Odor of Cannabis and Probable Cause in Florida

 Odor of Cannabis in Florida

"the recent legalization of hemp, and under certain circumstances marijuana, does not serve as a sea change undoing existing precedent, and we hold that regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is indistinguishable from that of hemp, the smell of marijuana emanating from a vehicle continues to provide probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle."

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT  

EVANS JOSHUA OWENS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) 

v. ) Case No.  2D20-537 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) 

Appellee. ) ) 

Opinion filed March 31, 2021.  

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

VILLANTI, Judge.

 

Evans Joshua Owens challenges his judgment and sentence following his guilty plea to the offense of possession of methamphetamine.  He argues that the trial court erred in denying his preserved, dispositive motion to suppress.  Owens argues, in 

pertinent part, that the search of his vehicle was based solely on the odor of marijuana and that because possession of marijuana in some instances, and hemp in all instances, has been legalized in Florida, the odor of marijuana can no longer serve as the basis for probable cause to search a vehicle because the odor of marijuana cannot be distinguished from that of hemp.  We reject this argument and affirm Owens' judgment and sentence.  

We are aware of the decision of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida that held that the smell of marijuana in connection with a traffic stop cannot constitute the sole basis supporting probable cause for a search.  See State v. Nord, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511 (Fla. 20th Cir. Ct. Aug. 8, 2020). With all due respect to the capable and experienced circuit judge who authored that opinion, we cannot agree.  Instead, we hold that an officer smelling the odor of marijuana has probable cause to believe that the odor indicates the illegal use of marijuana.  Accordingly, to the extent that it conflicts with this decision, we disapprove of Nord and adopt the opinion of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida in State v. Ruise, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Mar. 20, 2020) (holding that an officer who smelled the odor of marijuana during a traffic stop had probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle, even though the odor of cannabis was found to be indistinguishable from the odor of now legal hemp). 

We also note that, in this case, the officer was responding to a complaint of reckless and erratic driving; and Owens' odd and erratic responses to the officer's attempts to communicate with him, coupled with the smell, caused the officer to reasonably conclude that Owens should not be "behind the wheel of a vehicle."  Thus, the circumstances supported the officer's conclusion that he had probable cause to 

- 2  

detain Owens and to search his vehicle.1  Finally, we note that even if marijuana was legalized for recreational use, such use while driving would still support the offense of driving while intoxicated; thus, regardless of whether marijuana becomes decriminalized for recreational use, the smell of the burning substance will continue to provide probable cause for a search of a vehicle.  See Johnson v. State, 275 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ("[E]ven if smoking marijuana were legal altogether, the officers would have probable cause based on the fact that Johnson was operating a car." (citing § 316.193(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018))).2  "The probable cause standard, after all, is a 'practical and common sensical standard.'  It is enough if there is the 'the kind of fair probability' on which 'reasonable and prudent people, not legal technicians, act.' " Id. (quoting Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013)).  

We recognize that there may be a circumstance where an occupant of a vehicle may have a legitimate explanation for the presence of the smell of fresh (not burning or burnt) marijuana in the vehicle, such as where the individual has a lawful prescription for it, or that the substance is, in fact, hemp.  But even the current version of section 381.986, which permits qualified physicians to prescribe the smoking of marijuana as "an appropriate route of administration for a qualified patient," see § 381.986(4)(c),3 continues to prohibit the use of smoked marijuana in vehicles, see 1 As Owens exited the vehicle, the officer saw a plastic bag in plain sight containing a crystal-like substance that was later proven to be methamphetamine. 2

We are confident that in the event marijuana becomes legal for recreational use in Florida, the legislature will amend the statutes pertaining to driving while intoxicated accordingly

. 

3As amended by ch. 2019-1, Laws of Florida. 

- 3 

§ 381.986(1)(j)5 (providing that "medical use" of marijuana does not include use of marijuana on any form of public transportation; in any public place; or on a school bus, vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat "except for low-THC cannabis not in a form for smoking" (emphasis added)).  Cf. Johnson, 275 So. 3d at 802 (holding that even if the driver was a medical marijuana user, this would not defeat probable cause).  

We concede, without affirmatively holding, that such a circumstance (such as where the individual has a lawful prescription or that the substance is hemp) might provide an affirmative defense to a charge of a criminal offense, but it would not prevent the search. Nevertheless, we can think of no circumstance where an affirmative defense might lie where the impetus for the search arose from the smell of burnt marijuana in a vehicle.  

