Drug Bust on Video

Tampa Drug Defense Attorney Michael P Maddux has recently reviewed a case where there was a Drug Bust on Video. The citizen photographer was arrested. Criminal Defense issues will be was there a Search Warrant, Probable Cause, or Consent to Search? The video mentions a “warrant”, but the police office claims consent to search the vehicle.

Civil Rights issue will be can the police arrest a citizen reporter recording police actions on a city street? What do you think?

Documentary | Copwatch: These Streets are Watching

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 Medical Marijuana Law Update

#Floriduh may not allow smoking #medicalmarijuana #cannabislaws despite #constitutional amendment.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/florida-medical-marijuana-compromise-likely-won-allow-smoking/8bk2WWF7JO66DpzOxF8tQN/

Our Previous Coverage is here:

http://www.drug2go.com/2017/03/hillsborough-county-medical-marijuana-ordinance.html

http://www.drug2go.com/2017/02/medical-marijuana-rules-hearing-tampa-florida.html

Florida Medical Marijuana Law – Complete Proposed Text of Senate Bill

http://www.drug2go.com/2017/01/florida-medical-marijuana-law-text.html

Rating: 5 – ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 26, 2017 – Section 381.986, Florida Statutes, is amended to 64 read: 65 381.986 Compassionate use of low-THC and medical cannabis 66 and marijuana …

Florida Ordinance Imposes Marijuana Moratorium

http://www.drug2go.com/2017/01/florida-ordinance-marijuana-moratorium.html

Rating: 5 – ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 19, 2017 – Another Florida Community has imposed a moratorium on licensing or Zoning for newmedical marijuana dispensaries.

Florida Counties Blocking Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

http://www.drug2go.com/2016/12/florida-counties-blocking-medical.html

Rating: 5 – ‎Review by Google+ User

Dec 6, 2016 – List of Florida counties trying to block the establishment of Medical MarijuanaDispensaries.

Video From Inside a Legal Florida Medical Marijuana Growhouse

http://www.drug2go.com/2016/12/video-inside-florida-medical-marijuana-growhouse.html

Rating: 5 – ‎Review by Google+ User

Dec 22, 2016 – We have also uncovered the location of one of Florida’a first retail locations for dispensing Medical marijuana. They will dispense Calming CBD …

Medical Marijuana Dispensary – Florida Complete Text of Proposed …

http://www.drug2go.com/2017/01/medical-marijuana-dispensary-florida-regulations.html

Rating: 5 – ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 17, 2017 – 64-4.012 Medical Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions. PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose and effect of this rule is to implement …

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

Casey has has a fully searchable Pinellas Cannabis Marijuana defense database using the search tool on this page. on marijuana and drug charges in Florida. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause and the possibility of drug charges being dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband.

Casey reviews Minimum Mandatory sentences may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial expert who defends drug crimes in Pinellas County, Florida.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Transcript: Pinellas Marijuana Defense Lawyer Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day. You may be one of them. I spend most of my time defending cases in State and Federal Courts. Many times drug crimes arise from searches of motor vehicles. Sometimes police will stop a car and then search it. Sometimes we are able to attack these searches when police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the motor vehicle. In the event we can suppress the evidence, we may be able to have the drug charges dismissed, since there is no longer any evidence to be admitted against you in a criminal prosecution and evidence becomes unavailble for admission in a trial. I have arrived at my destination – one of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Criminal charges in State or federal Court? Let me help. Call me at 813-222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you.[End of Pinellas Marijuana Defense Attorney Narration]

Video: Pinellas Marijuana Defense Lawyer 813-222-2220 Video on YouTube

This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause and the possibility of drug charges being dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband.

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

Marijuana Charges in Tampa, Florida | Hillsborough County

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 cannabis a/k/a “weed.”

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.

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

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.

“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.

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.

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

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

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

Oxycodone Oxycontin

Tampa Prescription Drug Defense Attorney notes another roundup as Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputies deputies made arrests before sunrise Thursday and by 9:30 a.m. EST made 33 arrests for dealing prescription medications. Operation Pain Reliever was a three-month investigation called aimed at the prescription drug abuse and distribution.

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/as-bondi-announces-crackdown-on-prescription-meds-33-arrested-in/1149356

Do You, a friend or Family Member Need Relief? Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Prescription Drug Defense Attorney

HCSO Press Release on YouTube | Operation Pain Reliever began in November 2010 with detectives making purchases of prescription pills, buying drugs, tracking fake prescriptions or targeting those who “doctor shopped.” The suspects range in age from 20 to 73 years old.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office detectives concluded a 3-month investigation into the illegal pain pill market in the county. Detectives with the Sheriff’s Special Operations Division expect to arrest more than 85 people on charges ranging trafficking in controlled substances to doctor shopping during
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

Tampa Prescription Drug Roundup

Prescription Drug BustsTampa Prescription Drug Defense Lawyer received a report of yet another Prescription Drug roundup as HCSO Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputies deputies made 33 arrests for dealing prescription medications. Code Name: Operation Pain Reliever . Former Drug Court Prosecutor W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is now available to help both the accused and their…

December 24, 2017

In “Prescription Drug Busts”

Prescription Drug Bust Spring Hill | Clearwater | Pinellas | Hillsborough

Prescription Drug ChargesTampa Criminal Defense Attorney notes that Prescription Drugs were the alleged reason 26 people from Florida in the Clearwater and Spring Hill areas were nabbed. Operation Spring Hill was the code name. According to law enforcement, Beginning in June 2009, a local pharmacist received a fake prescription for oxycodone…

July 19, 2010

In “Operation Spring Hill”

Pharmacy Thefts – Pasco Hernando Pinellas Hillsborough

Oxycodone HydrocodonePharmacy Thefts in Pasco, Hernando, Pinellas,and Hillsborough, were solved when feds busted a burglary ring. Feds say the burglaries were committed “by cutting the power lines outside the businesses before smashing their way inside with crowbars. They stole oxycodone, morphine, methadone, amphetamines, hydrocodone” and other drugs says the federal…

November 13, 2010

In “amphetamines”

DRUG2102: Navigating Cannabis Possession Charges in Hillsborough County, FL (2025)

The term “DRUG2102” is a critical identifier for individuals facing cannabis possession charges within the Florida legal system, specifically in Hillsborough County. As the legal landscape around cannabis evolves in 2025, understanding the implications of a DRUG2102 charge is paramount. This designation, tied to Florida Statute 893, signifies possession of cannabis and carries varying penalties based on the quantity involved.

