possession or trafficking may not even realize the substance they have contains Fentanyl, as it’s often mixed with other drugs like heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or pressed into counterfeit pills mimicking prescription opioids or benzodiazepines. This significantly increases the risk of accidental overdose and death. Source: CDC – Fentanyl Facts

Because of this danger, Florida lawmakers have enacted some of the toughest Fentanyl laws in the nation, focusing on harsh penalties even for relatively small amounts, particularly under trafficking statutes.

Fentanyl Laws in Florida (2025) – Possession vs. Trafficking

Florida Statutes Chapter 893 governs drug abuse prevention and control. Understanding the specific charges you face is critical. In Hillsborough County, Fentanyl cases typically fall into two main categories: Possession and Trafficking.

1. Possession of Fentanyl (Florida Statute § 893.13):
   • It is illegal for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, including Fentanyl, unless obtained legally via a valid prescription.
   • Actual Possession: The drug is found directly on your person (e.g., in your pocket, hand).
   • Constructive Possession: The drug is found in a place over which you have control (e.g., your car, your room), and you knew it was there and knew it was illicit. Constructive possession cases often involve multiple people and require the prosecution to prove your specific knowledge and control, which can be a key area for defense.
   • Simple possession of any amount of Fentanyl (without intent to sell or traffic) is typically charged as a third-degree felony.
2. Trafficking in Fentanyl (Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(c)):
   • This is where Florida law becomes exceptionally severe. Trafficking charges are not based on proving an intent to sell or distribute; they are triggered solely by the weight of the mixture containing Fentanyl.
   • The thresholds are alarmingly low, and the penalties include significant mandatory minimum prison sentences, meaning a judge has little to no discretion to sentence below these minimums unless specific legal exceptions apply (like providing substantial assistance or qualifying for a drug court program, which is often difficult in trafficking cases).
   • These are first-degree felonies.

Understanding Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory Minimum

Sentences Fentanyl

Mandatory minimum sentences are a cornerstone of Florida’s aggressive stance against Fentanyl trafficking. It’s crucial to understand what they mean:

• No Judicial Discretion (Generally): If convicted of trafficking based on weight, the judge must impose at least the minimum prison sentence prescribed by law.
• No Gain Time: Often, mandatory minimum sentences must be served day-for-day, without the possibility of early release through “gain time” that might apply to other sentences.
• Harsh Reality: Even for first-time offenders, a conviction for trafficking a relatively small amount of Fentanyl mixture can lead to years or even decades in state prison.

Florida Fentanyl Penalties Table (2025 – Based on Florida Statute § 893.13 & § 893.135)

(Note: This table is for informational purposes. Penalties can be enhanced based on prior record, location of offense (near school/park), use of a firearm, etc. Always consult with an attorney for specifics related to your case.) [Source: Florida Legislature Statutes]

The Hillsborough County Context: Aggressive Enforcement

Hillsborough County, encompassing Tampa, Brandon, Plant City, and surrounding areas, is not immune to the Fentanyl crisis. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and the Tampa Police Department (TPD) work aggressively, often in conjunction with state and federal agencies like the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and the DEA, to investigate and arrest individuals involved with Fentanyl.

The State Attorney’s Office for the 13th Judicial Circuit (Hillsborough County) takes these cases extremely seriously. Prosecutors are often instructed to seek stiff penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, particularly in trafficking cases. They have significant resources and are experienced in building cases involving confidential informants, undercover operations, surveillance, and complex forensic evidence.

Facing these combined forces without skilled legal counsel is a perilous mistake. You need an attorney who regularly practices in Hillsborough County courts, knows the prosecutors and judges, and understands the specific procedures and tendencies within this jurisdiction.

Your Rights Matter: What to Do If Arrested for Fentanyl

If you are stopped, questioned, or arrested for a Fentanyl offense in Hillsborough County, remember these critical points:

1. Exercise Your Right to Remain Silent: You are not required to answer questions, explain yourself, or make any statements to law enforcement. Politely state, “I am exercising my right to remain silent, and I want to speak with my attorney.” Anything you say can and will be used against you. Don’t try to talk your way out of it; you will likely only make things worse.
2. Demand an Attorney Immediately: Clearly state that you want a lawyer. Once you invoke this right, police questioning related to the crime should cease until your attorney is present.
3. Do Not Consent to Searches: Police generally need a warrant, probable cause, or your consent to search you, your vehicle, or your home. Do not give consent. If police claim they have the right to search anyway, do not physically resist, but clearly state, “I do not consent to this search.” This preserves your ability to challenge the legality of the search later.
4. Be Polite but Firm: Do not argue, resist arrest, or be combative. Comply with lawful commands (like providing identification), but do not volunteer information or consent to searches.
5. Contact Casey Ebsary Immediately: The sooner you have an experienced attorney involved, the better. Call 813-222-2220. We can intervene early, potentially speak with investigators, represent you at first appearance and bond hearings, and begin building your defense strategy.

Potential Defenses Against Fentanyl Charges

An arrest does not automatically mean a conviction. There are numerous potential defenses to Fentanyl possession and trafficking charges. An experienced attorney like Casey Ebsary will thoroughly investigate the facts of your case to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence and potential violations of your rights. Common defense strategies include:

• Illegal Search and Seizure: If law enforcement violated your Fourth Amendment rights by searching you, your car, or your property without a valid warrant, probable cause, or another legal exception, the evidence obtained (the Fentanyl) may be suppressed, potentially leading to dismissal of the charges.
• Lack of Knowledge: The prosecution must prove you knew the substance was present and knew it was illegal. If Fentanyl was found in a shared space (like a car with multiple occupants or a common area of a home) and you were unaware of its presence, this can be a defense.
• Constructive Possession Issues: In cases where you weren’t in actual possession, the state must prove both knowledge of the drug’s presence and dominion and control over it. We can challenge whether the state can meet this burden.
• Problems with the Substance: Was the substance properly tested? Was the chain of custody maintained? Were the lab procedures valid? Mistakes in handling or testing evidence can create reasonable doubt.
• Entrapment: If law enforcement induced you to commit a crime you otherwise wouldn’t have committed, entrapment may be a defense. This is complex and requires specific circumstances.
• Valid Prescription: While rare for illicit Fentanyl, if you had a legitimate prescription, this is an absolute defense to simple possession.
• Substantial Assistance: In some trafficking cases, providing significant information to law enforcement about other criminal activity might lead prosecutors to request a waiver or reduction of the mandatory minimum sentence. This is a risky path that should only be considered after careful consultation with your attorney.
• Challenging the Weight: Since trafficking charges hinge on weight, accurately determining the weight of the mixture containing Fentanyl (not just the pure Fentanyl) is crucial. Defense investigation may challenge the state’s weight measurements.

Helpful Table: Potential Defense Angles

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Hillsborough County Fentanyl Defense?

When your freedom and future are on the line, you cannot afford to settle for inexperienced or overworked representation. You need a dedicated advocate who will fight tirelessly for you. Here’s why clients choose Casey Ebsary:

1. Extensive Experience: I have years of experience defending clients against serious drug charges. I defend Complex Fentanyl possession and trafficking cases, in Hillsborough County and throughout Florida.
2. Local Knowledge: Practicing regularly in the 13th Judicial Circuit means I understand the local court system, the judges, the prosecutors, and the specific approaches taken in Hillsborough County drug cases. This local insight is invaluable.
3. Aggressive Defense Strategy: We don’t just wait for the prosecution to act. We proactively investigate your case, scrutinize the evidence, file motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence, and prepare meticulously for negotiation or trial.
4. Client-Focused Approach: We know this is a stressful and terrifying time. We provide personalized attention, keep you informed every step of the way, and are always available to answer your questions and address your concerns. Your case is our priority.
5. Proven Track Record: While no attorney can guarantee results, we have a history of achieving favorable outcomes for clients facing serious drug charges, including dismissals, reduced charges, avoidance of mandatory minimums, and acquittals at trial.
6. Understanding the Science: Fentanyl cases often involve complex forensic evidence. We work with experts when necessary to challenge lab reports, weight measurements, and other scientific aspects of the prosecution’s case.

How Casey Ebsary Can Fight Your Fentanyl Charges:

• Immediate Intervention: Getting involved early allows us to protect your rights from the outset, potentially influence charging decisions, and argue for reasonable bond conditions.
• Thorough Investigation: We don’t just rely on the police reports. We conduct our own investigation, interview witnesses, and gather evidence that may support your defense.
• Challenging Illegal Police Conduct: We meticulously review the circumstances of your arrest, search, and questioning to identify any constitutional violations that could lead to evidence suppression.
• Negotiating with Prosecutors: Leveraging our knowledge of the law, the facts of your case, and the local system, we negotiate forcefully with the State Attorney’s Office seeking dismissal, reduced charges, or alternatives to incarceration.
• Fighting Mandatory Minimums: We explore every legal avenue to challenge the applicability of mandatory minimum sentences or seek grounds for departure, including statutory exceptions or substantial assistance agreements (when appropriate and in your best interest).
• Trial Readiness: If a fair resolution cannot be reached through negotiation, we are experienced trial lawyers ready to vigorously defend you before a judge and jury.

Drug2Go.com

2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
Phone: 813-222-2220
Email: centrallaw@gmail.com

Navigating Serious Fentanyl Charges in Hillsborough County, Florida

Understanding the difference between actual and constructive possession is key, as are the specific weight thresholds for trafficking charges (4g, 14g, 28g). An effective defense attorney serving Hillsborough County will scrutinize every aspect of your case, from the initial stop and search to the forensic testing of the alleged Fentanyl. Potential defenses against drug charges include challenging illegal searches, questioning evidence handling, and disputing the prosecution’s ability to prove knowledge or control.

Don’t delay; the penalties for Fentanyl convictions are too high. Contacting a lawyer familiar with Hillsborough County courts and Florida statutes regarding Fentanyl is the most crucial step in protecting your rights and future when facing these serious drug crimes. Your choice of defense attorney can significantly impact the outcome of your Fentanyl case.

Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A) About Fentanyl Charges in Hillsborough County

What’s the difference between Fentanyl possession and trafficking in Florida?

Possession generally refers to having a small amount for personal use (a third-degree felony). Trafficking is based purely on the weight of the substance (or mixture containing it) – 4 grams or more – and carries mandatory minimum prison sentences, charged as a first-degree felony. Intent to sell isn’t required for a trafficking charge based on weight.

I didn’t know the drugs contained Fentanyl. Is that a defense?

Potentially, but it’s complex. Lack of knowledge can be a defense, but the prosecution may argue you knew you possessed an illicit substance, even if you didn’t know its exact composition. An attorney needs to evaluate the specific facts to see if this defense applies.

What does “mandatory minimum” really mean for Fentanyl trafficking?

It means if you are convicted of trafficking based on the weight thresholds (4g, 14g, or 28g+), the judge must sentence you to at least the minimum prison term specified by law (3, 15, or 25 years, respectively), often without the possibility of early release or gain time.

Can Fentanyl trafficking charges be reduced?

Possibly. An experienced attorney can negotiate with prosecutors, potentially highlighting weaknesses in the case, constitutional issues, or mitigating factors. Reduction might involve pleading to a lesser offense (like possession with intent) or, in rare cases, qualifying for a departure from the mandatory minimum through substantial assistance or specific statutory exceptions.

What if the Fentanyl wasn’t mine, but it was found in my car/house?

This relates to “constructive possession.” The prosecution must prove you knew the Fentanyl was there AND had dominion and control over it. If others had access, or if it was hidden without your knowledge, this can be a strong defense. We would fight to show the state cannot meet its burden of proof.

Should I talk to the police or detectives investigating my Fentanyl case?

Absolutely not without your attorney present. Police are trained to gather incriminating evidence. Anything you say can be twisted and used against you. Politely invoke your right to remain silent and your right to counsel. Call Casey Ebsary at 813-222-2220 immediately.

How much does it cost to hire an attorney for a Fentanyl case?

Legal fees vary depending on the complexity of the case (possession vs. trafficking, need for experts, potential for trial). We offer a confidential initial consultation to discuss your case and our fee structure, which often involves a flat fee for different stages of representation. Investing in a skilled private attorney is crucial given the severe potential penalties.

Can I get drug court for a Fentanyl charge in Hillsborough County?

Eligibility for drug court is often limited, especially for trafficking offenses or if you have a significant prior record. Simple possession cases may have a better chance. We can explore all diversionary programs and alternatives to incarceration for which you might qualify.

What happens at the first appearance/arraignment for a Fentanyl charge?

At the first appearance (usually within 24 hours of arrest), the judge determines probable cause and sets bond. At the arraignment, the formal charges are read, and you enter a plea (typically “not guilty” at this stage). Having an attorney present at these early stages is vital.

Why is hiring a local Hillsborough County attorney like Casey Ebsary important?

Local attorneys understand the specific procedures, personnel (judges, prosecutors, court staff), and unwritten rules of the Hillsborough County courthouse. This familiarity can be a significant advantage in navigating your case effectively, negotiating plea deals, and presenting your case at trial.

• Florida Marijuana Minimum Mandatory Law
• Florida Cocaine Minimum Mandatory Law
• Video – Hillsborough Marijuana Defense Lawyer 813-222-2220
• DRUG1300 POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL OR DISTRIBUTE
• Drug Sentences Slashed in Cocaine Cases

Take Action Now: Your Future Depends On It

A Fentanyl charge in Hillsborough County is not something to take lightly or delay addressing. The consequences of a conviction are life-altering. You need to act decisively to protect yourself.

