Drug Lawyer - Law Offices of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr.

Flaws in Florida Fentanyl Trafficking Charges

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:02:39 GMT

Fatal Flaws in Florida Fentanyl Charges: Why Statutory Precision Can Overturn a Trafficking Conviction

Florida fentanyl prosecution is reaching a critical legal turning point. When facing mandatory minimum prison sentences, every word in a state charging document matters—and a landmark decision from Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal just proved why.

In George Quinones Santiago v. State of Florida (6D24-1003, July 24, 2026), the appellate court threw out a 20-year prison sentence and ordered a full judgment of acquittal. The reason? The State of Florida charged the defendant with trafficking in fentanyl, but at trial, FDLE chemical analysis proved the substance was actually para-Fluorofentanyl—a distinct fentanyl derivative.

This ruling underscores a fundamental truth in criminal defense: the State must prove the exact offense it alleges in the charging document.

This Week on Drug2go: Comprehensive Fentanyl Defense Resources

This ruling ties directly into the legal guides and tactical breakdowns published on Drug2go this week:

Florida Fentanyl Trafficking Laws & Mandatory Minimum Sentences A complete breakdown of Florida Statute § 893.135, statutory weight thresholds (starting at just 4 grams), and the draconian mandatory minimum prison sentences triggered by trafficking allegations.
Tampa Fentanyl Trafficking Defense & K-9 Traffic Stop Searches An in-depth look at how fentanyl cases frequently originate from roadside K-9 sniffs, vehicle searches, and Fourth Amendment constitutional challenges in Hillsborough and surrounding Tampa Bay courts.
Defending Fentanyl Charges in Hillsborough County A practical guide to fighting felony drug charges, emphasizing independent lab analysis, chemical structure verification, and holding prosecutors accountable to strict statutory definitions.

Case Breakdown: Santiago v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)

The Facts

The case began with a routine traffic stop involving an Uber passenger. After a K-9 unit alerted to the vehicle, deputies searched the passenger’s bag and located a pill bottle containing a white powder. Initial field tests were positive for narcotics. However, subsequent testing by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) crime lab revealed the substance was 6.26 grams of xylazine and para-Fluorofentanyl.

The State’s Charging Mistake

The State filed an Information charging the defendant under § 893.03(2)(b)9. for trafficking in: “Four (4) grams or more, but less than fourteen (14) grams of fentanyl, or a mixture containing fentanyl.”

Under Florida law, standard Fentanyl is categorized as a Schedule II controlled substance (§ 893.03(2)(b)9.). However, para-Fluorofentanyl is a distinct fentanyl derivative, categorized separately under Florida law as a Schedule I controlled substance (§ 893.03(1)(a)62.).

The Trial & Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

At trial, the FDLE senior crime lab analyst explicitly testified on cross-examination that while para-Fluorofentanyl is a synthetic opioid and a “type” of fentanyl, fentanyl and para-Fluorofentanyl have separate chemical structures.

When the State rested, the defense immediately moved for a Judgment of Acquittal (JOA), arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the specific substance alleged in the charging document. Rather than dismissing or amending before resting, the State insisted the two were interchangeable under the statute. The trial court ultimately allowed a post-trial amendment and sentenced the defendant to 20 years in prison with a 7-year mandatory minimum.

The Appellate Ruling

The Sixth DCA reversed the conviction entirely. Writing for the court, Judge Brownlee reinforced settled Florida constitutional law:

Chemical & Statutory Distinction: Florida law treats Schedule II Fentanyl and Schedule I Fentanyl Derivatives under separate statutory sub-subparagraphs. They are legally and chemically distinct.
Failure of Proof: When the State specifies one particular statutory substance, it cannot satisfy its burden of proof by presenting evidence of a different substance at trial.
Entitlement to Acquittal: Because the State presented zero evidence of Schedule II Fentanyl, the defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal the moment the State rested its case in chief.

As the court pointedly noted: “Issues like this should be avoided by the State taking a moment to double-check its charging documents.”

What This Means for Your Defense

If you or a loved one is facing fentanyl trafficking charges in Hillsborough County or anywhere in Florida, do not assume the State’s laboratory reports match their formal charges.

Synthetic opioids, analogs, and mixtures are chemically complex. As Santiago v. State demonstrates, prosecutors frequently rush charging documents or mischaracterize lab results. A skilled defense attorney must analyze every lab report, compare the chemical compound to the exact statutory citation in the Information, and hold the State to its constitutional burden.

Fight Back with an Experienced Trial Defense

Fentanyl Charge Defense Attorney Hillsborough County Florida

With decades of experience as a former prosecutor, public defender, and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. aggressively investigates police procedures, K-9 search validity, and prosecution charging errors.

Phone: (813) 222-2220
Main Office: Tampa, Florida
Resource Center: Drug2go.com

Call 8132222220

Full Text of Fentanyl Lab Test Defense Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1003

Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-007945-A-O

_____________________________

GEORGE QUINONES SANTIAGO,

Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Michael Kraynick, Judge.

July 24, 2026

BROWNLEE, J.

Appellant George Quinones Santiago appeals his conviction for trafficking in four grams or more of a fentanyl derivative. We reverse because the State failed to prove the allegations made in its charging document, and, therefore, Appellant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

Background

In June of 2023, Appellant was the backseat passenger in an Uber during a traffic stop. After a K-9 unit alerted to the presence of narcotics, officers ordered

Appellant and the driver out of the car to pat them down for weapons. Because the satchel Appellant was wearing felt heavy, one deputy opened it to see whether it contained a firearm. He found a prescription pill bottle instead. When asked whether he had a prescription for the contents of that bottle, Appellant replied that he did not and explained that he used it for anxiety. The deputy put on gloves, removed the contents of the pill bottle, and performed a field test on a white powdery substance found inside. The presumptive test result was positive for the presence of narcotics.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement later performed its own analysis of the substance and concluded it was 6.26 grams of xylazine and para-Fluorofentanyl. Section 893.03(1)(a)62. of the Florida Statutes categorizes “para-Fluorofentanyl” as a Schedule I drug.

The State filed an information against Appellant, charging him with Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, in violation of sections 893.135(1)(c)4.a. and 893.135(1)(c)4.b.(I), Florida Statutes. The information specifically alleged Appellant trafficked in “four (4) grams or more, but less than fourteen (14) grams of fentanyl, or a mixture containing fentanyl, a substance controlled by § 893.03(2)(b)9.” Section 893.03(2)(b)9. lists “fentanyl” as a Schedule II drug.

At trial, during its case in chief, the State called the two deputies involved in the traffic stop, as well as the senior crime laboratory analyst from the FDLE who tested the substance in the prescription pill bottle. The analyst testified it was her

duty to test evidence for the presence of controlled substances, to generate reports, and to testify when needed. Her testing for this case revealed the substance was “xylazine and para-Fluorofentanyl of 6.26 plus or minus .20 grams.” She explained that para-Fluorofentanyl is a “very potent synthetic opioid” and is a type of fentanyl. But she clarified on cross-examination that fentanyl and para-Fluorofentanyl have “two separate chemical structures.” She reiterated that testimony on redirect examination and clarified that the two have the “same basic structure, minus the fact that para-Fluorofentanyl has an extra fluorine atom attached to the structure. So they are different chemically, but it is a fentanyl – type of fentanyl.”

After her testimony, the State rested, and Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal. He argued the State charged Appellant with trafficking in the specific substance listed in section 893.03(2)(b)9., which is “fentanyl,” but the evidence showed the substance in the pill bottle was actually para-Fluorofentanyl, listed in section 893.03(1)(a)62. Appellant argued the two are distinct under Florida law. According to Appellant, the State should have amended the charge to list the substance as para-Fluorofentanyl, and because it never did, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

The State responded that the crime was properly charged because para-Fluorofentanyl is a fentanyl derivative. Under its theory, the substance was a mixture containing fentanyl and had fentanyl properties and, therefore, the State was “good

to go” under the statute. After much carrying on between the parties, the court took the matter under advisement.

It later denied the motion. In doing so, the court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and relied on the FDLE agent’s testimony that the substance analyzed was a type of fentanyl. It then explained section 893.135(1)(c)(4)a., which Appellant was charged with violating, contemplates both fentanyl and fentanyl derivatives, and para-Fluorofentanyl is a fentanyl derivative.

The trial proceeded, and it was then Appellant’s turn to put on his case. Before he did so, Appellant asked the trial court to take judicial notice of section 893.03 of the Florida Statutes, so that, as he put it, the jury could see the hundreds of drugs listed and that they are separate and distinct under the Florida Statutes. Appellant asked that he be allowed to publish the statute to the jury during his case and in closing arguments. The State objected and argued the probative value of the statute would be outweighed by the danger of misleading and confusing the jury. After lengthy argument, the trial court granted the request but limited its notice to only the relevant portions of the statute.

Having lost on that issue, the State asked the court for leave to amend the information, explaining that its listing of fentanyl under section 893.03(2)(b)9. was a scrivener’s error and that the State’s position throughout the case was that the substance was a mixture containing fentanyl. It maintained para-Fluorofentanyl fell

“within the purview” of the statute. Appellant responded that he would be prejudiced by the substantive amendment of the information after the close of the State’s case. The trial court noted the defense received the FDLE report, showing the substance was actually para-Fluorofentanyl, well before trial, so it had plenty of notice of that fact. It further found the information charged a violation of section 893.135(1)(c)4.a., which includes fentanyl and fentanyl derivatives. Finding no prejudice to the defense, the court permitted the State to amend the information. That amended information charged Appellant with trafficking in “four (4) grams or more, but less than fourteen (14) grams of Fentanyl Derivative, or of a mixture containing Fentanyl Derivative, a substance controlled by Florida Statute 893.03(1)(a)62.”

After Appellant testified on his own behalf, the defense rested. Appellant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, to no avail. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of the crime charged in the amended information—trafficking in four grams or more of a fentanyl derivative. The court sentenced Appellant to twenty years in prison, with a minimum mandatory term of seven years.

Appellant now appeals his judgment and sentence. He raises several arguments for our consideration, but we address only the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant maintains, as he did below, that he was entitled to an acquittal because the State’s evidence showed the substance was para-Fluorofentanyl and not fentanyl, as alleged in the information. The State counters

that there was no error. It asserts any reference to fentanyl rather than para-Fluorofentanyl is a “distinction without a difference” and notes para-Fluorofentanyl is included in the charging statute. Finally, the State relies on the FDLE agent’s testimony that the substance was “a fentanyl.” None of these arguments save the State from its defective charging document.

Standard of Review

We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. See Vana v. State, 419 So. 3d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025). At trial, the State bears the burden to prove “each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a prima facie case.” Greenwade v. State, 124 So. 3d 215, 220 (Fla. 2013) (citing Baugh v. State, 961 So. 2d 198, 203–04 (Fla. 2007)). Where the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the judgment of acquittal should be granted. Id. “Florida law recognizes that the State has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

Analysis

Count one of the original information charged Appellant with trafficking in four grams or more of fentanyl. According to the jury instructions, in order to prove trafficking in fentanyl, the State had the burden to show: (1) the defendant knowingly

possessed, sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or brought into Florida the substance at issue; (2) the substance was a controlled substance; and (3) the substance was a certain weight.

See Johnson v. State

, 287 So. 3d 673, 676 (Fla. 1st

Section 893.135(1)(c)4. identifies those substances that can support a conviction for trafficking in dangerous fentanyl or fentanyl analogues. It provides:

A 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:

(I) Alfentanil, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b) 1.;

(II) Carfentanil, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b) 6.;

(III) Fentanyl, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b) 9.;

(IV) Sufentanil, as described in s. 893.03(2)(b) 30.;

(V) A fentanyl derivative, as described in s. 893.03(1)(a) 62.;

(VI) A controlled substance analog, as described in s. 893.0356, of any substance described in sub-sub-subparagraphs (I)-(V); or

(VII) A mixture containing any substance described in sub-sub-subparagraphs (I)-(VI),

commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as “trafficking in dangerous fentanyl or fentanyl analogues,” punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

§ 893.135(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. (2023).

Because the statute lists the substances in the disjunctive, we view them as

alternative means by which the State may prove trafficking in dangerous fentanyl or

fentanyl analogues. And where a statute lists the various means or methods of

committing an offense in the alternative, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

permit the State to charge the conduct in the alternative.

See

Fla. R. Crim. P.

Florida law has long held, however, that “where an offense may be committed in various ways, the evidence must establish it to have been committed in the manner charged in the indictment. . . . [I]f [only] one of the state of facts is alleged, it cannot be established by proof of the other.” Long v. State, 92 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla. 1957); see also Eaton v. State, 908 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“The law is well settled in Florida that where an offense can be committed in more than one way, the trial court commits fundamental error when it instructs the jury on an alternative theory not charged in the information.” (citations omitted)). Indeed, “[n]o principle of criminal law is better settled than that the State must prove the allegations set up in the information or the indictment.” Lewis v. State, 53 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 1951).

In this case, the State narrowed its allegations and specifically identified the controlled substance at issue as “fentanyl, or of a mixture containing fentanyl, a substance controlled by Florida Statute 893.03(2)(b)9.” Thus, at trial, the State had

the burden to prove Appellant knowingly sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or brought into the State of Florida four grams or more of fentanyl, as described in section 893.03(2)(b)9. But the State never proved that charge. The State did not present any evidence that the substance deputies seized from Appellant was fentanyl. Rather, the State’s evidence unequivocally showed that substance was para-Fluorofentanyl, a fentanyl derivative. And while the State urges us that this is merely a “distinction without a difference,” the statutes tell a different story.

Fentanyl is identified in section 893.03(2)(b)9., Florida Statutes, as a Schedule II drug. As described in section 893.03(2), a Schedule II substance has “a high potential for abuse[,] . . . a currently accepted but severely restricted medical use in treatment in the United States, and abuse of the substance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.” The statute then lists those substances that are controlled in Schedule II, including Fentanyl. See § 893.03(2)(b)9., Fla. Stat. Fentanyl, as described in section 893.03(2)(b)9., is listed in the trafficking statute under section 893.135(1)(c)4.a.(III).

