Let us help you 813.222.2220

Defending against drug crimes in Florida requires strategic legal maneuvers. Facing drug charges in Florida? Our team at Drug2go.com has your back with straightforward defenses. We challenge illegal searches, question possession claims, and contest Miranda Rights violations. From poking holes in evidence handling to disputing traffic stops, we cover the bases.

Ever heard of entrapment? We argue if law enforcement pushed you into a drug offense. Doubt crime lab results? So do we. We question accuracy and highlight errors. Medical necessity? Yep, we use that too. Constructive possession claims? We’re on it. Not enough proof? We’ll say it. Casey the Lawyer from Drug2go.com tailors defenses to your case. Get real about your defense in Florida – talk to us.

Here are ten key defenses that drug charge defense attorneys may employ to challenge drug-related charges:

Top Ten Drug Crime Defenses in Florida

Unlawful Search and Seizure:

Arguing that law enforcement conducted an illegal search or seizure without a proper 4th Amendment warrant or probable cause.

Lack of Possession:

Contesting the defendant’s actual possession of the drugs, emphasizing factors like proximity and control.

Miranda Rights Violation:

Asserting that the defendant was not properly informed of their Miranda rights during arrest and interrogation.

Chain of Custody Issues:

Challenging the integrity of the evidence by questioning the handling and documentation of seized substances.

Illegal Traffic Stop:

Contending that the traffic stop leading to the drug discovery was conducted without reasonable suspicion or violated the Fourth Amendment.

Entrapment:

Arguing that law enforcement induced the defendant to commit a drug-related offense that they would not have committed otherwise.

Crime Lab Errors:

Casting doubt on the accuracy of drug testing results, highlighting potential errors or contamination in the forensic analysis.

Medical Necessity Defense:

Asserting that the possession or use of certain drugs was medically necessary under specific circumstances.

Constructive Possession Dispute:

Contesting the prosecution’s claim that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs, challenging the evidence connecting them to the substance.

Insufficient Evidence:

Asserting that the prosecution lacks enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a potential dismissal.

Defense Attorney Checklist | Table of Drug Crimes Defenses

Importance of Checklists

Checklists are essential in the legal field, especially when dealing with complex cases like drug crime defenses. They provide a systematic way to address key details, ensuring that no critical aspects are overlooked. By using checklists, legal professionals can thoroughly challenge evidence, question procedures, and tailor defenses to the specific nuances of each case. In high-stakes situations such as drug charges, the disciplined use of checklists helps prevent oversights, leading to a more comprehensive and effective defense strategy. These straightforward tools empower legal teams to navigate the complexities of legal proceedings with precision and thorough preparation, ultimately contributing to a stronger defense.

Navigating drug crime defenses requires the expertise of a skilled attorney who can tailor the defense strategy to the specific circumstances of each case. It’s crucial to consult with legal professionals, like Casey the Lawyer at Drug2go.com, to explore the most effective defense approach for your situation.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

Call a Drug Crimes Defense Expert 813-222-2220

Conclusion

Facing drug charges is a serious matter, but at Drug2go.com, we stand as your unwavering ally in the fight for justice. Our commitment is simple yet powerful – we challenge, question, and contest every aspect of your case. From dismantling illegal searches to debunking possession claims, we leave no stone unturned.

Entrapment, errors in crime lab results, or doubts about evidence – we address them all. Casey the Lawyer, our expert at Drug2go.com, tailors your defense to the unique nuances of your situation. When it comes to your defense in Florida, it’s not just a legal matter; it’s your future. Get the real and robust defense you deserve – talk to us today.

What happens when a suspect throws down drugs and the cops later find them?

Where drug crime defendants / suspects throw drugs under their vehicles while being removed from the vehicle after a valid traffic stop, a court can rule that the suspect has “voluntarily abandoned” the drugs. A Florida Court has just ruled there was reasonable suspicion to justify a pat down where there was a traffic stop, the target appeared nervous, could not answer some of the officer’s questions, had made a sudden U-turn into an oncoming traffic lane, and then parked facing the wrong direction just prior to the stop. The cop testified that the suspect had a pen clenched in his hand and the officer to believed it could be used as a weapon.