Contact Casey the Lawyer Today for Immediate Help

Don’t wait for the prosecution to build its case against you. Reach out to W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. now. You can find detailed contact information, including an online form and office location, on our dedicated contact page: https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/. Visiting this page is the first step towards getting the dedicated legal support you need. We offer confidential consultations to discuss the specifics of your situation, explain your rights, and outline how we can build a strong defense strategy tailored to your unique circumstances. Every moment counts when facing serious charges like Fentanyl possession or trafficking.

Call to Action: Protect Your Freedom – Call 813-222-2220

Your freedom, your reputation, and your future are on the line. Don’t gamble with inexperienced representation or try to navigate the complex legal system alone.

Call W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. right now at 813-222-2220.

We are available 24/7 to take your call. Schedule your confidential, no-obligation consultation today. Let us put our experience and knowledge of the Hillsborough County courts to work fighting for you.

Facing DRUG1904 Trafficking in Cocaine Charges (28-200g) in Hillsborough County?

You Need an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Immediately.

The term DRUG1904 is a specific code likely used by law enforcement and the court system in Hillsborough County, Florida, to categorize arrests and charges related to Trafficking in Cocaine involving quantities between 28 grams and 200 grams. While not part of the official statutory language itself (which is Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b)1.a.), DRUG1904 serves as shorthand for this very serious first-degree felony charge. If you see DRUG1904 on arrest paperwork, charging documents, or court dockets in Hillsborough County, understand that it signifies you are accused of a crime carrying a possible mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years in prison and a $50,000 fine upon conviction.

If you or a loved one has been arrested and charged under the designation DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS in Hillsborough County, Florida, you are facing a severe first-degree felony with significant mandatory penalties. This is not a charge to take lightly. The time to act is now.

My name is W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., and I am a dedicated Tampa criminal defense attorney with extensive experience defending individuals against serious drug charges throughout Hillsborough County and the surrounding areas. I understand the fear and uncertainty that comes with a trafficking charge. My goal is to protect your rights, explore every possible defense, and fight for the best possible outcome in your case.

Don’t delay. Call me directly at 813-222-2220 for a confidential consultation to discuss your specific situation.

You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. tel:+18132222220 for a free consultation by calling 1-877-793-9290 or by filling out our online contact form. (https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/).

Understanding the Charge: DRUG1904 – Trafficking in Cocaine (28g to <200g)

The designation DRUG1904 corresponds specifically to the charge of Trafficking in Cocaine, involving a quantity of 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams, under Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b)1.a. This statute outlines the serious nature of this offense.

Key Elements the Prosecution Must Prove:

To secure a conviction for DRUG1904 Trafficking in Cocaine (28g to <200g), the State Attorney’s Office must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Knowledge: You knew the substance you possessed or handled was cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine.
2. Intent/Action: You knowingly sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, brought into Florida, OR were in actual or constructive possession of the substance.
3. Quantity: The amount of cocaine, or the mixture containing cocaine, was 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams.

What is “Actual” vs. “Constructive” Possession?

• Actual Possession: This means the cocaine was physically on your person (e.g., in your pocket, hand, or a bag you were carrying).
• Constructive Possession: This is more complex. It means the cocaine was not on your person but was in a place over which you had control (or shared control), and you knew it was there, and knew of its illicit nature. Examples include drugs found in your car’s glove box, under your bed, or in a shared living space. Proving constructive possession often requires the prosecution to show evidence linking you directly to the drugs beyond mere proximity. This is a frequent area where defenses can be mounted.

Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b)1.a. – The Law:

The relevant portion of the Florida Statutes clearly states:

(1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13:

(b)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine, as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or of any mixture containing cocaine, but less than 150 kilograms [Note: the sub-section addresses the 200g limit] of cocaine or any such mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in cocaine,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

a. If the quantity involved: Is 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

You can review the full text of Florida Statute § 893.135 directly on the Florida Legislature’s official website: Florida Statute § 893.135 (Note: Always ensure you are viewing the most current version of the statute).

Severe Penalties for DRUG1904 Conviction in Florida

A conviction for DRUG1904 Trafficking in Cocaine (28g to <200g) carries mandatory minimum penalties:

• Mandatory Minimum Prison: Three (3) years in Florida State Prison. The judge must impose this sentence upon conviction unless specific legal exceptions apply (discussed below).
• Mandatory Minimum Fine: $50,000.

Beyond these mandatory minimums, a first-degree felony is punishable by:

• Up to thirty (30) years in prison.
• Up to $10,000 in additional fines (beyond the mandatory $50,000).
• Felony probation.

Long-Term Consequences:

A felony conviction for drug trafficking creates lifelong obstacles:

• Permanent Criminal Record: Making it difficult to find employment, secure housing, or obtain professional licenses.
• Loss of Civil Rights: Including the right to vote (until restored) and the right to own or possess firearms.
• Driver’s License Suspension: A conviction often triggers a mandatory suspension by the Florida DHSMV.
• Immigration Consequences: Non-citizens face potential deportation, denial of re-entry, or inability to obtain citizenship.
• Educational Opportunities: Difficulty getting accepted into colleges or receiving financial aid.
• Social Stigma: The label of “convicted drug trafficker” can have profound personal and social impacts.

Given these severe and life-altering consequences, mounting a vigorous defense is critical.

Defending Against DRUG1904 Cocaine Trafficking Charges

An arrest is not a conviction. There are numerous potential defense strategies that an experienced criminal defense attorney like myself can explore. Every case is unique, but common defenses in DRUG1904 cases include:

1. Illegal Search and Seizure: If law enforcement violated your Fourth Amendment rights during the search of your person, vehicle, or home, the evidence obtained (the cocaine) may be suppressed, potentially leading to dismissal. This involves scrutinizing the traffic stop, search warrant validity, or consent given. Explore more about your rights during searches on my website: drug2go.com.
2. Lack of Knowledge: The prosecution must prove you knew the substance was cocaine. If you were unaware of the drugs’ presence or their illicit nature (e.g., holding a package for someone else without knowing its contents), this can be a defense.
3. Lack of Possession (Actual or Constructive): Especially in constructive possession cases, we can challenge whether the state can prove you exercised dominion and control over the location where the drugs were found and knew they were there. Mere proximity to drugs is not enough for a conviction.
4. Insufficient Quantity: The state must prove the weight was 28 grams or more. We can challenge the weighing procedure, the calibration of the scales, or whether the entire mixture weight should count if it contains non-illicit substances.
5. Entrapment: If law enforcement induced you to commit a crime you otherwise would not have committed, this may be a defense.
6. Substantial Assistance: Florida law allows for potential avoidance or reduction of mandatory minimum sentences if a defendant provides “substantial assistance” in the identification, arrest, or conviction of other individuals involved in drug trafficking. This is a complex area requiring careful negotiation.
7. Misidentification: Challenging eyewitness accounts or confidential informant reliability.
8. Chain of Custody Issues: Challenging how the alleged drugs were handled, stored, and tested by law enforcement and the crime lab.

Developing the right defense strategy requires a thorough investigation of the facts, analysis of the police reports, witness interviews, and understanding of the specific procedures used by law enforcement agencies like the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office or the Tampa Police Department.

Understanding “DRUG1904” in Hillsborough County

Facing a DRUG1904 charge requires immediate action. Because DRUG1904 represents a high-level felony with mandatory penalties, securing experienced legal representation familiar with Hillsborough County courts and prosecutors is crucial. Defenses against DRUG1904 often involve challenging the legality of the stop or search, questioning the evidence of possession (especially constructive possession), disputing the weight or identity of the substance, or exploring potential mitigation strategies like substantial assistance. Do not underestimate the severity of a DRUG1904 designation; it demands a robust defense strategy from the outset. Contact W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at 813-222-2220 immediately if you are facing a DRUG1904 charge in Hillsborough County.

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Defense?

When your freedom and future are on the line, you need an attorney who understands the stakes and knows how to navigate the complexities of the Florida criminal justice system, particularly within Hillsborough County.

• Experience: I have years of experience specifically prosecuting and defending serious drug trafficking cases like DRUG1904.
• Local Knowledge: Practicing extensively in Hillsborough County means I am familiar with the local courts, judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement procedures. This local insight is invaluable.
• Aggressive Representation: I am committed to fighting vigorously for my clients, challenging the prosecution’s case at every turn.
• Personalized Attention: You will work directly with me, Casey Ebsary. I ensure my clients understand the process and are involved in their defense strategy.
• Proven Results: While no attorney can guarantee an outcome, I have a track record of achieving favorable results for clients facing serious charges. Explore my main site for more information about my practice: drug2go.com.

Contact Casey Ebsary Today – Your First Step Towards Defense

If you or someone you know has been charged with DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS in Hillsborough County, the time to consult with an attorney is immediately. Do not speak to law enforcement without legal representation. Anything you say can be used against you.

Call me, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., directly at 813-222-2220.

You can also reach out through my website. Please visit my Contact Casey the Lawyer page for more ways to get in touch. There you will find a secure contact form where you can provide details about your situation. Submitting information through the contact form or calling initiates a confidential consultation where we can discuss the specifics of your DRUG1904 charge and how I can help build your defense. Don’t wait for the prosecution to build its case – start your defense strategy now.

Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A) about DRUG1904 Cocaine Trafficking (28-200g)

What exactly is DRUG1904?

DRUG1904 is a code likely used by Hillsborough County law enforcement/courts for the charge of Trafficking in Cocaine (28g to <200g) under Florida Statute § 893.135(1)(b)1.a. It signifies a first-degree felony with mandatory penalties.

What are the mandatory minimum penalties for DRUG1904?

Upon conviction, the mandatory minimum sentence is 3 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.

Can I get bail if charged with DRUG1904?

Bail (bond) is possible but often set high for trafficking charges due to their severity. Factors include flight risk, community ties, and prior record. An attorney can argue for a reasonable bond at your first appearance hearing.

What if the drugs weren’t mine, but they were found in my car/house?

This involves the concept of “constructive possession.” The prosecution must prove you knew the drugs were there and had control over them. Simply being present isn’t enough. This is a critical area for defense.

Does the 3-year mandatory sentence mean I’ll only serve 3 years?

The 3-year sentence is the minimum the judge must impose upon conviction. The maximum sentence for this first-degree felony is 30 years. The actual sentence depends on many factors, but it cannot be less than 3 years without specific legal exceptions.

Can the charges be reduced or dismissed?

Yes, depending on the facts. Defenses like illegal searches, lack of evidence, or issues with proving possession or quantity can lead to reduced charges (e.g., simple possession) or complete dismissal. Negotiation or providing substantial assistance are other potential avenues.

What is “substantial assistance”?

This involves cooperating with law enforcement to help them investigate or prosecute others. If the State Attorney agrees you provided substantial assistance, they can request the judge waive or reduce the mandatory minimum sentence. This requires careful legal guidance.

Should I talk to the police if arrested for DRUG1904?

No. You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Politely state that you wish to exercise these rights and do not answer any questions without your lawyer present. Anything you say can be used against you.

How much does it cost to hire an attorney for a DRUG1904 case?

Legal fees vary based on the complexity of the case. I offer a confidential initial consultation to discuss your case and my fees. Defending against a serious felony like trafficking is an investment in your future. Contact me at 813-222-2220 to discuss.

Why do I need a lawyer specializing in criminal defense for a DRUG1904 charge?

Drug trafficking laws are complex, the penalties are severe, and the procedures are specific. An experienced criminal defense attorney understands the nuances of the law, potential defenses, negotiation strategies, and the local court system (especially Hillsborough County). This specialized knowledge is essential for protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome.

• Florida Cocaine Minimum Mandatory Law
• Trafficking in Cocaine | Florida Conviction Overturned
• Video – Hillsborough Marijuana Defense Lawyer 813-222-2220
• Florida Marijuana Minimum Mandatory Law
• Prescription Drugs

Drug2Go.com

2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
Phone: 813-222-2220
Email: centrallaw@gmail.com

Cocaine Trafficking 28 – 200 Grams

If you have been charged with DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: DRUG1904
Florida Statute: 893.135.1B1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 1st

Description: TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS
DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

893.135 Trafficking; mandatory sentences; suspension or reduction of sentences; conspiracy to engage in trafficking.

(1) Except as authorized in this chapter or in chapter 499 and notwithstanding the provisions of s. 893.13:

(b)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine, as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or of any mixture containing cocaine, but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine or any such mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in cocaine,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:

a. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.


Florida Standard Jury Instruction:

25.11 TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS

§ 893.135(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

            Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) or any mixture containing (specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.

            To prove the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

            1.         (Defendant) knowingly

                                    [sold]

                                    [purchased]

                                    [manufactured]

                                    [delivered]

                                    [brought into Florida]

                                    [possessed]

                        a certain substance.

2.         The substance was [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [herion] [(specific substance alleged)]].

3.         The quantity of the substance involved was 4 grams or more.

            See State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1987).

4.         (Defendant) knew that the substance was [[morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)]].

            If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., the following bracketed language should be given instead of element 4 above.  For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold (specific substance alleged), the alternate element 4 would be given.

[4.        (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.), but actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] (specific substance alleged) or a mixture containing (specific substance alleged).]

            Definitions.  Give as applicable.

            Sell.

            “Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.