In drug laws, cannabis possession remains a complex issue in Hillsborough County, Florida. If you’re facing a DRUG2102 charge, you need experienced legal counsel to protect your rights and future. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., with decades of experience in criminal defense, is here to guide you through this challenging process.

Understanding DRUG2102: Possession of Cannabis

DRUG2102 specifically refers to the Florida statute related to the possession of cannabis. While societal attitudes towards cannabis are shifting, Florida law still treats possession seriously. Understanding the nuances of this charge is crucial for building a strong defense.

Florida’s Legal Framework: A 2025 Perspective

Florida Statutes Chapter 893 governs drug offenses, including cannabis possession. As of 2025, while medical marijuana is legal with a prescription, recreational use remains prohibited. The penalties for possession vary based on the amount of cannabis involved and prior offenses.

• Florida Statute 893.13: This statute outlines the general provisions for controlled substance possession. You can review the details here: Florida Statutes Chapter 893
• Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE): The FDLE provides data and information on drug-related arrests and prosecutions. FDLE Website

Penalties for Cannabis Possession in Hillsborough County

The severity of the penalties depends on the amount of cannabis possessed. Here’s a general overview:

Factors Influencing Your Case

Several factors can influence the outcome of your DRUG2102 case:

• Amount of Cannabis: The quantity of cannabis directly impacts the severity of the charges.
• Prior Criminal Record: Previous drug offenses can lead to harsher penalties.
• Circumstances of the Arrest: Illegal search and seizure, lack of probable cause, and other procedural errors can be grounds for dismissal.
• Proximity to Schools or Parks: Possession near these areas can result in enhanced penalties.
• Intent to Sell or Distribute: Charges can escalate if there’s evidence of intent to sell.

Building a Strong Defense with W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

As your attorney, Casey Ebsary will meticulously examine every aspect of your case. He will:

• Investigate the Arrest: Scrutinize the legality of the search and seizure.
• Challenge Evidence: Identify any inconsistencies or errors in the prosecution’s case.
• Negotiate with Prosecutors: Seek reduced charges or alternative sentencing.
• Represent You in Court: Provide aggressive and effective legal representation.

Alternative Sentencing and Diversion Programs

In some cases, alternative sentencing options may be available, such as:

• Pretrial Intervention Programs: These programs offer rehabilitation and community service in lieu of prosecution.
• Drug Court: This specialized court focuses on rehabilitation for individuals with substance abuse issues.

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

• Extensive Experience: Decades of experience in criminal defense.
• Personalized Attention: Every case is handled with care and dedication.
• Aggressive Representation: Fighting for your rights and future.
• Local Expertise: Deep understanding of the Hillsborough County legal system.

Contact Casey Ebsary: Your Legal Advocate

Facing a DRUG2102 charge can be overwhelming. Don’t navigate this alone. Contact W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today for a confidential consultation.

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

Contact Casey The Lawyer:

For immediate assistance, please visit the contact page: Contact Casey The Lawyer or call 813-222-2220. Your initial consultation is confidential, and we will discuss your options.

DRUG2102

Individuals searching for legal assistance related to DRUG2102 need a seasoned attorney who comprehends the nuances of Florida drug laws. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., with his extensive experience, provides dedicated legal representation for those charged under DRUG2102. His expertise in Hillsborough County’s courts ensures a robust defense, focusing on challenging evidence, negotiating with prosecutors, and advocating for reduced penalties or alternative sentencing. For those seeking clarity and legal support, understanding the context of DRUG2102 is the first step towards a favorable resolution.

Helpful Defenses Table

Cannabis Q&A:

What is DRUG2102?

DRUG2102 refers to the Florida statute related to the possession of cannabis.

What are the penalties for possessing less than 20 grams of cannabis?

It’s a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Can I go to jail for possessing cannabis in Hillsborough County?

Yes, the severity of the penalties depends on the amount of cannabis and your criminal history.

What is a pretrial intervention program?

It’s a program that offers rehabilitation and community service as an alternative to prosecution.

How can an attorney help with a DRUG2102 charge

An attorney can investigate your arrest, challenge evidence, negotiate with prosecutors, and represent you in court.

Is medical marijuana legal in Florida?

Yes, with a prescription, but recreational use remains illegal as of 2025.

What should I do if I’m arrested for cannabis possession?

Remain silent, request an attorney, and do not resist arrest.

Can prior offenses affect my current cannabis possession charge?

Yes, prior offenses can lead to harsher penalties.

What is drug court?

A specialized court focused on rehabilitation for individuals with substance abuse issues.

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

A: Visit Contact Casey The Lawyer or call 813-222-2220.

Drug2Go.com

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

• Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer
• Marijuana
• DRUG2103 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS
• Video – Hillsborough Marijuana Defense Lawyer 813-222-2220
• Tampa Cannabis Decriminalized – Complete Text of Tampa Cannabis Ordinance

If you have been charged with DRUG2102 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

What is Board Certification?

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

Why Does Board Certification Matter for Drug Crime Cases?

