ALPR Camera Stops in Tampa FL: Valid Reasonable Suspicion?

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) have transformed law enforcement traffic details across Florida. In Baptiste v. State (28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 7a), the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court (Appellate) addressed a critical Fourth Amendment question: Does an automated notification on an officer’s laptop generated by a license plate reader provide the reasonable suspicion needed to perform a lawful traffic stop? The court ruled unequivocally that it does.

Stopped by an ALPR surveillance camera in Tampa or Central Florida? Our legal team investigates system misreads and stale database lag. Learn how Board Certified Trial Expert Casey Ebsary defends tech-based stops.

1. Case Summary: Baptiste v. State

The Background & Incident

On April 14, 2019, Officer Sofia Darias of the Miami Beach Police Department was conducting an ALPR detail at 7th Street and Washington Avenue. A stationary camera automatically captured passing tags and cross-referenced them against state databases.

When Kerwien Baptiste drove past, the ALPR scanned his tag and issued an automated alert to Officer Darias’s cruiser laptop stating: “Hey, we need to address this person.”

Officer Darias initiated a traffic stop. When asked for his driver’s license, Baptiste admitted his license was suspended—a status Officer Darias then confirmed via a database search. Baptiste was cited for Driving While License Suspended with Knowledge (DWLS).

The Trial & Defense Challenge

At his bench trial in Miami-Dade County Court, Baptiste filed a Motion to Suppress, claiming the traffic stop was illegal. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the exact underlying reason for the ALPR hit at trial (i.e., whether the alert explicitly showed the owner’s driver’s license was suspended). The trial judge denied the motion to suppress, found Baptiste guilty, and Baptiste appealed.

2. Appellate Analysis & Legal Holdings

The Eleventh Circuit Appellate Bench (Trawick, Walsh, and Rebull, JJ., opinion by Rebull, J.) affirmed the trial court’s ruling based on three distinct legal grounds:

A. An ALPR “Hit” Inherently Establishes Founded Suspicion

Under Florida law (State v. Laina, 175 So. 3d 897), an investigatory stop requires a “founded suspicion“—an objective, particularized basis grounded in specific facts:

• Particularized: The system alert targets a specific license plate number.
• Objective: The hit relies on computer database matching rather than an officer’s subjective hunch or arbitrary judgment.

The court held that an ALPR alert instructing an officer to “address” a vehicle gives the officer sufficient reasonable suspicion to execute a stop, even without reading the specific underlying record detail first.

B. Evidentiary Proof of License Suspension

During trial, when asked how she knew Baptiste’s license was suspended, Officer Darias testified: “I received notification that it was suspended.” The appellate court concluded that this testimony—viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court ruling—demonstrated that the laptop alert explicitly communicated the suspension, placing the case squarely under Laina.

C. The Invited Error Doctrine

When prosecutors tried to question Officer Darias about the exact wording of the laptop alert, defense counsel objected on hearsay grounds.

The appellate court highlighted two major flaws in the defense’s approach:

1. Hearsay is Admissible in Suppression Matters: Reasonable suspicion and probable cause can be established using hearsay (Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648; Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325). The defense’s objection was legally erroneous.
2. Invited Error: Under the invited error doctrine (Mora v. State, 964 So. 2d 881), a defendant cannot block evidence from entering the record through improper objections and then claim on appeal that the prosecution failed to prove that same evidence.

3. Fourth Amendment Framework: Surveillance & Public Roads

Florida ALPR Fourth Amendment Analysis Flow

Summary of Key Findings from Baptiste v. State

• Objective Suspicion: The court held that an ALPR “hit” providing a notification that a person needs to be “addressed” constitutes a particularized and objective basis—a “founded suspicion”—for an investigatory stop.
• Invited Error: If the defense prevents the specific text of the ALPR alert from coming into evidence through incorrect hearsay objections at the trial level, they cannot argue on appeal that the alert content was unproven.
• Database Accuracy: Once a valid automated alert provides reasonable suspicion, an officer is not required to confirm the database information through an independent source before initiating the traffic stop.

Baptiste fits into a broader constitutional framework regarding police technology and automated surveillance:

• No Privacy Expectation in Public Tags: Under Katz v. United States, items exposed to the public receive no Fourth Amendment protection. License plates are visible to any observer, meaning automated optical recognition (OCR) scanning does not constitute a “search.”
• Point-in-Time Scans vs. Mosaic Surveillance: Courts treat point-in-time street scans differently from long-term aggregate tracking. While multi-week continuous tracking across vast camera networks raises potential “Mosaic Theory” privacy issues (Carpenter v. United States), a discrete hit at a single intersection is a constitutionally sound investigative tool.