            Manufacture.  § 893.02(13)(a), Fla. Stat.

            “Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly.  Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.

            Deliver.  § 893.02(5), Fla. Stat.

            “Deliver” or “delivery” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.

            Possession.

            To “possess” means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over the thing possessed.

            Possession may be actual or constructive.

            Actual possession means:

a.         The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or

b.         The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or

c.         The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.

            Give if applicable.

            Mere proximity to a controlled substance is not sufficient to establish control over that controlled substance when it is not in a place over which the person has control.

            Constructive possession means the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) has control, or in which the (defendant) has concealed it.

            In order to establish constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) does not have control, the State must prove the (defendant’s) (1) control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled substance was within the (defendant’s) presence.

            Possession may be joint, that is, two or more persons may jointly possess an article, exercising control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article.

            If a person has exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed.

            If a person does not have exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed.

            Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance.  Give if applicable.  § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.

            Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an element of the offense of (insert name of offense charged).  Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense.  (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense.  However, you are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance.

            If from the evidence you are convinced that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) guilty.

            If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) not guilty.

            See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991).

            If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

            Enhanced penalty.  Give if applicable up to extent of charge.

a.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 4 grams or more but less than 14 grams.]

b.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 14 grams or more but less than 28 grams.]

c.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 28 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms.]

d.         [The quantity of the substance involved was 30 kilograms or more.]

Lesser Included Offenses

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1987 [509 So. 2d 917], 1989 [543 So. 2d 1205], 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], and 2007 [969 So. 2d 245].  See also SC03-629 [869 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)].

Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Facing DRUG1300 Charges in Hillsborough County? Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell Defense (Updated for 2025)

An arrest for Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell or Distribute in Florida, often logged under the code DRUG1300 in Hillsborough County criminal records, is a charge that demands immediate and serious attention. This is not a minor offense; it’s a felony that carries the potential for lengthy imprisonment, crippling fines, and a permanent mark on your record that can derail your future prospects for employment, housing, professional licenses, and even basic civil rights like voting or owning a firearm.

If you or someone you know is facing a DRUG1300 charge in Tampa, Plant City, or anywhere within Hillsborough County, you are likely feeling overwhelmed, scared, and uncertain about what comes next. The State Attorney’s Office prosecutes drug crimes aggressively. You need a defense attorney who understands the specific nuances of Florida drug law as outlined in the official statutes, knows the local court system, and is prepared to fight vigorously to protect your rights and your future.

My name is W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., and I am a Tampa-based criminal defense attorney. For years, I have dedicated my practice to defending individuals against serious felony charges, including Possession with Intent to Sell Cocaine (DRUG1300). I understand the stakes are high, and I am committed to providing a strategic, aggressive defense tailored to the specific facts of your case.

Don’t face the power of the State alone. Call me, Casey Ebsary, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 813-222-2220 for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your DRUG1300 charge.

Understanding Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell (DRUG1300) Under Florida Law

The core statute governing this offense is Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) This law explicitly states that, except as authorized, it is unlawful for any person to “sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.”

Cocaine is explicitly listed as a Schedule II controlled substance under Florida Statute § 893.03(2)(a)4. While simple possession of cocaine is itself a felony, the allegation that you intended to sell, manufacture, or deliver it significantly increases the severity of the charge and the potential penalties.

What the Prosecution Must Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:

For the Hillsborough County State Attorney to secure a conviction for Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell (DRUG1300) under F.S. § 893.13(1)(a), they carry the burden of proving all of the following elements:

1. Knowing Possession: The accused knowingly had possession of the substance. Possession can be:
   • Actual Possession: The substance was found on the person’s body, in their hand, or in a container in their hand or pocket – essentially, within immediate physical control.
   • Constructive Possession: The substance was not on the person but was located in a place over which the accused exercised dominion and control (e.g., their car, their room), the accused knew the substance was present, and the accused knew of the illicit nature of the substance. Proving constructive possession can be complex, especially if multiple people had access to the location where the drugs were found.
2. Identification of Substance: The substance possessed was, in fact, cocaine. This typically requires chemical analysis by a state crime lab.
3. Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver: The accused possessed the cocaine not merely for personal use, but with the specific purpose of distributing it to others. This is often the most heavily contested element in DRUG1300 cases.

Inferring “Intent to Sell”: How Prosecutors Build Their Case

Direct evidence of intent to sell (like a recorded confession or a witnessed sale) is uncommon. Therefore, prosecutors typically rely on circumstantial evidence to convince a judge or jury of the accused’s intent. Common factors they point to include:

• Quantity of Cocaine: Possessing an amount larger than what is typically considered for personal use (though Florida Statute § 893.135 establishes specific trafficking weights starting at 28 grams, even amounts less than this can be argued as intent to sell based on other factors).
• Packaging: Cocaine divided into multiple, smaller, individually wrapped packages (e.g., small baggies, vials) consistent with street-level sales.
• Presence of Drug Paraphernalia Associated with Sales: Items like digital scales, cutting agents (substances used to dilute cocaine), ledgers or records documenting transactions, and large sums of cash, especially in small denominations.
• Absence of User Paraphernalia: The lack of items typically associated with personal cocaine consumption (like pipes, straws, or rolled bills).
• Location: The arrest taking place in an area known by law enforcement for high drug trafficking activity.
• Statements/Communications: Text messages, phone calls, or statements overheard by officers or witnesses that suggest drug dealing.
• Firearms: The presence of firearms alongside the drugs can sometimes be used to imply protection of a drug-selling operation.

A skilled defense attorney scrutinizes each piece of circumstantial evidence the State presents, challenging its interpretation and presenting alternative, innocent explanations where applicable to combat the allegation of intent.

Penalties for Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell in Florida (as of 2025)

According to Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a)1, Possession of Cocaine (as a Schedule II substance under F.S. 893.03) with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver is classified as a Felony of the Second Degree. Per Florida’s general sentencing statutes F.S. § 775.082 and F.S. § 775.083 , potential penalties include:

• Prison: A term of imprisonment not exceeding fifteen (15) years.
• Probation: Up to fifteen (15) years of supervised probation.
• Fines: A fine not exceeding $10,000.
• Driver’s License Suspension: A mandatory minimum 6-month suspension/revocation of driving privileges upon conviction, pursuant to Florida Statute § 322.055 .
• Permanent Felony Record: A felony conviction carries significant lifelong consequences, affecting rights and opportunities regarding employment, housing, firearm ownership, voting, and professional licensing.

Aggravating Factors Leading to Harsher Penalties:

Florida law specifies circumstances that can significantly increase the severity of the charge and potential penalties:

• Proximity to Specific Locations: Under F.S. § 893.13(1)(c)-(f) , committing the offense (selling, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with intent) within 1,000 feet of a school (between 6 a.m. and midnight), childcare facility, park, community center, place of worship, assisted living facility, public housing facility, or college/university elevates the crime to a Felony of the First Degree.
  • A first-degree felony is punishable by up to thirty (30) years in prison (F.S. § 775.082(3)(b), and a fine of up to $10,000 .
  • Certain offenses under this subsection, particularly near schools or childcare facilities, carry mandatory minimum prison sentences of 3 years.
• Prior Convictions (Habitual Offender Laws): If you have prior felony convictions, the State may seek enhanced penalties under Florida Statute § 775.084 . Depending on the nature and timing of previous convictions, you could face significantly longer prison sentences and potential mandatory minimum terms as a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) or Habitual Violent Felony Offender (HVFO).
• Trafficking Thresholds: Possessing 28 grams or more of cocaine or any mixture containing cocaine automatically triggers Florida’s harsh drug trafficking laws F.S. § 893.135, . This is a separate, more serious first-degree felony charge carrying mandatory minimum prison sentences and extremely high fines, regardless of actual intent to sell:
  • 28g to < 200g: Minimum 3 years prison + $50,000 fine.
  • 200g to < 400g: Minimum 7 years prison + $100,000 fine.
  • 400g to < 150kg: Minimum 15 years prison + $250,000 fine.

Important Note on Sentencing: Florida uses a Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) scoresheet to guide sentencing. Factors like the primary offense level, additional offenses, victim injury (rare in these cases but possible), and the defendant’s prior record generate points. A certain point threshold mandates a state prison sentence unless the judge finds grounds for a downward departure. An experienced attorney understands the scoresheet system and can argue for mitigating factors or departure grounds.

Understanding the Charge Code: DRUG1300

If you or a loved one has been arrested in Hillsborough County and reviewed the arrest affidavit or court documents, you might encounter the specific designation DRUG1300. What exactly does this alphanumeric code signify? DRUG1300 is an internal code frequently utilized by law enforcement agencies and the court system within Hillsborough County (and potentially neighboring jurisdictions) to specifically categorize the charge of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell, Manufacture, or Deliver. It corresponds directly to the offense outlined in Florida Statute § 893.13(1)(a) when the controlled substance involved is cocaine, classified under Schedule II.

While “DRUG1300” isn’t part of the official statutory language itself, it acts as a critical shorthand for police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and court clerks navigating the criminal justice system. Seeing DRUG1300 on paperwork confirms that the State is alleging more than simple possession; they believe they have evidence indicating an intent to distribute. Understanding this code helps clarify the precise nature and severity of the charge you are facing—a second-degree felony with significant potential penalties.

Therefore, searching for defenses against a DRUG1300 charge means seeking effective legal strategies to combat allegations of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell within the specific context of the Hillsborough County legal environment. Given the serious consequences linked to DRUG1300, prompt action is essential. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we are familiar with how DRUG1300 cases are handled locally and are prepared to build a robust defense. If this code appears in your case, contact us immediately at 813-222-2220.

You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. tel:+18132222220 for a free consultation by calling 1-877-793-9290 or by filling out our online contact form. (https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/).

Potential Defenses to Possession of Cocaine with Intent (DRUG1300)

Just because you’ve been arrested doesn’t mean you will be convicted. A knowledgeable criminal defense attorney can identify and assert various defenses to challenge a DRUG1300 charge. Some potential avenues include:

• Illegal Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. If police stopped your vehicle without reasonable suspicion, searched your home without a valid warrant (or a valid exception to the warrant requirement), or otherwise violated your constitutional rights, the cocaine and any other evidence seized might be suppressed. A successful motion to suppress can gut the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Possession (Actual or Constructive): Can the State definitively link the cocaine to you?
  • Constructive Possession Challenges: If drugs were found in a car with passengers, a shared apartment, or another area where multiple people had access, the State must prove you had knowledge of the drugs’ presence and the ability to exercise dominion and control over them. Mere proximity is often insufficient.
  • Actual Possession Challenges: Was the item truly “on your person”? Was the discovery procedure lawful?
• Lack of Knowledge: The State must prove you knew the substance was cocaine. If you reasonably believed it was something else, or if it was hidden in your belongings by someone else without your awareness, this could be a defense.
• No Intent to Sell: This is frequently the core battleground. Arguments can include:
  • The quantity possessed was consistent with personal use, not distribution.
  • Lack of typical distribution indicators (no scales, baggies, large cash amounts, ledgers, incriminating messages).
  • Evidence of personal use (presence of user paraphernalia).
• Problems with the Evidence:
  • Chain of Custody: Any breaks or inconsistencies in how the alleged cocaine was handled, stored, and transported from seizure to the lab can cast doubt on its integrity.
  • Lab Testing: Challenging the methodology or results of the crime lab’s analysis. Was the substance definitively identified as cocaine? Was the weight accurate (especially crucial near trafficking thresholds)?
• Entrapment: If law enforcement officers or their agents improperly induced or persuaded you to commit a crime that you were not otherwise predisposed to commit.
• Issues with Confidential Informants (CIs): Cases built on CI testimony are often vulnerable. A defense attorney will investigate the CI’s reliability, motivation (deals for testimony?), and potential biases, as well as whether police properly corroborated the CI’s information.
• Florida’s 911 Good Samaritan Act F.S. § 893.21, This law provides limited immunity from arrest, charging, and prosecution for certain possession offenses (and paraphernalia) for individuals who, acting in good faith, seek medical assistance for someone (including themselves) experiencing a drug or alcohol overdose. Eligibility depends on specific circumstances.

Developing the right defense strategy requires a detailed analysis of your unique case facts. I will explore every possible angle. Visit my website for more general information on drug crime defense.

Potential Resolutions Beyond Trial

While preparing a robust defense for trial is crucial, many cases are resolved before reaching a jury. Depending on the specific facts, the strength of the evidence, your criminal history, and negotiation, potential alternative resolutions include:

• Dismissal of Charges: If critical evidence is suppressed due to constitutional violations, or if the prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof, charges may be dismissed outright or dropped via a “nolle prosequi.”
• Reduced Charges: Negotiating a plea agreement where you plead guilty or no contest to a less serious offense, such as simple Possession of Cocaine (a third-degree felony) or even misdemeanor paraphernalia, resulting in lesser penalties.
• Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) or Drug Court: For eligible individuals (often first-time offenders or those with limited prior records), these diversion programs focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Successful completion typically leads to the dismissal of the charges. Admission usually requires approval from the State Attorney’s Office.
• Withholding Adjudication: In some plea agreements, the judge may agree to withhold adjudication of guilt. While you still face penalties (like probation), avoiding a formal felony conviction can prevent the loss of certain civil rights and may be less damaging for future employment or licensing.
• Probation: A sentence involving supervision in the community instead of prison, often with conditions like drug testing, counseling, community service, and fines.