Accordingly, we conclude that the recent legalization of hemp, and under certain circumstances marijuana, does not serve as a sea change undoing existing precedent, and we hold that regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is indistinguishable from that of hemp, the smell of marijuana emanating from a vehicle continues to provide probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle. See, e.g., State v. Brookins, 290 So. 3d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("Our supreme court has observed that the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a vehicle—like we have here—provides probable cause to search each of the vehicle's occupants." (citing State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 2002))); accord Johnson, 275 So. 3d at 802. 

Affirmed. 

SLEET and SMITH, JJ., Concur. 

- 4

Science and Florida Prosecutors on Cannabis Prosecution

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

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

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

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

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

"Current field tests are insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt"

MEMORANDUM

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

Summary:

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

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

New Law 

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

Impact on Prosecution 

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on Probable Cause Investigations and Admissible Evidence 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Admission that the substance is illegal cannabis 

5. Conflicting or implausible statements 

6. Nervousness, such as: 

a. Sweating when it is not hot 

b. Shaking or trembling hands 

c. Avoiding eye contact 

7. Furtive movements 

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

9. A large amount of currency 

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

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

12. Firearms or other weapons 

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

Leon County Cannabis Update September 21, 2019

To conclude, this Office will no longer be charging people with possession of cannabis

absent a confession to what the substance is or testing by a lab that can meet the evidentiary

standards I have laid out. 

JACK CAMPBELL

STATE ATTORNEY

301 S. MONROE STREET

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-255o

TELEPHONE: 8506066000

OFFICE OF

STATE ATTORNEY

SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

July 30, 2019

Dear Law Enforcement Partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your friend,

Jack Campbell
State Attorney

2nd Judicial Circuit

Mysterious Marijuana Delivery from UPS and The Party Animal

Mysterious Marijuana Delivery

The cops in Polk County Intercepted a package at United Parcel Service. They got a search warrant for the package opened it and found 10 pounds of weed. The cops then dressed as a UPS delivery driver and tried to deliver the package to a residence in Lakeland. The residents wisely declined to accept the delivery and were observed walking around their yard. One guy had a hairstyle that was described as being like Popeye with a pipe painted green in his mouth. The cop said that that was consistent with a person who was waiting for a marijuana delivery and detained him. Court ruled even a "pot-smoking sailor hair design" is not enough to save this bust.

"Mr. Mason was observed to have a design cut into his hair that apparently resembled Popeye (the famed cartoon sailor) with the pipe spray-painted green. Mr. Mason explained to the detectives that the color green signified marijuana."

The cop then threatened to search a vehicle, call a dog, and then searched everything. Ultimately drugs were found everywhere. A motion to suppress was filed in the trial court and the motion was denied. However, the district court of appeals just ruled that the strange Popeye hair design and pacing frantically around your yard does not constitute grounds to detain people for a marijuana investigation and search.

"Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's denial of the motion to suppress as it pertains to Mr. Johns, as well as the judgments and sentences that were entered based upon his plea agreement. "

Excerpts from the Opinion:

A mysterious parcel package was intercepted while en route to be delivered.  It contained approximately ten pounds of marijuana.  Someone sent the package.  Someone was presumably going to pick it up.  The principal question this appeal presents is whether investigating detectives had a reasonable suspicion that in the driveway of the package's destination.  We hold they did not. 

In early December 2012, a detective monitoring shipments in a UPS facility discovered a suspicious looking package from "The Party Animal" addressed to a fictitious person named "Raymond Maven" that was on its way to be delivered to an address on West Dossey Road in Lakeland.  He obtained a search warrant, opened it, and found about ten pounds of marijuana in heat-sealed bags.

As the detectives watched, Detective Edison, disguised as a UPS driver, approached the duplex, knocked on the unit door, and waited.  No one ever answered, and so the disguised detective left without leaving the package behind.  A short while later, Mr. Whitaker emerged from the unit's doorway and appeared to look around the front door and yard before returning inside. 

We need not recount the lengthy trail of warrants and evidence that proceeded from the arrest of Messrs. Mason and Johns.  Suffice it to say that there were more illegal drugs found in Mr. Mason's car at the gas station, more incriminating evidence found on Mr. Mason's cell phone, and, pertinent here, the entirety of the evidence the State would use against Mr. Johns in the case at bar.