“Florida Statutes (2012) (entitled “Stop and Frisk Law”), provides: Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person. . . ”

The Court ruled the policeman exceeded the scope of the pat down by searching the suspects sock, the drugs the guy tossed would have been “inevitably discovered” in the search incident to arrest based on the discovery of the drugs that he had abandoned under the vehicle. Defendant loses on the search but won because a problem with selection of jurors.

“Inevitable discovery is a recognized exception to the exclusionary rule and requires the State to establish that “the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in the course of a legitimate investigation.”

Case Excerpts:

“Officer Rosa Olivo was on patrol during the evening of February 3, 2012 when she saw a car with a faded and illegible temporary tag, as well as a tinted film covering the brake lights, making it impossible to determine if the vehicle’s lights were on. Before Officer Olivo could initiate a stop of the car, the driver suddenly turned into the opposite lane of traffic without signaling and parked in the
grassy swale. Officer Olivo activated her lights and siren, exited her car, and began walking toward the car. Cole was the driver and only occupant of the car. As Officer Olivo headed toward Cole’s car, Cole began to exit his car. Officer Olivo told Cole to remain inside. Cole handed Olivo his license and registration, and Officer Olivo described Cole as very nervous, sweating and stuttering. In response to her questions, Cole told Officer Olivo he was going to meet a “good friend” who lived nearby, but when asked, Cole could not provide the friend’s name. Given Cole’s behavior, Officer Olivo requested backup.”

“Officer Lisa Lobello arrived as backup within a few minutes of Officer Olivo’s request. Upon Lobello’s arrival, Officer Olivo returned to her police vehicle to conduct further investigation related to the traffic stop. Officer Lobello engaged in small talk with Cole, who was still seated in his car. Officer Lobello described Cole as looking past her as they spoke, as if he was “visually trying to clear an area.” Cole informed Officer Lobello that he was on parole. Cole was
sweating, bouncing his legs up and down, and looked afraid. Both of his hands were clenched in fists, and he was tightly gripping an ink pen in his right hand. This caused concern for Officer Lobello, who believed that the pen was being held in such a way that it could be used as a weapon. Officer Lobello asked Cole to step out of his car so she could conduct a patdown search. She grabbed his wrist before he stepped out of the car and shook the pen out of his hand, then helped Cole out of the car. While taking him out of the car, Lobello twisted Cole’s arm and turned him around so he was facing away from her and toward his own car. As she turned him around, Officer Lobello saw Cole flick his wrist. Lobello saw dust rising from the dirt ground and believed Cole had thrown something under the car.”

“Florida’s stop and frisk law requires “not probable cause but rather a reasonable belief on the part of the officer that a person 5 temporarily detained is armed with a dangerous weapon.” State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 1981); see also J.L. v. State, 727 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1998). Section 901.151(5), Florida Statutes (2012) (entitled “Stop and Frisk Law”), provides: Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized. The use of the term “probable cause” in the context of a stop and frisk, has been construed to mean “articulable suspicion,” “reasonable belief,” or “founded suspicion.” Webb, 398 So. 2d at 826; Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1018, 1022 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). And as the Florida Supreme Court has held, “[a] ‘founded suspicion’ is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in light of the officer’s knowledge.” Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244, 249 (Fla. 1995). In State v. Cruse, 121 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), this court set forth the factors that may be considered by officers to arrive at a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or is about to be committed and to support the investigatory stop or detention of a suspect: 6 The time; the day of the week; the location; the physical appearance of the suspect; the behavior of the suspect; the appearance and manner of operation of any vehicle involved; anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in the light of the officer’s knowledge. To this list may be added the factor of flight. Cruse, 121 So. 3d at 97-98 (quoting Hernandez v. State, 784 So. 2d 1124, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)).”