Why You Need W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Hillsborough County DRUG1300 Defense

Facing a felony drug charge like Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell demands experienced legal counsel familiar with local practices. Here’s why you should consider my firm:

• Local Hillsborough County Experience: I practice regularly in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Tampa. I am familiar with the local State Attorney’s office policies, the judges, and the specific procedures used in Hillsborough County drug cases.
• Deep Knowledge of Florida Drug Laws: I was a Hillsborough County Drug Prosecutor and constantly monitor changes in statutes, case law (court decisions), and sentencing guidelines relevant to drug offenses.
• Aggressive & Strategic Defense: I believe in a proactive defense. I will thoroughly investigate the State’s case, identify weaknesses, file appropriate motions (like Motions to Suppress or Dismiss), and aggressively advocate for your rights, whether in negotiations or in the courtroom.
• Direct Attorney Contact: When you hire my firm, you work directly with me, Casey Ebsary. I prioritize clear communication, ensuring you understand the legal process, your options, and the status of your case.
• Focus on Favorable Outcomes: My goal is always to achieve the best possible result for you, whether that means fighting for a complete dismissal, negotiating a significantly reduced charge, securing entry into a diversion program, or winning an acquittal at trial.
• Available 24/7: I understand that legal emergencies require immediate attention. My phone line (813-222-2220) is open 24/7.

Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A) about Possession of Cocaine with Intent (DRUG1300)

What’s the main difference between simple possession and DRUG1300 in Florida?

Simple possession (usually a 3rd-degree felony) is possessing cocaine for personal use. DRUG1300 (Possession with Intent, a 2nd-degree felony) requires the State to prove you intended to sell, make, or deliver it. Penalties are much higher for DRUG1300.

Can I be charged with intent (DRUG1300) even if I didn’t actually sell anything?

Yes. The charge is based on intent, not a completed sale. Prosecutors use circumstantial evidence (quantity, packaging, scales, etc.) to try and prove that intent.

What if the cocaine wasn’t mine or I didn’t know it was in my car/house?

This involves defenses like Lack of Knowledge or challenging Constructive Possession. The State must prove you knew about the drugs and had control over them. If multiple people had access, it complicates the State’s case.

Is there a specific amount of cocaine that automatically triggers a DRUG1300 charge?

Below the 28-gram trafficking threshold, there’s no set amount. Any quantity can support an intent charge if other factors (packaging, scales) are present. However, larger amounts make the State’s argument easier.

What if police found scales or baggies but only a small amount of cocaine?

Police will likely still charge DRUG1300 based on the paraphernalia. However, a defense attorney can argue the amount is consistent with personal use and challenge the inference of intent based solely on the items.

Does a DRUG1300 conviction always mean prison?

Not automatically, unless mandatory minimums apply (e.g., trafficking weight, gun enhancement, certain location enhancements under F.S. § 893.13. However, as a 2nd-degree felony scoring under the Criminal Punishment Code, prison is a significant risk, especially with a prior record. Your attorney’s goal is to avoid prison through dismissal, acquittal, reduced charges, or alternative sentencing.

What are the first things I should do if arrested for DRUG1300?

Politely but firmly state you wish to remain silent and want an attorney. Do not answer police questions, consent to searches, or make any statements without counsel present. Contact W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at 813-222-2220 immediately.

Can Casey Ebsary get my DRUG1300 charge reduced or dismissed?

While no attorney can guarantee results, my goal is always to seek the best possible outcome. This often involves fighting for dismissal via motions, negotiating favorable plea deals to lesser charges (like simple possession), or securing acquittal at trial. Success depends on the specific facts and evidence.

How does “constructive possession” work in Florida?

It applies when drugs aren’t on your person. The State must prove (1) you knew the drugs were there, (2) you knew they were illegal, and (3) you had “dominion and control” over the place where they were found (e.g., your car, your bedroom).

Will a DRUG1300 charge suspend my driver’s license?

Yes. If adjudication is not with held, Under F.S. § 322.055 any conviction for a drug offense, including DRUG1300, results in a mandatory minimum 6-month driver’s license revocation by the Florida DHSMV.

Don’t Delay – Protect Your Future Today

A charge of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell or Distribute (DRUG1300) in Hillsborough County is a serious legal battle with potentially devastating consequences. You need a defense lawyer who will stand by your side, fight for your rights, and pursue every legal avenue to protect your freedom and future.

Do not wait. Evidence can disappear, witness memories can fade, and the prosecution is already building its case. The sooner you have an experienced attorney involved, the stronger your defense can be.

Call the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. right now at 813-222-2220. We are available 24/7 to take your call and provide a free, confidential consultation.

Contact Us for a Confidential Consultation

If you prefer to reach out online, please visit our dedicated contact page. You can send a secure message detailing your situation, and we will get back to you promptly. We understand the sensitive nature of these charges and assure you of complete confidentiality. Find our contact form and other contact details here.

Legal Citations (Official Florida Statutes Links):

• Florida Statute § 893.13 (Prohibited acts; penalties):
• Florida Statute § 893.03 (Controlled substance schedules):
• Florida Statute § 893.135 (Trafficking offenses):
• Florida Statute § 775.082 (Penalties; imprisonment):
• Florida Statute § 775.083 (Penalties; fines):
• Florida Statute § 775.084 (Habitual felony offenders):
• Florida Statute § 322.055 (Driver’s license suspension for drug offenses):
• Florida Statute § 893.21 (Drug-related overdose; medical assistance immunity):

Possession Cocaine Intent Distribute

If you have been charged with DRUG1300 POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL OR D (Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell or Distribute) you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: DRUG1300
Florida Statute: 893.13.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 2nd
Description: POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL OR D (Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell or Distribute)

DRUG1300 POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL OR D (Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell or Distribute) one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.

(1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. Any person who violates this provision with respect to:

1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)4., commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)5., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

3. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) Except as provided in this chapter, it is unlawful to sell or deliver in excess of 10 grams of any substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a) or (1)(b), or any combination thereof, or any mixture containing any such substance. Any person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s. 402.302 or a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, or at any time in, on, or within 1,000 feet of real property comprising a state, county, or municipal park, a community center, or a publicly owned recreational facility. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “community center” means a facility operated by a nonprofit community-based organization for the provision of recreational, social, or educational services to the public. Any person who violates this paragraph with respect to:

1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)4., commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The defendant must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years unless the offense was committed within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s. 402.302.

2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)5., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.

Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Facing a criminal charge can be a daunting experience, especially when it involves serious allegations like the delivery of cocaine. In Florida, this charge, often coded as “DRUG1200,” carries significant penalties and can have long-lasting consequences. This article provides a comprehensive overview of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a), which governs this offense, and explains what you need to know if you or a loved one is facing this charge.

It’s important to remember that DRUG1200 is just one of many ways to face drug-related charges in Hillsborough County. In fact, there are over 250 ways to go to jail for drug crimes in Florida, highlighting the complexity and breadth of Florida’s drug laws. For immediate assistance, you can contact us at 813-222-2220.

What is DRUG1200 Delivery of Cocaine?

DRUG1200 is the Florida charge for the delivery of cocaine. It falls under Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a), which prohibits the sale, manufacture, or delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. Cocaine is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and a severely restricted medical use.

The Broad Scope of “Delivery”

It’s crucial to understand that “delivery” in this context doesn’t just mean a direct, hand-to-hand transaction. Florida law defines delivery broadly to include:

• Actual Delivery: The physical transfer of the drug.
• Constructive Delivery: Having the intent and ability to control the cocaine, even without physically handing it over. This could involve directing someone to a hidden stash.
• Attempted Delivery: Even an unsuccessful attempt to deliver cocaine can result in charges.

This broad definition means you can be charged with DRUG1200 even if you weren’t directly involved in a physical exchange. See more details on our DRUG1200 Delivery of Cocaine page.

Penalties for DRUG1200

As a second-degree felony, DRUG1200 carries severe penalties under Florida law:

• Prison: Up to 15 years in prison, as outlined in Florida Statute 775.082.
• Fines: Up to $10,000 in fines, as per Florida Statute 775.083.
• Habitual Offender Status: If you have prior felony convictions, you could face significantly enhanced penalties, including a potential life sentence, under Florida Statute 775.084.

Enhancements and Aggravating Factors

Certain factors can increase the severity of the charge:

• Quantity: Selling or delivering over 10 grams elevates the charge to a first-degree felony (up to 30 years in prison), according to Florida Statute 893.13(1)(b).
• Proximity to Protected Locations: Selling, manufacturing, or delivering within 1,000 feet of schools, childcare facilities, parks, community centers, or public recreational facilities (between 6 a.m. and midnight for schools) also elevates the charge to a first-degree felony with a mandatory minimum 3-year prison sentence, as detailed in Florida Statute 893.13(1)(c).

Potential Defenses

While a DRUG1200 charge is serious, there are potential defenses. A skilled criminal defense attorney will explore all options, which may include:

• Lack of Knowledge: The prosecution must prove you knowingly possessed or delivered the cocaine.
• Lack of Intent: For constructive delivery or possession with intent, the prosecution must prove your intent.
• Illegal Search and Seizure: Evidence obtained illegally may be suppressed.
• Entrapment: If law enforcement induced you to commit a crime you wouldn’t have otherwise committed.
• Mistaken Identity: If you were wrongly identified.
• Substantial Assistance: You may be able to work with law enforcement.

Why You Need an Experienced Attorney

The complexities of Florida drug laws, as evidenced by the numerous ways to be charged with drug crimes, the broad definition of “delivery,” and the potential for severe penalties make it essential to have experienced legal representation. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we understand the seriousness of these charges and are dedicated to protecting your rights. We will thoroughly investigate your case, explore all possible defenses, and fight for the best possible outcome.

FAQ: DRUG1200 Delivery of Cocaine

Here are some frequently asked questions about DRUG1200 charges:

What if I didn’t actually sell the cocaine, but I was just holding it for someone else?

You could still be charged with possession with intent to deliver, which carries the same penalties as actual delivery. This falls under the concept of constructive possession.

What if I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to convict you. However, the prosecution may try to prove your involvement through other evidence. It’s crucial to have an attorney review the evidence against you.

Can the police search my car without a warrant?

The police can search your car without a warrant under certain circumstances, such as if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. However, these searches are subject to legal challenges. An illegal search could lead to the suppression of evidence.

What is a mandatory minimum sentence?

A mandatory minimum sentence is a minimum prison term that a judge must impose, regardless of mitigating circumstances. The 3-year mandatory minimum for selling near protected locations is an example.

What does “constructive delivery” mean?

Constructive delivery means you have the intent and ability to control the drugs, even if you don’t physically hand them to someone.

What if I was set up by a confidential informant?

This could potentially be a defense of entrapment, but entrapment is a complex legal issue. It’s not enough to simply be given the opportunity to commit a crime; the police must have induced you to do something you wouldn’t have otherwise done.

What is “substantial assistance”?

Providing substantial assistance to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of other drug offenses can sometimes lead to a reduced sentence. This is a strategic decision that should be discussed with your attorney.

What are the long-term consequences of a DRUG1200 conviction?

Beyond prison and fines, a felony conviction can impact your ability to get a job, housing, professional licenses, and even vote.

What should I do if I’m arrested for DRUG1200?

Exercise your right to remain silent and contact an attorney immediately. Do not answer any questions without legal counsel.

How can I contact your firm for help?

You can call us at 813-222-2220 or contact our website at drug2go.com for a consultation. We are here to help you navigate this challenging situation.

You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. tel:+18132222220 for a free consultation by calling 1-877-793-9290 or by filling out our online contact form. (https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/).

If you have been charged with DRUG1200 DELIVERY OF COCAINE you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: DRUG1200


Florida Statute: 893.13.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 2nd

Description: DELIVERY OF COCAINE

DRUG1200 DELIVERY OF COCAINE one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.
(1)(a) Except as authorized by this chapter and chapter 499, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. Any person who violates this provision with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)4., commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)5., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Except as provided in this chapter, it is unlawful to sell or deliver in excess of 10 grams of any substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a) or (1)(b), or any combination thereof, or any mixture containing any such substance. Any person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s. 402.302 or a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, or at any time in, on, or within 1,000 feet of real property comprising a state, county, or municipal park, a community center, or a publicly owned recreational facility. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “community center” means a facility operated by a nonprofit community-based organization for the provision of recreational, social, or educational services to the public. Any person who violates this paragraph with respect to:
1. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)4., commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The defendant must be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years unless the offense was committed within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a child care facility as defined in s. 402.302.
2. A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(c), (2)(c)1., (2)(c)2., (2)(c)3., (2)(c)5., (2)(c)6., (2)(c)7., (2)(c)8., (2)(c)9., (3), or (4) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
3. Any other controlled substance, except as lawfully sold, manufactured, or delivered, must be sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to serve 100 hours of public service in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Honest Review

The reviews for the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. paint a consistent picture of a dedicated, effective, and compassionate legal team. Clients consistently praise Casey’s professionalism, responsiveness, and ability to achieve positive outcomes, even in complex and challenging cases. From resolving decades-old warrants and securing dismissals to providing clear communication and reassuring support throughout the legal process, the reviews overwhelmingly recommend Casey and his team as trustworthy and highly skilled advocates. The recurring themes are clear: he gets results, he cares about his clients, and he communicates effectively.

Visit our Google Page for Reviews Here.