4. Defense Strategies: Challenging ALPR Stops in Florida

Because Florida appellate courts accept automated system alerts as a valid basis for a stop, criminal defense attorneys must target the technical integrity and officer procedures surrounding the hit:

Key Takeaway

Baptiste v. State confirms that an automated license plate reader hit provides valid reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop in Florida. For motorists facing charges originating from an ALPR alert, legal defense strategies must move beyond challenging the initial camera scan itself and focus on technical system errors, stale database records, and law enforcement’s duty of verification.

If an automated Tampa police camera triggered your traffic stop for drug charges the fight isn’t over. Challenge the database accuracy now. Contact Tampa DUI Expert Casey Ebsary for a free case analysis.

Full Text of ALPR Automatic License Plate Reader Opinion

Here is the text from the document:

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 7a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2801ВАРТ

Criminal law — Driving while license suspended with knowledge — Search and seizure — Vehicle stop — License plate reader — Officer who received notification from automatic license plate reader that person needed to be “addressed” and that registered owner of tag had suspended license had reasonable suspicion for vehicle stop — Any error in failing to establish content of notification from license plate reader was invited by defense’s erroneous hearsay objections to questions about that content — No error in denying motion to suppress

KERWIEN BAPTISTE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2019-000273-AC-01. L.T. Case No. AB8H0KE. March 16, 2020. An Appeal from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Robin Faber, Judge. Counsel: Carlos J. Martinez, Office of the Public Defender and James Odell, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellant. Katherine Fernandez Rundle, Office of the State Attorney and Kathryn Della Ferra, Assistant State Attorney, for Appellee.

(Before TRAWICK, WALSH and REBULL, JJ.)

(REBULL, J.) The issue presented in this case is whether a notification on a police officer’s laptop from a license plate reader provides reasonable suspicion for the officer to conduct an investigatory stop of the motor vehicle triggering the notification. We hold that it does, and therefore affirm the judgement appealed and the trial court’s denial of Mr. Baptiste’s motion to suppress.

I.

On April 14, 2019, Miami Beach police officer Sofia Darias was conducting a license plate reader¹ detail at the intersection of 7th street and Washington Avenue in the City of Miami Beach. A camera fixed at that location randomly captures images of license plates and runs the license plate numbers through a database. On that date, the camera captured an image of the license plate on the motor vehicle Mr. Baptiste was driving.

After the running the license plate number through a database, the software on Officer Darias’s laptop in her police cruiser then issued an alert or notification. Officer Darias testified that “electronically, a review of that license plate’s number is made and, if it gets a hit, it tells you, “Hey, we need to address this person.” The trial court, clarified, “So, you have a laptop. You’re there and, all of a sudden, it alerts you to a particular car; is that it or a plate that is on car?” The witness replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”

As a result, Officer Darias conducted a traffic stop of that motor vehicle. Mr. Baptiste, who was driving, was unable to produce his driver’s license at Officer Darias’s request. He told her that his driver’s license was suspended. After confirming Mr. Baptiste’s suspension in her database, Officer Darias issued him a traffic citation for driving while knowing his driver’s license was suspended.

At the bench trial for this charge, Mr. Baptiste moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop, arguing that the stop was illegal. The trial judge denied the motion, and ultimately found Mr. Baptiste guilty of driving while knowing his driver’s license was suspended. Mr. Baptiste appeals that judgment, and raises as his sole issue on appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

II.

Mr. Baptiste’s argues that the evidence elicited in the trial court did not establish the content of the notification that Officer Darias received from the software. In other words, the evidence does not reflect why the license plate reader registered a hit for the license plate of the vehicle that Mr. Baptiste was driving. Did the notification, for example, reflect that the registered owner of the motor vehicle with that license plate had a suspended driver’s license? Absent that information, Mr. Baptiste argues that the evidence fails to demonstrate that Officer Darias had reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Baptiste.

We reject this argument for several reasons. Preliminarily, we note that in “reviewing an order on a motion to suppress, the reviewing court is to consider the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in a light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” See Sims v. State, 805 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D26a]. Seen in that light, the evidence presented in this case was that the camera captured an image of the license plate on the car Mr. Baptiste was driving. The software in the system electronically reviewed the tag number in its database. That review led to a “hit,” which then notified Officer Darias on her laptop, “Hey, we need to address this person.” That alone provided Officer Darias with reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of Mr. Baptiste’s vehicle.