“Inevitable discovery is a recognized exception to the exclusionary rule and requires the State to establish that “the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in the course of a legitimate investigation.” Moody v. State, 842 So. 2d 754, 759 (Fla.2003). See also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S.431, 444 (1984) (recognizing and adopting the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, and holding that the exclusionary rule should not apply if “the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means”). In other words, given the evidence presented, “the case must be in such a posture that the facts already in the possession of the police would have led to this evidence notwithstanding the police misconduct.” Moody, 842 So. 2d at 759.”

Source: Cole v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D970a (Fla. 3rd DCA 2016)

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D14-2574.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=drug+crime&btnG=Search&domains=drug2go.com&sitesearch=drug2go.com&gws_rd=ssl

#DrugCrimes #DrugAttorney #PatDown InevitableDiscovery #Abandonment #TrafficStop #4thAmendment, #FourthAmendment #StopFrisk

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

“the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and
probable cause to seize the evidence.”

Drug Crime Cop Gone Wild

One of Polk county’s finest, a deputy sheriff under the notorious Sheriff Grady Judd pulled over a car for a traffic violation. The Court said there was “initially a stop due to the traffic violation, once the officer determined not to cite the driver and asked the driver for consent to search the vehicle, the encounter became consensual”

Read and Download the Florida Drug Search of a Purse Opinion Here.

The cop takes the passenger’s purse and searches it. The appeals court found, as a matter of fact, the officer had searched the defendant’s purse. The wayward officer had removed a pill box from the vehicle. The cop did not know what kind of pills he had found during his soon-to-be illegal search. He had to search on the internet. I kid you not – Drugs.com . As a drug crime defense attorney, the offensive tactics that some Florida state law enforcement use to obtain criminal charges to justify seizure of both drugs and then cash, vehicles, and real estate are disturbing.

“The officer testified to a ‘faint odor’ of marijuana but found no marijuana”

By the way here is another case where they was an allegation of an “odor of marijuana.” Shockingly, there was no weed found in the car. It turns out the pills were Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Tramadol. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment violation continued when the officer wandered to his patrol car with the pill box. At that point the Second District Court of Appeal found “the encounter again became an investigatory detention . . . .” The court ruled that the search of the pill box in the passenger’s purse “requires reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime . . . .” For the search to have been legal the officer must have “a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity” (quoting Smith v.State, 95 So. 3d 966, 968).

Excerpts from the Drug Seizure Opinion

“The officer testified that although he knew the purse belonged to Gay [ name of the passenger ]and not the driver, he did not seek consent from Gay to search the purse.”

“The officer testified to a ‘faint odor’ of marijuana but found no marijuana in either the purse or pill box. And the mere observation of pills in an aftermarket container is equally consistent with noncriminal activity as with criminal activity.”

“investigatory detention and seizure of the pills and pill box was unauthorized”

“[T]he deputy’s actions constituted a show of authority that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he or she was not free to end the encounter and leave. . . . [N]either the illegal nature of the possession of the pills nor the type of pills was known to the officer at the time he removed them from the vehicle. Nothing about the pills or pill box gave him a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Nor did he know that any of the pills were controlled substances at the time he seized them. . . . The investigatory detention and seizure of the pills and pill box was unauthorized; the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and probable cause to seize the evidence. [The defendant’s] motion to suppress should have been granted.”

Source: Gay v. State, 138 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)

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

A Florida Drug case just answered two questions: 1) Can the Color of a Vehicle be the Probable Cause for a Traffic Stop? 2) Can cops invent creative reasons to pull you over?

Traffic Stop Facts

The case began when the cops were looking for a reason to pull a vehicle over and the driver was not doing anything wrong to justify a legitimate traffic stop to issue a traffic citation or a warning. The cop used his computer system to pull the DHSMV (Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) records on the vehicle he was following. The record was valid, the registration was valid, the driver and the vehicle were lawfully in operation. One field on the vehicle record described the color of the vehicle. The color of the targeted vehicle did not match. vehicle was stopped, odor of cannabis / marijuana, large quantity of drugs found, driver is arrested and goes to prison.

Can the Color of a Vehicle be the Probable Cause for a Traffic Stop?

Florida Supreme Court says the DHSMV record does not need to match the vehicle color. People are free to paint cars whenever they wish. There is no requirement that car owners report the new color of their vehicle to the state. Conviction overturned.

