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

Facing Cannabis Possession Charges in Tampa? (DRUG2103 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS Under 20 Grams) – Know Your Rights!

Introduction:

Being arrested for any drug charge can be frightening and overwhelming. If you or a loved one has been charged with DRUG2103 Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams in Tampa or Hillsborough County, Florida, it’s crucial to understand your rights and legal options. While this charge is a misdemeanor, it can still have serious consequences. This article will explain what this charge means and why it’s essential to contact an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney immediately.

What is DRUG2103 Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams?

Florida Statute 893.13.6(b) defines the possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis as a first-degree misdemeanor. This means that, in the eyes of the law you’re accused of:

• Form Code: DRUG2103
• Florida Statute: 893.13.6B
• Level: Misdemeanor (1st Degree)
• Description: Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams

Consequences of a First-Degree Misdemeanor Conviction:

Even though it’s “just” a misdemeanor, a conviction for DRUG2103 can still lead to:

• Up to one year in jail.
• Up to one year of probation.
• Fines up to $1,000.
• A criminal record, which can impact employment, housing, and educational opportunities.
• Driver’s license suspension.
• Possible immigration consequences for non-citizens.

What exactly is DRUG2103?

DRUG2103 is the form code used in Florida for the charge of possessing less than 20 grams of cannabis (marijuana). It refers to a violation of Florida Statute 893.13.6(b).

Is possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis a felony in Florida?

No. Possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis is a first-degree misdemeanor in Florida, not a felony. However, it’s still a criminal offense with potential penalties.

What are the possible penalties for a DRUG2103 conviction?

A first-degree misdemeanor conviction in Florida can result in:

Up to one year in jail.
Up to one year of probation.
A fine of up to $1,000.
A criminal record.
Driver’s license suspension.
Possible Immigration issues.

Does this law apply to cannabis edibles or concentrates?

Florida Statute 893.13.6(b) specifically states that “cannabis” does not include the resin extracted from the plants, or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin. This means that possession of cannabis concentrates (like wax, shatter, or oil) or edibles containing concentrated THC could lead to more serious charges, potentially even felony charges.

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

Lack of knowledge can be a defense. If you genuinely were unaware that the cannabis was present (e.g., it was in a borrowed car, a friend’s bag, etc.), your attorney can argue this. The prosecution must prove that you knowingly possessed the cannabis. See Constructive Possession.

What if the police searched me or my property illegally?

If the police conducted an illegal search or seizure (violating your Fourth Amendment rights), your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence. If the motion is successful, the cannabis found during the illegal search cannot be used against you, and the charges might be dropped.

Can I get the charges dropped if it’s my first offense?

It’s possible. Depending on the specific circumstances and your prior record (or lack thereof), you might be eligible for a diversion program. These programs typically involve completing certain requirements (like community service, drug education classes, or probation). Upon successful completion, the charges may be dismissed. Your attorney can negotiate with the prosecutor for this possibility.

What is a “diversion program”?

A diversion program is an alternative to traditional prosecution. It’s designed for first-time or low-level offenders. It allows individuals to avoid a criminal conviction by completing specific requirements. Successful completion usually leads to the dismissal of the charges.

Will a DRUG2103 conviction affect my job or future opportunities?

A criminal record, even for a misdemeanor, can have negative consequences. It can show up on background checks, potentially affecting employment, housing applications, professional licenses, and educational opportunities.

How can W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. help me?

Attorney Casey Ebsary has extensive experience defending clients against drug charges in Tampa, including DRUG2103. (https://drug2go.com/). He can:

Investigate the circumstances of your arrest.
Identify any potential legal defenses.
Negotiate with the prosecutor for reduced charges or a plea bargain.
Represent you in court.
Fight to protect your rights and minimize the consequences.

Should I just plead guilty?

You should never plead guilty without first consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney can evaluate your case, explain your options, and help you make the best decision for your situation. There may be defenses available that you’re not aware of.

How do I contact your law office?