In State v. Laina, 175 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D2117d), a police officer ran his own check on the license plate of a vehicle he was following. The results of his search revealed that the registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended license. The Laina Court held that this information gave the officer reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of the vehicle.

Police may make an investigatory stop if police have reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, based on the totality of the circumstances…. Reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch, but specific and articulable facts, together with the rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant the investigatory stop.

[R]eviewing courts… must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing.

To justify temporary detention, only “founded suspicion” in the mind of the detaining officer is required. A “founded suspicion” is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer’s knowledge.

State v. Laina, 175 So. 3d 897, 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D2117d]. Here, Officer Darias plainly had a “founded suspicion” to stop Mr. Baptiste. This was not a mere hunch. The basis for the stop was “particularized,” in that it was a hit directed to the specific license plate number on the vehicle he was driving. And it was “objective,” in that it did not depend on Officer Darias’s subjective interpretation of what she was seeing, but instead on the computer software database generating a “hit” that the vehicle needed to be addressed. When interpreted in the light of Officer Darias’s knowledge, she had a founded suspicion to pull over Mr. Baptiste. The trial judge properly denied the motion to suppress.2

III.

Additional testimony elicited from Officer Darias at the hearing, seen in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial judge’s ruling, supports the basis for the stop. At trial, the prosecutor marked as an exhibit the traffic printout, or driving history, of Mr. Baptiste from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The prosecutor then asked Officer Darias some questions and the following colloquy took place:

☐ So, Officer, looking at this traffic history, on the date of the incident which was April 14, 2019, was Mr. Baptiste’s license suspended?

A Yes.

Q And, how do you know that?

A I received notification that it was suspended.

MR. GARDINER: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: You are so soft-spoken. I can hardly hear you.

BY MS. DELLA FERA:

☐ Using — using the information

THE COURT: Just a second. I didn’t hear the prior response.

MS. DELLA FERA: I’m sorry, Judge.

THE COURT: Can you repeat it, Officer. I’m sorry.

THE WITNESS: I received notification that it was suspended, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What — now, the question was what the document says.

BY MS. DELLA FERA:

☐ So, using the information in front of you, how did you know that the license was suspended?

And, you can flip through the whole document.

(Trial Tr. 33-34) (emphasis added).

This testimony reflects that the notification Officer Darias received on her laptop was that the registered owner linked to the tag number captured by the license plate reader had a suspended driver’s license. The exchange in the transcript makes clear that Officer Darias misunderstood the question about the driving history printout, and instead testified to the contents of the notification she received on her laptop. This of course provides an independent reasonable suspicion for the stop of Mr. Baptiste. It places this case squarely within the holding of the Laina, which also involved a record check which revealed that the registered owner’s license was suspended. See also Ellis v. State, 935 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D1734a] (response from computer database query that tag had “no record found” gave police officer reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle for tag not assigned). The trial judge correctly denied the motion to suppress.

IV.

Lastly, to the extent that there was any error in failing to establish the content of the notification that Officer Darias received on her laptop, the defense invited that error.

“The [invited error] doctrine prevents a party from inviting error, then attempting to make that error an issue on appeal. See Norton v. State, 709 So.2d 87, 94 (Fla.1997) [23 Fla. L. Weekly S12a] (the invited error doctrine prevents a party from making or inviting error in a case and then taking advantage of that error on appeal)….” Mora v. State, 964 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D2320a].

Under the invited-error doctrine, a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal. In the instant case, if any error was committed in honoring the defendant’s demand for speedy trial, the defendant clearly invited the error. Therefore, the defendant cannot take advantage on appeal of the situation he created at trial.

Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D1891c].

Here, when the State attempted to elicit testimony from Officer Darias regarding the content of the notification she received on the vehicle Mr. Baptiste was driving, the defense objected on hearsay grounds.

☐ How did you first come in contact with Mr. Baptiste?

A I was conducting a license reader detail on 7th and Washington Avenue. I received a notification that —

MR. GARDINER: Objection. Hearsay.

This objection was erroneous. Probable cause may be based entirely on hearsay. “Unlike the burdens of proof in a criminal trial, the obligation to establish probable cause in an affidavit may be met by hearsay, by fleeting observations, or by tips received from unnamed reliable informants . .” Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648, 654 (Fla. 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly S347a]. If probably cause may be based on hearsay, then certainly reasonable suspicion can too.

“Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). As a result, Officer Darias should have been permitted to testify freely without objection regarding the content of the notification she received on her laptop from the license plate reader and the hit in the database. Counsel cannot object to that information coming into evidence, and then argue on appeal that it was error to fail to determine the content of the notification to which he objected.