Mr. Johns filed a motion to suppress this incriminating evidence.  After hearing the evidence described above, the circuit court denied the motion.

Mr. Mason, who had been seen at the same duplex earlier and whose pot-smoking sailor hair design and furtive actions at the duplex (pacing in the driveway, talking on his cell phone, looking around) were "consistent with someone that is looking for a package of cannabis as opposed to someone that is looking to rent a room"

And to the extent Mr. Mason's actions could be said to have generated a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (an issue we do not reach here), Mr. Mason's appearance and activities that morning would not supply a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Johns was connected with those activities, absent some evidence of an actual connection.

Having determined he was illegally stopped, we readily agree with Mr. Johns that the consent he gave to search his vehicle was invalidated by his unlawful detention.  We have previously explained:
If a person has been illegally seized by police and subsequently consents to a search, "the State bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing proof that there was an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality sufficient to dissipate the taint of the law enforcement's prior illegal activity."

The vehicle's mere presence near the scene is insufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that its occupants were connected . . . .

"Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's denial of the motion to suppress as it pertains to Mr. Johns, as well as the judgments and sentences that were entered based upon his plea agreement. "

The Marijuana Court Opinion:

The Case of the Mysterious #Marijuana Delivery from #UPS and The Party Animal. Guy had hairstyle described like #Popeye with a pipe painted green in his mouth. Cop said consistent with a person who was waiting for a marijuana delivery and detained him. https://t.co/KB3asYpv1N pic.twitter.com/u0kC6giJGK

— W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr (@centrallaw) April 13, 2018

Having a Couple of Marijuana plants in your Florida back yard just got easier

Marijuana Grow Conviction Overturned - Knock and Talk

Having a couple of marijuana plants in your Florida back yard just got easier. A Marijuana grower in Pasco County, Florida's Spring Hill was cleared this week when cops ignored several signs that the guy's home was intended to be private. Aggressive drug law enforcement did not stop at a gate, a beware of dog sign, and a no trespassing sign and came to the residence to knock on the door and talk about information they had received from a tipster. In copspeak this is a "knock and talk."

"After entering the property through this gate, the officers located Mr. Robinson and convinced him to allow them to search the property. They found the two marijuana plants behind Mr. Robinson's house.  This resulted in the State's prosecution of Mr. Robinson for manufacturing marijuana."

Download and Share the Florida Cannabis Opinion in PDF Format

Complete text of Opinion:

ALFRED ROBINSON, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Case No. 2D13-4412

Opinion filed May 22, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Mary Handsel, Judge. 

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Alfred Robinson appeals a withhold of adjudication and a three-year term of probation for the offense of manufacturing marijuana in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012).  The withhold of adjudication and sentence were imposed as a result of a plea following the denial of a dispositive motion to suppress. 

The motion to suppress was based on the fact that detectives entered Mr. Robinson's property without a warrant or permission. We conclude that the detectives could not enter the property to conduct a knock and talk or to pursue a consensual encounter with Mr. Robinson without first obtaining his permission to enter the property. We reach this conclusion because the property, a semirural homestead where the detectives found two marijuana plants, was surrounded by a chain-link fence; had a closed gate with a "no trespassing—violators will be prosecuted" sign and a "beware of dog" sign; and had a mailbox accessible from outside the fence. These facts distinguish this case from Nieminski v. State, 60 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).  Accordingly, the trial court was required to grant the motion to suppress.  We remand for the trial court to vacate the withhold of adjudication and sentence and dismiss the proceeding.

On July 24, 2012, three detectives went to Mr. Robinson's property on a semirural road in Spring Hill, Florida. They were investigating an anonymous tip that the house on the property was used to grow marijuana. It is undisputed that the detectives did not have a warrant and had not performed an investigation to establish probable cause for such an offense.  When they arrived, they discovered that the property, a small acreage, was completely surrounded by a chain-link fence. The only entrance gate was closed but not locked. Although the detectives did not recall any signs on the property, the trial court found that both a "no trespassing" sign and a "beware of dog" sign were posted at the entrance. The mailbox was on a post at the fenced line outside the gate so that the mailman did not need to enter the property.

After entering the property through this gate, the officers located Mr. Robinson and convinced him to allow them to search the property. They found the two marijuana plants behind Mr. Robinson's house.  This resulted in the State's prosecution of Mr. Robinson for manufacturing marijuana.