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

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

How to Verify if a Lawyer is Board Certified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does board certification guarantee a win in my case?

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

Are Board Certified lawyers more expensive?

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

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

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

Besides board certification, what else should I consider?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A List of Board Certified Experts in Criminal Defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers;

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

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

Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers;

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

Take Action: Contact a Board Certified Drug Crime Lawyer Today

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

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

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

Dog Sniff Delay Of 20 Minutes is Too Much

Dog Sniff Delayed in Florida

Doggie delayed is Justice denied?

This guy was driving on I-75 in Alachua County near Gainesville Florida home of the Florida Gators. The cop claimed he had cut off a truck, perform a traffic stop, and then called for a drug dog. This case has the shortest delay I have ever seen in any drug dog case since the Supreme Court ruled recently. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015).

The delay was at most 20 minutes. This court essentially ruled that any delay without a reasonable suspicion was unconstitutional. Doggie delayed is Justice denied?

One commentator summarized, “Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress drugs found after dog alerted to presence of narcotics in vehicle where traffic stop was delayed in order to perform dog sniff and there was no basis in record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop . . . .” Florida Law Weekly

Florida Drug Dog Search Laws: Expert FAQs

Can a police officer in Florida threaten to use a drug dog to get me to consent to a search?

Police officers often use the threat of a drug dog to pressure individuals into consenting to a search. However, you have the right to refuse a search. Don’t be intimidated by these tactics.

What if the officer detains me longer than necessary while waiting for a drug dog to arrive?

The Supreme Court case Rodriguez v. United States established that police cannot prolong a traffic stop beyond the time needed to address the initial reason for the stop without reasonable suspicion. If an officer detains you longer than necessary to wait for a drug dog, this could be a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.

What is considered “reasonable suspicion” for an officer to extend a traffic stop?

Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch. The officer must be able to articulate specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity is afoot.

What should I do if an officer threatens to call a drug dog during a traffic stop?

Remain calm, be polite, and clearly state that you do not consent to a search. It’s important to document the interaction if possible, noting the time the stop began and ended.

Can I challenge a drug dog search in court?

Yes. You can file a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing that the search was illegal because it was based on an unlawful extension of the traffic stop or lacked probable cause.

What are some common mistakes people make during a traffic stop involving a drug dog?

Common mistakes include consenting to a search without an attorney present, volunteering information, and failing to document the interaction with the police.

Does the Rodriguez decision apply to all types of police stops, or just traffic stops?

While Rodriguez specifically addressed traffic stops, the principle of not prolonging a stop without reasonable suspicion applies to other types of investigative detentions as well.

What if the drug dog alerts to my car, but no drugs are found?

A drug dog alert alone may not be enough to establish probable cause, especially if the dog is not trained to differentiate between legal and illegal substances.

How can a Florida criminal defense attorney help me in a drug dog search case?

An experienced attorney can analyze the circumstances of the search, file motions to suppress evidence, and fight to protect your rights in court.

What is the best way to avoid problems with drug dog searches?

The best way to avoid problems is to know your rights and not consent to any searches without first consulting with an attorney.

Excerpts From Drug Dog Sniff Opinion

“driving on I-75 when he was pulled over by an officer due to an improper lane change that cut off a semi-truck. At the initiation of the traffic stop, the officer called for a K-9 unit to perform a sniff search”

 “sixteen minutes later, and twenty minutes into the stop, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and Wooden was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance”

“the trial court found that the traffic stop was delayed, characterizing it as “de minimis” and a “very little” delay. As Wooden points out on appeal, the decision in Rodriguez does not frame the quantum of permissible delay in these terms. Rather, the “critical question . . . is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, . . . but whether conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’—i.e., adds time to—‘the stop.’” 135 S. Ct. at 1616.”

“because there is no basis in the record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop . . . we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying . . .  dispositive motion to suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate his conviction.”

20 Minutes is Too Much – Drug Case Tossed

Complete Drug Dog Sniff Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D16-2077
_____________________________
GREGORY WOODEN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Mark W. Moseley, Judge.
April 18, 2018
PER CURIAM.

Gregory Wooden appeals his conviction for possession of narcotics, arguing that the traffic stop that led to his arrest was unconstitutionally prolonged in order to perform a dog sniff search.
At approximately midnight on September 30, 2015, Wooden was driving on I-75 when he was pulled over by an officer due to an improper lane change that cut off a semi-truck. At the initiation of the traffic stop, the officer called for a K-9 unit to perform a sniff search of the exterior of Wooden’s car. After its arrival approximately sixteen minutes later, and twenty minutes into the stop, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and Wooden was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance without a prescription. Wooden moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the original traffic stop that led to his arrest

2

was prolonged in order to perform the dog sniff search, contrary to the dictates of Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). The trial court denied the motion, stating that Wooden was “not unreasonably detained during the traffic stop as [the officer] was still in the process of issuing a written warning to the Defendant while the narcotics K-9 alerted to the Defendant’s vehicle.” Appellant pled nolo contendere to the possession charge, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the dispositive motion.

In its oral pronouncement, the trial court found that the traffic stop was delayed, characterizing it as “de minimis” and a “very little” delay. As Wooden points out on appeal, the decision in Rodriguez does not frame the quantum of permissible delay in these terms. Rather, the “critical question . . . is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, . . . but whether conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’—i.e., adds time to—‘the stop.’” 135 S. Ct. at 1616.