Conclusion

For these reasons, we affirm the lower court’s denial of the motion to suppress, and the judgment and sentence on appeal.

AFFIRMED. (TRAWICK AND WALSH, JJ., concur.)

1″Ordinarily, automatic license plate reader (“ALPR”) technology utilizes highspeed computer- controlled cameras mounted on fixed structures or on patrol cars. The camera automatically captures an image of the license plate of each vehicle that passes through its optical range. For each image, the ALPR system uses character recognition software and almost instantly checks the license plate number against a given database, containing a list of license plates belonging to sex offenders, crime suspects, fugitives, or amber alert subjects and/or missing persons, as well as stolen or unregistered vehicles.” Kimberly J. Winbush, Annotation, Use of License Plate Readers, 32 A.L.R.7th Art. 8 (Originally published in 2017).

2The Supreme Courts of Ohio and Kentucky have each recently issued opinions holding that information obtained from license plate reader systems provided reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop of vehicles generating a hit. See State v. Hawkins, 2019-Ohio-4210, 158 Ohio St. 3d 94, reconsideration denied, 2019-Ohio-5327, 157 Ohio St. 3d 1524, 137 N.E.3d 109; Traft v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.3d 647 (Ky. 2018).

3″This court, too, has held that the defendant’s driving record as maintained by the DMV is sufficient to prove that his license was revoked due to his habitual traffic offender designation. State v. Fields, 809 So.2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D476b]. See also Rodgers v. State, 804 So.2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2886a] (holding that certified copy of computer printout of defendant’s driving record maintained by DMV was sufficient to present prima facie case of driving while license revoked as habitual traffic offender, and that State was not required to prove each qualifying conviction for DWLS.)” State v. Miller, 830 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D2418b].

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

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

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

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

This Week on Drug2go: Comprehensive Fentanyl Defense Resources

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

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

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

The Facts

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

The State’s Charging Mistake

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

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

The Trial & Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

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

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

The Appellate Ruling

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

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

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

What This Means for Your Defense

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

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

Fight Back with an Experienced Trial Defense

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

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

Full Text of Fentanyl Lab Test Defense Opinion

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

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

Facts of the Case: Hudson v. State

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

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

The Court’s Legal Analysis

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

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

Judicial Concurrence Highlights the Prosecution’s Burden

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

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

Practical Implications for Tampa Bay Residents

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

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

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

Full Text of Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA

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

NICHOLAS JAMAL HUDSON,
Appellant,

V.

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

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

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

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

July 24, 2026

EDWARDS, J.

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

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

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

REVERSED and REMANDED.

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

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

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

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

EISNAUGLE, J., concurring.

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

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

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

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

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

VIDEO CASE UPDATE: Real-World Hillsborough County Fentanyl Charge Analysis

We have previously discussed this fentanyl trafficking case. Understanding statutory thresholds on paper is one thing; seeing how the State Attorney’s Office files these cases in Hillsborough County court records is another. A recent public record summary illustrates how trafficking drug charges are initially stacked and subsequently refined during prosecutorial intake:

1. The Initial Arrest & Stacking

Following a roadside arrest, the defendant was booked on three distinct counts arising from a single incident:

• Count 1: Trafficking in Fentanyl (28 Grams or More) – F.S. 893.135(1)(c)4
• Count 2: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – F.S. 893.147(1)
• Count 3: Possession of Controlled Substance w/ Intent to Sell/Deliver – F.S. 893.13(1)(a)1

2. The Prosecutorial Decision (“No Info”)

During formal intake, the State Attorney’s Office entered a “No Information” (NT) on Count 3 (Possession w/ Intent to Sell). Because a trafficking charge by weight inherently encompasses distribution-level quantities under Florida law, prosecutors frequently streamline their case to focus entirely on the count carrying the heaviest statutory hammer.

3. The Stakes Remaining

With Count 3 dropped, the defense focus centers squarely on Count 1. Under Florida law, a First-Degree Felony conviction for 28+ grams of fentanyl carries a non-negotiable 25-year state prison sentence and a $500,000 fine.

