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

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

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

Decriminalization for University of Tampa Students

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

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

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

For more information, refer to:

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

“arrests and prosecutions for cannabis will continue”

Quick Facts About the Tampa Marijuana Laws

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

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

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

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

Mayor Bob Buckhorn

Why Didn’t Tampa Repeal Its Marijuana Forfeiture Law?

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

Tampa Remains the King of Marijuana Forfeitures

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

Tampa Cannabis Ordinance Text

Download

ORDINANCE NO. 2016-__

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Definitions.

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

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

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

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

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

(e) Penalties and Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

The following sections are excerpts from the court’s marijuana opinion testimony decision that can be found in its entirety here. “The issue before us is whether a police officer’s identification of marijuana, arrived at by sight and smell alone, is admissible experience-based opinion testimony. Because the officer’s opinion was based on his personal knowledge and perception and resulted from a process of everyday reasoning, we hold that the officer’s opinion was admissible as lay opinion testimony under Section 90.701, Florida Statutes.”

“We find the officers’ testimony within the
permissible range of lay

observation and ordinary police experience.”

Florida Law Weekly says, “Trial court did not abuse discretion by admitting police officer’s testimony identifying substance as marijuana based on sight and smell alone — Officer’s testimony was admissible as lay opinion testimony because it was based on sufficient personal knowledge and senses of sight and smell, and it was arrived at through a process of everyday reasoning . . . .”

Another Florida Court Does Not Require and Expert or a Lab Test to Prove Possession Charges in Tampa UPDATED July 21

“Florida’s adoption of the Daubert standard has not changed the long established rule that lay persons can identify marijuana—and some other illicit substances as well, e.g., cocaine and methamphetamine—based on their personal experience and knowledge. Such testimony is not admitted based on scientific expertise but instead based on the layman’s training and experience, for which a predicate establishing a sufficient degree of familiarity is sufficient. See United States v. Walters, 904 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that scientific analysis or expert testimony is not required to prove the illicit nature of a substance and proof identifying the substance may be based on the opinion of a knowledgeable lay person); United States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 157 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Although a drug user may not qualify as an expert, he or she may still be competent, based on past experience and personal knowledge and observation, to express an opinion as a lay witness that a particular substance perceived was cocaine or some other drug.”); United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219, 1221 (4th Cir. 1976) (“[L]ay testimony and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient, without the introduction of an expert chemical analysis, to establish the identity of the substance involved in an alleged narcotics transaction.”).

“evidence may be sufficient, without the introduction of an
expert chemical analysis, to establish the identity of the
substance involved in an alleged narcotics transaction”

If it were otherwise, there would be a substantial amount of litigation on this subject in the federal courts and other jurisdictions that adopted Daubert years ago. Tellingly, the contrary is true. The federal courts—which have followed Daubert since 1993—have long allowed lay testimony to identify illicit substances much as the deputy did in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 144 F.3d 104, 108 (1st Cir. 1998) (“[P]roof based upon scientific analysis or expert testimony is not required to prove the illicit nature of a substance.” (quoting United States v. Valencia-Lucena, 925 F.2d 506, 512 (1st Cir. 1991))); Robinson v. State, 702 A.2d 741, 745 (Md. 1997) (collecting both federal and state cases supporting the proposition that proof of the chemical composition of an alleged controlled substance need not be established only by chemical analysis but instead may be proved by circumstantial or indirect evidence).”

Florida Law Weekly Case Summary: “Because the Daubert standard regarding the admissibility of expert testimony does not change the long-established rule that lay persons can identify marijuana based on their personal experience and knowledge, the court affirmed. The state laid a sufficient foundation for the deputy’s identification of the substance found in his book bag as marijuana based on the deputy’s experience and training.”

Source: http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Pages_2016/May/May%2025,%202016/2D15-1738rh.pdf

Story of a Typical Marijuana Possession Case in Florida

This case is a typical marijuana possession case. L.L., a juvenile, was charged with one count of simple possession of cannabis under Section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes. At the adjudicatory hearing below, the State relied, in part, on the testimony of Officer Joseph Munecas, who offered his opinion that the substance in question was marijuana. Prior to trial, L.L. requested a Daubert hearing to challenge the admissibility of Officer Munecas’s opinion testimony. The judge declined to hold a pre-trial hearing, but agreed to conduct the hearing during the course of the trial. The prosecutor began by laying the foundation for Officer Munecas’s opinion testimony, asking the officer about his field experience and training.