Unlike fentanyl, para-Fluorofentanyl is listed in section 893.03(1)(a)62. as a

Schedule I drug. Section 893.03(1) describes Schedule I substances as those that

have “a high potential for abuse and . . . no currently accepted medical use in

treatment in the United States and in its use under medical supervision does not meet

accepted safety standards.” Subsection 893.03(1)(a)62. lists certain “fentanyl

derivatives,” including but “not limited to: Para-Fluorofentanyl.” § derivatives,” including but “not limited to: Para-Fluorofentanyl.” § derivatives,” including but “not limited to: Para-Fluorofentanyl.” § derivatives,” including but “not limited to: Para-Fluorofentanyl.” §

Once the State charged Appellant with trafficking in fentanyl, “as described in [section] 893.03(2)(b)9.,” it could not satisfy its burden of proof by submitting evidence that Appellant trafficked in a fentanyl derivative, “as described in [section] 893.03(1)(a)62.” See Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1973) (“The right of persons accused of serious offenses to know, before trial, the specific nature and detail of crimes they are charged with committing is a basic right guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions.”).

Finally, nothing about the FDLE agent’s testimony alters our conclusion. The State urges that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal because the agent testified that para-Fluorofentanyl is a type of fentanyl. While that is true, the State overlooks that the FDLE agent later clarified that the two substances have “separate chemical structures.” She stated that para-Fluorofentanyl has an extra fluorine atom attached to the structure, making them “different chemically.” Thus, the totality of her testimony established that the substances are indeed different, as reflected in the statutes.

Conclusion

Here, the State charged Appellant with trafficking in “fentanyl” as “a substance controlled by Florida Statute 893.03(2)(b)9.,” but it offered no evidence of that substance at trial. And, when Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal based on this failure of proof, the State maintained that the charging document was correct rather than seeking to amend it. Because the State did not present competent substantial evidence of every element charged, Appellant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal the first time that he asked for it. Accordingly, we have no choice but to reverse and remand this case for entry of such judgment.

In conclusion, we echo Judge Guard’s recent observation that “issues like this should be avoided by the State taking a moment to double-check its charging documents.” Facundo v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1039, D1040 (Fla. 2d DCA May 22, 2026). Indeed, “prosecutors must constantly strive to exert that degree of professional skill and diligence in the preparation of charges and the presentation of evidence in support thereof worthy of the position.” Waterman v. State, 317 So. 2d 469, 469 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

NARDELLA and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

Laura L. Cepero, of Law Office of Lindsay Chase, Hollywood, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

Florida Court Tosses Evidence Due to Unnecessary K-9 Traffic Stop Delay

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 12:06:09 GMT

Florida Court Quashes Evidence Due to Unnecessary K-9 Traffic Stop Delay

In a pivotal ruling for criminal defense rights, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Hudson v. State (Case No. 5D2025-1286, July 24, 2026), addressing the critical boundaries of police authority during routine traffic stops. The appellate decision reinforces established constitutional limits, confirming that law enforcement officers cannot impermissibly prolong a traffic detention to await or perform a narcotics dog sniff without independent reasonable suspicion.

Facts of the Case: Hudson v. State

Nicholas Jamal Hudson was riding as a passenger in a vehicle subjected to a traffic stop in Marion County, Florida. Approximately four minutes into the stop, the pulling officer radioed for a K-9 narcotics unit. Although the K-9 unit arrived promptly, ten minutes and twenty seconds elapsed post-stop before the exterior drug sniff commenced.

Following the dog’s alert, officers searched the vehicle and discovered contraband, leading to criminal charges against Hudson. Hudson entered a no-contest plea while reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, acknowledging that the suppression motion was dispositive of the prosecution.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Writing for the Fifth DCA, Judge Edwards highlighted the governing principles established in precedent such as Illinois v. Caballes and Whitfield v. State. While law enforcement may utilize a drug-detection dog around the exterior of a vehicle during a lawful stop, that search must be completed within the time strictly necessary to execute routine traffic tasks. These permissible tasks include checking driver licenses, verifying registration, conducting warrant checks, and issuing a traffic ticket or warning.

In Hudson’s case, the State of Florida presented no evidence to explain or justify why more than ten minutes passed prior to the dog sniff. The officer failed to issue a traffic citation and could not confirm whether a written warning was ever drafted. Because the traffic stop was unnecessarily prolonged, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling and quashed the order denying Hudson’s motion to suppress.

Judicial Concurrence Highlights the Prosecution’s Burden

In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Eisnaugle emphasized the strict burden of proof placed on the State during motion to suppress hearings involving warrantless searches. Citing the landmark decision Rodriguez v. United States, Judge Eisnaugle explained that a dog sniff that prolongs a stop beyond its routine administrative purpose results in an unlawful seizure.

Because law enforcement searched the vehicle without a warrant, the legal burden shifted to the State to prove that the evidence was obtained lawfully. Because the evidentiary record contained no details showing whether the officer was actively investigating the traffic infraction or simply idling while waiting for the dog unit, the State failed to meet its evidentiary burden.

Practical Implications for Tampa Bay Residents

This appellate decision provides a vital defense mechanism for individuals facing drug charges originating from traffic stops across Tampa and Hillsborough County. If law enforcement detains you on the roadside while delaying routine paperwork to coordinate a K-9 search, your Fourth Amendment rights may have been violated.

For expert assistance reviewing search procedures and filing motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence, contact Board-Certified Criminal Trial Specialist W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. today at 813-222-2220 or visit Drug2Go Legal Defense to schedule a consultation.

https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2492827/opinion/Opinion_2025-1286.pdf

Full Text of Opinion

DogSniffOpinion_2025-1286 Download

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 5D2025-1286
LT Case No. 42-2024-CF-1010-A

NICHOLAS JAMAL HUDSON,
Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Barbara Kissner, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Evan Altes, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tabitha
Mills, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

July 24, 2026

EDWARDS, J.

Nicholas Jamal Hudson, (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction
and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained
following a traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was riding as a
passenger.¹ Appellant claims that the officer impermissibly and
unnecessarily prolonged the traffic stop for the purpose of
summoning a K-9 team to the scene to conduct a drug detection
sniff around the exterior of the car. Appellant points out that the
officer radioed for the K-9 team approximately four (4) minutes
after the stop was initiated, the K-9 arrived very quickly
thereafter; however, a total of ten (10) minutes and twenty (20)
seconds elapsed post-stop before the K-9 exterior sniff of the car
began.

“It is well established that the use of a narcotics dog to sniff a
vehicle does not constitute a search and may be conducted during
a consensual encounter or traffic stop.” Whitfield v. State, 33 So.
3d 787, 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543
U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). “However, absent an articulable suspicion
of criminal activity, the time an officer takes to issue a citation
should last no longer than is necessary to make any required
license or registration checks and to write the citation.” Id. (citing
Maxwell v. State, 785 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (additional
citations omitted)).² “[T]he canine search of the exterior of the
vehicle must be completed within the time required to issue a
citation.” Id. (citing Eldridge v. State, 817 So. 2d 884, 887 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2002)).

The State offered no evidence to justify the length of time that
expired between the traffic stop and the K-9 walk around. The
officer who stopped the vehicle did not issue a traffic ticket and
couldn’t recall whether he issued a written warning to the driver.
We agree that the traffic stop was improperly and unnecessarily
prolonged. Accordingly, we quash the order denying Appellant’s
motion to suppress.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS, J., concurs.
EISNAUGLE, J., concurs with opinion.

¹ Appellant entered a no contest plea to the multiple charges
lodged against him, which were based on contraband seized
following the K-9 walk around. He reserved the right to appeal the
denial of his motion to suppress, which was acknowledged below
as dispositive.

² It is also appropriate for the officer to take time during the
stop to determine if the driver or any passenger has any
outstanding warrants. Vangansbeke v. State, 223 So. 3d 384, 386
(Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

Case No. 5D2025-1286
LT Case No. 42-2024-CF-1010-A

EISNAUGLE, J., concurring.

I concur in the majority’s decision because the State failed to
carry its burden at the suppression hearing.

“[A] seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the
Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably
infringes interests protected by the Constitution.” Illinois v.
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005). For that reason, “[a] dog-sniff
that prolongs a traffic stop… results in an unlawful seizure in
violation of the Fourth Amendment absent reasonable suspicion to
prolong the stop.” Vangansbeke v. State, 223 So. 3d 384, 386 (Fla.
5th DCA 2017) (citing Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348
(2015)). “The inquiry is whether the dog-sniff prolonged the stop
beyond the necessary time to conduct the normal inquiries incident
to a traffic stop—such as determining whether the driver and
passengers have outstanding warrants and to issue a traffic
citation or warning.” Id.

With no search warrant to authorize the search, “the state
was obliged at the suppression hearing to demonstrate that the
evidence sought to be suppressed was lawfully obtained.” Beasley
v. State, 939 So. 2d 220, 220-21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also State
v. Gay, 823 So. 2d 153, 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (recognizing that
when no search warrant has been issued, the state has the burden,
on a motion to suppress, to establish that the evidence sought to
be suppressed was obtained lawfully); State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d
343, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (same). “As a practical matter,
absence of a search warrant in the court file suffice[s] to shift the
burden of going forward to the prosecution.” Setzler, 667 So. 2d at

There is no warrant in this case. The State therefore had the
burden of proof below.

As the majority observes, our record contains no evidence
establishing what transpired between the initiation of the traffic
stop and the dog sniff. We do not know whether the officer was
investigating the traffic infraction, preparing a warning, or simply
waiting for the K-9 unit. See Jones v. State, 187 So. 3d 346, 348
(Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding a Fourth Amendment violation where
“the officer abandoned his reason for the traffic stop (writing the
seatbelt citation) and instead chose to conduct the sniff of
Defendant’s vehicle”). Because the State failed to establish that
the stop remained lawful at the time of the sniff, we must reverse.

Tampa Drug Court Lawyer Explains Florida Drug Court Agreements

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 12:36:46 GMT

Watch: Drug Court Explained (Tampa Defense Perspective)

📺 Video – What do you do in drug court specialty court treatment program in Hillsborough County, Florida?

Drug2Go.com – Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr
📞 Call Now: 813-222-2220

Drug Court agreements in Florida are binding court-supervised contracts that can significantly impact your criminal case, probation terms, and long-term record exposure. Before signing, you should fully understand what these agreements require and how violations are handled in practice.

You can learn more about my background as a Tampa criminal defense attorney here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/about/
Or contact my office directly here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/contact/

For broader criminal defense context, you can also review my drug crimes defense resources:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/

What Is a Florida Drug Court Agreement?

A Drug Court agreement is a written legal contract that requires a defendant to comply with court-ordered treatment, drug testing, counseling, and supervision conditions. It is not voluntary treatment in the traditional sense—it is a structured legal program enforced by a judge.

Drug Court often overlaps with serious drug charges, including cases involving possession of controlled substances, which you can learn more about here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-possession-attorney/

It may also intersect with allegations involving intent to sell or distribute controlled substances, which are discussed here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-intent-to-sell-lawyer/

Why Are Defendants Offered Drug Court in Tampa?

Drug Court is typically offered when the court believes substance use is a contributing factor in the alleged offense and that treatment may reduce future criminal behavior. However, eligibility is always determined by the court and may depend on charge severity, prior record, and prosecutorial approval.

These offers often arise in cases involving serious allegations such as drug trafficking, which is discussed in more detail here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-trafficking-attorney/

They may also involve cases involving fentanyl-related charges, which are explained here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-fentanyl-trafficking-attorney/

What Does a Drug Court Program Require?

Most Drug Court programs include structured requirements that must be completed over multiple phases. These typically include frequent court appearances, counseling, drug testing, and compliance with supervision rules.
Drug Court participation often connects directly with broader defense strategies involving drug charges, which are covered in my drug crimes practice area overview:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/

In many cases, the evidence used in Drug Court-related prosecutions is challenged through illegal search and seizure defenses, which you can read about here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/illegal-search-and-seizure-florida-drug-cases/

How Do Drug Court Phases Work?

Drug Court programs are usually divided into phases that gradually reduce supervision as the participant demonstrates compliance and stability. Early phases are highly structured, while later phases focus more on relapse prevention and long-term recovery planning.

These phased systems often run parallel to probation supervision and broader criminal defense strategies discussed throughout my site here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/

What Happens If You Violate Drug Court Rules?

Violations of Drug Court conditions can result in sanctions ranging from increased supervision to incarceration depending on the severity of the violation. The judge has broad discretion to enforce compliance. Violations often occur in cases involving underlying drug offenses such as possession or trafficking cases discussed here:

👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-possession-attorney/
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-trafficking-attorney/

Search and seizure issues may also become relevant if evidence is challenged:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/illegal-search-and-seizure-florida-drug-cases/

What Are the Financial Requirements of Drug Court?

Drug Court programs often require participants to pay administrative fees, testing costs, and treatment-related expenses. These costs are mandatory in many jurisdictions and continue throughout participation.

Financial obligations can become significant depending on case duration and program phase, which is why reviewing your case early with counsel is important.

To discuss your case directly, you can contact my office here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/contact/

Can You Travel While in Drug Court?

Most Drug Court agreements restrict travel outside the jurisdiction without prior approval from the court or probation officer. Unauthorized travel can be treated as a violation of program conditions. Travel restrictions are commonly imposed in cases involving serious drug charges, including those outlined in my drug possession defense practice area:
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-possession-attorney/

What Happens After Completing Drug Court?

Successful completion of Drug Court may result in reduced penalties, modified probation, or other favorable outcomes depending on the underlying charge and court structure. However, outcomes are always determined by the court and are not guaranteed.