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

Why You Need a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney:

DRUG2103 is one of the most commonly charged offenses in Tampa and Hillsborough County. While it may seem like a minor charge, an experienced attorney can explore several defenses, potentially leading to:

• Suppression of Evidence: If the cannabis was found during an illegal search or seizure, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence, potentially leading to the charges being dropped.
• Lack of Knowledge: If you genuinely didn’t know the cannabis was present (e.g., it was in a borrowed car or bag), your attorney can argue lack of knowledge.
• Negotiation for Reduced Charges or Plea Bargains: An attorney can negotiate with the prosecutor for a less severe charge or a plea bargain that minimizes the penalties.
• Diversion Programs: Depending on your prior record and the circumstances, you may be eligible for a diversion program that could result in the charges being dismissed upon successful completion.

About W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has extensive experience defending clients against drug charges in Tampa, Florida. (https://drug2go.com/). He understands the intricacies of Florida drug laws and is dedicated to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome for your case. Review his qualifications. (https://drug2go.com/)

Take Action Now – Contact Us for a Free Consultation:

Don’t face these charges alone. If you or a family member has been charged with DRUG2103 Possession of Cannabis Lesey” Ebsary Jr. today 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/). We are here to fight for you.

DRUG2103 Possession of Cannabis

Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams

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

Charged with DRUG2103 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at 1-877-793-9290 and let an expert fight for you or a friend.

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.

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

During the past several years the cannabis issue has been highly politicized. This new policy by the Hillsborough County State attorney’s office is based on science. #Refreshing

At least one Tampa, Florida cannabis prosecutor has developed an imminently reasonable and science-based process for determining whether or not cannabis prosecutions will proceed in Hillsborough County, Florida.

“The traditional testimony of officer’s training and experience is of no use. These legal products will test positive for THC with the current presumptive test kits in use.”

Apparently the roadside, presumptive, field reagent test used by law enforcement cannot accurately detect illegal marijuana. Until such a test is developed, the Tampa Florida based prosecutor will not proceed with many cannabis prosecutions.

During the past several years the cannabis issue has been highly politicized. This new policy by the Hillsborough County State attorney’s office is based on science. #Refreshing

“Current field tests are insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt”

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Assistant State Attorneys
Date: September 4, 2019
From: State Attorney Andrew Warren
Re: Prosecution of Marijuana Cases following the enactment of the Hemp law.

Summary:

Effective immediately, our office will not file charges nor prosecute any cannabis case with an offense date on or after July 1, 2019 without a scientifically reliable, admissible test that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance contains a THC level above the 0.3 % threshold that distinguishes illegal cannabis from legal hemp. Among cannabis-related offenses, our office will continue to prioritize felonies: trafficking, manufacturing, delivery, sale, possession with intent, and felony-amount possession cases, while continuing to deprioritize the prosecution of misdemeanor cannabis cases in favor of established diversion and civil citation programs. Also, we will continue to prioritize the prosecution of cannabis-related felonies in which other felonies are part of the same transaction or occurrence, such as felon in possession of a firearm or offenses involving other controlled substances. 

Florida’s new hemp law took effect on July 1, 2019. Since that time, our office has been discussing the prosecutorial impact of the law with elected representatives, other State Attorney’s Offices, and our law enforcement partners. Over the past two months, we have provided guidance consistent with this memorandum within our office while waiting to see what, if any, policy changes our law enforcement partners would make with respect to investigating and arresting cannabis offenses. This memorandum formalizes the guidance ASAs have already been given. 

New Law 

Senate Bill 1020, known as the “Hemp Law,” went into effect on July 1, 2019. This law legalizes the possession and use of hemp. The bill defines hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof, and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, 2 isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers thereof, whether growing or not, that has a total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis.” See Florida Statute §581.217(3)(d). The new law changes the definition of cannabis such that the term excludes hemp as defined in section 581.217. Cannabis and hemp both come from the same plant, Cannabis sativa L. Cannabis and hemp look, feel and smell the same, and both can be smoked. The main difference between hemp and cannabis is that hemp has a total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration that does not exceed 0.3%. If the THC concentration of the plant is less than or equal to 0.3%, then the plant is hemp, and is legal in Florida. If the THC concentration of the plant exceeds 0.3%, then the plant is cannabis and is illegal in Florida (subject to medicinal exceptions).