25 Year Old Warrant Review

Review Summary

Had I not found Casey and his team, I would have been extradited from Tennessee to Florida on a 25 year old warrant. Casey and his team got my charges dropped and the warrant cancelled. They were compassionate, diligent in their work, and did their homework on my case. If you need an attorney, Casey is AAA+++.

Jim M.

Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr

2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606

Had I not found Casey and his team, I would have been extradited from Tennessee to Florida on a 25 year old warrant. Casey and his team got my charges dropped and the warrant cancelled. They were compassionate, diligent in their work, and did their homework on my case. If you need an attorney, Casey is AAA+++.

Jim M.

Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for a free consultation by calling 1-813-222-2220 or by filling out our online contact form. (https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/).

Honest Google My Business (GMB) reviews, like those for the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., offer significant advantages to both potential clients and the business itself. For individuals seeking legal representation, these reviews provide a crucial, unbiased perspective. They gain the advantage of informed decision-making, accessing firsthand accounts of client experiences, communication styles, and, most importantly, results.

This transparency allows potential clients to confidently choose a lawyer who aligns with their needs and expectations, minimizing risk and maximizing the chances of a positive outcome. For the law office, the advantages are equally compelling. Positive reviews act as powerful social proof, building trust and credibility in a competitive market. They enhance the firm’s online reputation, attracting new clients organically and serving as a cost-effective marketing tool. Ultimately, honest GMB reviews create a win-win scenario, empowering informed client choices and fostering the growth of reputable businesses.

FAQ

Florida Drug Laws: Expert FAQs

I’ve been arrested for a drug charge, and I’m scared. Do the reviews for Casey Ebsary’s office suggest he’s actually good at getting positive results in these kinds of cases?

Yes, the reviews consistently highlight Casey Ebsary’s effectiveness in achieving positive outcomes for his clients, even in difficult situations. Several reviews mention successful dismissals and favorable resolutions. The recurring themes are that he gets results, cares about his clients, and communicates effectively, suggesting a strong track record in handling cases like yours.

I’m worried about being judged and feeling lost in the legal system. Do the reviews say anything about how Casey Ebsary and his team treat their clients?

The reviews repeatedly emphasize Casey Ebsary’s compassionate and responsive approach. Clients describe feeling supported and understood, not judged. They praise his clear communication, which is crucial for navigating the complexities of the legal process. This suggests you’ll be treated with respect and kept informed every step of the way.

This is my first time dealing with something like this, and I have an old warrant I’m worried about. I need someone who can really fight for me. Has Casey Ebsary handled anything similar, and how can I contact his office to see if he can help?

Yes, one review specifically mentions a client, Jim M., who faced extradition on a 25-year-old warrant. Casey Ebsary’s team successfully got the charges dropped and the warrant cancelled, demonstrating their ability to handle complex cases with potentially serious consequences. You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for a free consultation to discuss your specific situation by calling (813) 222-2220 or through their online contact form. They offer a free consult, so it is worth the call.

Do you need a Drug Crimes Attorney? Facing drug charges in Florida can be overwhelming. The potential penalties are severe, and the legal landscape is complex. Choosing the right attorney is one of the most critical decisions you’ll make, directly impacting the outcome of your case. This page isn’t just about finding any lawyer; it’s about finding the right lawyer. We’ll guide you through key questions to ask, explain the importance of Florida Bar Board Certification in Criminal Trial Law, and provide expert tips to help you make an informed decision, including how to verify a lawyer’s credentials. Let’s get started.

According To The Florida Bar, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyers Are Specialists.

Drug Crimes Attorney and criminal defense expert, Casey Ebsary knows that facing drug crime charges in Florida is a serious matter. The outcome of your case can have a lasting impact on your life. When choosing a lawyer, one crucial factor to consider is whether the attorney is a Board Certified Specialist in Criminal Trial Law. This article explains what board certification means and why it’s important for your defense.

What is Board Certification?

According To The Florida Bar, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyers are considered specialists. Board certification is a voluntary program for Florida lawyers, administered by The Florida Bar’s Board of Legal Specialization & Education (BLSE). It represents the highest level of evaluation by The Florida Bar regarding a lawyer’s competency and experience within a specific area of law. Think of it like the difference between a general practitioner and a board-certified specialist in medicine – both are doctors, but one has demonstrated specialized expertise and training.

Why Does Board Certification Matter for Drug Crime Cases?

Florida’s drug crime laws are complex and frequently change. The penalties can be severe, including significant prison sentences, substantial fines, and a permanent criminal record. A Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer has proven:

• Substantial Experience: They have handled a significant number of criminal trials, including cases involving drug offenses.
• Specialized Knowledge: They have successfully passed a rigorous examination covering all aspects of criminal trial law, with a strong emphasis on drug-related offenses.
• Peer Review: They have received positive evaluations from judges and other lawyers familiar with their professional work.
• Continuing Education: They are required to stay current with the latest legal developments and best practices through ongoing legal education.
• Good Standing: They must be a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

How to Verify if a Lawyer is Board Certified

Not all lawyers who handle drug crime cases are board certified. It’s essential to independently verify this credential. Don’t just take a lawyer’s word for it or rely on outdated information.

Here’s how to confirm a lawyer’s current board certification status:

1. Use the Florida Bar’s “Find a Lawyer” Tool: Go to the official Florida Bar website: https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-mbr/
2. Enter the Lawyer’s Name: Type in the lawyer’s first and last name.
3. Check the Profile: The lawyer’s profile will clearly indicate if they are currently “Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law.” If it doesn’t say that, they are not currently board certified in that specialty.

You can also find a list of all Board Certified attorneys by specialty area here: https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-mbr/ Select “Criminal Trial” from the dropdown menu.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Board Certification and Drug Crime Defense

Here are some common questions people have when selecting a lawyer for drug charges:

What percentage of Florida lawyers are Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law?

Less that 1/2 of 1 percent. The Florida Bar maintains high standards for board certification, making it a mark of distinction. While precise numbers fluctuate, it’s significantly less than 1% of attorneys. The certification standards can be found here: https://www.floridabar.org/rules/certification-plans/ And the specific rules are found at Rule 6-3, and 6-4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

Does board certification guarantee a win in my case?

No lawyer can ethically guarantee a specific outcome. However, board certification signifies a higher level of demonstrated expertise and experience, which can significantly improve your chances of a favorable result.

Are Board Certified lawyers more expensive?

Legal fees vary depending on the lawyer’s experience, the complexity of the case, and other factors. A Board Certified specialist may charge more, reflecting their specialized skills. Discuss fees openly during your initial consultation.

What are the minimum requirements to become Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law in Florida?

The requirements are rigorous and include: * At least five years of law practice. * Substantial involvement in criminal trial law (a significant portion of their practice). * Handling a specified number of criminal trials, including jury trials. * Passing a comprehensive written examination. * Favorable peer review from judges and other lawyers. * Completing required continuing legal education. * See the full requirements on the Florida Bar website (discussed above).

Besides board certification, what else should I consider?

Consider experience specifically with your type of drug charge, communication style, case strategy, availability, and your overall comfort level. A consultation is essential for assessing these factors.

Can a lawyer use comparative advertising, mentioning other lawyers by name?

Yes, but with strict limitations. The comparison must be factually accurate, verifiable, and not misleading.

What does it mean if an attorney is advertising using keywords related to other attorneys?

This is a common online advertising technique. It means the attorney is attempting to reach individuals searching for specific legal services or other attorneys. The message must not be misleading or deceptive. The advertising must be truthful and not create unjustified expectations. The Florida Bar has addressed this, confirming that keyword advertising is generally permissible as long as it complies with the general rules on advertising.

Choosing the Right Lawyer for Your Drug Crime Charges in Florida: Understanding Board Certification

A List of Board Certified Experts in Criminal Defense

Florida Attorney’s Name	Is This Attorney Florida Bar Board Certified?
W. F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
John Castro
Christian Denmon
Nicole Denmon
W. F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
Richard Escobar
Frank Fernandez
Darren Finebloom
Robin Fuson
Christina Anton Garcia
Michael Celso Gonzalez
David Haenel
William Wooten Hanlon
Stephen Higgins
Marc Alleyne Joseph
Jeff Keel
Michael Maddux Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
Jason M. Mayberry
Michael Misa
Jeff Paulk
Nicole Denmon
Jason Sammis
Leslie Sammis
Jeff Thomas
Majid Vasigh
Elliott Wilcox
William Wynne

This information is current as of date originally published (2015).

Please check here to see if any of the Drug Crimes Attorneys in this list have since become Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyers.

The FTC and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (NAD), govern the laws of comparative advertising in the United States including the treatment of comparative advertising claims. FTC stated that comparative advertising could benefit consumers and encourages comparative advertising, provided that the comparisons are “clearly identified, truthful, and non-deceptive”

The FTC and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (NAD), govern the laws of comparative advertising in the United States including the treatment of comparative advertising claims. FTC stated that comparative advertising could benefit consumers and encourages comparative advertising, provided that the comparisons are “clearly identified, truthful, and non-deceptive”

Sources: The Law of Comparative Advertising in the United States J. E. Villafranco, “IP Litigator”, Woltens Kluwer Law & Business, Aspen Publishers, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2010;

Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers;

Suing Ove Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners.

Sources: The Law of Comparative Advertising in the United States  J. E. Villafranco, “IP Litigator”, Woltens Kluwer Law & Business, Aspen Publishers, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2010; 

Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers;

Suing Ove Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners.

Take Action: Contact a Board Certified Drug Crime Lawyer Today

Facing drug charges in Florida is serious, and the lawyer you choose matters. Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyers have proven their expertise in this complex area of law. While no outcome is guaranteed, choosing a specialist like W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. can give you a significant advantage. He offers a direct, no-nonsense approach, focusing on results.

As emphasized throughout this article, always verify credentials – and you can confirm Mr. Ebsary’s Board Certification through The Florida Bar’s website. Ready for straightforward legal guidance?

Contact Casey directly for a confidential consultation using the secure form on his website: https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/ – or call his office at (813) 222-2220. Take the first step towards protecting your future.

Drug crimes in Florida carry severe penalties, ranging from misdemeanors to serious felonies. Understanding the nuances of Florida drug laws is crucial if you’re facing charges. This page details 250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Florida, highlighting common offenses like possession, sale, trafficking, and manufacturing. This broad spectrum underscores the complexity of drug crime laws.

Florida Statute Chapter 893 outlines the Controlled Substances Act, defining prohibited substances and associated penalties. For instance, possession of even a small amount of a controlled substance, as detailed in Possession (linked section on your page), can lead to significant legal consequences. Similarly, charges related to the Sale or Delivery of drugs carry even heavier penalties, often involving mandatory minimum sentences. The severity often depends on the type and quantity of the substance, as well as prior offenses. Even seemingly minor infractions, like possessing Drug Paraphernalia, can result in criminal charges.

An experienced drug crimes attorney can navigate these complexities, protect your rights, and build a strong defense. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. (813-222-2220) offers legal representation for individuals facing all types of drug crimes charges in Hillsborough County.

Explore the intricate web of Florida’s drug crimes with our Definitive List of Florida Drug Crimes Statutes. In Tampa alone, there are a staggering 250 ways you could find yourself facing charges, spanning misdemeanors to felonies to minimum mandatory sentences.

Drug Crimes Q&A

What is the most common drug crime?

Possession of a controlled substance is the most frequently charged drug offense. This can include illegal narcotics, prescription drugs without a valid prescription, or even certain chemicals used to manufacture drugs. Penalties vary greatly depending on the type and amount of the substance.

What’s the difference between possession and trafficking?

Trafficking involves larger quantities of controlled substances than simple possession. The law presumes that possessing a certain amount indicates an intent to sell or distribute, leading to much harsher penalties. The specific quantity thresholds vary depending on the specific drug.

Are there mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes?

Yes, Florida law mandates minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, particularly trafficking. These mandatory minimums mean a judge has limited discretion in sentencing, even if mitigating circumstances exist. The length of the mandatory minimum depends on the drug type and quantity involved.

Can I be arrested for having prescription drugs?

Yes, you can be arrested if you possess prescription drugs that were not lawfully prescribed to you. It’s also illegal to possess prescription drugs in a container other than the original pharmacy container, or to alter the prescription label. These laws are designed to combat prescription drug abuse and diversion.

What is constructive possession?

Constructive possession means you have control over a substance even if it’s not physically on your person, like in your car or home. The prosecution must prove you knew about the drugs and had the ability to exercise control over them. This is often a key issue in drug cases.

Can drug paraphernalia lead to arrest?

Yes, possession of drug paraphernalia, which includes items used for consuming, producing, or concealing drugs, is a criminal offense. This can range from pipes and bongs to scales and baggies. The prosecution must prove that the items were intended for use with illegal drugs.

What if the drugs were found during an illegal search?

If law enforcement violated your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, the evidence may be suppressed. This means the drugs cannot be used against you in court. A successful motion to suppress evidence can often lead to the dismissal of charges.

What’s a plea for withhold of adjudication?

A withhold of adjudication means the court does not formally convict you of the crime, even though you plead guilty or no contest. This can help you avoid some of the collateral consequences of a conviction, such as difficulty finding employment or housing. However, it still counts as a prior offense if you are charged with another crime in the future, particularly in federal drug crimes.

Can you help on Federal Drug cases?

Yes, I have experience handling federal drug cases, which often involve larger quantities and interstate trafficking. Federal drug laws and sentencing guidelines are different from Florida state laws and often carry harsher penalties. Navigating the federal court system requires specialized knowledge and experience.