Because the trial court concluded that time was added, which delayed the traffic stop before the dog sniff was performed, it was necessary for the trial court to make a baseline finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Wooden for the prolonged period during which the sniff occurred. Although an officer “may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. . . ., he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.” Id. at 1615. Because reasonable suspicion was not addressed below, and because there is no basis in the record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop in accordance with Rodriguez, we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying Wooden’s dispositive motion to suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate his conviction. See Maldonado v. State, 992 So. 2d 839, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

RAY, MAKAR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
3
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Richard M. Bracey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Scott Cooke

Five Stars on Google

Summary

This is the guy you are looking for. Highly motivated and very knowledgeable. Literally saved my life. Looking forward to doing more business with him as I open this new chapter of my life. 813-222-2220

Drug Entrapment

Lawyer Reacts to Entrapment by Cops: Legal Insights You Can’t Miss

In the latest episode of Lawyer Reacts, our seasoned attorney dives into the complexities of entrapment laws by analyzing a real-life case of alleged police misconduct. Entrapment, a controversial topic in criminal defense, raises critical questions about law enforcement tactics and the rights of defendants.

What Is Entrapment?

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. It is a legal defense that requires careful examination of police behavior and the defendant’s actions.

Key Takeaways from the Video

• Understanding Entrapment Laws: Learn how entrapment is defined and defended in court.
• Analyzing Police Tactics: Discover the fine line between lawful sting operations and illegal entrapment.
• Building an Effective Defense: Gain insight into strategies that can challenge the prosecution’s case.

Table: Entrapment Defense Checklist

Why This Video Matters

This thought-provoking case study reminds viewers of the importance of informed legal representation. Entrapment defenses require nuanced legal strategies that challenge police actions while protecting defendants’ rights.

Don’t miss this gripping analysis! Watch the full video to explore the legal loopholes, defense strategies, and implications of modern policing practices. Watch Now.

Stay informed, and if you face legal challenges, consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to safeguard your rights.

Drug Entrapment Lawyer

Casey is wholeheartedly dedicated to defense, making it the primary focus of his law practice. When you choose him, you’re not just paying for defense; you’re investing in someone who will fight harder than anyone else.

centrallaw@gmail.com
813-222-2220
2102 West Cleveland StTampa, FL 33606

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drug Dog Case Background

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

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

Key Legal Questions

The court considered two main questions:

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

Probable Cause and K-9 Alerts

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

In its analysis, the Fifth District noted the following:

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

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

The Good Faith Exception

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

The court explained:

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

Implications of the Decision

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

Complete Opinion of the Court:

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

Facts

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

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

The ordinance proposes the creation of Tampa Code Section 14-62, making the possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis and drug paraphernalia unlawful within the City of Tampa, Florida. It introduces civil penalties as an alternative to criminal charges for these offenses, aiming to address cases where the possession of a small amount of cannabis is the only chargeable offense. The ordinance defines cannabis and paraphernalia, establishes violations, and outlines civil penalties. It also amends existing code sections related to code enforcement procedures and penalties for violations, with an emphasis on providing a graduated fine structure for repeated offenses. The ordinance seeks to balance the severity of the offense with more proportionate civil penalties.

“Many of the citations issued are on or near major highways,
leading us to believe they may be associated
with traffic stops and searches.”

Decriminalization of Cannabis in Tampa has generated some data on where the citations are being issued. We just obtained a map showing the locations of the first batch of citations issued in the new City of Tampa Marijuana Citation law. Many of the citations issued are on or near major highways, leading us to believe they may be associated with traffic stops and searches. The information about each detention for alleged marijuana ordinance violations can be found by clicking on the red pins on the cannabis ordinance violation map.

Decriminalization for University of Tampa Students

Attention University of Tampa Students! Understanding Florida’s marijuana laws is crucial. State statutes vary, and it’s essential to note that marijuana-related convictions unrelated to driving can lead to the suspension of your Florida driver’s license. Driving under the influence of marijuana carries penalties similar to those for alcohol or other impairing substances (Florida Statute 316.193).

While medical marijuana is legal in Florida under Amendment 2, its use is still prohibited on the University of Tampa campus. The City of Tampa, where the university is located, has a civil citation ordinance (TAMPA CODE SECTION 14-62) for simple possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana. However, this applies only within the city limits, not elsewhere in Hillsborough County.

Starting July 1, 2023, certain hemp extract products are restricted for individuals under 21 (Florida Statutes 381.986). Familiarize yourself with these regulations to stay informed and avoid legal complications.

For more information, refer to:

• Florida Statutes 381.986 Medical Use of Marijuana
• Florida Statutes 581.217 State Hemp Program
• Florida Statutes 893.13 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control

“arrests and prosecutions for cannabis will continue”

Quick Facts About the Tampa Marijuana Laws

The City of Tampa Florida, has passed an ordinance decriminalizing possession of cannabis (less than 20 grams). Hash oil and derivatives are still felonies. The complete text of the new cannabis ordinance is below. The short version: Fines; For a first offense $75.00; For a second offense $150.00; For a third offense $300.00; For a fourth or subsequent offense $450.00.

Tampa Bay area law enforcement and the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office have notified at least one media source that arrests and prosecutions for cannabis will continue for those arrested by anyone other than the Tampa Police Department. So, for example a fan arrested at Tampa Stadium by a Hillsborough County Sheriff or a Florida Highway Patrol State Trooper will still be prosecuted, even though the stadium is inside the Tampa City Limits. Beyond that, cops still have the power to forfeit a vehicle used during the commission of cannabis offenses.

Tampa Police Department Attorney Kirby Rainsberger says that civil citations will be issued ONLY when the suspect is not a minor; there are no other criminal charges; suspect can be released on own recognizance; and the suspect has no unpaid fines. Check out The Tampa Tribune Marijuana story here. The Mayor of Tampa’s comments and a History of the Marijuana Ordinance is here.

“doesn’t make us any less anti-drug, but it’s a realization
that the penalties that have been imposed have done
more damage to the trajectories of young peoples’
lives than the offenses have warranted.”

Mayor Bob Buckhorn

Why Didn’t Tampa Repeal Its Marijuana Forfeiture Law?