Impact on Prosecution 

The Hemp Law will impact prosecutors and law enforcement. Specifically, the new law affects our ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is illegal cannabis as opposed to legal hemp. Given the inability to distinguish between hemp and cannabis visually or through smell, the only current reliable method is quantitative testing. In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is cannabis, we need quantitative testing to establish that the THC level exceeds 0.3% on a dry weight basis. 

Prosecutorial ethics preclude us from charging an offense without a good faith belief that we can prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, for any cannabis-related offense occurring on or after July 1, 2019, our office needs a reliable, admissible laboratory test result establishing the suspected substance is illegal cannabis rather than hemp before filing charges. Because, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, the speedy trial period starts at the time of arrest, probable cause arrests for cannabis offenses made before law enforcement has obtained a reliable, admissible positive (≥ 0.3% THC) lab test result may jeopardize the successful prosecution of such offenses, absent other circumstances. 

Current field tests are insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance exceeds the 0.3% THC concentration. Law enforcement agencies locally and statewide are working diligently to develop best practices and procedures to meet this challenge. In the meantime, law enforcement is working with private labs to provide reliable and admissible quantitative testing. A law enforcement agency must submit the suspected substance to a DEAlicensed facility for quantitative testing and ensure that proper chain of custody is preserved. To ensure that the results of any such testing are not excluded by the Court, the particular lab testing methodology utilized must be capable of meeting the Daubert standard. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). ACS Laboratory, located in Hillsborough County, is the largest cannabis and hemp testing laboratory in the southeastern United States. ACS Laboratory has advised that it can produce results that will give a quantitative amount of THC in 2-5 business days. More information about ACS Laboratory is available at http://www.acslabcannabis.com. ASAs should familiarize themselves with the information on the lab practices and procedures necessary to submit evidence of a cannabis offense. 

 The Hemp Law does not affect our current prioritization of cannabis cases. Among cannabis-related offenses, our office will continue to prioritize felonies: trafficking, manufacturing, delivery, sale, possession with intent, and felony-amount possession cases. We will likewise continue to deprioritize the prosecution of misdemeanor cannabis cases in favor of established diversion and civil citation programs. Also, we will continue to prioritize the prosecution of cannabis-related felonies in which other felonies are part of the same transaction or occurrence, such as felon in possession of a firearm or offenses involving other controlled substances. Although we anticipate that law enforcement will direct file charges after obtaining a positive lab result in lieu of making an arrest, whether a defendant is arrested or direct filed will not affect the priority of the prosecution. 

These changes will increase the cost of prosecuting cannabis related offenses. Law enforcement will pay the increased expenses for the necessary quantitative testing prior to our office filing charges. Our office will pay for expert witness testimony to prosecute cannabis cases, subject to the volume of cases and budgetary constraints. 

Impact on Probable Cause Investigations and Admissible Evidence 

As in any prosecution, ASAs must evaluate cannabis cases to ensure the admissibility of evidence. Probable cause to search in cannabis investigations has often been based on odor or plain view from a vehicle or person. As noted above, however, hemp and illegal cannabis look and smell the same. As a result, the Hemp Law creates additional Fourth Amendment challenges related to cannabis-based searches. 

We continue to work with law enforcement to establish best practices to protect people’s Fourth Amendment rights while ensuring successful prosecutions based upon lawful searches and seizures. Under the new Hemp law, the visual observation of suspected cannabis or its odor alone is likely no longer sufficient to establish probable cause to believe a crime is being committed or that evidence of a crime is present. The probable cause standard requires merely a reasonable basis to believe that a crime was committed or that evidence of the crime exists. Accordingly, in most instances, an “odor plus” standard likely demonstrates probable cause to conduct a warrantless cannabis-based search. Many local and statewide law enforcement agencies are adopting this standard. 

Below is a non-exhaustive list of “odor plus” factors. This list provides a starting point for ASAs working through these issues in cases involving warrantless cannabis-based searches. 

