🔥 Description Meta

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal vs. Florida State Drug Laws

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

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

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

The Role of a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

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

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

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

Why the “Louis” Drug Case Matters to You

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

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

Professional Legal Assistance in Tampa

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

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

2102 W Cleveland St

Tampa, Florida 33606

Call: (813) 222-2220

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

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

No. 16-11349 | July 10, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

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

WILSON, Circuit Judge:

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

I. BACKGROUND

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

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

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

II. DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

REVERSED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dual Nature of Cannabis DUID Stops

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

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

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

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

How the “Poisonous Tree” Doctrine Kills DUID Cases

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

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

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

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

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

Probable Cause Paradox: Analyzing Judge Atkinson’s Concurrence

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

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

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

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

Building a DUID Defense in the Post-Williams Era

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

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

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

Challenge 2: The Impairment Evidence (The DUI)

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

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

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

Public Safety vs. Constitutional Rights: The Dissenting View

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

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

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

Conclusion: Your Right to an Unimpaired Defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Legal Risks for Medical Marijuana Patients

1. Firearm Possession

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

2. Controlled Substances Violations

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

3. DUI and Operating Vehicles

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

4. Employment and Background Checks

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

Why You Need a Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Medical Marijuana, Firearm Rights and Criminal Liability

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

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

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

Contact Casey today for immediate guidance.

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

The Federal Law at Issue

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

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

Second Amendment Framework

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

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

Criminal Liability for Florida Medical Marijuana Patients

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

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

Read § 381.986 on Justia

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

Table: Comparing Florida Medical Marijuana and Federal Laws

Expanded Q&A: Florida Medical Marijuana and Firearms

Can Florida medical marijuana patients legally buy guns?

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

What did the Eleventh Circuit decide in the Florida case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about recreational marijuana if it becomes legal in Florida?

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

Are there any defenses to firearm charges for marijuana users?

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

What should Florida patients do if they already own guns?

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

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

Practical Guidance for Florida Medical Marijuana Patients

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

Call to Action

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

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

Contact Casey today for a confidential consultation.

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

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

1. Serious Charges

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

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

2. New Charges While a Case is Pending

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

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

3. Failures to Appear

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do prosecutors get upset by “serious charges”?

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

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

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

Is it better to explain myself directly to the prosecutor?

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

How can your firm help calm down an angry prosecutor?

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

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

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

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

Florida’s DRUG3912 Charge Explained

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

What Is Considered “Trafficking” Under Florida Law?

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

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

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

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

Special Focus: Fentanyl and Its Impact on Drug Trafficking Cases

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

Fentanyl-related Trafficking Penalties

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

Common Controlled Substances Under DRUG3912

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements the State Must Prove

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

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

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

Understanding Possession: Actual vs. Constructive

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

Actual Possession

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

Constructive Possession

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

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

Legal Definitions You Need to Know

Understanding how Florida defines certain terms is critical:

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

Top 5 Defenses to Florida Drug Trafficking Charges

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

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

What does DRUG3912 mean under Florida law?

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

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

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

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

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

What is the mandatory minimum sentence for DRUG3912?

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

Can the weight be challenged in court?

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

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

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

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

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

What is substantial assistance and can it reduce my sentence?

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

Can I get drug court or probation instead of prison?

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

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

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

Why Hire W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

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

What You Get:

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

Contact Us Now for a Free Case Review

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

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

Original Post from 2018 Updated Above to 2025

Drug Trafficking

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

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

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

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

Form Code: DRUG3912

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

Description: TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS 4 TO 14 GRAMS

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

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

Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL


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

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

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

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

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

Florida Jury Instruction on TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS

§ 893.135(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

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

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

            1.         (Defendant) knowingly

                                    [sold]

                                    [purchased]

                                    [manufactured]

                                    [delivered]

                                    [brought into Florida]

                                    [possessed]

                        a certain substance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Definitions.  Give as applicable.

            Sell.

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

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

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

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

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

            Possession.

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

            Possession may be actual or constructive.

            Actual possession means:

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

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

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

            Give if applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesser Included Offenses

Comment

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

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

Arrested for a Federal Drug Crime? We Can Help.

If you’ve been charged under USCA0003 for Manufacture, Distribution, Dispensing, or Possession of a Controlled Substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841, you’re facing serious federal charges. This statute covers a wide range of illegal drug activities, and penalties can include long prison sentences, hefty fines, and asset forfeiture. Understanding the specifics of this charge is crucial for building a strong defense. Contact the Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr. to learn how we can help protect your rights and fight these charges effectively.

If you or a loved one is facing federal drug charges, you are at risk of severe penalties—including lengthy prison sentences, massive fines, and asset forfeiture. Federal prosecutors pursue drug offenses aggressively under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841–865.
You need a skilled federal criminal defense attorney who knows how to fight back.

At Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr, we have the experience, knowledge, and resources to stand between you and the full force of the federal government.

What Does the Charge Code “Manufacture, Dist, Dispense, Possess Con Sub- Fed USCA0003 021.841” Mean?

If you’ve been charged with Manufacture, Distribution, Dispensing, or Possession of a Controlled Substance (Federal) under the USCA0003 code and 21 U.S.C. § 841, here’s what it means:

• Manufacture, Distribution, Dispensing, or Possession: This code covers a broad range of illegal drug activities. It could involve:
  • Manufacturing controlled substances (e.g., creating or producing illegal drugs).
  • Distributing controlled substances (e.g., selling or giving drugs to others).
  • Dispensing controlled substances (e.g., distributing drugs unlawfully).
  • Possessing controlled substances with the intent to distribute or sell them.
• Controlled Substances: These are drugs classified under federal law as illegal or controlled. It can include narcotics, prescription drugs, or other illicit substances.
• Federal Law (21 U.S.C. § 841): Under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the federal government regulates the possession, manufacture, and distribution of controlled substances. If you’re facing charges under this statute, it typically means the alleged crime has a federal aspect, such as crossing state lines, involving federal property, or dealing in large quantities of drugs.

What Are the Penalties for 21 U.S.C. § 841?

The penalties for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 are severe and depend on the type of drug involved and the quantity. Some penalties include:

There can also be fines and asset forfeiture, depending on the amount and nature of the drug involved.

What Should You Do if Charged?

If you’re facing a charge under 21 U.S.C. § 841, you need an experienced federal drug defense lawyer. The Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr. is here to defend your rights and explore all possible defenses, including challenging evidence, negotiating plea deals, or seeking case dismissal.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation, and let’s work on defending your future.

Common Federal Drug Crimes We Defend

• Drug Trafficking (21 U.S.C. § 841): Manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances.
• Drug Conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846): Agreement between two or more people to commit a drug crime.
• Possession with Intent to Distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)).
• Importation/Exportation of Drugs (21 U.S.C. § 952).
• Operating a Drug House (21 U.S.C. § 856).
• Using a Communication Facility (21 U.S.C. § 843(b)): Using phones or the internet to facilitate drug crimes.

Federal Drug Crime Penalties

See the full statutes at 21 U.S.C. Part D.

Top 5 Defenses to Federal Drug Charges

• Illegal Search and Seizure: Evidence obtained without a valid warrant may be suppressed.
• Lack of Knowledge or Intent: You must knowingly possess or distribute the substance.
• Entrapment: You were improperly induced by law enforcement to commit a crime.
• Insufficient Evidence: Challenging the quantity, type, or possession of drugs.
• Constitutional Violations: Violations of Miranda rights or due process.

Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Drug Charges

What makes a drug case “federal” instead of “state”?

Drug crimes become federal when they involve large quantities, cross state lines, happen on federal property, or involve federal agencies like the DEA.
Learn more: 21 U.S.C. Part D

Can I be charged with conspiracy even if I never touched the drugs?

Yes. Under 21 U.S.C. § 846, simply agreeing to participate in a drug crime—even without handling drugs—can result in the same penalties as if you committed the crime yourself.

What are mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes?

Many federal drug offenses carry mandatory minimum sentences of 5, 10, or even 20 years based on the type and quantity of drug, and prior convictions.
(See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b))

What is a “safety valve” in federal sentencing?

The “safety valve” allows certain non-violent, first-time drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum sentences under specific conditions.
(See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f))

How quickly should I hire a lawyer after being contacted by federal agents?

Immediately. Federal agents rarely contact you unless they already have significant evidence. A lawyer can protect your rights and possibly prevent charges from being filed.

Why Choose Law Office of W F Casey Ebsary Jr?

• Over 30 years of experience in federal criminal defense
• Aggressive pre-trial motions to exclude illegal evidence
• Proven track record of dismissals, acquittals, and favorable plea deals
• Available 24/7 for emergency consultations

Your freedom is too important to leave to chance. Let’s fight back together.

Call 813-222-2220 Now for a Free Confidential USCA0003 Consultation

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

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

Trafficking Drugs at Tampa International Airport?

Why was Campbell arrested?

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

The Facts

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

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

Events at Tampa International Airport

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

Discovery and Testing of the Contents

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

Arrest and Charges

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

Legal Arguments and Court Decision

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

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

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

Outcome and Remand

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

Implications of the Tampa Airport Drug Trafficking Case

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

10 Q&A based on the Airport Bust

What was Pryce Campbell’s initial charge?

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

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

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

What was the central issue in Campbell’s appeal?

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

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

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

What was Campbell’s defense at trial?

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

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

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

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

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

What was the final outcome of Campbell’s case?

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

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

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

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

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

What is the legal status of hemp in Florida?

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

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

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

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

Drug Trafficking Court Ruling

Opinion_2023-0651 – Download