Tampa did not change its forfeiture ordinance, so expect police to be financially motivated to continue misdemeanor marijuana busts. The City council did not repeal Tampa City Ordinance 14-30. The Tampa law provides that it is a violation of this section and a motor vehicle shall be subject to impoundment whenever the vehicle was used, intended, or attempted to be used to facilitate the commission or attempted commission of any misdemeanor violation of F.S. Ch. 893 (Florida’s Drug Law). See Video at the bottom of this article.

Tampa Remains the King of Marijuana Forfeitures

One media source has reported “No law enforcement agency in West/Central Florida seizes more vehicles under Florida’s Contraband Forfeiture Act than the Tampa Police Department. And half of the 1,500 vehicles it seizes annually are either kept for agency use or turned into cash, either through settlements with the original owner or through sale at auction.” The source reported “Tampa city ordinance 14-30 sets a flat $500 fee to get a vehicle back after a misdemeanor arrest, regardless of what happens to the charges. The city reports collecting the fee more than 500 times last year.”

Tampa Cannabis Ordinance Text

Download

ORDINANCE NO. 2016-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, CREATING TAMPA CODE SECTION 14-62 MAKING POSSESSION OF TWENTY GRAMS OR LESS OF CANNABIS UNLAWFUL, MAKING POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AS DEFINED HEREIN UNLAWFUL, PROVIDING FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, AMENDING TAMPA CODE SECTION 23.5-5 TO SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF CIVIL FINE FOR VIOLATION, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, Florida Statute Subsection 893.13(6)(b) provides that the possession of twenty (20) grams or less of cannabis (marijuana), intended only for consumption of the possessor, is a misdemeanor criminal offense; and

WHEREAS. Florida Statute Subsection 893.147(1) provides that the possession of
drug paraphernalia as defined in Florida Statute Section 893.145 is a misdemeanor criminal offense; and

WHEREAS, the Tampa City Council finds that particularly where the citizen’s only
known offense at the time of arrest is possession for personal use of a small amount of cannabis, or paraphernalia for administration thereof, criminal penalties and potentially lifelong criminal record are disproportionate to the severity of the offense; and

WHEREAS, the Tampa City Council finds that established civil penalties and
procedures are more commensurate with the offense of possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis or paraphernalia when that is the only chargeable offense.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA:

Section 1. That Tampa Code Section 14-62 is hereby created to read in its entirety as follows:

Sec. 14-62. Possession of cannabis or paraphernalia.

(a) Definitions.

(1) Cannabis means all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not and the seeds thereof. The tern does not include the resin or oil extracted from any part of the plant or “‘low-THC cannabis” as defined in Florida Statute § 381.986 if manufactured, possessed. sold, purchased, delivered, distributed, and dispensed in conformance with § 381.986.

(2) Paraphernalia means any object used, intended for use, or designed for use, in ingesting, inhaling, smoking, or otherwise introducing cannabis into the human body.

(b) Any person who possesses twenty (20) grams or less of cannabis as defined herein except as otherwise authorized by law commits a violation of this subsection.

(c) Any person who possesses paraphernalia as defined herein except as otherwise authorized by law commits a violation of this subsection.

(d) A person charged with possession of cannabis under subsection (b) may not be charged with possession of paraphernalia under subsection (e) arising out of the same incident.

(e) Penalties and Procedure

(1) The provisions of Tampa Code Chapter 23.5 shall apply to all violations charged pursuant to this section.

(2) Violation of this section is deemed to be an irreparable or irreversible violation punishable by civil penalty as a Class I offense.

(3) If the applicable civil penalty is not paid within 30 days from the citation date, in addition to the procedure provided in Tampa Code Chapter 23.5 in the event of such nonpayment, the defendant will no longer be eligible for the alternative enforcement procedures provided by this section.

Section 2. That Tampa Code subsection 23.5-4(e) is hereby amended as follows:

(f) After issuing a citation to an alleged violator, a code enforcement officer shall deposit the original and one (1) copy of the citation with the City Attorney’s Office. If the citation is not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance. the City Attorney’s Office shall forward the original and one (1) copy of the citation to the county court.

Section 3. That Tampa Code Subsection 23.5-5(a) is hereby amended by adding the underlined part as follows:

(a) Violations of the following sections of the Tampa City Code are considered Class I violations and will carry a fine of:

For a first offense $75.00
For a second offense $150.00
For a third offense $300.00
For a fourth or subsequent offense $450.00

Sources:

Tampa, Florida Marijuana Cannabis Ordinance
https://atg.tampagov.net/sirepub/meetresults.aspx?meettype=Council%20Regular&cscRedirectID=497
http://www.tampagov.net/sites/default/files/planning/files/supp_81/supp_81_ch14_9_10_13.pdfbr /> http://www.tampagov.net/

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

Federal forfeitures are used in prosecutions of federal law violations. Florida frequently uses this tool in state statutes. Here is a list of a few of the provisions under Florida law 932.701.