1. Information or intelligence regarding illicit activity prior to the stop 

2. Knowledge of the subject’s prior recent criminal history for narcotics violations 

3. Observation of a hand-to-hand transaction prior to the stop 

4. Admission that the substance is illegal cannabis 

5. Conflicting or implausible statements 

6. Nervousness, such as: 

a. Sweating when it is not hot 

b. Shaking or trembling hands 

c. Avoiding eye contact 

7. Furtive movements 

8. Discarding, destroying, or trying to hide a substance 

9. A large amount of currency 

10. Currency in rubber-banded “quick count bundles” 

11. Masking agents such as fabric softener, air fresheners, or coffee grinds 

12. Firearms or other weapons 

13. Drug paraphernalia, such as baggies, pipes, heat sealers, or scales (although legal hemp may be stored in a baggie and smoked in a pipe as well) 

14. Signs of impairment on a driver (such as bloodshot, watery eyes or slurred speech) 

ASAs must assess the documentation of these “odor plus” factors when making evaluations related to charging determinations and admissible evidence. ASAs must always keep in mind that probable cause is assessed under the totality of the circumstances standard, and thus looking for documentation and evidence of circumstances in addition to the sight or odor of cannabis is fundamental to our evaluation of a case. 

Our office will continue to provide guidance as to the latest legal developments related to these Fourth Amendment issues. 

Conclusion 

As these issues work through our court system, we will continue to monitor new court decisions and law enforcement procedures. We intend for this information to help guide your decision-making as you evaluate your cases rather than dictate specific prosecution decisions. Please consult with your supervisors should you have questions or additional thoughts. The recent legal changes make this an evolving area of law, and it is therefore imperative that we continue to communicate effectively to ensure the appropriate and consistent handling of cannabis offenses to advance our mission of public safety, fairness, and justice.

Leon County Cannabis Update September 21, 2019

To conclude, this Office will no longer be charging people with possession of cannabis absent a confession to what the substance is or testing by a lab that can meet the evidentiary standards I have laid out. 

JACK CAMPBELL
STATE ATTORNEY
301 S. MONROE STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-255o
TELEPHONE: 8506066000
OFFICE OF
STATE ATTORNEY
SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

July 30, 2019

Dear Law Enforcement Partners

I have just returned from our annual Florida Prosecuting Attorney’s Summer Conference where our board discussed many significant issues. One of the most pressing is that of Florida’s new hemp law and how it impacts other prosecutions. This letter does NOT address medical marijuana. I agree that the issues often interrelate, but for the sake of clarity I only address the hemp issue here.

Both Congress and the Florida Legislature have now passed laws making hemp, CBD, and other derivatives with 3 percent or less of THC, lawful. The specific definition is: “Hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof, and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers thereof, whether growing or not, that has a total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis.” Florida Statute  581.217 2019.

Previously, I was present at a meeting and demonstration at the Florida Department of Agriculture on July 8, 2019 where a vendor, a Navy Seal, showed a possible presumptive test that would be able to differentiate these items. They stated they were working with AVO labs and the Broward State Attorney’s Office to validate the test. I mentioned that the tests were of no use unless they were validated and that we would need expert testimony to be able to establish their scientific reliability in court.

At the conference, I met with the Broward State Attorney’s team and am sorry to report that that they were hoping that AVO was going to be able to both validate and provide the expert testimony necessary. However, they have withdrawn after it was discovered they did not have a DEA License allowing them to even possess marijuana, let alone test it. Hence, I would not recommend you invest in those tests. The current status is that we are hoping to get a presumptive test that will work in Florida, but we don’t have it yet. We recommend keeping your current presumptive tests though as they will likely be needed even when the new additional presumptive test is retained.

In addition to presumptive or roadside tests, we also will need full testing for trial. The Attorney General’s Chief of Staff and General Counsel have explained the FDLE is currently looking at two possible courses to allow quantification testing of samples. Previously, we would need only qualitative testing as all forms of the cannabis plants were illegal. Now, cannabis and its extracts or derivatives are legal if it has THC concentrations below 3 %

The current posture is that no public or private lab in Florida can do this dispositive testing. The Florida Department of Agriculture is unable to do so, and while there are some private labs that may want to get this business, they are not online as of now. The traditional testimony of officer’s training and experience is of no use. These legal products will test positive for THC with the current presumptive test kits in use. The drug sniffing K9s that have been trained on marijuana will likely alert to these products, as they are trained to detect any amount of THC. Hemp products look and smell exactly like marijuana products.