Drug Court vs Traditional Criminal Case

Option	Structure	Risk Level	Outcome
Drug Court	Treatment + supervision	High compliance burden	Possible reduced penalties
Criminal Case	Sentencing / probation	Fixed exposure	Predictable penalties

Drug Court may be beneficial in some cases, but traditional defense strategies may be more appropriate depending on the facts of your case.

Why Legal Review Before Signing Matters

Drug Court agreements are legally binding court orders that can significantly impact your freedom, probation obligations, and long-term criminal record exposure. Once signed, you are expected to comply with all terms under court supervision.

Before entering any agreement, I strongly recommend reviewing your case here:
👉 https://drug2go.com/about/
👉 https://drug2go.com/contact/

Official Resources

Florida Courts: https://www.flcourts.gov/
Florida Statutes (Justia): https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/
Florida Department of Corrections: https://www.dc.state.fl.us/

Speak With a Tampa Drug Court Defense Lawyer

Drug Court may offer an opportunity for treatment-based resolution, but it also imposes strict legal obligations that must be fully understood before signing.

📞 Call 813-222-2220

👉 https://drug2go.com/about/
👉 https://drug2go.com/contact/
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-possession-attorney/
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/tampa-drug-trafficking-attorney/
👉 https://drug2go.com/blog/illegal-search-and-seizure-florida-drug-cases/

Drug Court Agreement | Contract | Sample

Drug Court Contract

Tampa, Florida Drug Defense Attorney has reviewed and now publishes a typical Drug / DUI Court Agreement presented to defendants in at least one Florida County.

Drug Court Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-813-222-2220

The text of the agreement is below:

XXXX COUNTY DRUG COURT DUI DRUG COURT PROGRAM’S COORDINATED STRATEGY

AGREEMENT, ORIENTATION, AND RULES

This AGREEMENT is entered into this day, by the Client who agrees that:

The Client meets the criteria and is qualified for admission to the DUI Drug Court Program (hereinafter, the Program). And it is in the Client’s best interest to enter into this Agreement.

The Misdemeanor Client shall participate in the Program for a minimum of twelve (12) consecutive months. In accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Felony Client shall participate in the Program for a minimum of twenty-four (24) months. The Program shall consist of:

A. Phase I Requirements: Duration — MM (14 Weeks): Felony (28 Weeks)

1) Bi-weekly (every other week) court appearances.

2) Attend a minimum of 2 hours of group and/or individual therapy sessions. 1 time per week.
3) Attend a minimum of 4 AA/NA meetings per week. Additional meetings may he. required upon treatment provider recommendation.
4) Submit to random alcohol/drug screens, Client must call the Color Line daily at (863) 534-5828.

5) Comply with any additional requirements recommended by the treatment provider.

6) Defendant will be responsible for all costs associated with the DUI Court Program.

B. Phase II Requirements: Duration — MM (22 Weeks)~ Felony (44 Weeks)

1) Bi-weekly (every other week) court appearances.

2) Attend a minimum of 2 hours of group and/or individual therapy sessions, I time per week.
3) Attend a minimum of 3 AN/NA meetings per week. Additional meetings may be required upon treatment provider Recommendation.
4) Submit to random alcohol/drug screens. Client must call the Color Line daily at (863) 534-5828.

5) Comply with any additional requirements recommended by treatment provider.

6) Defendant will be responsible for all costs associated with the DUI Court Program.

7) There will be NO entry into Phase III until a sponsor has been obtained.

C. Phase III Requirements: Duration — MM (16 weeks); Felony (32 Weeks)

1) Minimum monthly court appearances.

2) Attend a minimum of 2 hours of group and/or individual therapy sessions, biweekly.
3) Attend a minimum of 3 AA/NA meetings per week. Additional meetings may be required upon treatment provider Recommendation.
4) Submit to random alcohol/drug screens. Client must call the Color Line daily at (863) 534-5828.

5) Comply with any additional requirements recommended by the treatment provider.
6) Relapse prevention will be an essential element of Phase 111 treatment and shall be addressed for at least 1 hour during the Group and/or individual sessions.
7) Maintain frequent contact with sponsor.

8) Develop an aftercare plan.

9) Defendants will be responsible for all costs associated with the DUI Court Program.

DUI Drug Court Clients who are on periods of probation longer than twelve (12) or Twenty-lour (24) months may, at the discretion of the Court or Probation, be extended in the Program for a period not to exceed the term of their probation. The Program shall consist of:

A. Phase IV Requirements (for those on extended probation): Duration — not To exceed term of probation

1) Minimum monthly court appearances.

2) Attend a minimum of 1 half hour individual therapy session per month.
3) Attend a minimum of 3 AA/NA meetings per week. Additional meetings may be required upon treatment provider Recommendation.
4) Submit to random alcohol/drug screens. Client must call the Color Line daily at (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ.

5) Comply with any additional requirements recommended by the treatment provider.

6) Relapse Prevention will be a continuing element of Phase IV treatment and shall be addressed in individual therapy.

7) Continue to maintain frequent contact with sponsor.

8) Implement the aftercare plan developed in Phase III.

9) Defendants will continue to be responsible for all costs associated with the DUI Court Program.

4. The Defendant shall appear in open court, when and as ordered to do so by the Court or the DUI Drug Court Program, and upon proper notification at his/her last known address. Failure to appear in court shall constitute a prima-facie violation of the terms of this Agreement.

5. For participation in the DUI Drug Court Program:

a. The Client shall pay the XXX County DUI Drug Court the amount of $l00 for the Initial client assessment and the first drug test, with such amount Due and payable upon the first visit with the counselor.

b. The Client shall pay the XXX County DUI Drug Court an administrative fee of $180 per month for the services provided by the Drug Court Program, the first payment of which is due thirty (30) days after signing of this Agreement.

c. For those Clients placed in Phase IV, the Client shall pay the XXX County DUI Drug Court Program an administrative fee of $140 per month for the services provided by the DIM Drug Court Program, the first payment of which is due thirty (30) days after placement in Phase IV.

d. All fees paid to XXX County Drug Court are non-refundable.

e. In the event you graduate or are terminated from the program and have not paid all fees due, these fees will be D6’d against your driver’s license. This means your license will be suspended until full payment is made and you will be responsible to pay additional fees to reinstate your driving privileges.

6. The Client shall comply with the following terms and conditions as a part of this Agreement:

a. Enter and successfully complete the DUI Drug Court Program consisting of evaluation and assessment, intervention, treatment, multiple urine Screens, and payment of all fees;
b. Comply with all program requirements and those imposed by his/her DUI Drug Court Counselor, Probation Officer and the Court;

c. Advise his/her Probation Officer of any changes in address, telephone number, employment status or location, education, or treatment activities;
d. Participate in other programs and/or evaluations as may be established by his/her Counselor, Probation Officer or the Court, the cost of which shall be paid for by the Client;
e. Truthfully answer all inquiries and follow all instructions of his/her Counselor, Probation Officer and expressly permit the Counselor and Probation Officer to visit his/her home, place of employment, school, or other location for the purpose of providing adequate supervision;

f. Make restitution, if necessary, as directed by his/her Counselor, Probation Officer or the Court;

g. Obey all Federal, state, and local laws and ordinances;
h. Associate only with law-abiding persons; and
i. Work regularly at a lawful occupation and/or pursue a course of study as a full-time student.

7. The Client shall not:
a. Use or possess alcohol or any illegal drugs;
b. Own, have in his/her possession, or attempt to purchase a firearm or any type of weapon; and

c. Leave the County or the State without the permission of his/her Probation Officer or the Court.

8. The Client acknowledges that he/she may be arrested without a warrant and be held without bond for violating any of these terms and conditions, and be brought before the Court for further disposition.

9. The Client acknowledges that he/she. Will be subject to warrantless searches and seizures of his/her person and belongings for illegal drugs/alcohol and/or weapons.

10. As a part of our services and to assess the effectiveness of our Program. The Client will be asked to complete a confidential survey for a period of up to twelve (12) months after completing the Program. The Client agrees that he/she will keep a current address with the DUI Drug Court, arid will complete and return any and all questionnaires and surveys that arc sent to the Client up to twelve (12) months post-discharge.

11. The Client acknowledges, understands, and agrees that any violation of this Agreement including testing positive for alcohol or illegal drugs could result in him/her receiving one or more of the following sanctions: 1) ½ day in Court; 2) increase urinalyses; 3) Jail; 4) Essays; 5) Curfew; 6) Lengthen time in program; 7) Community service; 8) Increased group and/or individual sessions; 9) Increase NA/AA: 10) Termination; II) Electronic Monitoring; and 12) Any other sanction the Court may deem appropriate. If client objects to or refuses to comply with any of the therapeutic consequences administered by the DUI Drug Court Judge. He/she can be terminated from the program at that time and his/her probation will be revoked.

12. The Client understands that he/she shall be terminated from the DUI Drug Court Program Upon request if ordered by the Court for non-compliance with program rules and regulations.

13. The Client’s entry into this Agreement is being made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. If the client fails to abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, this will constitute a violation of their probation and they may be sentenced up to the maximum amount of time for the offense they arc on probation.

14. The Client acknowledges, understands, and agrees that if he/she is dismissed or terminated from the Program either voluntarily or involuntarily, he/she shall not be permitted to re-enter the Program at a later date.

By signing below, the Client acknowledges they have read and understand this Agreement and agree to comply with its terms and conditions.

THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON APPROVAL OF THE COURT.

Drug Court Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-813-222-2220

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

WF Casey Ebsary Jr Drug Crimes Expert

Tampa Drug Trafficking Attorney

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:41:00 GMT

Questions & Answers with W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Introduction

Tampa Drug Trafficking Attorney needed? I am W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor. At Drug2Go.com, I defend individuals charged with serious drug trafficking offenses throughout Tampa, Hillsborough County, and surrounding areas. Drug trafficking cases are among the most aggressively prosecuted crimes in Florida and often carry mandatory minimum prison sentences that can dramatically impact your life.

If you are searching for a Tampa drug trafficking attorney, you are likely facing an urgent and high-stakes situation. This page answers the most important questions and connects you to critical resources so you can act immediately.

FAQ

What is drug trafficking in Florida?

Drug trafficking in Florida is defined primarily by the weight of a controlled substance rather than intent to sell. This means a person can be charged with trafficking even if there is no evidence of distribution or sales activity.
Florida law imposes strict penalties based on specific weight thresholds, making these cases far more serious than simple possession charges.

What substances can lead to trafficking charges?

Trafficking charges can involve cocaine, fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana / cannabis, and other controlled substances. Each substance has its own threshold amounts that trigger trafficking charges under Florida law.

For detailed breakdowns of cocaine trafficking penalties, visit:
https://drug2go.com/florida-cocaine-minimum-mandatory-law/

Tampa drug trafficking defense

What are the penalties for drug trafficking in Tampa?

Drug trafficking penalties are severe and often include mandatory minimum prison sentences and substantial fines. Judges generally have limited discretion to reduce these sentences once the thresholds are met.

Florida Drug Trafficking Penalties (Example – Cocaine)

Weight	Mandatory Minimum Prison	Fine
28g – 200g	3 years	$50,000
200g – 400g	7 years	$100,000
400g+	15 years	$250,000

These penalties apply regardless of prior criminal history in many cases.

Can I be charged with trafficking without selling drugs?

Yes, Florida law does not require proof of sale to charge trafficking. Simply possessing a certain quantity of a controlled substance is enough to trigger trafficking charges. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Florida drug law and often leads to severe consequences for individuals who did not believe they were involved in distribution.

What is constructive possession in trafficking cases?

Constructive possession means the drugs were not found on your person but in a location you control, such as a vehicle or residence. The State must prove knowledge of the substance and the ability to control it. These cases are often defensible because multiple individuals may have access to the same area, making it more difficult for the prosecution to prove control beyond a reasonable doubt.

What defenses are available to drug trafficking charges?

Drug trafficking cases frequently involve constitutional issues, particularly related to search and seizure. If law enforcement violated your rights, evidence may be suppressed, which can significantly weaken the State’s case. Other defenses may include lack of knowledge, lack of possession, and challenges to the weight or testing of the substance.

Can drug trafficking charges be reduced or dismissed?

In some cases, trafficking charges can be reduced or dismissed depending on the evidence and legal issues involved. However, these cases are complex and often require aggressive legal strategy and early intervention. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws make these cases more difficult, but they do not eliminate all defense options.

What happens after a drug trafficking arrest?

After arrest, the case proceeds through first appearance, arraignment, and pretrial proceedings. During this time, your attorney evaluates the evidence, files motions, and develops a defense strategy. Early legal representation is critical because key decisions made at the beginning of the case can significantly impact the outcome.

Will a trafficking conviction stay on my record?

Yes, a drug trafficking conviction typically results in a permanent felony record. This can affect employment, housing, and other aspects of your life for years to come. Avoiding a conviction or minimizing long-term consequences should be a primary focus in any defense strategy.

Why should I hire a Tampa drug trafficking attorney?

Drug trafficking charges carry some of the most severe penalties in Florida law. Without experienced legal representation, you risk mandatory prison sentences and life-altering consequences. As a former prosecutor, I understand how these cases are built and how to identify weaknesses. My approach focuses on protecting your rights and pursuing the best possible outcome.

How do I get help immediately?

If you or a loved one is facing a drug trafficking charge in Tampa or Hillsborough County, time matters. Acting quickly can preserve defenses and improve your chances of a favorable outcome.

Contact me here:

https://drug2go.com/contact -casey-the-lawyer/

Or call now for a confidential consultation.

Conclusion

Drug trafficking charges in Tampa are serious, complex, and carry mandatory penalties that can change your life. Whether you are facing allegations involving cocaine, fentanyl, or other substances, the legal system moves quickly and aggressively.

If you are searching for a Tampa drug trafficking attorney, take action now. The right defense strategy can make a meaningful difference in protecting your future.

Description

Tampa drug trafficking attorney defending cocaine, fentanyl & felony cases. Call Casey Ebsary now for a confidential consultation.