Do you offer free initial consultation?

Call Casey at 813-222-2220 to discuss your case. The initial consultation allows us to assess the situation, discuss potential defenses, and outline the legal process. This is a no-obligation opportunity to get legal advice.

Our comprehensive list breaks down each offense, detailing the associated Florida Statute and law enforcement’s coded charges. Whether it’s possession, sale, or trafficking of various controlled substances, this guide provides clarity on every charge. Arm yourself with knowledge to navigate the complexities of drug crimes in Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Law Office of W.F. ‘Casey’ Ebsary Jr is here to fight for you or your friend, ensuring a strong defense. Call (813) 222-2220 for legal support.

Definitive List of Florida Drug Crimes Statutes

There are 250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Tampa. There are 250 types of Drug Crimes Charged in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Here is a list of every type of drug crime charged in Hillsborough County. The list includes the Florida Statute number and the computer codes used by law enforcement to classify the charged offenses. These are frequently referred to as charges codes or form codes.

The list includes both felonies and misdemeanors, includes the Florida Statute, and a brief description of the charges.

250 Ways to Go to Jail for Drug Crimes in Tampa, Florida

Form Code Statute Level Degree Charge Description

Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Drug2Go.com

2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606Phone: 813-222-2220
Email: centrallaw@gmail.com

• Which Judge will preside over my Tampa / Hillsborough County Drug Crimes Case?
• DRUG1300 POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL OR D
• DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS
• Trafficking in Cocaine | Florida Conviction Overturned
• DRUG2300 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS WITH INTENT TO SELL OR

Legal Analysis: Florida Appeals Court Revisits Drug Dog Alerts in Warrantless Vehicle Searches

In a recent decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Stephon Ford v. State of Florida, Case No. 5D2023-1995, the court addressed a pressing issue in Florida law: whether a drug-sniffing dog’s alert can establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search when the dog cannot differentiate between legal and illegal cannabis products. This case provides critical insights into the evolving intersection of drug laws, Fourth Amendment protections, and the application of the good faith exception.

Is a K-9’s Sniff Enough? Understanding Florida Search Laws

“My car was searched after a K-9 alert in Florida, and they found legal CBD. Is that a legal search?”

“In light of recent Florida appellate court decisions, particularly Stephon Ford v. State of Florida and Baxter v. State, an undifferentiated K-9 alert that doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal cannabis may not provide sufficient probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search. If you’ve experienced this, it’s vital to understand your Fourth Amendment rights. Contact us for a free consultation regarding your Florida K-9 car search and potential illegal search.”

#FloridaK9CarSearch #FourthAmendmentRights #IllegalSearch #StephonFordvStateofFlorida #BaxtervState #ProbableCause

“What is the ‘good faith exception’ in a Florida drug dog search case, and how does it affect me?”

“The ‘good faith exception’ allows evidence obtained under a search to be admissible if officers relied on then-binding legal precedent, even if that precedent is later overturned. In Stephon Ford, the court applied this exception. Understanding how this affects your drug dog search 4th amendment case is crucial. We can analyze if the good faith exception applies to your specific situation.”
Keywords: #DrugDogSearch4thAmendment #GoodFaithException #StephonFordCase #FloridaDrugDogSearch #ExclusionaryRule

“How has the legalization of medical marijuana in Florida impacted K-9 searches?”

“The legalization of medical marijuana and hemp has significantly complicated K-9 searches. Courts are now questioning if a K-9 alert alone can establish probable cause, as dogs can’t differentiate between legal and illegal cannabis. This change impacts your Florida drug dog case and requires a knowledgeable attorney to navigate the complexities.”
Keywords: #FloridaDrugDogCase #MedicalMarijuana #K9Search #ProbableCause #LegalCannabis

“What should I do if a drug-sniffing dog alerted to my vehicle in Florida?”

“If a drug-sniffing dog alerted to your vehicle, do not consent to a search without legal counsel. Remain calm, document everything, and contact an attorney immediately. Your drug dog search 4th amendment rights need to be protected. We can help ensure your rights are upheld.”
Keywords: #DrugDogSearch4thAmendment #FloridaVehicleSearch #K9Alert #LegalCounsel #ProtectYourRights

“Can a K-9 alert be the sole basis for a warrantless car search in Florida anymore?”

“Recent court decisions, like Stephon Ford, suggest that a K-9 alert alone may no longer be sufficient for a warrantless car search, especially if the dog can’t distinguish between legal and illegal substances. This is a critical development for drug dog search 4th amendment cases in Florida. We can assess the legality of your search.”
Keywords: #DrugDogSearch4thAmendment #WarrantlessCarSearch #StephonFordCase #ProbableCause #FloridaLegalPrecedent

“What is the ‘plain smell’ doctrine, and how does it relate to K-9 searches in Florida?”

“The ‘plain smell’ doctrine, akin to ‘plain view,’ suggests that if an officer smells contraband, it can justify a search. However, with the legalization of cannabis, this doctrine is being challenged. In Baxter v. State, the court held that the ‘plain smell’ of cannabis alone might not justify a search. This directly affects Florida K-9 car searches. We can help you understand how this impacts your case.”
Keywords: #FloridaK9CarSearches #PlainSmellDoctrine #BaxtervState #WarrantlessSearch #Contraband

“What training standards are required for drug-sniffing dogs in Florida, and do they impact my case?”

“Drug-sniffing dogs must be well-trained and certified. However, if the dog can’t differentiate between legal and illegal substances, its reliability is questioned. The adequacy of the K-9’s training can be a crucial factor in your Florida drug dog case. We can investigate the training records and certifications of the K-9 involved in your search.”
Keywords: #FloridaDrugDogCase #K9Training #DrugSniffingDogs #Certifications #LegalSubstances

“How do I challenge the legality of a K-9 search in Florida?”

“Challenging a K-9 search involves filing a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the search violated your Fourth Amendment rights. We can help you gather evidence, analyze the legality of the search, and represent you in court to protect your drug dog search 4th amendment rights.”
Keywords: #DrugDogSearch4thAmendment #MotionToSuppress #IllegalK9Search #FloridaCourt #Evidence

“What are the implications of the Stephon Ford decision for future K-9 searches in Florida?”

“The Stephon Ford decision signals a shift in how Florida courts view K-9 alerts. Future searches may require additional evidence beyond a mere K-9 alert to establish probable cause. This is a significant change for Florida K-9 car searches. We can help you understand these changes and how they impact your case.”
Keywords: #FloridaK9CarSearches #StephonFordDecision #ProbableCause #WarrantlessSearch #LegalImplications

“Why do I need an experienced attorney for a Florida drug dog search case?”

“Navigating the complexities of Fourth Amendment law and recent court decisions like Stephon Ford requires an experienced attorney. We understand the nuances of Florida drug dog cases and can provide the legal expertise needed to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome. Contact us for a consultation today.“
Keywords: #FloridaDrugDogCases #ExperiencedAttorney #FourthAmendment #StephonFord #LegalExpertise

Drug Dog Case Background

The incident stemmed from a traffic stop in Lake County, Florida, in September 2020. Corporal Christie of the Groveland Police Department stopped a Lyft vehicle for speeding and non-functional tag lights. Stephon Ford, the passenger in the rear seat, became the subject of scrutiny when K-9 Polo, a drug-sniffing dog, alerted to the vehicle. Upon searching the car, officers found multiple controlled substances, including marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine, in a bag belonging to Ford.

Ford moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that K-9 Polo’s alert did not provide probable cause for the search because the dog could not distinguish between THC in illegal marijuana and legal medical marijuana or hemp. The trial court denied his motion, prompting this appeal.

Key Legal Questions

The court considered two main questions:

1. Does an undifferentiated alert from a drug-sniffing dog establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search?
2. Does the good faith exception apply when the search relied on then-binding legal precedent?

Probable Cause and K-9 Alerts

Traditionally, courts have upheld that alerts by trained drug-sniffing dogs establish probable cause for vehicle searches. However, the increasing legalization of medical marijuana and hemp has complicated this precedent. THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis, is present in varying concentrations in both legal and illegal cannabis products.

In its analysis, the Fifth District noted the following:

• K-9 Polo was well-trained and certified to detect controlled substances, including marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
• Polo’s alerts did not distinguish between legal and illegal substances, making it impossible for officers to determine the legality of the source substance based solely on the alert.
• The court referenced its 2024 decision in Baxter v. State, which held that the “plain smell” doctrine, whether applied to human officers or K-9s, cannot justify a warrantless search when the detected odor could originate from legal sources.

The court concluded that K-9 Polo’s alert alone could not supply probable cause for a warrantless search under the totality of the circumstances. However, the legal analysis did not end there.

The Good Faith Exception

Despite finding the search lacked sufficient probable cause, the court upheld the denial of Ford’s motion to suppress under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. At the time of the search in 2020, Florida precedent supported the use of drug-sniffing dog alerts as a sole basis for probable cause.

The court explained:

• The officers relied on then-binding precedent, which had not yet been overruled or clarified by cases like Baxter.
• The exclusionary rule aims to deter police misconduct. Since the officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on existing law, suppressing the evidence would serve no deterrent purpose.

Implications of the Decision

This decision marks a pivotal moment in Florida’s legal landscape, particularly in how probable cause is evaluated in light of evolving cannabis laws. Key takeaways include:

• Future Challenges: K-9 alerts may no longer suffice as sole probable cause for warrantless vehicle searches if the substance detected could be legal.
• Good Faith Exception: Evidence obtained under previously valid legal interpretations may still be admissible, even if those interpretations later change.
• Training Adjustments: Law enforcement agencies may need to refine drug-sniffing dog training to address the challenges posed by legalized cannabis.

Final Thoughts

The Stephon Ford case underscores the dynamic nature of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and its intersection with state-specific drug laws. As the legal framework continues to adapt to changes in cannabis regulation, both law enforcement and the courts must carefully balance public safety concerns with constitutional protections.

If you are facing charges stemming from a search involving a drug-sniffing dog or questions about your Fourth Amendment rights, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Legal representation can make a critical difference in protecting your rights and navigating the complexities of Florida law.

For more updates on legal developments, follow our blog or contact us today for a consultation.

Complete Opinion of the Court:

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-1995
LT Case No. 2020-CF-002312-A
_____________________________
STEPHON FORD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.
Larry Metz, Judge.
Asad Ali, of Mandell Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
January 7, 2025
EDWARDS, C.J.
Is the undifferentiated alert behavior of a properly trained police drug-sniffing dog sufficient to supply the sole probable cause for a warrantless search of a car, when that K-9 officer, while
2
trained to alert to THC1 among other substances, cannot distinguish between illegal pot and legal medical marijuana or hemp? In other words, is that sniff up to snuff?2 Going forward, that dog won’t hunt. Nevertheless, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress based on application of the good faith exception. Stephon Ford (“Appellant”) appeals the denial of his motion to suppress drug evidence found during the search of a Lyft vehicle following a routine traffic stop in September 2020. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress, arguing that the search of the vehicle was unlawful because the drug dog used in this case cannot differentiate between illegal
marijuana and legal medical marijuana or hemp. This Court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i).

Facts

The following facts were developed during the evidentiary hearing held on April 1, 2022, in connection with Appellant’s motion to suppress. Corporal (“Cpl.”) Christie of the Groveland Police Department stopped the Lyft vehicle because it was going sixty-four (64) miles per hour in a fifty-five (55) mile per hour zone and its tag lights were not functioning.3 There was no suspicion that the Lyft driver was impaired by drugs or alcohol. Appellant was the only rear seat passenger. The police described Appellant as nervous and agitated. Cpl. Christie requested the driver’s consent to search the car, but apparently prompted by Appellant’s advice, the driver refused. Cpl. Christie radioed in a request for
deployment of a drug detecting K-9 unit.