Mr. Robinson filed a motion to suppress arguing that the detectives' entry onto his property was an illegal search and that the State had failed to prove that his subsequent consent to search was voluntary. The trial court denied the motion based on this court's decision in Nieminski. On appeal, the parties agree that the dispositive issue is whether the detectives were authorized to enter the property without a warrant or consent.

Our decision in Nieminski involves a similar anonymous tip and a similar fence, but the opinion emphasizes that the "property was not posted with 'no trespassing' signs" and "did not have any other signs that might discourage a person from entering."  Id. at 522-23. There was no evidence to establish the location of the mailbox.  This court held that Mr. Nieminski failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy that included the right to assume ordinary citizens would not open his gate and knock on his front door. See id. at 528-29.

Unlike Mr. Nieminski, Mr. Robinson did establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this property because ordinary citizens would not disregard his threat of prosecution and the risk of a bad dog to enter through his closed but unlocked gate. This case is more similar to the cases distinguished in Nieminski and to this court's recent decision in Ferrer v. State, 113 So. 3d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). 

In the trial court, because the entry onto the property was found to be lawful, the State was only required to prove that Mr. Robinson's consent was voluntary by the preponderance of the evidence. See Faulkner v. State, 834 So. 2d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Had the trial court found the entry to be unlawful, the State would have faced the heavier burden of overcoming the presumption that Mr. Robinson's consent was not voluntary by clear and convincing evidence.  See id. Without detailing the evidence, we agree with the State's concession on appeal that the evidence would not establish voluntary consent under this heightened standard.

Although we do not have occasion to recede from Nieminski, we note that the Nieminski decision relied significantly on the "reasonable expectation" test derived from Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). See Nieminski, 60 So. 3d at 524-29. We recognized that the officers in that case may have committed a trespass under section 810.09, Florida Statutes (2008). Id. at 528-29. We discussed cases in which an officer's trespass had not been treated as a violation of the Fourth Amendment based on the Katz analysis. Id.  Since our decision in Nieminski, however, the United States Supreme Court has twice written divided decisions relying upon a pre-Katz trespass analysis. See Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013); United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). Whether these cases would now require a different outcome in Nieminski is open for debate but is not a matter that we need to decide today. Reversed and remanded. 

  

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.  

Video - Florida Growhouse Shoot Em Up

Shoot Out at a Florida Growhouse

Florida Growhouse Video Shoot Out

Shots Fired at 15 seconds and video ends with smoke detector alert.

Florida Growhouse Shoot Out video just obtained by Florida Drug Crimes Lawyer W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. Sheriff says "Just after midnight on March 28, deputies responded to an incident where two armed men entered a residence to 12524 Burgess Hill Drive Riverview, FL 33579, USA, in the Panther Trace subdivision and exchanged gunfire with the occupants.  There are no know injuries and the suspects have fled the scene.  Deputies have determined this incident does not appear random and appears to have been drug related."

Detectives are releasing surveillance video of three suspects who unlawfully entered 12524 Burgess Hill Drive Riverview, FL and exchanged gunfire with suspected drug dealers inside.

Anyone with any information in reference to this incident is asked to call .

Map Of Alleged Grow House

Marijuana Requires No Laboratory Report in Florida

What happens when Prosecutors use the testimony of a cop, with no testimony from a laboratory to identify the drug, Marijuana / Cannabis?

No Lab Report Needed 

for Weed in Florida 

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.”

St Petersburg, Florida Marijuana Civil Citation Program

St Petersburg, Florida
Marijuana Civil
Citation Program

Pinellas County Marijuana Defense Attorneys may soon be out of work. St Petersburg, Florida reviewed the current status of Pinellas County efforts to move towards a diversion program as opposed to an ordinance and recommended the proposed Marijuana Civil Citation Program Ordinance move to a First Reading after review and discussion. Meanwhile, Pinellas County Commissioners continue to delay implementing decriminalization of Cannabis.

St Petersburg, Florida  Marijuana Civil Citation Program

St Petersburg, Florida  City Attorney, Mark Winn, presented a proposed ordinance that makes possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis or paraphernalia a City Code violation. He discussed that this will allow officers the discretion to utilize this non-criminal option instead of charging someone with a misdemeanor. 

"the number of times a person was cited should be limited"

Under the proposed Marijuana Civil Citation Program, the Chief of Police would need to establish written standard operating procedures to guide officers in its use and to provide for consistency. The Pinellas County State Attorney's Office indicated a preference for a countywide ordinance for ease of enforcement and reports that a diversion program was being created to address this same issue. 