List of Florida Forfeiture Items

• Automobiles
• Vessels and Boats
• Aircraft
• Real Estate
• Personal Property

List of Crimes For Florida Forfeiture

• Felonies in Conjunction with Use of Property
• Real Property used in a felony
• Motor vehicle used in a felony
• Vessel used in a felony

Complete Text of Florida Forfeiture Laws

CHAPTER 2016-179 

Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1044

An act relating to contraband forfeiture; amending s. 932.701, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; amending s. 932.703, F.S.; specifying that property may be seized only under certain circumstances; defining the term “monetary instrument”; requiring that specified persons approve a settlement; providing circumstances when property may be deemed contraband; allocating responsibility for damage to seized property and payment of storage and maintenance expenses; requiring the seizing agency to apply for an order, within a certain timeframe, making a probable cause determination after the agency seizes property; providing application requirements; requiring a court to make specified determinations; providing procedures upon certain court find­ings; authorizing the court to seal any portion of the application and of specified proceedings under certain circumstances; amending s. 932.704, F.S.; providing requirements for a filing fee and a bond to be paid to the clerk of court; requiring that the bond be made payable to the claimant under certain circumstances unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing; increasing the evidentiary standard from clear and convincing evidence to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a contraband article was being used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act for a court to order the forfeiture of the seized property; increasing the attorney fees and costs awarded to claimant under certain circumstances; requiring a seizing agency to annually review seizures, settlements, and forfeiture proceedings to determine compliance with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; providing requirements for seizing law enforcement agencies; requiring seizing law enforcement agencies to adopt and implement specified written policies, procedures, and training; requiring law enforcement agency personnel to receive basic training and continuing education; requiring the maintenance of training records; amending s. 932.7055, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; creating s. 932.7061, F.S.; providing reporting requirements for seized property for forfeiture; creating s. 932.7062, F.S.; providing penalties for noncompli­ance with reporting requirements; amending s. 322.34, F.S.; providing for payment of court costs, fines, and fees from proceeds of certain forfeitures; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; amending ss. 323.001, 328.07, and 817.625, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; providing an effective date. 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Subsection (1) of section 932.701, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:  

932.701 Short title; definitions.— 

(1) Sections 932.701-932.7062 932.706 shall be known and may be cited as the “Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.” 

Section 2. Subsection (1) of section 932.703, Florida Statutes, is amended, a new subsection (2) is added, and present subsections (2) through 

(8) are redesignated as subsections (3) through (9), respectively, to read: 

932.703 Forfeiture of contraband article; exceptions.— 

(1)(a) A Any contraband article, vessel, motor vehicle, aircraft, other personal property, or real property used in violation of any provision of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, or in, upon, or by means of which any violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act has taken or is taking place, may be seized and shall be forfeited subject to the provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. A seizure may occur only if the owner of the property is arrested for a criminal offense that forms the basis for determining that the property is a contraband article under s. 932.701, or one or more of the following circumstances apply: 

1. The owner of the property cannot be identified after a diligent search, or the person in possession of the property denies ownership and the owner of the property cannot be identified by means that are available to the employee or agent of the seizing agency at the time of the seizure; 

2. The owner of the property is a fugitive from justice or is deceased; 

3. An individual who does not own the property is arrested for a criminal offense that forms the basis for determining that the property is a contraband article under s. 932.701 and the owner of the property had actual knowledge of the criminal activity. Evidence that an owner received written notification from a law enforcement agency and acknowledged receipt of the notification in writing, that the seized asset had been used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act on a prior occasion by the arrested person, may be used to establish actual knowledge; 

4. The owner of the property agrees to be a confidential informant as defined in s. 914.28. The seizing agency may not use the threat of property seizure or forfeiture to coerce the owner of the property to enter into a confidential informant agreement. The seizing agency shall return the property to the owner if criminal charges are not filed against the owner and the active criminal investigation ends or if the owner ceases being a confidential informant, unless the agency includes the final forfeiture of the property as a component of the confidential informant agreement; or 

5. The property is a monetary instrument. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “monetary instrument” means coin or currency of the United States or any other country; a traveler’s check; a personal check; a bank check; a cashier’s check; a money order; a bank draft of any country; an investment security or negotiable instrument in bearer form or in other form such that title passes upon delivery; a prepaid or stored value card or other device that is the equivalent of money and can be used to obtain cash, property, or services; or gold, silver, or platinum bullion or coins. 

(b) After property is seized pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, regardless of whether the civil complaint has been filed, all settlements must be personally approved by the head of the law enforcement agency that seized the property. If the agency head is unavailable and a delay would adversely affect the settlement, approval may be given by a subordinate of the agency head who is designated to grant such approval Notwithstanding any other provision of the Florida Contra­band Forfeiture Act, except the provisions of paragraph (a), contraband articles set forth in s. 932.701(2)(a)7. used in violation of any provision of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, or in, upon, or by means of which any violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act has taken or is taking place, shall be seized and shall be forfeited subject to the provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. 

(c) If at least 90 days have elapsed since the initial seizure of the property and the seizing agency has failed to locate the owner after making a diligent effort, the seized property is deemed a contraband article that is subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act All rights to, interest in, and title to contraband articles used in violation of s. 932.702 shall immediately vest in the seizing law enforcement agency upon seizure. 

(d)1. The seizing agency may not use the seized property for any purpose until the rights to, interest in, and title to the seized property are perfected in accordance with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. This section does not prohibit use or operation necessary for reasonable maintenance of seized property. Reasonable efforts shall be made to maintain seized property in such a manner as to minimize loss of value. 

2. Unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing by the parties, the agency seeking forfeiture of the seized property is responsible for any damage to the property and any storage fees or maintenance costs applicable to the property. If more than one agency seeks forfeiture of the property, the division of liability under this subparagraph may be governed by the terms of an agreement between the agencies. 

(2)(a) When a seizure of property is made under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the seizing agency shall apply, within 10 business days after the date of the seizure, to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order determining whether probable cause exists for the seizure of the property. The application for the probable cause determination must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit and may be filed electronically by reliable electronic means. 

(b) The court must determine whether: 

The owner was arrested under paragraph (1)(a), and if not, whether an exception to the arrest requirement specified in paragraph (1)(a) applies; and 

Probable cause exists for the property seizure under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. 

(c) If the court finds that the requirements specified in paragraph (1)(a) were satisfied and that probable cause exists for the seizure, the forfeiture may proceed as set forth in the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, and no additional probable cause determination is required unless the claimant requests an adversarial preliminary hearing as set forth in the act. Upon such a finding, the court shall issue a written order finding probable cause for the seizure and order the property held until the issue of a determination of title is resolved pursuant to the procedures defined in the act. 