1 Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the main psychoactive
component of cannabis.
2 Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1058 (2013).
3 There was also an officer in training in Cpl. Christie’s
vehicle.
3
Groveland Police Officer Aponte arrived on the scene in about one minute, accompanied by K-9 officer, Polo.4 Aponte explained to the occupants what was going to take place. Nobody inquired whether any of them had a medical marijuana card. Officer Aponte led Polo on a walk around the outside of the vehicle to conduct a free air sniff. Polo alerted to the presence of some illegal drugs during the first pass by trying to jump on the car and displaying rapid breathing with his nose up in the air. During the second pass, Polo stood stiff, stared, and planted himself next to the car, which was also typical of how he alerted to drugs. Officer Aponte explained that when Polo does detect drugs, his behavior changes, as described above.
After the occupants were removed from the car, the police searched the car and found seven mason jars filled with marijuana, baggies containing crack cocaine, ecstasy, and methamphetamine. The illegal substances, along with a debit card in his name, were found in Appellant’s duffle or cooler bag, located in the rear seat. The Lyft driver confirmed that Appellant was holding that bag as he entered her car.
Because the sole basis for probable cause for the warrantless search of the car was K-9 Polo alerting, during the suppression hearing, counsel explored the dog’s training and certification to serve in the role of drug detection. Officer Aponte testified that Polo received an initial six weeks of training, followed by sixteen hours each month in narcotics detection and tracking, with annual narcotics certification. Polo was trained and certified to target and detect marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Polo indicates to his handler, or alerts, that he has detected one or more of those target substances by changing behavior as he attempts to pinpoint the source. His breathing becomes rapid, and he stares at what he indicates to be the source of controlled substances.
Although not claiming to be an expert, Officer Aponte expressed his understanding that Polo alerts to the THC in marijuana. THC is present in different concentrations in various forms of cannabis, including illegal street marijuana, medical
4 Appellant does not argue that the traffic stop was itself improper or unnecessarily prolonged by summoning the K-9 unit.
4
marijuana, and hemp. Polo is not trained to differentiate between those forms of cannabis when he alerts, nor has he been trained to alert differently depending upon whether the cannabis is burnt or not. Furthermore, his behavior when alerting is the same regardless of which of the several target substances Polo detects during any particular free air sniff. Thus, Polo’s alert to illegal marijuana is indistinguishable, even to Officer Aponte, from his alert to medical marijuana or hemp, and is likewise undifferentiated from his alert to cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamines.
The State argued that a K-9’s alert even to a possibly legal substance provided probable cause for a warrantless search in reliance upon Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) and Johnson v. State, 275 So. 3d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Appellant contested whether those cases were correctly decided and their applicability to the facts here. After hearing all the testimony and considering the then-controlling case law, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of the Lyft vehicle.
While reserving his right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress, Appellant ultimately pled no contest to, and was convicted of, trafficking in phenethylamines and possession of marijuana and sentenced to sixty-eight (68) months in prison. It is from the denial of the motion to suppress that he timely appealed. As the trial court noted, this is a case of first impression, given that all the cases argued during the suppression hearing involved human police officers who thought they smelled marijuana, but here none of the officers mentioned the smell of any illicit substance, and we do not know which of the target substances Polo detected or alerted to.
Standard of Review
“A motion to suppress presents mixed questions of law and fact.” Evans v. State, 989 So. 2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “The showing the [S]tate must make to establish probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle based on a drug-detection dog’s alert to the vehicle involves a trial court’s determination of the legal issue of probable cause, which [an appellate court] review[s] de novo.” Bennett v. State, 111 So. 3d 983, 983–84 (Fla.
5
1st DCA 2013) (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002) (additional citation omitted)). However, an appellate court “must defer to a trial court’s findings of fact as long as the factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.” Bennett, 111 So. 3d at 984 (citations omitted).
Analysis
A warrantless search is generally considered per se unreasonable unless it falls within a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. State v. M.B.W., 276 So. 3d 501, 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). The proponent of a motion to suppress carries the initial burden of establishing that a search occurred and was invalid. State v. Mobley, 98 So. 3d 124, 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Here, the record is clear that Appellant met his initial burden, proving there was neither consent nor a warrant authorizing the search; thus, the burden shifted to the State to prove that the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained lawfully. State v. Gay, 823 So. 2d 153, 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
One exception to the warrant requirement is for searches conducted based on probable cause. Engle v. State, 391 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). “A police officer has probable cause to conduct a search when ‘the facts available to [him] would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief’ that contraband or evidence of a crime is present.’” Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1055 (2013) (internal citations omitted). “The test for probable cause is not reducible to ‘precise definition or quantification.’” Id. (internal citation omitted). “In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities.” Brinegar v. United States, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1310 (1949).
“[P]robable cause is a fluid concept––turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts––not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2329 (1983). “Finely-tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, . . . have no place in the [determination of probable cause].” Id. at 2330. Whether the basis for probable cause is proved by machine, man, or beast, “[a]ll we have required is the kind of ‘fair probability’ on which ‘reasonable
6
and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, act.’” Harris, 133 S. Ct. at 1055.
In the past, an alert by a properly trained police dog was usually accepted as providing probable cause for a search. State v. Robinson, 756 So. 2d 249, 250–51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing State v. Orozco, 607 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied, 614 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1993); Osorio v. State, 569 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); and State v. Siluk, 567 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)). The United States Supreme Court advises that “a probable-cause hearing focusing on a dog’s alert should proceed much like any other.” Harris, 133 S. Ct. at 1058.
On appeal, nobody questions K-9 Polo’s training and ability to detect and alert to the target substances listed earlier in the opinion. Given that several of the target substances (marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines) were found during the search of the Lyft vehicle, we do not know which substance or substances Polo detected and alerted to. However, as Appellant asserted below and on appeal, it is indeed possible that Polo alerted to the THC in the marijuana found in Appellant’s duffle bag.
Appellant argues that because Polo cannot distinguish between the THC in legal medical marijuana or hemp and illegal marijuana, his alert may be to a perfectly legally substance. “The incremental legalization of certain types of cannabis at both the federal and state level has reached the point that its plain smell does not immediately indicate the presence of an illegal substance.” Baxter v. State, 389 So. 3d 803, 810–11 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).
Probable cause for a warrantless search is to be determined based upon the totality of the circumstances. Harris, 133 S. Ct. at 1055 (citations omitted). Here, the testimony is uncontroverted that the sole basis offered to justify the search of the vehicle was K-9 Polo’s alert to one or more of those target substances. This is truly a “plain smell” case, and there are no other circumstances to consider in determining whether probable cause for this warrantless search existed beyond what could be gleaned from Polo’s alert. The “plain smell” doctrine is a logical extension of the “plain view” doctrine. Baxter, 389 So. 3d at 809 (internal citations omitted). For probable cause to be properly based on the
7
perception of something via plain view or plain smell, its incriminating character, inter alia, must be “immediately apparent” to the percipient witness. Sawyer v. State, 842 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (officer’s perception of a single white pill in plain view was insufficient, as incriminating nature was only appreciated once pill was seized and imprinted design was seen on closer inspection).
At the time when Polo alerted to a target substance in the Lyft vehicle, the police officers had no way of knowing whether Polo had detected an illegal substance (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamines) or a legal substance, namely the THC in hemp or medical marijuana that was properly prescribed and in the possession of a bona fide medical marijuana card holder. Polo was trained to alert in the same manner when he encountered any of those substances; thus, as Officer Aponte testified, the dog’s alert did not tell them which target substance(s) had been detected. Whether the substance Polo smelled was legal or illegal was not readily apparent, and thus his alert, alone, could not provide the probable cause needed to justify a warrantless search. Baxter, 389 So. 3d at 809. While no hemp or medical marijuana was found, “we do not evaluate probable cause in hindsight, based on what a search does or does not turn up.” Harris, 133 S. Ct. at 1059.
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the police could not rely solely upon K-9 Polo’s alert to provide probable cause to justify the warrantless search of the Lyft vehicle and its contents. However, in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, the trial court properly applied then-binding precedent, given that the sole pronouncements were not in conflict even though they came from outside our district. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992) (“[I]n the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.”). Although the trial court was correct in its analysis and ruling at the time, our recent holding in Baxter has changed the legal landscape within the Fifth District such that the plain smell––whether perceived by man or man’s best friend––of a distinct odor which may have emanated from a legal substance does not, by itself, supply probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. Taking Baxter into account, the trial court’s ruling is legally erroneous, and the exclusionary rule
8
would ordinarily require suppressing the evidence obtained during the search of the Lyft vehicle and its contents. However, our analysis is not yet complete.
Good Faith Exception
As noted by the United States Supreme Court, “[t]he Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ but it is silent about how this right is to be enforced.” Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2423 (2011). “To supplement the bare text, this Court created the exclusionary rule, a deterrent sanction that bars the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation.” Id. However, that Court recognized the need for and created the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule for those circumstances in which police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on then-binding appellate precedent which is later overruled. Id. Under those circumstances, there is no police misconduct that would be deterred; thus, evidence obtained in those circumstances will not be excluded. Id. at 2423–24.
In September 2020, when the subject traffic stop and search were conducted, the law was clear in the Fifth District that the smell alone of marijuana, detected by one trained and familiar with its odor, would provide probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the person or vehicle from which it emanated. State v. Williams, 739 So. 2d 717, 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); State v. T.T., 594 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Similarly, in Robinson, this Court held that “[a]n alert by a properly trained police [drug-sniffing] dog provides probable cause for a search.” 756 So. 2d at 250.
Despite the advent of state legalized medical marijuana and hemp, the law in this District did not change until this Court’s recent decision in Baxter. While we could not and did not overrule Johnson or Owens,5 our conflicting opinion, Baxter, has a similar, but geographically limited effect, such that neither case is now
5 The Owens case had not yet been decided at the time the officers searched the subject car, although it was in place by the time the motion to suppress hearing was held.
9
good law in the Fifth District. That Baxter involved a human police
officer who perceived an odor while in this case it was a K-9 officer
that perceived an odor, which in both cases could have emanated
from perfectly legal sources, makes no difference here, as in both
cases it was a human who decided to conduct the warrantless
search.6
In Baxter, we determined that the officer conducting the
warrantless search did so in reasonable reliance on previously
binding case law and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Baxter’s
motion to suppress. 389 So. 3d at 813. We reach the same
conclusion here that the officers’ search of the Lyft vehicle and its
contents based solely upon Polo’s alert was consistent with thencontrolling
precedent. Thus, based on the good faith exception
articulated in Davis, we affirm the order denying Appellant’s
motion to suppress.7
AFFIRMED.
PRATT, J., concurs with opinion.
MACIVER, J., concurs in result only.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
6 In Robinson, our Court did not address issues that only arose
following Florida’s legalization of medical marijuana and hemp.
We question the durability of Robinson’s generalized holding if it
were to be applied in a set of circumstances similar to our case.
7 While our decision is irreconcilable with Owens, given the
slightly different factual situations, we do not consider the two to
be directly or explicitly in conflict.
10
Case No. 5D2023-1995 LT Case No. 2020-CF-002312-A
PRATT, J., concurring.
If the apparent smell of cannabis, standing alone, does not establish reasonable suspicion, see Baxter v. State, 389 So. 3d 803, 806, 812–13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (en banc), it cannot establish probable cause, either. Of the two standards, probable cause is the more demanding one. See Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285, 291 (Fla. 2008). A failure to establish the lesser also must fail to establish the greater. And because Officer Aponte could not determine whether Polo had alerted to legal cannabis or an illicit substance, Baxter controls.
As Baxter and this appeal both show, cannabis legalization carries collateral consequences. Even though federal and state criminal laws continue to prohibit cannabis in at least some of its forms and under many circumstances,1 our court has determined that, due to recent changes in cannabis’ legal status, its odor alone no longer indicates criminal activity to the degree required for an investigatory stop (Baxter) or a full search (our decision today). These holdings have implications for law enforcement’s future interactions with drug users and traffickers.
As here, it is often the case that marijuana travels alongside other drugs and contraband. Law enforcement regularly relies on dog sniffs to locate these illicit substances. See, e.g., Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 247–48 (2013) (chemical pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine); Robinson v. State, 327 So. 3d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (methamphetamine and hydrocodone); State v. Robinson, 756 So. 2d 249, 250–51 (Fla. 5th
1 While hemp is now legal under both state and federal law, federal law continues to criminalize all marijuana, and Florida law allows marijuana only when for “medical use.” See Baxter, 389 So. 3d at 809–10 & n. 4 (discussing federal and state legislative developments); see also 21 U.S.C. § 802(16) (defining marijuana as a controlled substance); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841–43 (prohibited acts with respect to controlled substances).
11
DCA 2000) (cocaine); State v. Orozco, 607 So. 2d 464, 464–65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (cocaine); Osorio v. State, 569 So. 2d 1375, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (cocaine); Vetter v. State, 395 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (cocaine). But going forward, under our decision today—which faithfully applies Baxter—dogs trained to alert on cannabis can no longer provide the sole basis for a stop or search.
Under our precedent,2 cannabis legalization no doubt has triggered a setback for drug-detecting canine officers. But it need not mark their retirement. For one thing, whatever “the durability of Robinson’s generalized holding if it were to be applied in a set of circumstances similar to our case,” ante, at n. 6, our decision today does not otherwise call it into doubt. There is nothing incompatible between today’s decision and the proposition that “[a]n alert by a properly trained police [drug-sniffing] dog provides probable cause for a search.” Robinson, 756 So. 2d at 250 (emphasis added). An alert by a dog trained not to alert to cannabis—or to alert to cannabis differently than it alerts to other drugs—can still on its own supply probable cause. And for another thing, even without such canine training, an undifferentiated alert can supply probable cause when combined with an officer’s questions ruling out the presence of lawful cannabis. Officers easily can be trained to ask such questions in conjunction with a dog’s undifferentiated alert.
In either case, today’s decision does not overrule Robinson’s general holding. Much less does it erase a valuable law-enforcement investigatory tool. Whether through an update to human officer training or an update to canine officer training, I expect that law enforcement can continue to rely on dog sniffs to support its critical drug-interdiction efforts within our district.
2 Baxter certified conflict with Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). See 389 So. 3d at 813.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Defending against drug crimes in Florida requires strategic legal maneuvers. Facing drug charges in Florida? Our team at Drug2go.com has your back with straightforward defenses. We challenge illegal searches, question possession claims, and contest Miranda Rights violations. From poking holes in evidence handling to disputing traffic stops, we cover the bases.

Ever heard of entrapment? We argue if law enforcement pushed you into a drug offense. Doubt crime lab results? So do we. We question accuracy and highlight errors. Medical necessity? Yep, we use that too. Constructive possession claims? We’re on it. Not enough proof? We’ll say it. Casey the Lawyer from Drug2go.com tailors defenses to your case. Get real about your defense in Florida – talk to us.