Can cops invent creative reasons to pull you over?

Florida Supreme Court says police cannot use otherwise innocent conduct to invent reasons for traffic stops. Courts can punish police who engage in such hunting. The punishment will at least be the evidence they have illegally obtained will be suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule. Under the rule, courts will not let police engage in misconduct and then convict and imprison citizens.

Case Excerpts

“To warrant an investigatory stop, the law requires not just a mere suspicion of criminal activity, but a reasonable, well-founded one. Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186 (“[A]n investigatory stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”). In Terry, the stop was found appropriate because the officer “had observed [three men] go [t]hrough a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.” Terry, 392 .”

“[T]he sole basis here for the investigatory stop is an observation of one completely noncriminal factor, not several incidents of innocent activity combining under a totality of the circumstances to arouse a reasonable suspicion—as was the case in Terry. “

“The discrepancy between the vehicle registration and the color the deputy observed does present an ambiguous situation, and the Supreme Court has recognized that an officer can detain an individual to resolve an ambiguity regarding suspicious yet lawful or innocent conduct. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. However, the suspicion still must be a reasonable one. Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186 (“Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop.”). In this case, there simply are not enough facts to demonstrate reasonableness.”

“[It] is not against the law in Florida to change the color of your vehicle without notifying the DHSMV.”

“The intrusion involved in the instant case is similar to that described in Prouse, especially considering that anyone who chooses to paint his or her vehicle a different color could be pulled over by law enforcement every time he or she drives it.”

“We are satisfied that the exclusionary rule will have an appropriate deterrent effect in this case and that none of the exceptions to the rule apply. “

Here is a Copy of the Vehicle Color Probable Cause for Traffic Stop Case.

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

Trafficking Prescription Drugs

Prescription Drugs and Probable Cause to Search

Facts of the Case:

On Nov. 15, 2010, Darrian Washington, a detective with the Miami-Dade Police Department, was observing a small apartment complex on 80th Street west of 7th Avenue. (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 6.) Defendant Lopez drove up and parked his car approximately ten to 15 yards from where Det. Washington was standing. (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 6.) When Mr. Lopez got out of his car, he appeared to Det. Washington to be holding cash in one of his hands. (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 7, 8.) Another man — described only as “a black male,” (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 8) — spoke briefly with Mr. Lopez, after which Det. Washington saw Mr. Lopez hand the cash he had been holding to the other man. (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 8.)

The black male then walked out of Det. Washington’s line of sight, (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 9), but soon returned carrying what Det. Washington described as a “large prescription bottle” (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 9, 10), the label of which had been defaced. (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 11.) Mr. Lopez took the bottle, then got in his car and drove away. Det. Washington contacted two colleagues, Detectives Benitez and Kinney, (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 12), and instructed them to apprehend Mr. Lopez. (Darrian Washington’s Dep. 13.)

Det. Benitez recalls that, upon instructions from Det. Washington, he “activat[ed] the emergency equipment” of the “unmarked police vehicle” of which he was the driver and Det. Kinney the passenger, and pulled over Mr. Lopez. (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 6.) At that time, the two detectives “were wearing a modified please (sic; police) uniform TNT, which we had our body armor with POLICE and our badges on the outside, red and blue lights on the siren.” (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 7.) Although Det. Benitez did not see Mr. Lopez commit any crimes or traffic infractions, he did “see the defendant tugging at the headrest,” (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 7), which was a source of “concern” to the detective “for weapons.” (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 8.) Fortunately, this concern proved unfounded; the detective “didn’t see any weapons.” (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 8, 9.) Mr. Lopez was taken out of his car and placed in custody “on the ground on the sidewalk.” (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 9-10.) The detectives then radioed for the assistance of a canine officer, Detective Menoud. (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 11.) In due course — the time is not stated in the deposition transcripts — Det. Menoud arrived, accompanied by his dog Shasta. (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 12.) Shasta, with the assistance of his human colleagues, conducted the search of Mr. Lopez’s car that resulted in the seizure of the contraband at issue here. (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 12.)