Marijuana

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:24:18 GMT

Marijuana Charges in Tampa, Florida | Hillsborough County

Watch Video – Marijuana charges can leave you with a permanent criminal record. Some communities have laws that allow forfeiture or the seizing and taking of a vehicle involved with an alleged marijuana crime. A Tampa marijuana Lawyer who is Board Certified as a Criminal Trial Lawyer, can help save you and your vehicle when there are drug charges including trafficking and cannabis a/k/a “weed.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Ask a Lawyer – Free Phone Consultation Call 813-222-2220

Isn’t Marijuana Legal in Florida?

No – the Drug Remains Illegal absent a Compassionate Use Card issued upon recommendation of a doctor. With all the media attention on the ballot issue in November, people may still forget that Cannabis / Marijuana is still a violation of Chapter 893 of the Florida Statutes. Stories of a typical drug bust can be found here.

Florida Marijuana
Laws Summary

Legal Issues of constructive possession, knowledge, dominion and control, lack of a search warrant, and probable cause still remain issues to be challenged and presented to the court, the prosecutor or a Jury. If and when the law on medical marijuana changes, the drug remains a controlled substance under both State and Federal laws

Here are a Few Frequently Asked Questions FAQ

Can Marijuana Charges be Dropped?

Yes, Florida Drug Court Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer Casey Ebsary of Tampa helps with, Marijuana, cocaine, prescription, and other drug charges that can be dropped. We have experience and training as both a drug court Prosecutor and is on the defense side helping people navigate treacherous waters when drug charges are at hand. Call 813-222-2220 for a free consultation at no cost or obligation.

Notice: Under Florida law all drug convictions can result in a 2-year (24 month) suspension of driver’s license.
We defend cannabis charges in the following Tampa Bay area Florida counties: Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, and Polk County. Possible defenses include search and seizure, constructive possession, invalid search warrants, invalid pat-downs, and Miranda violations, to name a few.

You can search this site by entering your question in to the search bar at the top to find more information about defenses that can be used. We have hundreds of pages of information on Florida Drug Laws and Florida Marijuana and Drug Law News. This site is one of the largest sites on the web devoted to Florida Marijuana and Drug Law News and information.

Drug2103 Possession of Cannabis Less than 20 Grams

Florida Courts Do Not Require and Expert or a Lab Test to Prove Possession Charges or to establish the chemical makeup of Cannabis or Marijuana. The field presumptive test and the testimony of the arresting officer is all they need.

Possession of Cannabis
Less Than 20 Grams

“the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree”

Form Code: DRUG2103

Florida Statute: 893.13.6B
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st

Description: POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS

DRUG2103 is one of the most commonly charged offenses in Tampa and Hillsborough County, Florida.

Florida Statute 893.13.6B

Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

893.13.6(b) If the offense is the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. For the purposes of this subsection, “cannabis” does not include the resin extracted from the plants of the genus Cannabis, or any compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.

Drug2102 Possession of Cannabis More than 20 Grams

Possession of more than 20 grams of weed is a felony in Florida. Cops can and do attempt to seize and forfeit motor vehicles used during the alleged crime. Additionally, judges and prosecutors can and do seek suspension of a driver’s license for 2 years. In short, Florida drug laws remain harsh for those who do not have a compassionate use medical marijuana card.

Felony Possession of Cannabis

Form Code: DRUG2102

Florida Statute: 893.13.6A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: POSSESSION OF CANNABIS

DRUG2102 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS 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.

(6)(a) It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Can Other Drug Charges be Dropped?

There are three main ways to avoid a conviction. Win the case at trial, get the evidence suppressed, or have the case diverted into the Drug Court. Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer Casey Ebsary of Tampa helps with, Marijuana and other drug charges that can be dropped. Tampa Bay area marijuana / cannabis defense lawyer W. F. ”Casey” Ebsary has experience and training as both a drug court Prosecutor and on the defense side helping people navigate treacherous waters when drug charges are at hand.

“drug charges result in suspension of Driver’s License”

Florida State Marijuana
Law Penalty Summary

Aside from the drug court, sometimes law enforcement fails to follow the requirements of the Fourth Amendment on Search and Seizure. Courts sometimes suppress evidence and marijuana seized without a valid Search Warrant.The case cannot be prosecuted if key evidence is tossed.

What are the Penalties – Florida State Marijuana Law Penalty Summary:

An ever-increasing number of drug charges result in suspension of Driver’s License. Additionally the penalties are listed below. Any conviction can result driver’s license suspension for 6 months to 2 years.

“sale or delivery occurring within 1,000 feet of a specified location is punishable by up to 15 years in prison”

Possession:

20 g or less Misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
More than 20 g Felony 5 years $5,000

Sale or Cultivation:

Delivery of 20 g or less Misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
25 lbs or less Felony 5 years $5,000
25 to 2,000 lbs (or 2,000 plants) Felony 3 years MinMan* $25,000
2,000 to 10,000 lbs (or 10,000 plants) Felony 7 years Min Man* $50,000
10,000 lbs (or 10,000 plants) or more Felony 15 years MinMan* $200,000
Within 1,000 feet of school or other Felony 15 years $10,000

* MinMan = Mandatory minimum sentence.

Other Penalties:

Paraphernalia possession misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
Any conviction causes driver’s license suspension for 6 months to 2 years.

Any sale or delivery occurring within 1,000 feet of a specified location is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

What Are Charge Codes?

Law enforcement is using rather obscure codes to classify marijuana offenses when they are entered into the various report systems. For your convenience we have decoded a few common cannabis charges:

Drug2103 Possession Of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams – First Degree Misdemeanor punishable by 12 months in county jail.

Drug2102 Possession Of Cannabis – Third Degree Felony Punishable by 5 years Florida State Prison

Drug2300 Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell – Third Degree Felony Punishable by 5 years Florida State Prison

Drug2500 Manufacture Of Cannabis – Third Degree Felony Punishable by 5 years Florida State Prison

You can review the decision here:

Source: 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b

Marijuana Florida Drug Defense Attorney, Pat Down, Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion

Constructive Possession Cannabis | Defense Win

Constructive Possession
Trafficking Cannabis

The drug charge was Trafficking in Cannabis. When the state failed to prove the defendant’s constructive possession of cannabis discovered in a suitcase in trunk of her car during a consent search, the defense got a win. The appeals court ruled there must be independent proof that a defendant in a possession of cannabis case had knowledge of presence of cannabis or had dominion and control over a container found in the trunk of a car.

Notably, the suitcase had no fingerprints, had jeans of a size fitting a passenger, and the defense put on unrefuted testimony that she was not in exclusive possession of vehicle, a passenger had keys to vehicle and also had access to the vehicle’s trunk. Even though the defendant had nearly $1,000 in cash, the state failed to show that $939 cash in her possession was in any way connected with trafficking in cannabis. The defendant testified the money was for school .

The court ruled, “Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion for judgment of acquittal, and we reverse and remand with directions for the court to discharge [defendant] Reversed and remanded . . . .”

Constructive Possession of Cannabis Questions? Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

View Adobe Acrobat PDF Copy of Constructive Possession Cannabis Case Here.

The defendant “was arrested after the police discovered a suitcase containing cannabis in the trunk of the car she was driving. A jury found her guilty of trafficking in cannabis; possession of a conveyance used for trafficking, sale, or manufacturing of controlled substances; and possession of drug paraphernalia. We reverse because, in this constructive possession case, the State failed to establish [defendant’s] knowledge of the presence of the cannabis or her dominion and control over the suitcase containing the cannabis.”

Constructive Possession of Cannabis Case Excerpts:

“The facts of this case are analogous to those in K.A.K. v. State, 885 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In K.A.K., the juvenile defendant was the driver of a vehicle that contained three passengers and was involved in an automobile accident. 885 So. 2d at 406. When the sheriff’s deputy arrived on the scene, he noticed what appeared to be a glass pipe used to smoke drugs on the floorboard of the driver’s side. The deputy searched the car’s interior and discovered a leafy substance that appeared to be cannabis scattered about the driver’s side. In the open glove compartment, the deputy found a box containing rolling papers and tweezers with a burnt tip.”

“In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, such as this one, the evidence must also exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence propounded by the defense. See Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803. The evidence must “lead ‘to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of, and be consistent with, guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence.’ ” Lindsey v. State, 14 So. 3d 211, 215 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Frank v. State, 163 So. 223, 223 (Fla. 1935)).”

“[E]vidence which furnishes nothing stronger than a suspicion, even though it would tend to justify the suspicion that the defendant committed the crime, is not sufficient to sustain [a] conviction. It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict. Circumstantial evidence which leaves uncertain several hypotheses, any one of which may be sound and some of which may be entirely consistent with innocence, is not adequate to sustain a verdict of guilt. Even though the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to suggest a probability of guilt, it is not thereby adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

Source: 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1266a

Drug Charge Defense Attorney

Trafficking in Cocaine | Florida Conviction Overturned

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:04:46 GMT

Watch: Trafficking in Cocaine Defense Attorney Video

Trafficking in Cocaine | Florida Conviction Overturned

Video Summary

In this video, attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. discusses how to defend cocaine trafficking cases. Every criminal case depends on its own facts, applicable law, and admissible evidence. A prior appellate decision does not guarantee any particular outcome, but understanding how courts analyze evidentiary issues can be valuable when evaluating a drug crime defense strategy.

Tampa Cocaine Trafficking Lawyer (28 to 200 Grams) – DRUG1904 Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with DRUG1904 Trafficking in Cocaine (28 to 200 Grams) in Tampa, you are facing a serious felony accusation that requires immediate attention. Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a former prosecutor and a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with decades of experience defending complex drug cases. He carefully examines every aspect of the DEA investigation, including the traffic stop, search, seizure, and evidence, to build the strongest possible defense for each client.

Arrested for Cocaine Trafficking in Tampa? Call a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Immediately.

A charge of trafficking in cocaine is one of the most serious drug offenses prosecuted in Florida. If you have been arrested for allegedly possessing, transporting, purchasing, selling, manufacturing, or delivering between 28 and 200 grams of cocaine, the decisions you make today may affect the rest of your life. Time matters, evidence matters, and experienced legal representation matters.

Call W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today at (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation.

Former Prosecutor • Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer • Serving Tampa and Hillsborough County

Why Hire W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

Attorney Casey Ebsary has spent decades handling serious felony cases throughout the Tampa Bay area. As both a former prosecutor and a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, he understands how trafficking investigations are conducted and how prosecutors prepare these cases for trial.

Whether your case involves a traffic stop, rental vehicle, search warrant, confidential informant, or constructive possession allegations, an experienced defense attorney can evaluate whether law enforcement followed constitutional requirements and whether the State can prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Learn more about W F Casey Ebsary Jr:

https://drug2go.com/about

What Is Cocaine Trafficking Under Florida Law?

Florida law creates separate trafficking offenses based primarily upon the weight of the controlled substance involved. One commonly charged offense involves 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine.

The applicable Florida statute is:

Florida Statute §893.135
https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-893/section-893-135/

Official Florida Legislature:
https://www.leg.state.fl.us/

Quick Reference

Charge	Form Code
Trafficking in Cocaine (28-200 grams)	DRUG1904

Degree	Classification
First Degree Felony	Florida Drug Trafficking

What Must the State Prove?

To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact elements depend upon the specific trafficking allegation and applicable jury instructions.

Florida publishes its Standard Criminal Jury Instructions online through the Florida Supreme Court.

Official Jury Instructions

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org

The jury instructions address issues such as:

Possible Issue	May Become Important
Knowledge	Did the defendant knowingly possess or transport the substance?
Identity	Was the substance actually cocaine?
Weight	Was the required statutory threshold met?
Possession	Was possession actual or constructive?
Control	Did the defendant exercise dominion or control?

Every trafficking prosecution is fact-specific. The evidence must support each required element.

FAQ

What Is Constructive Possession?

Many trafficking prosecutions do not involve drugs found directly on a person. Instead, prosecutors sometimes allege constructive possession. Whether constructive possession exists depends upon the particular facts and evidence presented at trial.

Cases involving multiple occupants of a vehicle, rental cars, borrowed vehicles, or shared residences often raise complicated factual questions. Simply being present near drugs does not automatically establish criminal liability.

If constructive possession is disputed, the prosecution must still prove the required legal elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does a Rental Car Automatically Make Someone Guilty?

No.

Rental vehicles appear in many criminal investigations because people frequently borrow or share vehicles with family members, friends, or coworkers. Whether someone rented the vehicle, drove the vehicle, or owned the vehicle does not by itself establish guilt.

Instead, prosecutors must rely upon admissible evidence that satisfies the legal requirements applicable to the charged offense.

What Defenses May Be Available?

Every case is different, and no attorney can honestly promise a particular outcome. However, depending upon the facts, a defense attorney may evaluate issues including whether:

the traffic stop was lawful;
the search complied with constitutional requirements;
law enforcement properly obtained consent;
probable cause existed;
laboratory testing is reliable;
the prosecution can prove possession;
witnesses are credible; and
the State can establish every required statutory element.

The available defenses depend entirely upon the evidence in your case.

How Serious Are Cocaine Trafficking Charges?

Florida classifies trafficking offenses among the most serious drug crimes prosecuted in state court. A conviction may expose a defendant to significant penalties under Florida law.

Because sentencing depends upon numerous legal and factual considerations, anyone facing a trafficking allegation should obtain legal advice immediately rather than relying upon general information found online.

Official Florida Laws

https://www.leg.state.fl.us

Why Early Representation Matters

The earliest stages of a criminal investigation are often critical. Evidence may need to be preserved, surveillance footage may disappear, and witnesses’ memories may fade over time.

Hiring counsel early also allows an attorney to begin reviewing discovery, evaluating police reports, identifying potential constitutional issues, and preparing an effective defense strategy before important court deadlines arrive.

Why Choose a Tampa Drug Defense Attorney?