Some municipal labs in larger jurisdictions are also trying to invest in technology that will either allow full or partial quantification. If FDLE does so, or your agency is willing to have the samples privately tested, we will consider filing these cases. I would suggest that if you are contemplating using a non-governmental lab to do your testing, please consult with us. The cost of testing may be far less than what it will cost for us to secure the expert testimony necessary to comply with Florida evidence rules. Furthermore, the lab you are using may not be capable of meeting the Daubert predicate, and if so, the evidence will be excluded. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm Inc.. 509 U.S. 579585113 S. Ct. 27862792125 L. Ed. 20469 1993.

My current hope is that the Florida Legislature, Florida Department of Agriculture, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement will work to resolve this problem. It is clear that cannabis is still illegal, and I intend to enforce the laws as written. While this has created a practical frustration, it does not appear to be insurmountable.

Of greater concerns, are the associated issues we will face due to this status. Much of the search and seizure law hinges on either the officer’s or K-9’s ability to smell. This seems to now be in significant doubt. I would suggest that your officers and deputies no longer rely purely on their identification of believed cannabis. While it used to allow further detentions and seizures, case law from other jurisdictions suggest it will not be sufficient in the coming months and years.

Finally, perhaps the most egregious oversite is that of juvenile law. At present, there is no additional restriction on children possessing CBD or Hemp. It is my understanding that some shops are now making pre-rolled hemp cigarettes and are selling hemp gummies. The irony that children cannot lawfully possess tobacco but can now have hemp candies and cigarettes is astounding. I again hope that the Florida Legislature will address this problem.

To conclude, this Office will no longer be charging people with possession of cannabis absent a confession to what the substance is or testing by a lab that can meet the evidentiary standards I have laid out. We will also not be approving search warrants or other legal process based on traditional predicates where officers, or their dogs and presumptive tests, feel a substance is cannabis. I know this is a significant change in the law and would caution you in making arrests when these issues are present.

I am confident we can work through these challenges together as we have in the past. We will be lobbying the legislature to fund presumptive testing and final analytical testing, and to regulate possession by minors. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Your friend,

Jack Campbell
State Attorney

2nd Judicial Circuit

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

Odor of Cannabis Shenanigans Case – Motion to suppress evidence denied where weed discovered in defendant’s vehicle during a traffic stop after law enforcement detected the odor of burnt marijuana. Court calls shenanigans on argument that because the state has medical marijuana, the smell of weed coming from a vehicle no longer provides law enforcement with probable cause to conduct search without warrant. Was reasonable for an officer to conclude that defendant smelling of marijuana, was acting unlawfully says Florida DCA.

Map of Florida Cities With Cannabis Civil Citation Programs

Complete Opinion is here:

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-4325
_____________________________
JORDAN JOHNSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Robert E. Long, Judge.
July 9, 2019
PER CURIAM.

Jordan Johnson appeals his conviction for carrying a
concealed weapon. His only argument on appeal is that the trial
court should have granted his motion to suppress. We reject this
argument and affirm.

Officers initiated a 2:00 a.m. traffic stop after noticing a
headlight out on Johnson’s car. Officers then smelled burnt
marijuana, detained Johnson, and searched the car. Inside the car,
they found the gun that led to the charge.

On appeal, Johnson acknowledges “the long line of cases that
hold that the smell of burnt marijuana coming from a vehicle
provides an officer with probable cause to detain the defendant and
conduct a warrantless search.” Init. Br. at 8 (citing State v. T.P.,

2

835 So. 2d 1277 (Fla 4th DCA 2003); State v. Williams, 967 So. 2d
941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); State v. Jennings, 968 So. 2d 694 (Fla.
4th DCA 2007)); see also State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla.
2002) (“As the odor of previously burnt marijuana certainly
warranted a belief that an offense had been committed, this
unquestionably provided the police officers on the scene probable
cause to search the passenger compartment of the respondent’s
vehicle.”). But, he contends, those cases became irrelevant after
Florida authorized medical marijuana. In other words, he argues,
while the officer’s “search based on the odor of marijuana was
constitutional prior to the enactment of [§ 381.986, Fla. Stat.], now
that medical marijuana is legal, it is no longer a sufficient basis for
probable cause.” Init. Br. at 7. He does not argue that he is a
medical-marijuana user; his argument is that the smell alone is no
longer enough since someone might be a medical-marijuana user.