(d) If the court finds that the requirements in paragraph (1)(a) were not satisfied or that probable cause does not exist for the seizure, any forfeiture hold, lien, lis pendens, or other civil encumbrance must be released within 5 days. 

(e) The court may seal any portion of the application and the record of any proceeding under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act which is exempt or confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution or may otherwise be sealed pursuant to Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. 

Section 3. Subsection (4), paragraph (b) of subsection (5), paragraph (b) of subsection (6), subsections (8), (10), and (11) of section 932.704, Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 

932.704 Forfeiture proceedings.— 

(4) The seizing agency shall promptly proceed against the contraband article by filing a complaint in the circuit court within the jurisdiction where the seizure or the offense occurred, paying a filing fee of at least $1,000 and depositing a bond of $1,500 to the clerk of the court. Unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing by the parties, the bond shall be payable to the claimant if the claimant prevails in the forfeiture proceeding and in any appeal. 

(5) 

(b) If no person entitled to notice requests an adversarial preliminary hearing, as provided in s. 932.703(3)(a) 932.703(2)(a), the court, upon receipt of the complaint, shall review the complaint and the verified supporting affidavit to determine whether there was probable cause for the seizure. Upon a finding of probable cause, the court shall enter an order showing the probable cause finding. 

(6) 

(b) The complaint must, in addition to stating that which is required by s. 932.703(3)(a) and (b) 932.703(2)(a) and (b), as appropriate, describe the property; state the county, place, and date of seizure; state the name of the law enforcement agency holding the seized property; and state the name of the court in which the complaint will be filed. 

(8) Upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt clear and convincing evidence that the contraband article was being used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the court shall order the seized property forfeited to the seizing law enforcement agency. The final order of forfeiture by the court shall perfect in the law enforcement agency right, title, and interest in and to such property, subject only to the rights and interests of bona fide lienholders, and shall relate back to the date of seizure. 

(10) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, up to a limit of $2,000 $1,000, to the claimant at the close of the adversarial preliminary hearing if the court makes a finding of no probable cause. When the claimant prevails, at the close of forfeiture proceedings and any appeal, the court shall award reasonable trial attorney’s fees and costs to the claimant if the court finds that the seizing agency has not proceeded at any stage of the proceedings in good faith or that the seizing agency’s action which precipitated the forfeiture proceedings was a gross abuse of the agency’s discretion. The court may order the seizing agency to pay the awarded attorney’s fees and costs from the appropriate contraband forfeiture trust fund. Nothing in this subsection precludes any party from electing to seek attorney’s fees and costs under chapter 57 or other applicable law. 

(11)(a) The Department of Law Enforcement, in consultation with the Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Police Chiefs Association, shall develop guidelines and training procedures to be used by state and local law enforcement agencies and state attorneys in implementing the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. At least annually, each state or local law enforcement agency that seizes property for the purpose of forfeiture shall periodically review such seizures of assets made by the agency’s law enforcement officers, any settlements, and any forfeiture proceedings initiated by the law enforcement agency, to determine whether they such seizures, settlements, and forfeitures comply with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act and the guidelines adopted under this subsection. If the review suggests deficiencies, the state or local law enforcement agency shall promptly take action to comply with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. 

(b) The determination as to of whether an agency will file a civil forfeiture action is must be the sole responsibility of the head of the agency or his or her designee. 

(c)(b) The determination as to of whether to seize currency must be made by supervisory personnel. The agency’s legal counsel must be notified as soon as possible after a determination is made. 

(d) The employment, salary, promotion, or other compensation of any law enforcement officer may not be dependent on the ability of the officer to meet a quota for seizures. 

(e) A seizing agency shall adopt and implement written policies, procedures, and training to ensure compliance with all applicable legal requirements regarding seizing, maintaining, and the forfeiture of property under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. 

(f) When property is seized for forfeiture, the probable cause supporting the seizure must be promptly reviewed by supervisory personnel. The seizing agency’s legal counsel must be notified as soon as possible of all seizures and shall conduct a review to determine whether there is legal sufficiency to proceed with a forfeiture action. 

(g) Each seizing agency shall adopt and implement written policies and procedures promoting the prompt release of seized property as may be required by the act or by agency determination when there is no legitimate basis for holding seized property. To help ensure that property is not wrongfully held after seizure, each law enforcement agency must adopt written policies and procedures ensuring that all asserted claims of interest in seized property are promptly reviewed for potential validity. 

(h) The settlement of any forfeiture action must be consistent with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act and the policy of the seizing agency. 

(i) Law enforcement agency personnel involved in the seizure of property for forfeiture shall receive basic training and continuing education as required by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. Each agency shall maintain records demonstrating each law enforcement officer’s compliance with this requirement. Among other things, the training must address the legal aspects of forfeiture, including, but not limited to, search and seizure and other constitutional considerations. 

Section 4. Subsection (3) and paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 932.7055, Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 

932.7055 Disposition of liens and forfeited property.— 

(3) If the forfeited property is subject to a lien preserved by the court as provided in s. 932.703(7)(b) 932.703(6)(b), the agency shall: 

(a) Sell the property with the proceeds being used towards satisfaction of any liens; or 

(b) Have the lien satisfied prior to taking any action authorized by subsection (1). 

(5) 

(c) An agency or organization, other than the seizing agency, that wishes to receive such funds shall apply to the sheriff or chief of police for an appropriation and its application shall be accompanied by a written certification that the moneys will be used for an authorized purpose. Such requests for expenditures shall include a statement describing anticipated recurring costs for the agency for subsequent fiscal years. An agency or organization that receives money pursuant to this subsection shall provide an accounting for such moneys and shall furnish the same reports as an agency of the county or municipality that receives public funds. Such funds may be expended in accordance with the following procedures: 

Such funds may be used only for school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, drug abuse education, or drug prevention programs or such other law enforcement purposes as the board of county commissioners or governing body of the municipality deems appropriate. 