Discussion was held regarding implementation of an education, therapeutic or assessment component after the second or third citation, how these citations might affect an individual's status in obtaining or remaining in public housing, whether there should be a community service component, whether the number of times a person was cited should be limited, what are the parameters of the officer discretion (e.g. whether this is an option if another offense is being charged), should this option be available for other minor offenses, and review of citation data at a six or twelve month interval.

"Pinellas County State Attorney's Office indicated a preference for a countywide ordinance for ease of enforcement"

A St. Petersburg City Council member made a motion to request Legal return to the Committee with a second draft incorporating the summarized comments and forward the current draft with these minutes to the appropriate officials with Pinellas County. All members of the City of Petersburg, Public Services & Infrastructure Committee at the Meeting on  March 31, 2016 were in favor of the motion. 

St Petersburg, Florida  Marijuana Civil Citation Program #CannabisLaws #CannabisCommunity #Norml #MarijuanaLaws

Sources:

http://www.stpete.org/committee%20packets/Public%20Services%20and%20Infrasructure%20Committee/2016-04-28%20PSI%20Agenda.pdf

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/st-petersburg-moves-forward-on-marijuana-civil-citations/2263263

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2016/4/28/st_petersburg_examin.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/marijuana-civil-citations-move-toward-approval-in-st-petersburg/2275122

How were Medical Marijuana Nurseries Chosen in Florida? Medical Marijuana on Trial in Hillsborough County Florida

A Hillsborough County business has
challenged the issuance of
medical marijuana
nursery licenses in Florida. 

A Hillsborough County business has challenged the issuance of medical marijuana nursery licenses in Florida. Plants of Ruskin claims it "provided sufficient information in its Application demonstrating entitlement to the requested license pursuant to Chapter 64, FAC.” The grower claims  “arbitrary scoring of  applications” was the cause of its demise. The grower claims that if the scoring had been fair, they would have been scored higher than the other nurseries.

How were Medical Marijuana Nurseries Chosen in Florida?

The selection was based upon a lengthy scorecard that rated and scored each applicant. The areas included expertise in growing and dispensing. There were numerous points given for the security of the growing facility. Sections of the "Scorecard for Low-THC Cannabis Dispensing Organization"  also covered medical personnel including a doctor and his/her qualifications. 

The process evaluated Vehicles that will be used to transport product among cultivating, processing, and dispensing facilities; Locking options; Alarm systems; Video surveillance; Systems for tracking THC plant material throughout dispensing; and Inventory control systems for THC cannabis and Derivative Products.

Key Points in Medical Marijuana Licensing Lawsuit

• 5 Growers outside their regions are able to dispense cannabis throughout the state, including the region containing Hillsborough County.
• 5 Growers have an unfair advantage by being allowed to begin dispensing cannabis statewide or regionally during the litigation.
• 5 Growers will have a "monopoly" by being allowed to begin dispensing cannabis statewide or regionally during the litigation.
• The Department of Health Office of Compassionate Use improperly scored the winning applications.
• Scorecard for Low-THC Cannabis Dispensing Organization Selection form was improperly evaluated, approved, and used in the selection process.

Excerpt from Scorecard for Low-THC Cannabis Dispensing Organizations

Dispensing Technical Ability 

1. Experience interacting with patients

2. Experience with handling confidential information

3. A marketing plan

4. Experience gathering and managing data, i.e. data on patient reactions to products dispensed

5. Experience with recalls

6. Knowledge of cannabis routes of administration

7. Training programs for employees addressing:

    a) The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)

    b) Patient education

    c) Compliance

    d) Patient counseling

    e) Data collection

8. Any awards, recognition or certifications received for relevant expertise.

Infrastructure

9. A map showing the location of the applicant’s proposed  facilities

10. A sketch or other illustration of the actual or proposed locations showing streets property lines buildings parking areas outdoor areas, if applicable fences security features fire hydrants, if applicable and access to water and sanitation systems