Critical Takeaways on Fentanyl Statutory Minimums

• The 4-Gram Tipping Point: Four grams is roughly the weight of four sugar packets or a single coin. Possessing 3.9 grams is a third-degree felony where probation or pre-trial diversion remains on the table. Crossing that 4.0-gram threshold instantly converts the charge into a First-Degree Felony with a mandatory 7-year prison term.
• The “Mixture” Trap: Florida penalizes the total net weight of the compound, not pure fentanyl. If trace amounts of fentanyl are mixed into binders, pill presses, or secondary compounds, the entire weight counts. A small batch of counterfeit prescription pills can easily push an arrest straight into the 28-gram tier.
• No Gain-Time Reductions: While standard Florida prison terms allow inmates to earn “gain time” after serving 85% of their sentence, mandatory minimum terms must be served calendar-year for calendar-year before any gain-time accrual begins.

Strategic Defense Avenues

When facing 28+ grams of fentanyl, judicial leniency is legally off the table—a judge cannot sentence below the 25-year floor upon conviction. Defense strategies must focus on aggressive pre-trial leverage:

1. Constitutional Motions to Suppress: Attacking the legality of the initial traffic stop, prolonged detention, or K9 deployment to suppress physical evidence before trial.
2. Independent Re-Weighing & Lab Testing: Disputing the crime lab’s net weight measurement or mixture calculations. Pushing a net weight from 4.1 grams down to 3.9 grams removes the mandatory minimum entirely.
3. Statutory Exceptions: Utilizing pre-trial defense leverage or statutory options such as Substantial Assistance under F.S. § 893.135(4) to authorize a judge to depart from statutory minimum floors.

Tampa Fentanyl Trafficking Defense Lawyer | K9 Searches, Traffic Stops & Drug Charges

Arrested for Fentanyl Trafficking in Tampa? Call an Experienced Drug Defense Lawyer Today

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

A fentanyl trafficking arrest can immediately change your life. What begins as a routine traffic stop can quickly become a major narcotics investigation involving allegations of trafficking, possession, intent to sell, or other serious felony drug charges.

I am W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor. I defend individuals accused of serious drug offenses throughout Tampa, Hillsborough County, and the surrounding Tampa Bay area.

Learn more about my background on my About W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. page, review my Florida Drug Crimes Defense Resource Center, or Contact Casey Ebsary today for a confidential consultation.

📞 Call (813) 222-2220 now.

Mandatory Penalties for Fentanyl Trafficking in Florida

Fentanyl trafficking charges in Florida carry severe, non-negotiable statutory minimum prison sentences and massive financial penalties based strictly on the total weight of the mixture. Possessing as little as 4 grams can trigger a first-degree felony charge with a mandatory seven-year prison sentence.

Under Florida Statute § 893.13 and § 893.135, the statutory weight of the mixture dictates the statutory floor:

Where Can You Review Florida Drug Laws?

I recommend reviewing current statutes through reliable sources because criminal laws can change.

Florida Drug Law Resources

My Florida Drug Crimes Defense Resource Center provides additional educational material about Florida drug prosecutions and related defense issues.

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for a Tampa Drug Defense Case?

I have spent decades handling criminal cases as a trial lawyer, former prosecutor, and Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer. My approach is focused on carefully examining the evidence, identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and determining whether constitutional violations or evidentiary issues may affect the outcome. Drug cases require attention to detail because the smallest factual issue can become significant.

Related Tampa Drug Defense Resources

If you are researching fentanyl trafficking charges, these resources may help:

Speak With a Tampa Fentanyl Trafficking Defense Lawyer Today

A fentanyl trafficking arrest is serious, but the investigation should not simply be accepted without review.

I invite you to learn more through my Florida Drug Crimes Defense Resource Center, explore my experience on the About W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. page, and review related resources including Tampa Drug Trafficking Attorney, Tampa Drug Possession Attorney, Illegal Search and Seizure Florida Drug Cases, and Tampa Intent to Sell Lawyer.

When you are ready to discuss your situation, Contact Casey Ebsary or call (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation.

Fentanyl Trafficking Arrests and K9 Search Defense in Tampa

Facing fentanyl drug charges in the Tampa Bay area can instantly upend your life, especially when a routine traffic stop escalates into a major narcotics trafficking investigation. In many high-stakes cases across Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, law enforcement officers rely heavily on K9 units to perform open-air sniffs around vehicles. When a drug detection dog alerts on a car, police officers frequently claim that they have established the necessary probable cause to conduct a full warrantless search under the automobile exception.

However, a positive K9 alert is not bulletproof. Experienced legal defense requires an immediate, meticulous examination of the initial stop’s legality, the handling officer’s conduct, and the reliability of the K9 unit itself. If law enforcement violated your Fourth Amendment rights during the detention or search, a skilled trial attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence, which can lead to reduced charges or a complete dismissal of the prosecution’s case.