Ruling of the Case:

Although the Hodari D. test is cast in the disjunctive, in the case at bar both prongs were met. Two officers, bearing all the accouterments of office and employing their car’s emergency equipment, pulled Mr. Lopez over. He was then removed from his own car and, according to the testimony of one of the detectives, placed on the ground on the sidewalk. He was obliged to remain there while his car was searched by hands and paws. Whether measured by the “submission to authority” component or the “actual physical force” component, the conduct visited upon Mr. Lopez satisfies the predicate for arrest. the contraband at issue here. (Jason Benitez’s Dep. 12.)

It is a principle too well-settled to require citation to authority that such an arrest — conducted, as this one was, in the absence of warrant — must be justified by nothing less than probable cause. The classic and oft-cited definition provides that “[p]robable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-6 (1949) (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925)). In the taxonomy of standards of proof, probable cause is lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see Locke v. United States, 11 U.S. 339 (1813) (Marshall, C. J.), but higher than mere articulable reasonable suspicion, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Only if Mr. Lopez’s arrest was justified by probable cause are its fruits admissible at trial.

Although the presence or absence of probable cause turns chiefly on the conduct of the person to be arrested, other factors may also be relevant. Typically — it is tempting to say invariably — police officers will testify that the conduct in which they saw the arrestee engage occurred in a “high crime area” or “known drug area.” That was the case here; Detective Washington was asked if he knew the contents of the bottle he saw come into Mr. Lopez’s hands. “No, sir,” he responded — and then hastened to volunteer, “Based on my training and experience I was in a known drug area.” (Det. Darrian Washington’s 10.)

The topos of the “high crime area” in present-day police testimony is, in at least one sense, perfectly understandable. No self-respecting policeman can be expected to begin his testimony by remarking that, “I was patrolling in a crime-free area” or “Our squad was detailed to set up surveillance in an area where no crimes had been reported.” Sending the greatest number of police officers to the areas with the greatest number of serious crimes is precisely what we want our police departments to be doing. But when every officer testifies in every case that his search or seizure was justified, at least in part, because it took place in a “high crime area,” then every search or seizure is justified, at least in part. In Orwell’s Animal Farm, all pigs were equal but some were more equal than others; so, too, if all areas in which policework is done are “high crime areas,” then some of those areas must be “higher crime” — and therefore some “lower crime” — than others. Comparatives and superlatives lose their force when applied to anything and everything. And the use of a particular locution in every, or nearly every, case in which policemen testify detracts from the force and probative value of that locution in any given case. See, e.g., United States v. Marshall, 488 F.2d 1169, 1171 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1973).

Det. Washington’s observations gave rise to that “articulable reasonable suspicion” that justify the police in conducting an investigatory stop. See § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (codifying and modifying the doctrine ofTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). This Terry doctrine is as fully applicable to the drivers of cars as it is to pedestrians. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1981); State v. Dilyerd, 467 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1985). The officers in the case at bar were entitled to stop Mr. Lopez’s car and make further inquiries; indeed they would have been recreant in their duty had they failed to do so. Their authority was limited to “temporarily detain[ing] [Mr. Lopez] for the purpose of ascertaining [his] identity . . . and the circumstances surrounding [his] presence abroad which led the officer[s] to believe that [he] had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.” § 901.151(2), Fla. Stat. If, during the course of that investigatory stop, the officers had observed contraband in plain view, they would have been entitled to seize it. If, during the course of that investigatory stop, the officers had solicited and obtained Mr. Lopez’s consent to search his car, or his person, they would have been entitled to do so. If, during the course of that investigatory stop, the officers had developed probable cause, then — and only then — would they have been entitled to make an arrest. § 901.151(4), Fla. Stat. Where, as here, there was no contraband in plain view, there was no consent to search, and there was no probable cause, the seizure of Mr. Lopez’s person and the search of his car were unsupportable as a matter of law. The fruits of such a search must be suppressed.

Trafficking Prescription Drugs Defense Attorney Call 813-222-2220

Share this:

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Related