11. A floor plan of the actual or proposed building or buildings where dispensing activities will occur showing:

    a) Areas designed to protect patient privacy

    b) Areas designed for retail sales

12. A HIPAA compliant computer network utilized by all facilities

13. Vehicles that will be used to transport product among cultivating, processing, and dispensing facilities

14. Communication systems

15. Hours of operation of each dispensing facility and

16. Methods of mitigating odors if applicable

Premises, Resources, Personnel

17. Location of all properties Applicant proposes to utilize to dispense low-THC cannabis and Derivative Products, including ownership information for the properties and any lease terms if applicable”

    a) For any property leased by the Applicant, include documentation that property owner consents to the use of the property for the purpose of dispensing of Derivative Products and documentation that the mortgagor or lienholder has been given notice of the use of the property for the purpose of dispensing of Derivative Products

    b) Documentation that the mortgagor or lienholder has been notified of the use of the property for the purposes of dispensing of Derivative Products

18. Compliance with local regulations regarding sanitation and waste disposal

19. The ability to obtain zoning approval

20. Sketch or other illustration approximating the property boundaries, land topography, vegetation, proposed and/or existing structures, easements, wells, and roadways for each property proposed

21. A description of the ability or plan to expand any of the areas proposed for dispensing Derivative Products

22. Description of the methods proposed for the dispensing of Derivative Products, including the following:

    a) Accessibility of dispensing facilities, e.g., centrally located to several populated areas, located on a main roadway, not in a high crime area, et cetera

    b) Proximity of dispensing facilities to patient populations and

    c) Alternative dispensing, e.g. delivery.

23. A list of current and proposed staffing, including:

    a) Position, duties and responsibilities

    b) Resume and

    c) Professional licensure disciplinary action in all jurisdictions

24. An organizational chart illustrating the supervisory structure of the proposed Dispensing Organization

25. Plans and procedures for loss of key personnel

26. Plans and procedures for complying with OSHA regulations for workplace safety

Accountability

27. Floor plan of each facility or proposed floor plans for proposed facilities, including the following:

    a) Locking options for each means of ingress and egress

    b) Alarm systems

    c) Video surveillance

    d) Name and function of each room

    e) Layout and dimensions of each room

28. Storage, including the following:

    a) Safes

    b) Vaults

    c) Climate control

29. Diversion and trafficking prevention procedures

30. A facility emergency management plan

31. System for tracking low-THC source plant material throughout dispensing

32. Inventory control system for low-THC cannabis and Derivative Products

33. Policies and procedures for recordkeeping

34. Vehicle tracking systems

35. Vehicle security systems

36. Methods of screening and monitoring employees

37. Personnel qualifications and experience with chain of custody or other tracking mechanisms

38. Personnel reserved solely for inventory control purposes

39. Personnel reserved solely for security purposes

40. Plans for the recall of any Derivative Products that have a reasonable probability of causing adverse health consequences based on a testing result, bad patient reaction, or other reason

41. Access to specialized resources or expertise regarding data collection, security, and tracking.

Sources: 

http://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/office-of-compassionate-use/_documents/amended-petition-plants-of-ruskin.pdf

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-05461

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readRefFile.asp?refId=5461&filename=64-4%20Certification.Scorecard%20Form%20DH8007-OCU-2.2015.docx

Get a Search Warrant for Grow Room says Florida Supreme Court

Get a Search
Warrant for
Grow
Room

The Florida Supreme Court just decided a case where a bail bondsman entered a home, then searched behind a locked door. Inside the room, which we will call a "grow room", they found a growing operation. The one-room operation was cultivating - call it: cannabis, hemp, sinsemilla; pot, dope, grass, weed, Mary Jane, bud, bhang, kef, ganja, locoweed, reefer, doob, or spliff. The not-so-friendly bail bondsman backed off and then called the cops. The cops arrived and allegedly got consent to search. The appeals court initially ruled that the consent was coerced by the show of force from the police. 

"application of the inevitable discovery doctrine was improper 

and hold that the trial court should have 

suppressed the evidence obtained from the illegal search."

However, that court erroneously ruled that it was inevitable that the police would discover the grow room. The distinction in the case was that the police made no effort to get a search warrant. Therefore, the discovery of the grow room was not inevitable. The case was thrown out. The complete text of the opinion can be found at this link. We have included the most important excerpts from the case below.

"The state did not establish that the police officer or 

any detective had made any efforts to obtain a search warrant"

Q & A | Excerpts from the Court Opinion

What Happens when a Bail Bondsman Opened a Grow Room Door and then Called the Cops?

The facts of this case were presented below: Several bail bondsmen were attempting to locate one of their clients. The client, who had been charged with marijuana cultivation in a different house, had listed the address of Mr. Rodriguez’s home on his application for the bond. When the bondsmen knocked on the front door of that home, Mr. Rodriguez answered. He told the bondsmen that he did not know their client and that he was alone in the home. The bondsmen requested permission to search the home to be certain their client was not hiding there, and Mr. Rodriguez consented.