As a former prosecutor and a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has spent decades defending individuals accused of serious drug offenses in Tampa. To explore more educational resources and legal breakdowns, browse our complete library at the Tampa Drug Crimes Defense Resource Center. You can also read about our firm’s core philosophy on the About Page. Do not wait until it is too late to build an aggressive defense strategy. Visit our Contact Page or call 813-222-2220 today for a free, confidential consultation available 24/7.

How Do Traffic Stops Escalate to Drug Searches in Tampa?

When local law enforcement conducts a traffic stop on Tampa Bay area roads, minor moving violations can quickly escalate into intensive narcotics investigations if officers claim to observe suspicious behavior. Police frequently deploy K9 units to perform open-air sniffs around the exterior of a vehicle to establish probable cause for a search. For extensive local insights into how these roadside detentions unfold, review the Florida Drug Crimes Defense Resource Center. To schedule a confidential evaluation with Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., visit the Contact Page or call 813-222-2220 today.

Can Florida Police Conduct Warrantless Vehicle Searches After K9 Alerts?

Under the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception, officers often argue that a positive K9 alert gives them the legal green light to search a car without a warrant. However, modern defense strategies rigorously challenge whether a drug-sniffing dog’s undifferentiated alert provides valid probable cause, especially given recent appellate decisions regarding legal hemp and medical marijuana. Explore background information about our practice on the About Page and examine relevant search-and-seizure case analyses on the Illegal Search and Seizure Blog. Call 813-222-2220 for immediate legal support.

What Are the Mandatory Penalties for Fentanyl Trafficking in Florida?

Fentanyl trafficking charges in Florida carry severe, non-negotiable statutory minimum prison sentences and massive financial penalties based strictly on the total weight of the mixture. According to Florida Statute §893.135 via Justia, possessing as little as 4 grams can trigger a first-degree felony charge with a mandatory seven-year prison sentence. You can review the complete legal framework through the Official Florida Legislature and read our in-depth breakdown at Florida Fentanyl Trafficking Laws. Contact our Tampa office via the Contact Page or call 813-222-2220 to speak with attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Tampa Drug Charges Bail Bond Video

When a loved one is arrested on drug charges in Hillsborough County, every hour spent behind bars feels like an eternity. Waiting weeks for a scheduled court date is not your only option. You need immediate, strategic legal intervention to secure release and protect your rights from day one.

At Drug2Go, led by board-certified criminal trial expert W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we specialize in expedited bail bond hearings. As a former prosecutor in the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office, Casey knows exactly how the local system operates and how to fight for a lower bond or an immediate release on recognizance (ROR).

Why You Shouldn’t Wait for Your First Appearance

Many families mistakenly believe they have no choice but to wait weeks for a formal court appearance to address bail. In reality, an experienced Tampa defense attorney can file emergency motions to modify bond conditions immediately.

Securing a rapid bail bond hearing helps:

• Minimize Jail Time: Avoid the dangers and disruptions of extended stays in local detention facilities.
• Protect Employment and Family: Getting back home quickly means keeping your job and being there for your family while your case is reviewed.
• Build a Stronger Defense: It is significantly easier to participate in your defense, review evidence, and meet with counsel when you are out on bond.

If you or a family member are facing drug possession, trafficking, or manufacturing charges, do not navigate the complex Florida legal system alone. Contact an experienced Tampa bail bond lawyer right away to fast-track the path home.

• Learn more about our legal experience on our About Page.
• Need immediate assistance? Request an urgent consultation on our Contact Page or call 813-222-2220.

How does the weight or Volume of a controlled substance affect a drug sentence?

Wannabe Walter White Gets a Break

One court just changed the rules in how prosecutors can use the weight of drugs against defendants like the fictional Walter White. The Urban Dictionary tells us that a “wannabe’ is a person “who copies or imitates all or most of the aspects dealing with their idol.”
“The court found that since most of the substance was not usable by potential customers, there may have been an error in the weight calculation.”

The weight of the controlled substance has a dramatic impact on the sentence imposed upon conviction or a negotiated plea agreement. Harsh minimum mandatory sentences are meted out by courts when the weight exceeds certain quantities.

Sometimes it might be a good idea to, “obtain an independent expert witness to analyze the liquids seized by police and to testify as to the amount of usable methamphetamine that could be produced from the liquids. . . ” This is the takeaway from a recent federal drug criminal prosecution of a would-be / wannabe Walter White.