Here are ten key defenses that drug charge defense attorneys may employ to challenge drug-related charges:

Top Ten Drug Crime Defenses in Florida

Unlawful Search and Seizure:

Arguing that law enforcement conducted an illegal search or seizure without a proper 4th Amendment warrant or probable cause.

Lack of Possession:

Contesting the defendant’s actual possession of the drugs, emphasizing factors like proximity and control.

Miranda Rights Violation:

Asserting that the defendant was not properly informed of their Miranda rights during arrest and interrogation.

Chain of Custody Issues:

Challenging the integrity of the evidence by questioning the handling and documentation of seized substances.

Illegal Traffic Stop:

Contending that the traffic stop leading to the drug discovery was conducted without reasonable suspicion or violated the Fourth Amendment.

Entrapment:

Arguing that law enforcement induced the defendant to commit a drug-related offense that they would not have committed otherwise.

Crime Lab Errors:

Casting doubt on the accuracy of drug testing results, highlighting potential errors or contamination in the forensic analysis.

Medical Necessity Defense:

Asserting that the possession or use of certain drugs was medically necessary under specific circumstances.

Constructive Possession Dispute:

Contesting the prosecution’s claim that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs, challenging the evidence connecting them to the substance.

Insufficient Evidence:

Asserting that the prosecution lacks enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a potential dismissal.

Defense Attorney Checklist | Table of Drug Crimes Defenses

Importance of Checklists

Checklists are essential in the legal field, especially when dealing with complex cases like drug crime defenses. They provide a systematic way to address key details, ensuring that no critical aspects are overlooked. By using checklists, legal professionals can thoroughly challenge evidence, question procedures, and tailor defenses to the specific nuances of each case. In high-stakes situations such as drug charges, the disciplined use of checklists helps prevent oversights, leading to a more comprehensive and effective defense strategy. These straightforward tools empower legal teams to navigate the complexities of legal proceedings with precision and thorough preparation, ultimately contributing to a stronger defense.

Navigating drug crime defenses requires the expertise of a skilled attorney who can tailor the defense strategy to the specific circumstances of each case. It’s crucial to consult with legal professionals, like Casey the Lawyer at Drug2go.com, to explore the most effective defense approach for your situation.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Call a Drug Crimes Defense Expert 813-222-2220

Conclusion

Facing drug charges is a serious matter, but at Drug2go.com, we stand as your unwavering ally in the fight for justice. Our commitment is simple yet powerful – we challenge, question, and contest every aspect of your case. From dismantling illegal searches to debunking possession claims, we leave no stone unturned.

Entrapment, errors in crime lab results, or doubts about evidence – we address them all. Casey the Lawyer, our expert at Drug2go.com, tailors your defense to the unique nuances of your situation. When it comes to your defense in Florida, it’s not just a legal matter; it’s your future. Get the real and robust defense you deserve – talk to us today.

Introduction

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Prescription Drug Charges – Are you or someone you know facing drug trafficking charges in Hillsborough County, Florida? The recent dismissal of drug trafficking charges against Prescription Drug Defense Trafficking Florida offers hope in a critical aspect of defense—valid prescription defense. This comprehensive guide explores the Withholding Information From Medical Practitioner Case, shedding light on the intricacies of Florida Statute 893.13.7A8, a felony charge for obtaining drugs from a physician by withholding information. Additionally, we delve into the broader implications of the court’s ruling and its impact on drug trafficking charges. Read on to understand the significance of this case and how it can shape legal strategies in defending against drug-related accusations.

Statute Excerpt

Florida Statute: 893.13.7A8
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: Obtaining Drugs From Physician By Withholding

DRUG9892 is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.

8. To withhold information from a practitioner from whom the person seeks to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance that the person making the request has received a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance of like therapeutic use from another practitioner within the previous 30 days.

Drug Trafficking Prescription Drug Charges

Drug trafficking charges are among the most serious offenses one can face in the realm of drug-related crimes. In Florida, these charges carry severe penalties, often including lengthy prison sentences and hefty fines. The Withholding Information From Medical Practitioner Case serves as an illustrative example of how legal intricacies, especially related to valid prescription defenses, can play a pivotal role in the dismissal of such charges.

In general terms, drug trafficking involves the illegal sale, transportation, import, or distribution of controlled substances. The severity of the charges typically depends on factors such as the type and quantity of the drugs involved. Florida law categorizes drug trafficking as a felony offense, with varying degrees of severity, each associated with different penalties.

“Whether an individual has actually withheld information in violation of the statute depends on whether s/he requested a controlled substance and failed to disclose the fact that s/he received a drug of like therapeutic use within the previous thirty days. In other words, the statute requires that an individual affirmatively requesting a substance provide information to the practitioner.”

Florida State Drug Trafficking Charges:

In the state of Florida, drug trafficking is a serious offense governed by stringent laws. The severity of the charges often depends on various factors, including the type and quantity of controlled substances involved. Florida Statute 893.135 outlines the state’s approach to drug trafficking, categorizing offenses based on the type of substance and the quantity in possession.

Florida classifies drug trafficking as a felony, with potential penalties ranging from substantial fines to mandatory minimum prison sentences. The exact consequences depend on the specific substance and the amount trafficked. For instance, trafficking in opioids such as heroin or fentanyl may lead to more severe penalties compared to other controlled substances.

One key element of drug trafficking charges in Florida is the presence of mandatory minimum sentences. Judges are bound by these minimums, meaning that if an individual is convicted of drug trafficking, the court must impose a sentence that meets or exceeds these statutory minimums. This rigidity underscores the seriousness with which Florida addresses drug trafficking offenses.

Federal Middle District of Florida Drug Prescription Drug Trafficking Charges:

When drug trafficking charges escalate to the federal level, the legal landscape becomes even more complex. The Federal Middle District of Florida, encompassing cities like Tampa and Orlando, falls under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Federal drug trafficking charges typically involve violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The federal government has substantial resources and authority to prosecute these cases, often leading to more severe penalties than those imposed at the state level.

The Federal Middle District of Florida handles a wide array of drug trafficking cases, ranging from cocaine and heroin to prescription medications and synthetic drugs. Federal prosecutors have broad discretion in pursuing charges based on factors such as the quantity of drugs involved, the presence of firearms, and whether the alleged trafficking occurred near schools or other protected areas.

Federal sentences for drug trafficking convictions can be harsh, with the potential for lengthy prison terms and substantial fines. Cooperation with federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), may also play a role in the outcome of these cases.

Defense Strategies for Drug Trafficking Charges:

Facing drug trafficking charges in either the state or federal jurisdiction necessitates a robust defense strategy. Consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney, like Casey the Lawyer, is crucial. Defense strategies may include challenging the legality of searches and seizures, questioning the admissibility of evidence, and exploring potential violations of constitutional rights.

Additionally, for federal cases, negotiation and cooperation with federal prosecutors may lead to reduced charges or more favorable plea deals. The expertise of a seasoned attorney becomes invaluable in navigating the complexities of both state and federal legal systems.

In conclusion, drug trafficking charges in Florida, whether at the state or federal level, demand a comprehensive understanding of the law and a strategic defense approach. Seeking immediate legal counsel is essential for individuals facing these serious allegations. Casey the Lawyer, with a focus on drug defense, provides the expertise needed to navigate the intricate legal terrain and build a robust defense tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. If you or someone you know is confronting drug trafficking charges, don’t hesitate to contact Casey the Lawyer at 813-222-2220 for a consultation.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Implications of Court’s Ruling on Drug Trafficking Charges

The Withholding Information From Medical Practitioner Case not only addressed the specifics of the statute but also had profound implications for drug trafficking charges. By emphasizing the necessity for individuals to affirmatively request a controlled substance and provide information to the practitioner about prior prescriptions, the court’s ruling highlighted the importance of a valid prescription defense.

In cases where individuals possess valid prescriptions issued by licensed practitioners, such as in the instance of Jeremy Knipp, the court’s decision strengthens the grounds for invoking a valid prescription defense against drug trafficking charges. This legal precedent reinforces the notion that individuals with legitimate medical needs should not face severe consequences if they have adhered to proper medical protocols and possess valid prescriptions for controlled substances.

Valid Prescription Defense

Valid prescriptions are typically issued by licensed medical practitioners, such as physicians or other authorized healthcare professionals. These documents outline the type, dosage, and duration of the prescribed medication.

The possession of a valid prescription is particularly relevant in scenarios where individuals are accused of unlawfully possessing or obtaining controlled substances. It establishes a lawful basis for the individual’s access to certain medications and provides a legitimate reason for their presence.

Prescription Defense in Drug Possession Cases:

In drug possession cases, having a valid prescription can serve as a potent defense strategy. When individuals can demonstrate that they are in lawful possession of a controlled substance due to a valid prescription, it challenges the prosecution’s assertion of illegal possession. This defense strategy is especially effective when the prosecution cannot contest the authenticity of the prescription or when the prescription is for the same substance allegedly possessed.

For example, if an individual is charged with unlawfully possessing a prescription painkiller, presenting a valid prescription for that specific medication can be a compelling defense. It shifts the burden to the prosecution to prove that the possession was, indeed, unlawful.

Valid Prescription Defense in Drug Trafficking Cases:

In more serious cases, such as drug trafficking charges, the possession of valid prescriptions can be equally impactful. While drug trafficking often involves the illegal distribution or transportation of controlled substances, the existence of valid prescriptions can challenge the prosecution’s argument that the accused individuals were engaged in illicit activities.

In jurisdictions where statutes require individuals to disclose previous prescriptions when seeking similar medications, possessing valid prescriptions becomes not only a defense but a proactive legal practice. It aligns with legal obligations to inform healthcare providers about existing prescriptions and can be crucial in defending against charges related to withholding information from medical practitioners.

Collaborating with Legal Counsel:

Navigating the complexities of drug-related charges and presenting a robust prescription defense requires the expertise of a seasoned attorney. Legal professionals, such as Casey the Lawyer, understand the intricacies of drug laws and can strategically leverage valid prescriptions to build a compelling defense.

Whether at the state or federal level, consulting with an attorney early in the legal process is essential. Legal professionals can assess the specifics of the case, scrutinize the validity of prescriptions, and craft a defense strategy tailored to the unique circumstances of each client.

In conclusion, possessing valid prescriptions is a powerful legal tool that can significantly impact the outcome of drug-related cases. It not only serves as a defense against allegations of unlawful possession but also plays a vital role in challenging more severe charges like drug trafficking. If you or someone you know is facing drug-related charges, contact Casey the Lawyer at 813-222-2220 for expert legal guidance and a thorough evaluation of your case.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Navigating Drug Trafficking Charges

Navigating drug trafficking charges demands strategic legal expertise, especially in jurisdictions with stringent drug laws like Florida. Casey the Lawyer, based at Drug2go.com, brings a wealth of experience in handling complex drug-related cases, including those involving drug trafficking allegations. Understanding the nuances of statutes such as Florida Statute 893.13.7A8 and the implications of recent court rulings is essential for building a robust defense strategy.

Casey the Lawyer’s approach involves a meticulous examination of the details surrounding the charges. This includes assessing the type and quantity of the alleged controlled substances, the circumstances of the arrest, and, crucially, whether the accused individuals possess valid prescriptions for the substances in question. Leveraging legal precedents, including the Withholding Information From Medical Practitioner Case, Casey aims to secure favorable outcomes for clients facing drug trafficking charges.

Florida Drug Trafficking Minimum Mandatory Sentences

When it comes to drug trafficking charges in Florida, the state imposes minimum mandatory sentences that judges must adhere to when determining the penalties for convicted individuals. These mandatory minimums are often stringent, reflecting the severity with which the state treats drug trafficking offenses. The minimum mandatory sentences vary based on factors such as the type and quantity of the controlled substances involved in the trafficking.

For example, in Florida, trafficking in opioids like heroin may result in minimum mandatory sentences ranging from three years to life imprisonment, depending on the quantity. The minimum mandatory sentences escalate significantly for larger quantities, and individuals convicted of drug trafficking may also face substantial fines.

Dismissal of Drug Trafficking Charges

The dismissal of drug trafficking charges is a rare but impactful outcome that underscores the importance of a robust defense strategy. In cases like the Withholding Information From Medical Practitioner Case, the court’s careful examination of the statute and the defendant’s circumstances led to the dismissal of charges. This outcome is often achieved when the defense successfully presents evidence supporting a valid prescription defense or highlights procedural errors in the prosecution’s case.

To secure a dismissal of drug trafficking charges, it’s crucial to collaborate with an experienced attorney who can navigate the complexities of drug-related cases. Casey the Lawyer, with a proven track record in drug defense, understands the nuances of Florida drug laws and leverages legal precedents to build a compelling defense. Whether challenging the admissibility of evidence, questioning the legality of the arrest, or presenting a solid prescription defense, strategic legal maneuvers are essential to achieving favorable outcomes.

Prescription Drug Charges Conclusion

The dismissal of drug trafficking charges in the Withholding Information From Medical Practitioner Case underscores the paramount importance of a valid prescription defense. If you or someone you know is grappling with drug-related charges, especially drug trafficking allegations, it’s crucial to seek legal counsel promptly. Contact Casey, the experienced Hillsborough Drug Attorney, at 813-222-2220 for a consultation. Don’t let drug charges jeopardize your future—take action today to secure a robust defense.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Prescription Drug Defense Trafficking Floridapdf

Download