Is the  Odor of Cannabis a Lawful Basis to search a Home?

The bondsmen noticed a smell of marijuana in the home. Encountering a locked bedroom door, the bondsmen asked Mr. Rodriguez to open it so they could confirm that their client was not hiding there. Mr. Rodriguez unlocked the door and told the bondsmen that he was growing marijuana in the room. At that point, one of the bondsmen in the group moved outside and called the police to report what the bondsmen had observed. 

whether you call it: cannabis, hemp, sinsemilla, pot, dope, 

grass, weed, Mary Jane, bud, bhang, kef, 

ganja, locoweed, reefer, doob, or spliff.

About thirty minutes later, a uniformed officer arrived at the home. The officer testified that Mr. Rodriguez invited him to enter. The officer saw the grow room, called the narcotics squad, and placed Mr. Rodriguez in handcuffs in the back of the officer’s squad car while they waited for the narcotics detectives to arrive. The bondsmen remained at that location throughout, and spoke to the lead detective when the narcotics unit arrived. 

What is Consent to Search under Florida Law?

The lead detective testified that Mr. Rodriguez signed a form consenting to a search of the home. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he only signed the consent forms because the narcotics detectives had guns and most were also wearing masks. After their search confirmed the presence of a “grow room” containing six-foot marijuana plants, lights, and 36 pounds of marijuana, the detectives arrested Mr. Rodriguez. 

The defense filed a motion to suppress. At the hearing on that motion, the circuit court heard testimony from the lead bondsman, the police officer who first responded to the call from the bondsmen, the lead narcotics unit detective, and Mr. Rodriguez. The state did not establish that the police officer or any detective had made any efforts to obtain a search warrant before law enforcement entered the home or Mr. Rodriguez was arrested. The lead detective did, however, testify that he would have sought a warrant if Mr. Rodriguez had not consented to the search. 

What Happens When Consent to Search is Coerced?

The court denied the motion to suppress, although the court found that Mr. Rodriguez’s consent to entry by the police and detectives, and his signature on the consent form, were coerced. The court concluded that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied because probable cause had been established before law enforcement requested consent, and: Soon as the bail bondsman calls and says, Listen I’m looking at a hydroponics lab to me that’s a trigger. If they had not gotten consent they would have gone and gotten a warrant. 

Following the denial of the motion to suppress, Mr. Rodriguez entered a guilty plea and reserved the right to appeal the suppression issue. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced, and [then appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal].

Get a Search Warrant 

for Grow House in Florida

From the totality of the evidence, we find that the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine was improper and hold that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence obtained from the illegal search.

What is the Inevitable Discovery Rule?

Thus, the rule first requires a “reasonable probability” that the evidence would have been discovered despite the improper police procedure. United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1042 (5th Cir. 1980). Second, the State cannot argue that some later or future investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence; rather, the investigation must be ongoing and the State must show that the facts known by the police at the moment of the unconstitutional procedure would have led to the evidence notwithstanding the police misconduct. See Fitzpatrick, 900 So. 2d at 514; Moody, 842 So. 2d at 759.

The question before this Court is whether the inevitable discovery rule requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the police were in the process of obtaining a warrant prior to the misconduct or whether the prosecution need only establish that a warrant could have been obtained with the information available prior to the misconduct. We conclude that permitting warrantless searches without - 14 - the prosecution demonstrating that the police were in pursuit of a warrant is not a proper application of the inevitable discovery rule. The rule cannot function to apply simply when police could have obtained a search warrant if they had taken the opportunity to pursue one, but can only apply if they actually were in pursuit of one. Within the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule there is no room for probable cause to obviate the requirement to pursue a search warrant, for this would eliminate the role of the magistrate and replace judicial reasoning with the current sense impression of police officers.

Is a Search Warrant Required for a room in a House?

Further, this case involves the sanctity of the home—a bedrock of the Fourth Amendment and an area where a person should enjoy the highest reasonable expectation of privacy. The constitutional guarantee to freedom from warrantless searches is not an inconvenience to be dismissed in favor of claims for police and prosecutorial efficiency. While it is true that here the police were already in possession of the information leading to the evidence before the misconduct, they failed to pursue a legal means to attain this evidence. The police attempted to gain consent from Rodriguez to enter his home, but his consent was found to be coerced and invalid. With no valid consent, and no pursuit of a search warrant, there are no legal means present that would have led to the evidence. In this way, the discovery was not inevitable notwithstanding the police misconduct, and the rule cannot be applied.