Such funds shall not be a source of revenue to meet normal operating needs of the law enforcement agency. 

After July 1, 1992, and during every fiscal year thereafter, Any local law enforcement agency that acquires at least $15,000 pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act within a fiscal year must expend or donate no less than 25 15 percent of such proceeds for the support or operation of any drug treatment, drug abuse education, drug prevention, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, or school resource officer program or programs program(s). The local law enforcement agency has the discretion to determine which program or programs program(s) will receive the desig­nated proceeds. 

Notwithstanding the drug abuse education, drug treatment, drug preven­tion, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, or school resource officer minimum expenditures or donations, the sheriff and the board of county commissioners or the chief of police and the governing body of the municipality may agree to expend or donate such funds over a period of years if the expenditure or donation of such minimum amount in any given fiscal year would exceed the needs of the county or municipality for such program or programs program(s). Nothing in this section precludes The minimum requirement for expenditure or donation of forfeiture proceeds in excess of the minimum amounts established in this subparagraph does not preclude expenditures or donations in excess of that amount herein. 

Section 5. Section 932.7061, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 

932.7061 Reporting seized property for forfeiture.— 

(1) Every law enforcement agency shall submit an annual report to the Department of Law Enforcement indicating whether the agency has seized or forfeited property under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. A law enforcement agency receiving or expending forfeited property or proceeds from the sale of forfeited property in accordance with the Florida 

Contraband Forfeiture Act shall submit a completed annual report by October 10 documenting the receipts and expenditures. The report shall be submitted in an electronic form, maintained by the Department of Law Enforcement in consultation with the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, to the entity that has budgetary authority over such agency and to the Department of Law Enforcement. The annual report must, at a minimum, specify the type, approximate value, court case number, type of offense, disposition of property received, and amount of any proceeds received or expended. 

(2) The Department of Law Enforcement shall submit an annual report to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability compiling the information and data in the annual reports submitted by the law enforcement agencies. The annual report shall also contain a list of law enforcement agencies that have failed to meet the reporting requirements and a summary of any action taken against the noncomplying agency by the office of Chief Financial Officer. 

(3) The law enforcement agency and the entity having budgetary control over the law enforcement agency may not anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds therefrom in the adoption and approval of the budget for the law enforcement agency. 

Section 6. Section 932.7062, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 

932.7062 Penalty for noncompliance with reporting requirements.—

A seizing agency that fails to comply with the reporting requirements in s. 932.7061 is subject to a civil fine of $5,000, to be determined by the Chief Financial Officer and payable to the General Revenue Fund. However, such agency is not subject to the fine if, within 60 days after receipt of written notification from the Department of Law Enforcement of noncompliance with the reporting requirements of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the agency substantially complies with those requirements. The Depart­ment of Law Enforcement shall submit any substantial noncompliance to the office of Chief Financial Officer, which shall be responsible for the enforcement of this section. 

Section 7. Paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (9) of section 322.34, Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 

322.34 Driving while license suspended, revoked, canceled, or disquali­fied.— 

(9)(a) A motor vehicle that is driven by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of s. 316.193 is subject to seizure and forfeiture under ss. 932.701-932.7062 932.706 and is subject to liens for recovering, towing, or storing vehicles under s. 713.78 if, at the time of the offense, the person’s driver license is suspended, revoked, or canceled as a result of a prior conviction for driving under the influence. 

(c) Notwithstanding s. 932.703(1)(c) or s. 932.7055, when the seizing agency obtains a final judgment granting forfeiture of the motor vehicle under this section, 30 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicle shall be retained by the seizing law enforcement agency. The remaining 70 percent of the proceeds shall first be applied to payment of court costs, fines, and fees remaining due, and any remaining balance of proceeds and 70 percent shall be deposited in the General Revenue Fund for use by regional workforce boards in providing transportation services for participants of the welfare transition program. In a forfeiture proceeding under this section, the court may consider the extent that the family of the owner has other public or private means of transportation. 

Section 8. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section 323.001, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 

323.001 Wrecker operator storage facilities; vehicle holds.— 

(4) The requirements for a written hold apply when the following conditions are present: 

(a) The officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle should be seized and forfeited under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, ss. 932.701­932.7062 932.706; 

Section 9. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 328.07, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 

328.07 Hull identification number required.— 

(3) 

(b) If any of the hull identification numbers required by the United States Coast Guard for a vessel manufactured after October 31, 1972, do not exist or have been altered, removed, destroyed, covered, or defaced or the real identity of the vessel cannot be determined, the vessel may be seized as contraband property by a law enforcement agency or the division, and shall be subject to forfeiture pursuant to ss. 932.701-932.7062 932.706. Such vessel may not be sold or operated on the waters of the state unless the division receives a request from a law enforcement agency providing adequate documentation or is directed by written order of a court of competent jurisdiction to issue to the vessel a replacement hull identification number which shall thereafter be used for identification purposes. No vessel shall be forfeited under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act when the owner unknowingly, inadvertently, or neglectfully altered, removed, de­stroyed, covered, or defaced the vessel hull identification number. 

817.625 Use of scanning device or reencoder to defraud; penalties.— 

(2) 

Section 10. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 817.625, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 

(c) Any person who violates subparagraph (a)1. or subparagraph (a)2. shall also be subject to the provisions of ss. 932.701-932.7062 932.706. Section 11. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016. 

Approved by the Governor April 1, 2016. Filed in Office Secretary of State April 1, 2016. 

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