In an unusual fact pattern, the cops busted a guy who was in the process of making methamphetamine from pseudoephedrine. He used 2.4 grams of the precursor chemical, but was miraculously convicted of manufacturing over 50 grams of meth. The court found that since most of the substance was not usable by potential customers, there may have been an error in the weight calculation.

Usually Police Weigh Everything but the Packaging

How Is the Weight Determined in Case of a Mixture in Drug Crimes?
Methamphetamine Mandatory Minimum Sentence

In marijuana growhouse cases of manufacture of cannabis, police labs weigh the whole plant including the roots. In cocaine cases they weigh the powder including substances used to cut the drug. In Oxycodone cases they weigh the entire pill, even though it may include inert substances like acetaminophen. This decision may be limited to manufacture of controlled substances in a “laboratory” environment, since convictions for weed, coke, and oxy seem to still be intact.

Excerpts from the Court’s Drug Quantity Decision

“The superseding indictment charged Griffith with manufacturing 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)”

How Is the Weight Determined in Case of a Mixture in Drug Crimes?

“For a manufacturing methamphetamine offense, the total amount of the drug generally determines the penalty range, which is set by statutory minimum and maximum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). If a defendant has a prior conviction for a felony drug offense and “50 grams or more of methamphetamine . . . or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine” were involved in the current offense, the range is 20 years to life.”

“the entire weight of the liquids attributed to him should not have been included in calculating the drug quantities”

What Happens When Illegal Drugs are Mixed with Other Unusable Substances?

“the liquids used to calculate his drug quantities were “unusable” toxic materials from the manufacturing process, and that he started with only 2.4 grams of pseudoephedrine and it “is impos[s]ible to turn 2.4 [g]rams of [p]seudoephedrine into more than 2.4 [g]rams of [m]ethamphetamine.””

“we must accept that unusable liquids were counted in calculating the drug quantities that determined his mandatory minimum sentence and his advisory guidelines base offense level. We must also accept for present purposes that the liquids could not have produced any more than 2.4 grams of methamphetamine.”

“The minimum amount of methamphetamine required for the jury to convict, as it did, under Count 1 is only a “detectable amount.” Griffith has always admitted that he had manufactured a detectable amount of it, and the evidence proved it. By contrast, the mandatory minimum sentence required a finding by the jury that Griffith had manufactured 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and Griffith has always disputed that he did manufacture or could have manufactured that amount.”

Here is a report from our friends in the Federal Criminal Defense Bar:

James Harold Griffith was convicted by a jury of manufacturing 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. After losing his direct appeal, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that some waste materials in the drug manufacturing process should not have been included as a “mixture or substance” in his drug quantity determination, a determination which triggered mandatory minimum sentences and also increased base offense levels under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1.

After an in-depth review of the Supreme Court law, Eleventh Circuit law, and relevant guideline amendments dealing with the meaning of “mixture or substance” as used in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), which sets a defendant’s base offense level based on “the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance,” the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

The Court wrote that its precedent is clear and was clear at the time of Griffith’s sentencing that the entire weight of drug mixtures which are usable in the chain of distribution should be considered in determining a defendant’s sentence, but only when the mixture can be consumed along with the controlled substance by the end user. Otherwise, unusable parts and waste products that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be consumed are not to be considered in the calculation of a defendant’s sentence.

The Eleventh Circuit held that Griffith had made out a prima facie case that his counsel was ineffective in failing to present this case law to the sentencing court, and that there was a reasonable probability that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness. The Court thus remanded his case to the district court, where he would be allowed to prove the truth of his allegations at an evidentiary hearing.

James Harold Griffith v. United States of America, No. 15-11877

(September 26, 2017)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Panel: Ed Carnes, Chief Judge, Rosenbaum and Dubina, Circuit Judges

Ed Carnes, Chief Judge: Reversed and Remanded

The full text of the decision can be found here:

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201511877.pdf
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220

Watch: Drug Court Explained (Tampa Defense Perspective)

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

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

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

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

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

Drug Court vs Traditional Criminal Case

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

Why Legal Review Before Signing Matters

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

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

More Frequently Asked Questions

Is Drug Court the same in every Florida county?

No. Drug Court programs vary significantly depending on the judicial circuit. Requirements, supervision levels, and program structure are not uniform across Florida.

Can Drug Court result in dismissal of charges?

In some cases, successful completion may lead to reduced penalties or dismissal, but outcomes depend entirely on the court’s order and the underlying charge.

What happens if I fail Drug Court?

Failure to complete Drug Court may result in termination from the program and sentencing under the original criminal case.