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

Because the exclusionary rule works to deter police misconduct by ensuring that the prosecution is not in a better position as a result of the misconduct, the rule cannot be expanded to allow application where there is only probable cause and no pursuit of a warrant. If the prosecution were allowed to benefit in this way, police misconduct would be encouraged instead of deterred, and the rationale behind the exclusionary rule would be eviscerated. Where the prosecution has made no showing that a search warrant was being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the illegal conduct, application of the inevitable discovery rule would effectively nullify the requirement of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. In sum, prosecutors may not be permitted to benefit from the violation of constitutional rights. We cannot apply the inevitable discovery rule in every case where the police had probable cause to obtain a warrant but simply failed to get one. Accordingly, the officers’ failure to seek a search warrant precludes the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine in this case.

Source: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2015/sc14-160.pdf

Marijuana Growers in Florida - The First Fab Five

Marijuana Growers in Florida - The First Fab Five

First Fab Five Chosen

Florida marijuana growers took a big step - The State of Florida has announced the first five legal growers. They are established to cover five regions in the state. The closest growhouse to Tampa will be Knox Nursery in lovely Winter Garden where they have an  "[e]xpansive selection of flowers, vegetables, shrubbery & home landscaping essentials."

 Miami got a double-dose, when Costa Farms, a "sprawling family-owned nursery . . . of indoor [and] garden tropical plants." in Miami and Alpha Foliage in Homestead were chosen. These five may have an advantage, if the ballot measure to legalize weed passes the ballot. Here they are with a map: 

The Fabulous Five

1. Alpha Foliage
2. Chestnut Hill Nursery
3. Costa Farms
4. Hackney Nursery Co Inc
5. Knox Nursery Inc

Alpha Foliage  
Address: 27600 SW 217th Ave, Homestead, FL 33031
Phone:(305) 245-2220

Chestnut Hill Nursery  
Address: 15105 NW 94th Ave, Alachua, FL 32615
Phone:(386) 462-2820

Costa Farms  
Address: 21800 SW 162nd Ave, Miami, FL 33170
Phone:(800) 327-7074

Hackney Nursery Co Inc  
Address: 3690 Juniper Creek Rd, Quincy, FL 32351
Phone:(850) 442-6115

Knox Nursery Inc  
Address: 940 Avalon Rd, Winter Garden, FL 34787
Phone:(407) 654-1972

Two Tampa Area Growhouse Busts in One Week

Hillsborough County, Florida cops are busy this week. Two growhouse busts over the past week by the Tampa Police Department and the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. The marijuana weighed approximately 75.3 pounds in the Tampa bust. 358 pounds nabbed by the Sheriff.

 10728 Deepbrook Dr Riverview, FL 33569

Source: http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2015/10/30/riverview_grow_house.html

 1716 E Navajo Ave Tampa, FL 33612 

Source: http://www.tbo.com/news/crime/raid-uncovers-60-pot-plants-in-tampa-grow-house-deputies-say-20151105/

Marijuana Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Video

PREVIOUS TAMPA GROWHOUSE COVERAGE

Trafficking in Cannabis 25 to 2,000 Pounds | First Degree ...

www.drug2go.com/2010/09/trafficking-in-cannabis-25-to-2000.html

 Rating: 4.9 - ‎Review by Google+

... all drug cases, grow house cases and covers developments in drug rehabilitation programs. ... Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney Lawyer in Tampa, Florida ...

Marijuana Tampa Grow House Bust

www.drug2go.com/2009/01/marijuana-tampa-grow-house-bust.html

 Rating: 4.9 - ‎Review by Google+

Jan 7, 2009 - $1 million in marijuana seized from Valrico grow house according to ... cultivation and trafficking of the estimated 235 pounds of marijuana.

Grow House Video of the Day - Underground Growhouse

www.drug2go.com/2011/.../grow-house-video-of-day-underground.htm...

 Rating: 4.9 - ‎Review by Google+

Feb 22, 2011 - We recall there was an underground grow house bust in Tampa, Florida, but this .... Trafficking 4 to 14 Grams Morphine, Opium, Oxycodone, ...