W F Casey Ebsary Jr – Tampa Drug Crimes Defense Expert

Local experience matters. Attorney Casey Ebsary has represented clients throughout Hillsborough County for decades and understands how felony drug prosecutions are handled in Tampa courts. He has appeared before local judges, negotiated with prosecutors, and defended serious felony charges throughout the Tampa Bay area.

Local Office: Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. 2102 W. Cleveland Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Phone: (813) 222-2220

Cocaine Trafficking Case Timeline

Stage	What Happens
Arrest	Law enforcement files charges
First Appearance	Bond conditions reviewed
Arraignment	Formal plea entered
Discovery	Evidence exchanged
Motions	Legal issues litigated
Negotiations	Possible plea discussions
Trial	Jury determines guilt or innocence

Every case follows its own timeline depending upon the facts and court schedule.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ

Does every cocaine trafficking case go to trial?

No. Some cases are resolved through negotiated dispositions, while others proceed to hearings or jury trial. The appropriate strategy depends entirely upon the facts, available evidence, and the goals of the client.

Is possession enough to prove trafficking?

Not necessarily. Prosecutors must prove every legal element required for the specific trafficking charge. Whether those elements can be established depends upon the evidence presented in court.

Can constructive possession be challenged?

Yes. Constructive possession is frequently disputed in criminal cases involving vehicles, residences, or locations occupied by more than one person. Whether the prosecution can establish constructive possession depends upon the facts of each individual case.

Should I speak with investigators?

Many people choose to exercise their constitutional rights before answering investigative questions. Whether speaking with law enforcement is advisable depends upon the circumstances, and obtaining legal advice before making statements is often prudent.

Where can I read the Florida trafficking statute?

You can review the current statute through the Florida Legislature or Justia.

Florida Legislature

https://www.leg.state.fl.us

Florida trafficking statute on Justia

https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-893/section-893-135

Talk to a Tampa Cocaine Trafficking Lawyer Today

f you or someone you care about has been charged with DRUG1904 Trafficking in Cocaine (28 to 200 Grams) in Tampa or anywhere in Hillsborough County, do not wait to learn about your legal options.

Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a former prosecutor and a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer who has spent decades defending clients accused of serious felony offenses.

Learn more about attorney Casey Ebsary:

https://drug2go.com/about

Contact the office today:

https://drug2go.com/contact

Call (813) 222-2220 today for a confidential consultation.

Meta Description:
Charged with cocaine trafficking in Tampa? Former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Casey Ebsary defends serious Florida drug cases. Call 813-222-2220.

Original Post from 2010

Criminal Trial Lawyer

Tampa Drug Defense Attorney notes a Trafficking in cocaine conviction was overturned by an appeals court for allowing a cop to testify about “practices” used by drug dealers. The court addressed testimony about the general behavior patterns of drug dealers /traffickers.

The defendant had been charged with trafficking in cocaine found in a rental car driven by the defendant. The defendant’s wife rented the car.The case was overturned after the highway patrol trooper testified that it was a standard practice for drug dealers to use vehicles rented in the name of another to transport drugs.

Source: 135 FLWSupp 2205a (1st DCA 2010)

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 for a Free Phone Consultation

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

TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS — 893.135(1)(c)1 and 2
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of illegal drugs
893.135(1)(c)1 25.11

Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1

If sale, manufacture or delivery is charged 893.13(1)(a) 25.2

If purchase is charged 893.13(2)(a)

Bringing same illegal drug as charged into state 893.13(5)

Possession of same illegal drug 893.13(6)(a)

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

Tampa Cocaine Trafficking Attorney

Florida Amphetamine or Methamphetamine Minimum Mandatory Law

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:01:06 GMT

⚖️ Video Explainer – Florida Mandatory Minimums: What You Need to Know

When a judge hands down a harsh prison sentence in a Florida court, the public frequently assumes it was their deliberate choice. However, in many high-stakes trafficking and serious drug cases throughout the Tampa Bay region, that simply isn’t true. Florida’s rigid mandatory minimum sentencing laws actively strip away judicial discretion, forcing judges to impose fixed, predetermined prison terms even when they believe a lesser penalty would be fairer.

Because the specific facts, charges, and evidence involved radically dictate your legal outcome, early defensive intervention is paramount. In this video, former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialist W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. breaks down these strict statutory limits. Watch to understand your options, and call 813-222-2220 or visit Drug2GO.com for expert guidance.

Direct Video Link: https://youtu.be/EsraejOUh3U

Florida Statute § 893.135 Amphetamine or Methamphetamine Minimum Mandatory Sentences

Florida laws on Amphetamine or Methamphetamine provide harsh minimum mandatory sentences that kick-in at 14 grams. The stakes become higher when 28 grams are alleged and proven by admissible evidence to a jury and/or sentencing judge in Florida State Courts. A 15 year minimum prison sentence is possible at 200 grams.

The United States Code also provides harsh sentences for trafficking in this controlled substance. At 50 grams a life sentence is possible for certain defendants. See 21 USC §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(A); § 2D1.1 for more information.

Amphetamine or methamphetamine 14 – 28 grams 3 years, $50,000 fine
28 – 200 grams 7 years, $100,000 fine
200+ grams 15 years, $250,000 fine

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

Florida Marijuana Minimum Mandatory Law

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 18:32:03 GMT

Video Description:

In Florida, a judge’s hands are often tied by mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. explains how specific trafficking and serious drug charges carry non-negotiable prison times. If you or a loved one are facing serious state charges in the Tampa Bay area, your local defense strategy must begin immediately.

Florida Statute § 893.135 Marijuana Minimum Mandatory Sentences

The Florida Statutes on Cannabis and Marijuana provide harsh minimum mandatory sentences that kick-in at 25 pounds and 2000 plants. The stakes become higher when 10,000 pounds or 10,000 plants are alleged and proven by admissible evidence to a jury and/or sentencing judge in Florida State Courts.

Knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into the state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of: Amount Mandatory Minimum Sentence
Quantity of Marijuana 25 – 2000 lbs. or 300-2000 plants 3 years, $25,000 fine
2000 – 10,000 or 2000 -10,000 plants 7 years, $50,000 fine
10,000+ lbs. or 10,000 plants 15 years, $200,000 fine

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

WF Casey Ebsary Jr Drug Crimes Expert

Florida Phenethylamines Molly MDMA Minimum Mandatory Law

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 17:47:52 GMT

In this video we explain that when a judge hands down a harsh sentence under Florida Statute § 893.135 in a Florida drug court, the public frequently assumes it was their deliberate choice. In many high-stakes trafficking and serious drug cases throughout the Tampa Bay region, that simply isn’t true. Florida’s strict mandatory minimum sentencing laws actively strip away judicial discretion, forcing judges to impose rigid, predetermined prison terms even when they believe a lesser penalty would be fairer.

The specific facts, charges, and evidence involved can dramatically alter your entire legal outcome. As a former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialist, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands how to navigate these strict statutory boundaries. Learning your legal options early can make a critical difference in your trial defense. Contact our office today at 813-222-2220 or visit Drug2GO.com.

Are there minimum mandatory sentences for Molly under Florida Statute § 893.135? Yes.

Phenethylamines aka Molly aka MDMA Have Minimum Mandatory Sentences

Yes, Florida laws on Phenethylamines aka Molly aka MDMA provide harsh minimum mandatory sentences that kick-in at 10 grams. The stakes become higher when 200 grams are alleged and proven by admissible evidence to a jury and/or sentencing judge in Florida State Courts.

A 15 year minimum prison sentence is possible at 400 grams.

MDMA Minimum Mandatory Sentences in Florida

Phenethylamines 10 – 200 grams 3 years, $50,000 fine
200 – 400grams 7 years, $100,000 fine

400+ grams
15 years, $250,000 fine

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

WF Casey Ebsary Jr Drug Crimes Expert

Drug1400 Sale of Cocaine

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:25:50 GMT

Video: Understanding Florida Sale of Cocaine Charges

Summary of YouTube Video

Watching an attorney explain how Florida drug prosecutions work can help you better understand the criminal process. Every criminal case is unique, and the facts, evidence, and applicable law determine the best defense strategy. This video provides general educational information and should not be considered legal advice for any specific case.

Tampa Sale of Cocaine Lawyer – DRUG1400 Defense Attorney

Charged with Sale of Cocaine in Tampa? Speak with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Today.

Being arrested for DRUG1400 Sale of Cocaine is a serious matter that can place your freedom, career, and future at risk. Drug sale allegations often arise from undercover operations, confidential informants, controlled buys, surveillance, or traffic stops, and the prosecution must still prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a former prosecutor and a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer who has spent decades defending individuals charged with serious felony drug crimes throughout Tampa and Hillsborough County. Call (813) 222-2220 today for a confidential consultation.

Why Should I Hire W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

Choosing the right attorney can make an important difference when you are facing felony drug charges. Casey Ebsary is a former Florida prosecutor who understands how law enforcement investigates narcotics cases and how prosecutors prepare cases for trial. As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, he has extensive courtroom experience handling complex felony cases and works to identify weaknesses in the State’s evidence while protecting his clients’ constitutional rights.

Learn more about attorney Casey Ebsary:

https://drug2go.com/about

What Is the Florida Crime of Sale of Cocaine?

Florida law prohibits the unauthorized sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell certain controlled substances, including cocaine. Sale of cocaine is commonly prosecuted as a felony offense under Chapter 893 of the Florida Statutes. Whether the State can obtain a conviction depends upon the specific facts, admissible evidence, and whether prosecutors can prove every required legal element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Official Florida Legislature:

https://www.leg.state.fl.us

Florida Statute §893.13 (Justia):

https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-893/section-893-13

DRUG1400 Quick Reference

Item Information
Charge Sale of Cocaine
Form Code DRUG1400
Alleged Statute Florida Statute §893.13(1)(a)
Degree Second Degree Felony

What Must Prosecutors Prove?

The prosecution bears the burden of proving every required element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Depending upon the allegations, the State may be required to prove that the defendant knowingly sold, delivered, manufactured, or possessed with intent to sell a controlled substance identified by Florida law. Evidence presented during the case must satisfy the applicable jury instructions and the rules governing criminal trials.

Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions are published by the Florida Supreme Court.

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org

Does the State Need Physical Evidence?

Physical evidence is frequently important in drug prosecutions, but every criminal case depends upon its own facts. Prosecutors may rely upon laboratory testing, witness testimony, surveillance, recorded communications, or other evidence permitted under the rules of evidence. A defense attorney carefully reviews whether the evidence was lawfully obtained, accurately preserved, and legally admissible before trial.

What Happens During a Drug Sale Investigation?

Drug sale investigations often involve undercover officers, confidential informants, surveillance operations, controlled purchases, or search warrants. Law enforcement agencies may also rely on digital evidence, text messages, recorded telephone calls, or financial records depending on the allegations. The investigative methods used in a case can become an important issue when evaluating possible legal defenses and constitutional challenges.

Can Intent Be Challenged?

Yes. In some prosecutions, the State alleges possession with intent to sell rather than an actual completed sale. Whether prosecutors can establish intent depends upon the admissible evidence, and the circumstances of each case may be closely examined by both the prosecution and the defense. Intent cannot simply be assumed and must be supported by legally sufficient evidence.

Are Search and Seizure Issues Important?

Search and seizure questions frequently arise in felony drug prosecutions. Traffic stops, vehicle searches, residential search warrants, consent searches, and warrantless searches may all become important issues depending upon the facts of the investigation. When constitutional protections are violated, a defense attorney may evaluate whether legal remedies are available under applicable law.

FAQ

What Are Some Possible Defense Issues?

Every criminal case is different, and no attorney can ethically promise a particular outcome. Depending upon the facts, the defense may evaluate whether law enforcement had legal authority for the stop or search, whether evidence was properly collected and tested, whether witnesses are reliable, whether identification is accurate, and whether the prosecution can prove every statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. The appropriate defense strategy depends entirely upon the evidence in the individual case.

Why Is Local Experience Important?

Drug prosecutions are handled in the local courts where charges are filed, making experience in Hillsborough County valuable. Attorney Casey Ebsary has represented clients throughout the Tampa Bay area for many years and understands the procedures commonly encountered in serious felony cases. Local knowledge, trial experience, and careful preparation can all play an important role when defending criminal charges.

What Happens After an Arrest?

After an arrest, a defendant typically proceeds through several stages of the criminal justice system before the case is resolved. These stages may include first appearance, arraignment, discovery, motion practice, plea negotiations, and, if necessary, trial. Each stage presents important legal decisions that should be made after consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Florida Drug Case Timeline

Stage Description
Arrest Criminal charges initiated
First Appearance Bond reviewed
Arraignment Plea entered
Discovery Evidence exchanged
Motions Legal issues addressed
Negotiations Possible plea discussions
Trial Jury or judge determines outcome

Frequently Asked Questions

Is sale of cocaine the same as trafficking?

No. Florida law treats sale offenses and trafficking offenses as separate crimes with different statutory provisions. The exact charge depends upon the allegations made by prosecutors and the facts of the investigation.

Can someone be charged without money changing hands?

The answer depends on the specific allegations and evidence in the case. Florida law contains separate offenses involving sale, delivery, manufacture, and possession with intent to sell. An attorney can explain the particular charge after reviewing the arrest documents and available evidence.

Can undercover officers testify at trial?

Yes. Undercover officers may testify if they are called as witnesses and their testimony is admitted under the applicable rules of evidence. As with any witness, credibility and cross-examination may become important issues during trial.

Should I talk to detectives after my arrest?

Whether speaking with law enforcement is advisable depends upon the circumstances of the investigation. Before answering questions about a pending criminal case, many people choose to consult with an attorney to understand their legal rights and options.

Where can I read the current Florida statute?

The current version of the statute is available through the Florida Legislature and Justia.