There are several problems with this argument. First, as the
State notes, at the time of the stop, Florida’s medical-marijuana
laws did not authorize smokable marijuana, see § 381.986(1)(j)(2),
Fla. Stat. (2017) (excluding from “medical use” the “use, or
administration of marijuana in a form for smoking”), and the
officers smelled burnt marijuana. Second, Florida law did not
allow use in “a vehicle” other than “for low-THC cannabis.” Id.
§ 381.986(1)(j)(5)(b). Third, although Florida law does not
criminalize all use of medical marijuana, possession of marijuana
remains a crime under federal law. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(c); see also
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27 (2005) (noting that federal
controlled substance act “designates marijuana as contraband for
any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I
drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable
medical uses”). Fourth, even if smoking marijuana were legal
altogether, the officers would have had probable cause based on
the fact that Johnson was operating a car. See § 316.193(1)(a), Fla.
Stat. (criminalizing driving under the influence of drugs).

Finally, even putting all of this aside, the possibility that a
driver might be a medical-marijuana user would not automatically
defeat probable cause. The probable cause standard, after all, is a
“practical and common-sensical standard.” Florida v. Harris, 568
U.S. 237, 244 (2013). It is enough if there is “the kind of ‘fair
probability’ on which ‘reasonable and prudent people, not legal

3

technicians, act.” Id. (some marks omitted). Here, we cannot say
that it would be unreasonable for an officer to conclude there is a
fair probability that someone driving around at 2:00 a.m., smelling
of marijuana, is acting unlawfully. And this is true whether or not
Florida law allows the medical use of marijuana in some
circumstances.

In short, Johnson has not shown that the trial court’s order
denying suppression—an order that comes to us “clothed with a
presumption of correctness,” Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954, 958
(Fla.1996)—was wrong.

AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds and
Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys 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

Grow House Busted? Call a Board Certified Criminal Defense Expert Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

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

Video From Inside a Legal Florida Medical Marijuana Growhouse

Video From Inside a Legal Florida Medical Marijuana Growhouse

We have just obtained Video From Inside a Legal Florida Medical Marijuana Growhouse near Tallahassee, Florida.

Map of Medical Marijuana Dispensary in Tampa, Florida

We have also uncovered the location of one of Florida’a first retail locations for dispensing Medical marijuana. They will dispense Calming CBD Oil with natural almond and mint extracts, Calming CBD Spray with natural Florida orange extract, and Calming Topical Lotion with natural lavender & eucalyptus extract. It is operated by Surterra. The video above was shot at a Surterra growhouse. Here is the location of the Surterra Wellness Center homeopathic pharmacy we found at 2558 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL 33612.

Stories of Typical Drug Busts

Frequently, we see drug busts for drug crimes when police conduct a simple traffic stop. Sometimes narcotics squads obtain a search warrant based upon someone tattling to the police. Sometimes they are using a confidential informant. However it happens the results are terrifyingly similar. A suspect is nabbed and taken to jail. Their photo is posted all over the internet and tons of junk mail arrives claiming an attorney can help. If a vehicle or real estate was involved, the county may seek forfeiture of the property. That must be addressed immediately, as the property can be taken, even though you have not been convicted!

“Sometimes we find misconduct by the police, their
informants, or the technicians at the drug crime lab”

Within a month or so there will be a court appearance required. Florida has open court rooms. The media or an employer or friends may learn about the case. A discrete defense is needed early. Florida is unique in that although there has been an arrest, an Assistant State Attorney reviews each case before the actual charges are filed. Here is where an early intervention be your cannabis lawyer / representative can help. Prosecutors often do not know all the facts and circumstances surrounding an arrest. Your lawyer can reach out to them and explain the situation in a way that will be far more favorable than the cold reading of a report written by the police who want to see the suspect end up with a criminal record for possession of cannabis.

If formal charges are filed anyway, a competent drug defense attorney will file a notice to the court and the prosecutor that the suspect is represented. Our office files a three page request demanding all witness identities, police reports, laboratory tests, video recordings, and audio recordings. we will send those reports to the client and carefully review them for signs of a defense. Sometimes we find misconduct by the police, their informants, or the technicians at the drug crime lab.