“Officer Munecas also searched L.L.’s vehicle and found a rolled cigarette under the front passenger seat. At trial, and again over L.L.’s objection, the officer identified the item as a marijuana cigarette . . . . .”

The Court noted:

“During cross-examination, counsel for L.L. repeatedly asked Officer Munecas how he was able to identify the substance as marijuana. The officer maintained that his opinion was “just based on my experience and based on my senses.” Counsel pressed the officer further, asking whether his experience-based methodology satisfied any of the traditional Daubert factors. For instance, counsel asked whether Officer Munecas used the scientific method, whether he collected any data to formulate his opinion, whether there were any peer reviewed articles determining the reliability of identifying cannabis by sight and smell, or whether he was aware of the false positive rate regarding his method of identifying the substance. Officer Munecas was unable to answer counsel’s pointed questions beyond asserting that he had seen and smelled marijuana on numerous occasions in the past and therefore was able to identify it when he saw and smelled it on this occasion. The officer finally conceded: “Sir, I am a police officer, I’m not a scientist.”

“Although the trial judge expressed doubts as to whether Officer Munecas’s “testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data[,] is the product of reliable principles and methods, and whether he has applied the reliable principles and methods in this case[,]” the judge ruled that the testimony was admissible . . . . “

How did the Florida Marijuana Appeal court Rule?

“Officer Munecas had sufficient personal knowledge to support his opinion
that the substance was marijuana. He testified that he had years of experience identifying marijuana by sight and smell,
even going so far as to claim marijuana is so predominant
in the community that he sees it “practically every day.”

Florida Statutes, reads as follows:

90.702 Testimony by experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion

or otherwise, if:

(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;

(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

One of the Legislature’s stated purposes in amending Section 90.702 was “to adopt the standards for expert testimony in the courts of this state as provided in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), and to no longer apply the standard in Frye v. United States, 293 F.2d 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923) in the courts of this state.” Ch. 2013-107, Laws of Fla. (Preamble to § 90.702). The Legislature also intended to prohibit the much criticized pure opinion exception to the Frye admissibility standard as provided in Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2007). Id.

Five Factors of the Daubert Test of Admissibility in Florida

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

Here is some video from inside the otherwise unremarkable suburban home, a map of 124 Elliott Ln, Winter Haven, FL 33884 and here is the haul according to the media darling, Grady Judd:

• 33 pounds of processed marijuana
• 300 marijuana plants
• 100 bags of cannabis
• 2 freezers
• $4,600 in purloined electricity over 90 days
• $151,000 Bond
• Growhouse Criminal Charges include:
• Grand theft of a utility
• Trafficking and cultivation of cannabis.

Video Inside the Polk County, Florida Growhouse

[googlemaps https://up.anv.bz/latest/anvload.html?key=eyJtIjoiZXBmb3giLCJwIjoiZGVmYXVsdCIsInYiOiIyODE1ODUiLCJwbHVnaW5zIjp7ImRmcCI6eyJjbGllbnRTaWRlIjp7ImFkVGFnVXJsIjoiaHR0cDovL3B1YmFkcy5nLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC9nYW1wYWQvYWRzP3N6PTY0MHg0ODAmaXU9LzYzNzkwNTY0L3d0dnQvbmV3cyZjaXVfc3pzPTMwMHgyNTAmaW1wbD1zJmdkZnBfcmVxPTEmZW52PXZwJm91dHB1dD12YXN0JnZwb3M9cHJlcm9sbCZ1bnZpZXdlZF9wb3NpdGlvbl9zdGFydD0xJnVybD1bcmVmZXJyZXJfdXJsXSZjb3JyZWxhdG9yPVt0aW1lc3RhbXBdJmRlc2NyaXB0aW9uX3VybD1odHRwJTNBJTJGJTJGd3d3LmZveDEzbmV3cy5jb20lMkZuZXdzJTJGbG9jYWwtbmV3cyUyRjE2NDgxNzU0Ny1zdG9yeSJ9fX0sImFudmFjayI6ImFudmF0b19lcGZveF9hcHBfd2ViX3Byb2RfYjMzNzMxNjhlMTJmNDIzZjQxNTA0ZjIwNzAwMDE4OGRhZjg4MjUxYiJ9″; webkitallowfullscreen=”” width=”500″>

Here is a Map of the Alleged Polk County Growhouse at 124 Elliott Ln, Winter Haven, FL 33884

More Florida Growhouse Stories Here.

Sources:

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/164817547-story
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2016/6/23/auburndale_youth_soc.html
Fighting for you or a friend. Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606 (813) 222-2220