Florida Legislature:

https://www.leg.state.fl.us

Justia:

https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-893/section-893-13

Speak With a Tampa Sale of Cocaine Defense Lawyer Today

If you have been charged with DRUG1400 Sale of Cocaine in Tampa or anywhere in Hillsborough County, obtaining experienced legal representation as early as possible is an important step. Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a former prosecutor and a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer who has devoted his career to defending individuals accused of serious criminal offenses. Every case deserves a thorough review of the facts, the evidence, and the applicable law before important decisions are made.

Learn more about Casey Ebsary:

https://drug2go.com/about

Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.:

https://drug2go.com/contact

Call (813) 222-2220 today for a confidential consultation.

Meta Description

Charged with Sale of Cocaine (DRUG1400) in Tampa? Former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. defends serious Florida drug charges. Call (813) 222-2220.

Original Drug1400 Sale of Cocaine Post from 2010

Cocaine Sale

If you have been charged with DRUG1400 SALE OF COCAINE you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: DRUG1400

Florida Statute: 893.13.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 2nd
Description: SALE OF COCAINE

DRUG1400 SALE OF COCAINE is often charged 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.
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Share this:

Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X

Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

Drug Sentences Slashed in Cocaine Cases

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:48:19 GMT

Federal Drug Defense Strategy: Navigating Cocaine Mandatory Minimums in Tampa

How Do You Contact a Federal Criminal Defense Attorney in Tampa for a Cocaine Case?

If you or a loved one is facing federal crack or powder cocaine charges in the Middle District of Florida, securing an aggressive defense is your most critical priority. You can immediately speak to federal criminal defense attorney W.F. Casey Ebsary by calling our local Tampa office directly at 813-222-2220 . We encourage you to review our professional background on our Attorney Bio Page to understand our decades of trial experience. To schedule a completely confidential evaluation of your pending indictment, please visit our secure Contact Page right away.

Federal Statutory Weight and Penalty Matrix

Offense Type Pre-2010 Statutory Weight (100:1 Disparity) Post-Fair Sentencing Act Weight (18:1 Disparity) Mandatory Minimum Prison Term
Crack Cocaine (Level 1) 5 Grams or more 28 Grams or more 5 Years Minimum
Crack Cocaine (Level 2) 50 Grams or more 280 Grams or more 10 Years Minimum
Powder Cocaine (Level 1) 500 Grams or more 500 Grams or more 5 Years Minimum
Powder Cocaine (Level 2) 5 Kilograms or more 5 Kilograms or more 10 Years Minimum

What is the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010?

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is a federal statute enacted by the United States Congress to correct severe inequities in drug crime penalties. Before this legislation took effect, federal drug laws imposed a highly criticized 100-to-1 weight ratio between powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenses. The new statutory framework dramatically reduced this disparity down to an 18-to-1 ratio and entirely eliminated the mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession. You can review the official statutory text and ongoing legislative annotations directly on Justia US Code.

How Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Dorsey v. United States Protect Defendants?

The United States Supreme Court issued a major ruling in Dorsey v. United States that resolved how changes to federal statutory penalties apply to pending cases. The high court explicitly held that the more lenient mandatory minimum provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act apply to offenders who committed a crime before the law was signed but were sentenced after it took effect. This binding precedent ensures that individuals are protected by the revised, lower mandatory minimum laws rather than obsolete, harsher rules. The full judicial opinion and archival dockets can be researched directly through the official United States Supreme Court Website.

What Did the Supreme Court Conclude About the Interim Guidelines Window?

The Supreme Court in Dorsey also addressed the specific legal status of defendants caught in the interim operational window of the new law. The Court held that the new Act’s lower statutory minimums apply to individuals who committed an offense prior to the effective date and were sentenced before the updated Federal Sentencing Guidelines officially took effect. This critical decision covered the transitional gap between August 3, 2010, and November 1, 2010, preventing an unfair disparity in penalties. By doing so, the ruling created a uniform standard that guaranteed all post-enactment sentencing proceedings benefited from the legislative reforms.

What Are the Specific Weight Thresholds for Federal Crack Cocaine Mandatory Minimums Today?

Under modified federal drug trafficking laws, a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence is triggered when an offense involves 28 grams or more of a substance containing crack cocaine. To trigger the severe ten-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, the prosecution must establish that the offense involved at least 280 grams of crack cocaine. These modern thresholds represent an enormous structural shift away from the old limits, which stood at a mere 5 grams and 50 grams. Our defense practice meticulously reviews all police seizure weights to ensure that the government has not artificially inflated the narcotics quantities.

FAQ

How Are Powder Cocaine Quantities Structured for Federal Prosecutions?

Federal powder cocaine statutory mandatory minimums remain distinct from crack cocaine metrics, requiring substantially higher physical weights to activate identical sentences. A five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence requires an offense involving 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of powder cocaine. The ten-year mandatory minimum penalty applies only when the underlying criminal charge involves five kilograms or more of the substance. This distinct differentiation highlights the ongoing statutory weight boundaries established by Congress under Title 21 of the United States Code.

What is Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018?

Section 404 of the First Step Act represents a massive legislative expansion of federal drug sentencing reform by granting retroactive relief. White the Dorsey decision only shielded individuals sentenced after 2010, the First Step Act allowed individuals sentenced under the old 100-to-1 regime to petition for immediate reductions. Eligible federal inmates can request that judges apply the modern, lower statutory minimums to their historical convictions. Detailed information regarding these retroactive relief statistics is routinely published by the United States Sentencing Commission.

How Do Federal Judges Determine a Final Sentence in a Cocaine Case?

Federal judges calculate criminal sentences by conducting a multi-step analysis during a formal sentencing hearing. The court first computes an advisory range based on the official guidelines grid, balancing the drug weight against the defendant’s prior criminal history score. The judge must then ensure the final sentence complies with any overriding statutory mandatory minimums established by Congress. Finally, the court evaluates personal mitigation factors to decide if a downward variance below the recommended guidelines is legally appropriate.

What is the Role of the United States Sentencing Commission?

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency housed entirely within the federal judicial branch. This agency is tasked with establishing comprehensive sentencing policies and issuing the official Federal Sentencing Guidelines manual. When Congress passes new statutory laws like the Fair Sentencing Act, the Commission updates the guideline point values to reflect those updates. You can access extensive educational reports, amendment archives, and legal research tools on the official United States Sentencing Commission Website.

What is the Primary Difference Between a Statutory Minimum and a Sentencing Guideline?

A statutory mandatory minimum is a fixed, mandatory prison term established directly by Congress that a federal judge cannot normally go below. In contrast, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a recommended sentencing range calculated based on the offense characteristics and the defendant’s prior record. While judges retain broad discretion to deviate above or below the recommended guideline ranges, they are strictly bound by the statutory minimums unless an explicit exception applies. Effective defense work focuses on neutralizing statutory minimum thresholds while simultaneously driving down the guideline point calculations.

What is the Safety Valve Exception in Federal Drug Defense?

The federal safety valve exception is a highly valuable statutory tool that allows a judge to bypass a harsh mandatory minimum prison sentence. To qualify for safety valve relief under federal law, a defendant must satisfy five specific criteria, including having minimal criminal history points and zero weapons involvement. The statute also requires the defendant to participate in a truthful disclosure session with federal prosecutors prior to the final sentencing date. Our firm carefully prepares clients for this delicate process to maximize their chances of avoiding mandatory prison terms.

How Can Prior Convictions Escalate Federal Cocaine Mandatory Minimums?

A defendant’s prior criminal record can trigger severe statutory sentencing enhancements under federal narcotics laws. If a defendant has a past conviction for a serious drug felony or a serious violent felony, the statutory mandatory minimum can double. To execute these severe enhancements, the United States Attorney’s Office must file a formal written notice under 21 U.S.C. Section 851. We rigorously audit every past state and federal conviction to challenge whether those entries meet the strict statutory definitions required for an enhancement.

Where Do Federal Cocaine Cases Take Place in the Tampa Bay Area?

Federal criminal cases originating in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or surrounding counties are prosecuted inside the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Court proceedings, including trials and sentencing hearings, are held at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse in downtown Tampa. You can access local court schedules, administrative orders, and filing protocols by visiting the Middle District of Florida Courthouse Website. Having an established local attorney who regularly practices before the Tampa division judges provides a critical defensive advantage.

What is a Federal Drug Conspiracy Charge Under 21 U.S.C. Section 846?

A federal drug conspiracy charge does not require proof that an individual was caught with physical narcotics in their possession. Instead, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement existed between multiple individuals to violate federal drug laws. Under federal conspiracy doctrines, a defendant can be held legally accountable for the entire drug weight distributed by the broader organization. Defending against these broad, sweeping conspiracy indictments demands an aggressive and deeply analytical legal strategy.

How Do Defense Attorneys Challenge the Government’s Drug Weight Calculations?

Challenging the exact weight of the seized controlled substances is a primary battlefield in federal narcotics defense. Federal law includes the weight of any carrier mediums, adulterants, or diluents when calculating the total statutory threshold. Our legal team cross-examines forensic chemists, audits laboratory testing equipment, and reviews chain-of-custody logs for structural errors. Forcing the government to substantiate every single gram can successfully lower a client’s mandatory minimum exposure.

Why is the General Federal Saving Statute Important in Criminal Cases?

The general federal saving statute dictates that the amendment or repeal of a criminal law does not automatically extinguish past legal liabilities. Historically, this meant that individuals who broke an old law were forced to face those severe terms even if Congress later softened the penalties. The Dorsey decision successfully carved out an exception by proving that Congress intended the Fair Sentencing Act to override this default rule for newer sentencings. Understanding how this saving rule interacts with modern criminal justice reform is vital when structuring any retroactive litigation strategy.

Can an Older Federal Crack Cocaine Sentence Be Reduced Retroactively?

Yes, individuals currently serving sentences imposed under the obsolete 100-to-1 crack cocaine laws can still seek retroactive adjustments. These retroactive applications are filed directly with the original sentencing court utilizing the modern frameworks set by the First Step Act. The presiding federal district judge retains the discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment after evaluating current guidelines and inmate safety. Our Tampa law office conducts detailed eligibility audits to assist families in pursuing these vital sentence modifications.

What Role Do Federal Presentence Investigation Reports Play in Sentencing?

A Presentence Investigation Report is a comprehensive document prepared by a federal probation officer prior to your sentencing date. This critical report details your personal history, financial status, complete criminal record, and the officer’s personal calculation of the sentencing guidelines. Because federal judges rely heavily on this document, any uncorrected factual or legal error can cause a significantly longer prison sentence. Our defense team carefully reviews every page of this report to submit formal, written legal objections before it reaches the judge.

How Can You Secure an Immediate Strategic Case Evaluation with drug2go.com?

When navigating the federal judicial system, delay is the enemy of a successful outcome. Our local Tampa legal team stands ready to step into the gap and protect your future from severe mandatory sentences. Call our central office directly at 813-222-2220 to establish immediate contact with an experienced practitioner. You may also outline your situation securely through our digital platform by visiting the drug2go.com Contact Portal right now.

Original Discussion from 2014

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Lawyer for cocaine cases notes new United States Supreme Court case law on Mandatory minimum sentencing for Drug offenses under the Fair Sentencing Act’s more lenient mandatory minimum provisions.

The Court ruled today that the favorable provisions apply to offenders who committed crack cocaine crime before effective date of Act, but were sentenced after Act took effect .

The Court also held the new Act’s lower minimums also apply to those who committed an offense prior to effective date of Act and were sentenced after the new Act’s effective date, before new Guidelines took effect.

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

Drug Trafficker (alleged) Walks on Cocaine Cell Phone Search

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:51:05 GMT

Drug Trafficker (Alleged) Walks on
Cocaine Cell Phone Search

An alleged Florida Drug Trafficker Walked on Cocaine charges. Charges were based upon a Cell Phone Search. The Number You Have Tracked is No Longer in Service – He was charged with ” possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine, as well as fleeing and eluding, driving while his license was revoked as a habitual offender, and resisting arrest without violence.”

The court questioned whether the warrantless use of electronically generated cell site location information to track an individual’s movements in real time both on public roads and, in this case, also into a residence, violates a subjective expectation of privacy in that person’s location . . . .”

The distinguishing factor in this case was the police tracked the suspect in his home.”Officers learned of his location on the public roads, and ultimately inside a residence, only by virtue of tracking his real time cell site location information emanating from his cell phone.”

Florida Supreme Court rules that “[t]he trial court found that the application for the October 23, 2007, order did not contain a sufficient factual basis on which to issue a search warrant, but denied the motion to suppress, finding that no warrant was required to use Tracey’s real time cell site location data to track him on public streets where the court held he had no expectation of privacy.” The Court found that the court below had erroneously “concluded that the exclusionary rule does not apply to prevent the State from using evidence derived from the statutory violation. . . . This conclusion was the result of reliance in part on federal decisions that have held that the exclusionary rule is not applicable to violation of the federal Stored Communications Act because the Act expressly rules out exclusion as a remedy, by stating that the listed civil and criminal penalties are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for violation of that act.”

Under Florida law, “[w] cannot overlook the inexorable and significant fact that, because cell phones are indispensable to so many people and are normally carried on one’s person, cell phone tracking can easily invade the right to privacy in one’s home or other private areas, a matter that the government cannot always anticipate and one which, when it occurs, is clearly a Fourth Amendment violation.”

Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling

“We further hold that under the circumstances of this case in which there was no warrant, court order, or binding appellate precedent authorizing real time cell site location tracking upon which the officers could have reasonably relied, the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule for “objectively reasonable law enforcement activity” set forth by the Supreme Court in Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2429 (2011), is not applicable. Thus, Tracey’s motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.”