No Prior Drug Charges?

Many people have no prior record or are busted for small quantities. In those cases we can convince the State Attorney to consider dismissal of the charges. We take an active approach to show that those under arrest for drug charges are not always the criminal that police have suggested they are.
W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary often helps those charged with Drug Crimes including possession and distribution of drugs in both State and Federal Court. Casey has also defended importation and international conspiracy charges involving literally tons of cocaine smuggled in an unmanned submarine, that case concluded at the United States Supreme Court. As a former drug crime prosecutor in Tampa, Florida, I have experience from both sides of the courtroom.

Casey knows the tactics and training of the police and prosecutors. He was also a prosecutor in the then newly-formed Drug Court System. Casey knows how to help in Motions to Suppress illegally-obtained evidence, in jury trials of these types of charges, and if appropriate can help avoid conviction through diversion programs like the Drug Court.

We Can Help with Drug Crimes

Your arrest and prosecution for possession of marijuana is serious. You need a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney experienced in defending cannabis cases, contact WF Ebsary, Jr at 1-877-793-9290 today for FREE to discuss fighting your marijuana charges throughout the greater Tampa Bay area including Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, Florida. A marijuana conviction (or any drug offense) can result in an immediate two (2) year suspension of your driver’s license. Even when the crime was not driving related.

When drug charges are made in State or Federal Courts, we can provide a solution. Call us today at 1-877-793-9290 for a free initial consultation. If it is more convenient for you, we respond quickly to your call for help via our Call For Help web submission. They are sent to us wirelessly. We are constantly checking and responding, and will quickly get back to you via telephone or email. Drug charges can be disastrous to have on your record.

A drug crimes defense lawyer in Hillsborough County, Florida and Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney in Florida can defend you against drug charges. Casey is experienced and available to defend against these charges: Marijuana, cocaine, prescription, and other drug charges that can be dropped. Tampa Bay area drug defense lawyer W. F. ”Casey” Ebsary has experience and training as both a Hillsborough Drug Crimes Assistant State Attorney, who is now on the defense side helping people navigate treacherous waters when drug charges are at hand.

More Information on Marijuana and Cannabis Drug Crimes in Florida

Marijuana – Drug Attorney Tampa Lawyer on Call 24/7/365 …

http://www.drug2go.com/p/marijuana-defense.html

In Florida, Marijuana charges can be a disastrous charge to have on your record. A Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer in Hillsborough Tampa Florida , can be …

Having a Couple of Marijuana plants in your Florida backyard …

http://www.drug2go.com/2015/05/marijuana-grow-backyard.html

Marijuana Grow Conviction Overturned – Knock and Talk. Motion To Suppress … defendant’s actions in answering questions and producing bag of marijuana for officers were not voluntary.

Free Florida Drug Crimes Information Search

Search Casey’s Database

Help is available for oxycodone, morphine, methadone, amphetamines, hydrocodone, xanax, and other types of prescription medication problems
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

2019 Drug Crimes Arrests

ZERO

Felony Arrests

1 Domestic Battery
2 Battery on a law enforcement officer
2 Criminal mischief

Misdemeanor Arrests

1 Obstruct Oppose w/o Violence
2 Minor Possession Alcohol
3 Disorderly Conduct

Video – Tampa Police and Cannabis Arrests

What are Tampa Police Doing About Marijuana Possession?

I’m driving down Bayshore Boulevard scene of the largest party in the State of Florida, the Gasparilla pirate fest. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of police out here and there wasn’t a single arrest for cannabis; or for that matter for any drug crime.

So answer the question, “What are Tampa police doing about marijuana and arresting for marijuana?” I would say this year’s festival would establish that they are doing nothing about marijuana criminally.

But, there is a civil citation program where they can issue a ticket for possession of marijuana. For more details:

https://go2attorney.com/2019/01/17/staying-safe-and-festive-at-gasparilla-arrest-criminal-defense/

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

Drug Crimes Lawyer Tampa

“Free Phone Consultation directly with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer”

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Casey Ebsary is a Board Certified Trial Lawyer with diverse criminal litigation experience in drug cases.

813-222-2220

Fast, Easy, and Free Phone Consultation directly with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer. I will personally speak to you about your charges.