Do I need a lawyer before entering Drug Court?

Yes. Drug Court agreements are binding legal contracts that can affect your criminal case outcome, probation, and future exposure.

Official Resources

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

Speak With a Tampa Drug Court Defense Lawyer

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

📞 Call 813-222-2220

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

Drug Court Agreement | Contract | Sample

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

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

The text of the agreement is below:

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

AGREEMENT, ORIENTATION, AND RULES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Minimum monthly court appearances.

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

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

8) Develop an aftercare plan.

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

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

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

1) Minimum monthly court appearances.

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

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

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

7) Continue to maintain frequent contact with sponsor.

8) Implement the aftercare plan developed in Phase III.

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

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

5. For participation in the DUI Drug Court Program:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marijuana Charges in Tampa, Florida | Hillsborough County

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

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

Isn’t Marijuana Legal in Florida?

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

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

Here are a Few Frequently Asked Questions FAQ

Drug2103 Possession of Cannabis Less than 20 Grams

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

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

Form Code: DRUG2103

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

Description: POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS

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

Florida Statute 893.13.6B

Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

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

Drug2102 Possession of Cannabis More than 20 Grams

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

Form Code: DRUG2102

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

DRUG2102 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possession:

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

Sale or Cultivation:

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

* MinMan = Mandatory minimum sentence.

Other Penalties:

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

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

What Are Charge Codes?

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

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

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

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

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

You can review the decision here:

Source: 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b

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

Constructive Possession Cannabis | Defense Win

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constructive Possession of Cannabis Case Excerpts:

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

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

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

Source: 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1266a

Drug Charge Defense Attorney

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

In this video, Casey reviews Minimum Mandatory sentences may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial expert who defends marijuana, cannabis, hash, vape, Delta 9, drug crimes in Pinellas County, Florida.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

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

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

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

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

Watch: Trafficking in Cocaine Defense Attorney Video

Trafficking in Cocaine | Florida Conviction Overturned

Video Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Hire W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

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

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

Learn more about W F Casey Ebsary Jr:

https://drug2go.com/about

What Is Cocaine Trafficking Under Florida Law?

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

The applicable Florida statute is:

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

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

Quick Reference

What Must the State Prove?

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

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

Official Jury Instructions

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org

The jury instructions address issues such as:

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

Does a Rental Car Automatically Make Someone Guilty?

No.

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

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

What Defenses May Be Available?

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

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

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

How Serious Are Cocaine Trafficking Charges?

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

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

Official Florida Laws

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

Why Early Representation Matters

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

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

Why Choose a Tampa Drug Defense Attorney?

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

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

Cocaine Trafficking Case Timeline

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Does every cocaine trafficking case go to trial?

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

Is possession enough to prove trafficking?

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

Can constructive possession be challenged?

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

Should I speak with investigators?

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

Where can I read the Florida trafficking statute?

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

Florida Legislature

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

Florida trafficking statute on Justia

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

Talk to a Tampa Cocaine Trafficking Lawyer Today

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

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

Learn more about attorney Casey Ebsary:

https://drug2go.com/about

Contact the office today:

https://drug2go.com/contact

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

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

Original Post from 2010

Criminal Trial Lawyer

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

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

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

Cocaine Trafficking 28 – 200 Grams

If you have been charged with DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at 1-877-793-9290 for a Free Phone Consultation

Form Code: DRUG1904


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

Description: TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS

DRUG1904 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE 28 TO 200 GRAMS is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

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

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

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

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


Florida Standard Jury Instruction:

25.11 TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS

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

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

1. (Defendant) knowingly

[sold]
[purchased]
[manufactured]
[delivered]
[brought into Florida]
[possessed]

a certain substance.

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

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

See State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1987).
4. (Defendant) knew that the substance was [[morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)]].

If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., the following bracketed language should be given instead of element 4 above. For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold (specific substance alleged), the alternate element 4 would be given.
[4. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.), but actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] (specific substance alleged) or a mixture containing (specific substance alleged).]

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

Manufacture. § 893.02(13)(a), Fla. Stat.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.

Deliver. § 893.02(5), Fla. Stat.
“Deliver” or “delivery” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.

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

Possession may be actual or constructive.

Actual possession means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an element of the offense of (insert name of offense charged). Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense. (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However, you are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance.

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

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

See State v. Weller, 590 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1991).
If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

Enhanced penalty. Give if applicable up to extent of charge.
a. [The quantity of the substance involved was 4 grams or more but less than 14 grams.]

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

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

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

Lesser Included Offenses

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

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

]]>