Cell Site Location Information Background – CSLI

“Cell site location information (also referred to as CSLI) refers to location information generated when a cell phone call occurs. Cell service providers maintain a network of radio base stations called “cell sites” in different coverage areas. A cell site will detect a radio signal from a cell phone and connect it to the local network, the internet, or another wireless network. The cell phones identify themselves by an automatic process called “registration,” which occurs continuously while the cell phone is turned on regardless of whether a call is being placed. When a call is placed and the cell phone moves closer to a different cell tower, the cell phone service provider’s switching system switches the call to the nearest cell tower. The location of the cell phone can be pinpointed with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the size of the geographic area served by each cell tower, and is determined by reference to data generated by cell sites pertaining to a specific cell phone. “

“Florida’s counterpart to this federal scheme is contained in chapter 934, Florida Statutes, titled “Security of Communications.” In 2007 when the order in this case was entered for installation of the pen register and trap and trace device as to Tracey’s cell phone, section 934.31, Florida Statutes (2007), similar to federal law, required a court order to “install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device.” § 934.31(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Section 934.33(1), Florida Statutes (2007), allowed entry of the order if the officer making the application under section 934.32, Florida Statutes (2007), certified that the information likely to be obtained by the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation” by that agency. § 934.32(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). “

Complete Opinion is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw1ZJqIwtQE4VlEwWjdJVkRwVk0/view?usp=sharing
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Constructive Possession of Cocaine in Florida – Conviction Tossed

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:30:05 GMT

What happens in a typical Constructive of Possession of Cocaine Case in Florida?

Here are excerpts from what a constructive possession appeals court court just did in Tampa Bay, Florida:

In March 2014, Manatee County Sheriff’s deputies were called to a motel in Bradenton to investigate a possible robbery. When they arrived, they encountered the victim who informed them she had been robbed by Edwards and his friend, Rachel Simms. The officers located Edwards and Simms in a motel room and interviewed them. During the investigation, the officers discovered a car key for a vehicle parked outside. One of the officers had seen Edwards sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle a couple of hours prior to the robbery call. As a result, the officers asked Edwards for consent to search the vehicle. Edwards notified the officers that he did not own the vehicle but instead had borrowed it. The officers then obtained consent from the owner of the vehicle, but the owner advised the officers that the key found in the motel room would only work in the vehicle’s ignition. It would not open the vehicle because the vehicle was equipped with a combination lock. The owner gave the officers the combination to unlock the vehicle, but the evidence reflected that Edwards knew the combination as well.

Constructive Possession of Cocaine

During the search of the vehicle, one of the officers located a gray canvas bag under the driver’s seat. Inside that bag was a wallet that contained Edwards’s identification card as well as a bail bond receipt bearing the name of “Joanne A. Simms.” The robbery victim’s identification card was also found in the canvas bag along with a few other items that contained no identifying information. The police report reflected that there was a smaller purple bag inside the canvas bag and inside that smaller bag was a plastic baggie containing rock cocaine. The officer who found the cocaine testified that there was indeed a purple bag inside the canvas bag despite the fact that there was no purple bag submitted into evidence at the sheriff’s office.

“While this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with . . . innocence.”

Edwards was arrested and charged with robbery with a firearm and possession of cocaine. At trial, Simms testified regarding the events leading up to and including the alleged robbery. However, her testimony revealed some inconsistencies regarding exactly when she had been inside the vehicle in question. She at first admitted going with Edwards and the victim to get cigarettes, but she subsequently denied being in the vehicle on the day of the alleged robbery. However, Edwards testified that on the relevant date, he, Simms, and the victim all got into the vehicle and went to a local convenience store to obtain cigarettes. He testified that Simms drove the vehicle there. He denied possessing the cocaine, and there was no evidence presented regarding ownership of the canvas bag or the purple bag within the canvas bag. There was also no fingerprint evidence submitted.

Edwards moved for judgment of acquittal arguing that the vehicle had been jointly occupied and that the State had failed to present independent proof that Edwards had knowledge of the cocaine and the ability to maintain dominion or control over it. He proffered that it was possible that Simms or the victim placed the cocaine in the bag. His motion was denied.

Ultimately, the jury acquitted Edwards of the armed robbery charge but found him guilty of the possession charge. He was sentenced to a suspended five-year prison sentence and placed on one year of community control followed by two years of probation. His license was also suspended, and a community service requirement was imposed.

Why did the Florida Court Reverse the Drug Crime Conviction?

We employ de novo review over the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002). We will only reverse if the conviction is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See id. Yet “[w]here, as here, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is entirely circumstantial, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Bennett v. State, 46 So. 3d 1181, 1183 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (citing State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989)).

What does the Prosecutor Need to Prove to establish Possession of Cocaine in a Drug Crimes Case?

Here, Edwards was not found in physical possession of the cocaine and thus the State’s case was predicated on constructive possession. The State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Edwards knew of the presence of the cocaine and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1184; Jacksonv. State, 995 So. 2d 535, 539 (Fla.2d DCA 2008). “The surrounding circumstances must support the inference of a ‘conscious and substantial possession by the accused, as distinguished from a mere involuntary or superficial possession.’ ” Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539 (quoting Reynolds v. State, 111 So. 285, 286 (Fla.1926)). “Mere proximity to contraband, without more, is legally insufficient to prove possession.” Id.(quoting Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)).

“As our case law has made clear, a defendant’s knowledge and control of contraband may be inferred where there are incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity from which a jury could infer those elements.”

The evidence failed to show that Edwards had knowledge of the presence of or had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine. Although he admitted borrowing the car, knew the combination to unlock it, and had been seen sitting in the driver’s seat a couple of hours prior to the alleged robbery, he was not with the vehicle when the officers arrived. Further, there was evidence presented that Simms and the victim had been in the vehicle with Edwards that day and that Simms had actually driven the vehicle.

What happens in Drug Possession cases when the vehicle has multiple occupants?

Where the area in which drugs are found is in joint, rather than exclusive possession, a defendant’s “knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof.” Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539 (quoting Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983)). This can be done either “through ‘evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or evidence of incriminating statements or circumstances, other than simple proximity to the contraband, from which the jury could infer the defendant’s knowledge’ of the contraband.” Id.(quoting Wagner v. State, 950 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla.2d DCA 2007)). “An inference of knowledge and dominion and control may . . . arise where the contraband located in [a] jointly occupied [area] is found in or about other personal property which is shown to be owned or controlled by the defendant.” Id.

What happens in a Possession of Cocaine Case where the area that drugs were found was Jointly Occupied?

However, in this case, the cocaine was found in an area that the evidence reflected had been jointly occupied, and the cocaine was found near personal property which was shown to be owned or controlled by at least three people including Edwards. The victim’s identification card was located inside the gray canvas bag, and a bail bond receipt bearing the name of “Joanne A. Simms” was found inside Edwards’s wallet. Consequently, under these limited circumstances, we refuse to apply an inference of Edwards’s knowledge of the presence of and dominion and control over the cocaine. Cf. Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 540-41 (holding that surrounding circumstances were sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that the drugs contained in a change purse located near the defendant were known to him and were under his dominion and control where the change purse appeared to have spilled from a larger purse, the defendant was known to carry a purse and there were no other purses in the dwelling, the defendant’s identification was found inside a cigarette case that also appeared to have spilled from the purse, and there was no evidence in or around the purse or the change purse that they belonged to anyone other than defendant).

What does a Florida Court do where there is a defense based upon a jointly occupied vehicle?

This court has previously reversed a conviction based on constructive possession where a defendant was in a jointly occupied vehicle and drugs were located near his personal belongings but the items were in an area to which the other passengers had equal access.1 See, e.g., S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that evidence was not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory that someone put marijuana in his bag where the bag was located inside the trunk and the marijuana was found inside another container that was inside the defendant’s bag, where multiple people had access to the bag, and where the defendant disclaimed ownership of the container). This is such a case.

What do Florida Courts do when there is a Jointly Occupied House?

Similar dispositions have occurred where drugs were found concealed near a defendant’s personal property inside jointly occupied houses. See, e.g., Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1183 (holding in relevant part that the State failed to prove constructive possession of drugs found inside a cardboard box where defendant’s shirt was found because there was no evidence to prove who owned the other clothes in the box and defendant had a reasonable hypothesis that he threw his shirt on top of the box without knowing that the drugs were inside); N.K.W., Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession where, although drugs were found in a plastic bag inside defendant’s wallet, defendant was never asked if the bag belonged to him, no fingerprints were lifted from the bag, defendant denied ownership of the bag, and multiple people had access to the room where his wallet was located); Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 189-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the State failed to prove constructive possession where drugs were hidden in a pain reliever bottle inside a small toiletry bag, which was itself inside a duffel bag that also contained the defendant’s passport, but where no one was in actual possession of the duffel bag at the time of the search, multiple people had access to the room where the bag was found, no fingerprints were found on the duffel bag or pain reliever bottle, and no one was asked about ownership of the pill bottle).

The proximity of Edwards’s identification to the purple bag in which the cocaine was concealed might be consistent with his having knowledge of the cocaine and dominion and control over it. Yet those facts are equally susceptible to the reasonable hypothesis that the cocaine was in the possession and control of Simms or the victim while they were in the vehicle and that Edwards simply threw his wallet into the gray canvas bag without knowing that the cocaine was inside. See Bennett, 46 So. 3d at 1184. Indeed, there was no evidence presented as to when the cocaine was placed in the purple bag or when the purple bag was placed inside the gray canvas bag. See Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that presence of the defendant’s passport in duffel bag suggests he placed it there, but explaining that “[s]uch an inference . . . provides no time frame with regard to when the contraband came to reside in the bag, nor any help as to appellant’s present dominion over the contraband” and, therefore, the “mere presence of the passport” was insufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession). The lack of a time frame for placement of the cocaine in either bag, combined with the lack of evidence regarding ownership of either bag, the lack of fingerprint evidence, and the fact that items belonging to persons other than Edwards were also located in the gray canvas bag lead us to conclude that the State’s circumstantial evidence failed to prove that Edwards was in constructive possession of the cocaine.possession of the cocaine.possession of the cocaine. While this case does present circumstances that could be interpreted as incriminating, those circumstances can also be construed as being consistent with Edwards’s hypothesis of innocence.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

What does a Florida Court do where there is a defense based upon a jointly occupied house?

We emphasize that it was the combination of these factors that requires us to reverse the judgment in this case. We do not intend for this opinion to be interpreted as requiring reversal whenever drugs are located near a defendant’s personal items that are commingled with personal items belonging to someone else. As our case law has made clear, a defendant’s knowledge and control of contraband may be inferred where there are incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity from which a jury could infer those elements. See Jackson, 995 So. 2d at 539.

Source:

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Pages_2016/February/February%2012,%202016/2D15-612.pdf
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Drug1100 Possession of Cocaine – Video Charges in Tampa

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:44:40 GMT

A cocaine possession charge in Florida is a serious matter with potentially life-altering consequences. If you or a loved one has been arrested for DRUG1100 Possession of Cocaine in Tampa or Hillsborough County, it’s crucial to understand the charges and your legal rights. This article provides essential information about this charge and why contacting an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney is your best course of action.

Understanding DRUG1100: Possession of Cocaine in Florida

In Florida, possession of cocaine is a felony offense. The specific charge, DRUG1100, falls under Florida Statute 893.13.1F. Here’s a breakdown:

Form Code: DRUG1100

Florida Statute: 893.13.1F (Linking to an external, authoritative source like the Florida Statutes is good for SEO and credibility)

Level: Felony

Degree: 3rd Degree (Generally, but see enhancements below)

Description: Possession of Cocaine

Important Note: While simple possession of cocaine is typically a third-degree felony, Florida law includes enhancements that can increase the severity of the charges. One critical enhancement is detailed in 893.13(1)(f): possessing, selling, manufacturing, or delivering a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility. Cocaine falls under the controlled substances listed in 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c)4., which means that possession within 1,000 feet of public housing automatically elevates the charge to a first-degree felony.

Penalties for Cocaine Possession in Florida:

The penalties for cocaine possession depend on the degree of the felony:

Third-Degree Felony (DRUG1100 – Standard Possession):

Up to 5 years in prison.

Up to 5 years of probation.

Fines up to $5,000.

A permanent criminal record.

Driver’s license suspension.

First-Degree Felony (Enhanced Charge – within 1,000 feet of Public Housing):

Up to 30 years in prison.

Up to 30 years of probation.

Fines up to $10,000.

Beyond the Direct Penalties:

A felony conviction, even for a third-degree felony, can have devastating long-term consequences:

Difficulty finding employment: Many employers conduct background checks.

Housing restrictions: Landlords may deny applications based on a criminal record.

Loss of professional licenses: Certain professions may revoke licenses due to a felony conviction.

Immigration consequences: For non-citizens, a drug conviction can lead to deportation or denial of citizenship.

Loss of civil rights: This can include the right to vote or own a firearm.

Why You Need a Tampa Drug Crimes Defense Attorney:

DRUG1100 Possession of Cocaine is often charged in Hillsborough County. See our list of 250 ways to be charged with drug crimes in Tampa Bay. A skilled criminal defense attorney can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. Here’s how an attorney can help:

Investigate the Arrest: An attorney will thoroughly examine the circumstances of your arrest, including the legality of any search and seizure.

Challenge Evidence: If the evidence was obtained illegally, your attorney can file a motion to suppress it, potentially leading to the charges being dismissed.

Negotiate with the Prosecutor: An experienced attorney can negotiate with the prosecutor to potentially reduce the charges, secure a plea bargain, or explore options like drug court or diversion programs.

Build a Strong Defense: Possible defenses include lack of knowledge (you didn’t know the cocaine was there), constructive possession issues (the cocaine wasn’t on your person), and challenging the lab analysis of the substance.

Protect Your Rights: An attorney ensures your constitutional rights are protected throughout the legal process.

About W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Tampa criminal defense attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has dedicated his career to defending individuals facing drug charges in Florida. (https://drug2go.com/). He is a former drug crimes prosecutor and has a deep understanding of Florida drug laws and a proven track record of success. He is committed to providing aggressive and compassionate representation to his clients. See his qualifications here. (https://drug2go.com/)

Get a Free Consultation – Contact Us Today:

If you or a family member has been charged with DRUG1100 Possession of Cocaine in Tampa, don’t wait to seek legal help. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for a free, confidential consultation. Call us at 1-877-793-9290 or fill out our online contact form. (https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/

You can contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. 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/).