Conveniently Located: Tampa, Florida

Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 222-2220
centrallaw@centrallaw.com

Google Review Links

View Our Office in Google Maps in Your Browser

View Our Office in Google Search Search Results

Call Casey at 813-222-2220 or Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Check Out our Reviews

Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Reviews

“Casey’s strong arguments during the hearing made all the difference …”

Written by: Google+ User

W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

5.0 / 5 stars

More Reviews are Here:

Google Places

Bing

Local.com

MerchantCircle

Yellow Pages

Yelp

Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

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

Violation of probation cases are usually handled by the judge or in the division that the case was originally heard. Many of these cases can be resolved by trying to complete the conditions of probation before a court date.

Violation of Probation for Drug Cases in Tampa Bay, Florida

If a case can be handled before a warrant is issued, then jail may be avoided. Many of the judges in both felony and misdemeanor cases issue warrants for violating probation without a bond. That means that you will stay in jail until a court date is set.

In this 1 minute video, Casey Ebsary notes that if you have been charged with Probation Violation, Violation of Probation, or VOP in Florida, a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney can and will protect your rights. Some Florida circuit courts have special divisions that handle violation of probation allegations.

Drug Treatment for Probation Violation

A Tampa Drug Lawyer noted that a celebrity returned to a California to continue her drug rehabilitation. A judge had ordered her to enter drug treatment. She had previously filmed the VH-1 reality show “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew.”

Tampa Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Judge Daniel Perry asked Florida probation officials contact California probation officials. Treatment was ordered late last year. Hillsborough County and Tampa Bay Area Judges are more and more inclined to offer drug treatment instead of jail.

Tampa Drug Lawyer for Violation of Probation

Often a probation violation comes when the highly technical conditions of probation have been violated. We can and help. Sometimes, violation of probation can occur for being arrested for a new charge. We may be able to help there also. We want to prevent or minimize time spent in jail. Video Courtesy CentralLaw.com – Probation Violation

Violation of Probation? Call Today For a Free Phone Consultation 1-877-793-9290 .

Federal Violation of Supervised Release 

Sentencing guidelines apply in federal cases where United States district court judges are deciding what to do about alleged violations of conditions after sentencing in a federal case. These judges have much discretion. Although they use the United States sentencing guidelines as an advisory, but not mandatory, resource to decide what, if anything should be done when our federal clients are before the court.

In a strongly worded and important per curiam summary reversal today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Kimbrough that “district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.”

In Spears v. United States, __ S.Ct. __, 2009 WL 129044 (Jan. 21, 2008), the Court explained what Kimbrough meant:

[E]ven when a particular defendant in a crack cocaine case presents no special mitigating circumstances – no outstanding service to country or community, no unusually disadvantaged childhood, no overstated criminal history score, no post-offense rehabilitation – a sentencing court may nonetheless vary downward from the advisory guideline range. The court may do so based solely on its view that the 100-to-1 ratio embodied in the sentencing guidelines for the treatment of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine creates “an unwarranted disparity within the meaning of § 3553(a)” and is “at odds with § 3553(a).” The only fact necessary to justify such a variance is the sentencing court’s disagreement with the guidelines – its policy view that the 100-to-1 ratio creates an unwarranted disparity.

See Spears, __ S.Ct. at __, 2009 WL 129044 at *2 (quoting United States v. Spears, 533 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2008) (Colloton, J., dissenting)).

Spears is the latest indication that the Supreme Court is running out of patience with appellate courts and government arguments that attempt to artificially narrow judicial discretion post-Booker. Use Spears in any case involving a guideline that does not exemplify the Commission’s characteristic institutional role – meaning any guideline that was not the product of (1) reliance on empirical evidence of pre-guidelines sentencing practice, or (2) review and revision in light of judicial decisions, sentencing data, and comments from participants and experts in the field.

These would include the following guidelines, among others:

• Career offender
• Child pornography and other sex offenses
• Drugs
• Economic crimes
• Firearms
• Immigration
• Limitations on the availability of probation or other alternatives to
• Incarceration
• Relevant Conduct

For violation of supervised release sample briefs, litigation strategy memoranda and further resources on how to raise these attacks, click “Deconstructing the Guidelines”

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