FAQ: Cocaine Possession Charges (DRUG1100) in Tampa, Florida

What is DRUG1100?

DRUG1100 is the Florida code for Possession of Cocaine, a felony offense under Florida Statute 893.13.

Is possession of cocaine always a felony in Florida?

Yes, possession of any amount of cocaine is a felony in Florida. Simple possession is typically a third-degree felony, but it can be enhanced to a first-degree felony under certain circumstances, such as possession within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility, school, park, or other designated areas.

What’s the difference between a third-degree and a first-degree felony?

The penalties are significantly different. A third-degree felony carries up to 5 years in prison, while a first-degree felony carries up to 30 years in prison.

What if I didn’t know the cocaine was there?

“Lack of knowledge” can be a valid defense. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly possessed the cocaine. If you genuinely were unaware of its presence (e.g., it was in a borrowed car or a friend’s bag), your attorney can argue this.

What is “constructive possession”?

Constructive possession means the drugs were not found on your person (e.g., in your pocket), but were found in a place where you had control over them (e.g., in your car’s glove compartment). To prove constructive possession, the prosecution must show you knew about the drugs and had the ability to exercise control over them.

What if the police searched me illegally?

If the police violated your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence. If successful, the evidence (the cocaine) cannot be used against you, and the charges may be dismissed.

Are there any diversion programs for cocaine possession?

Depending on your prior criminal history and the specific circumstances of your case, you may be eligible for a drug court program or a pre-trial intervention (PTI) program. These programs typically involve treatment, counseling, and supervision. Successful completion can result in the charges being dismissed.

Will a cocaine possession conviction affect my job?

Yes, a felony conviction can have a significant impact on your employment prospects. Many employers conduct background checks, and a drug conviction can make it difficult to find a job or maintain professional licenses.

How can a lawyer help me with a DRUG1100 charge?

A lawyer can:

Investigate the facts of your case.
Identify legal defenses.
Negotiate with the prosecutor.
Represent you in court.
Protect your rights throughout the process.
Help you understand your options and make informed decisions.

How do I contact W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

Contact us online or you can reach the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for a free consultation by calling 813-222-2220.

Possession of Cocaine

If you have been charged with DRUG1100 POSSESSION OF COCAINE you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: DRUG1100

Florida Statute: 893.13.1F
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: POSSESSION OF COCAINE

DRUG1100 POSSESSION OF COCAINE is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.
(1)(f) 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 public housing facility at any time. For purposes of this section, the term “real property comprising a public housing facility” means real property, as defined in s. 421.03(12), of a public corporation created as a housing authority pursuant to part I of chapter 421. 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.
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

Cocaine Defense Attorney in Tampa

Florida Cocaine Minimum Mandatory Law

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:12:15 GMT

Florida Statute § 893.135 Cocaine Minimum Mandatory Sentences

The Florida Statutes on Cocaine provide harsh minimum mandatory sentences that kick-in at 28 grams. The trafficking stakes become higher when 400 grams or 10,000 plants are alleged and proven by admissible evidence to a jury and/or sentencing judge in Florida State Courts.

Trafficking

Knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into the state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of Cocaine:

Drug Amount Mandatory Minimum Sentence & Fine

28 – 200 grams 3 years, $50,000 fine

200 – 400 grams 7 years, $100,000 fine

400 grams – 150 kilograms 15 years, $250,000 fine

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

/blog/tampa-cocaine-trafficking-attorney/

Tampa Drug Lawyer

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 16:48:42 GMT

Questions & Answers with W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Introduction

I am W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor. At Drug2Go.com, I am a Tampa Drug Lawyer and defend individuals facing drug charges throughout Tampa, Hillsborough County, and surrounding areas. Drug crimes are aggressively prosecuted in Florida and can result in prison, substantial fines, and permanent felony records.

If you are searching for a Tampa drug lawyer, you are likely dealing with an urgent situation. This page answers the most important questions and connects you directly to the most relevant resources on my site so you can act immediately.

What does a Tampa drug lawyer do?
A Tampa drug lawyer handles cases involving possession, trafficking, sale, and manufacturing of controlled substances. These charges can range from misdemeanor offenses to serious first-degree felonies depending on the substance and amount involved.
For a complete overview of drug charges and how they are prosecuted, visit:
https://www.drug2go.com/

What are the most common drug charges in Tampa?
The most common drug charges include possession of cocaine, possession with intent to sell, trafficking, and prescription drug offenses. Each charge carries different legal elements and penalties, often determined by weight and alleged intent.

You can review specific charge pages here:
https://drug2go.com/drug1101-possession-of-cocaine/
https://drug2go.com/florida-cocaine-minimum-mandatory-law/

Is drug possession a felony in Florida?
Yes, most drug possession charges in Florida are felonies, even for relatively small amounts of controlled substances. A conviction can result in prison, probation, fines, and a permanent criminal record.
Florida law treats many substances aggressively, and even first-time offenders can face serious consequences depending on the facts of the case.

What is drug trafficking in Tampa?
Drug trafficking in Florida is based primarily on weight, not intent. This means you can be charged with trafficking even if there is no evidence of selling or distributing drugs. Trafficking charges carry mandatory minimum prison sentences, which significantly increase the stakes of the case. For a detailed explanation, see:
https://drug2go.com/florida-cocaine-minimum-mandatory-law/

What penalties can I face for drug charges?
Penalties vary depending on the type of drug, the amount, and prior criminal history. In many cases, defendants face prison time, fines, probation, and long-term consequences such as loss of employment opportunities.

Florida Drug Penalty Overview by a Tampa Drug Lawyer

Charge Type Possible Penalty
Possession Up to 5 years prison
Intent to Sell Up to 15 years prison
Trafficking Mandatory minimum prison

These penalties can increase significantly depending on aggravating factors.

What defenses are available in drug cases?
Drug cases often involve constitutional issues, especially related to search and seizure. If law enforcement violated your rights, evidence may be suppressed, which can lead to dismissal or reduction of charges. Other defenses may include lack of knowledge, lack of possession, and challenges to laboratory testing procedures. Each case must be analyzed carefully to identify weaknesses in the prosecution. Here are the top 10 defenses to drug charges.

What happens after a drug arrest in Tampa?
After an arrest, your case proceeds through first appearance, arraignment, and pretrial proceedings. During this time, your attorney reviews evidence, files motions, and develops a defense strategy. Early action is critical because decisions made at the beginning of the case can significantly impact the outcome.

Why is hiring a Tampa drug lawyer important?
Drug charges are among the most aggressively prosecuted criminal offenses in Florida. Without experienced representation, you risk severe penalties that can affect your freedom and future. As a former prosecutor, I understand how these cases are built and how to challenge them effectively. My approach focuses on identifying weaknesses, protecting your rights, and pursuing the best possible outcome.

How do I contact a Tampa drug lawyer right now?
If you or a loved one is facing a drug charge, time matters. Acting quickly can preserve defenses and improve your chances of a favorable outcome.

Contact me here:
https://drug2go.com/contact-casey-the-lawyer/

Or call 813-222-2220 now for a confidential consultation.

Conclusion from a Tampa Drug Lawyer

Drug charges in Tampa carry serious and immediate consequences, including jail, prison, and a permanent record. Whether you are facing possession, intent to sell, or trafficking, the stakes are high and the legal process moves quickly.

The right defense strategy by a Tampa Drug Lawyer can make a significant difference. If you are searching for a Tampa drug lawyer, take action now and begin protecting your future.

🔥 Description Meta

Tampa drug lawyer for possession, trafficking & felony charges. Call Casey Ebsary now for a confidential consultation.

TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS — 893.135(1)(c)1 and 2
CATEGORY ONE	CATEGORY TWO	FLA. STAT.	INS. NO.
Trafficking offenses requiring lower quantities of illegal drugs		893.135(1)(c)1	25.11
	Attempt (but not conspiracy), except when delivery is charged	777.04(1)	5.1
	If sale, manufacture or delivery is charged	893.13(1)(a)	25.2
	If purchase is charged	893.13(2)(a)
	Bringing same illegal drug as charged into state	893.13(5)
	Possession of same illegal drug	893.13(6)(a)

Amphetamine or methamphetamine	14 – 28 grams	3 years, $50,000 fine
	28 – 200 grams	7 years, $100,000 fine
	200+ grams	15 years, $250,000 fine


Knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into the state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of:	Amount	Mandatory Minimum Sentence
Quantity of Marijuana	25 – 2000 lbs. or 300-2000 plants	3 years, $25,000 fine
	2000 – 10,000 or 2000 -10,000 plants	7 years, $50,000 fine
	10,000+ lbs. or 10,000 plants	15 years, $200,000 fine

Phenethylamines	10 – 200 grams	3 years, $50,000 fine
	200 – 400grams	7 years, $100,000 fine
	400+ grams	15 years, $250,000 fine

Item	Information
Charge	Sale of Cocaine
Form Code	DRUG1400
Alleged Statute	Florida Statute §893.13(1)(a)
Degree	Second Degree Felony

Stage	Description
Arrest	Criminal charges initiated
First Appearance	Bond reviewed
Arraignment	Plea entered
Discovery	Evidence exchanged
Motions	Legal issues addressed
Negotiations	Possible plea discussions
Trial	Jury or judge determines outcome

Offense Type	Pre-2010 Statutory Weight (100:1 Disparity)	Post-Fair Sentencing Act Weight (18:1 Disparity)	Mandatory Minimum Prison Term
Crack Cocaine (Level 1)	5 Grams or more	28 Grams or more	5 Years Minimum
Crack Cocaine (Level 2)	50 Grams or more	280 Grams or more	10 Years Minimum
Powder Cocaine (Level 1)	500 Grams or more	500 Grams or more	5 Years Minimum
Powder Cocaine (Level 2)	5 Kilograms or more	5 Kilograms or more	10 Years Minimum

Charge Type	Possible Penalty
Possession	Up to 5 years prison
Intent to Sell	Up to 15 years prison
Trafficking	Mandatory minimum prison

Drug Lawyer - Law Offices of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr.

Flaws in Florida Fentanyl Trafficking Charges

Fatal Flaws in Florida Fentanyl Charges: Why Statutory Precision Can Overturn a Trafficking Conviction

This Week on Drug2go: Comprehensive Fentanyl Defense Resources

Case Breakdown: Santiago v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)

The Facts

The State’s Charging Mistake

The Trial & Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

The Appellate Ruling

What This Means for Your Defense

Fight Back with an Experienced Trial Defense

Full Text of Fentanyl Lab Test Defense Opinion

Florida Court Tosses Evidence Due to Unnecessary K-9 Traffic Stop Delay

Florida Court Quashes Evidence Due to Unnecessary K-9 Traffic Stop Delay

Facts of the Case: Hudson v. State

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Judicial Concurrence Highlights the Prosecution’s Burden

Practical Implications for Tampa Bay Residents

Full Text of Opinion

Tampa Drug Court Lawyer Explains Florida Drug Court Agreements

Watch: Drug Court Explained (Tampa Defense Perspective)

Drug Court vs Traditional Criminal Case

Why Legal Review Before Signing Matters

More Frequently Asked Questions

Is Drug Court the same in every Florida county?

Can Drug Court result in dismissal of charges?

What happens if I fail Drug Court?

Do I need a lawyer before entering Drug Court?

Official Resources

Speak With a Tampa Drug Court Defense Lawyer

Drug Court Agreement | Contract | Sample

Tampa Drug Trafficking Attorney

Questions & Answers with W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Introduction

Florida Drug Trafficking Penalties (Example – Cocaine)

Conclusion

Description

Marijuana

Marijuana Charges in Tampa, Florida | Hillsborough County

Isn’t Marijuana Legal in Florida?

Here are a Few Frequently Asked Questions FAQ

Drug2103 Possession of Cannabis Less than 20 Grams

Drug2102 Possession of Cannabis More than 20 Grams

What are the Penalties – Florida State Marijuana Law Penalty Summary:

What Are Charge Codes?

Constructive Possession Cannabis | Defense Win

Trafficking in Cocaine | Florida Conviction Overturned

Watch: Trafficking in Cocaine Defense Attorney Video

Video Summary

Tampa Cocaine Trafficking Lawyer (28 to 200 Grams) – DRUG1904 Defense Attorney

Arrested for Cocaine Trafficking in Tampa? Call a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Immediately.

Why Hire W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

What Is Cocaine Trafficking Under Florida Law?

Quick Reference

What Must the State Prove?

Does a Rental Car Automatically Make Someone Guilty?

What Defenses May Be Available?

How Serious Are Cocaine Trafficking Charges?

Why Early Representation Matters

Why Choose a Tampa Drug Defense Attorney?

Cocaine Trafficking Case Timeline

Frequently Asked Questions

Does every cocaine trafficking case go to trial?

Is possession enough to prove trafficking?

Can constructive possession be challenged?

Should I speak with investigators?

Where can I read the Florida trafficking statute?

Talk to a Tampa Cocaine Trafficking Lawyer Today

Original Post from 2010

Florida Amphetamine or Methamphetamine Minimum Mandatory Law

⚖️ Video Explainer – Florida Mandatory Minimums: What You Need to Know

Florida Statute § 893.135 Amphetamine or Methamphetamine Minimum Mandatory Sentences

Florida Marijuana Minimum Mandatory Law

Video Description:

Florida Statute § 893.135 Marijuana Minimum Mandatory Sentences

Florida Phenethylamines Molly MDMA Minimum Mandatory Law

Are there minimum mandatory sentences for Molly under Florida Statute § 893.135? Yes.

Phenethylamines aka Molly aka MDMA Have Minimum Mandatory Sentences

Drug1400 Sale of Cocaine

Video: Understanding Florida Sale of Cocaine Charges