Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

In a large drug trafficking case south of Jacksonville, Florida, several defendants were charged with being in possession of 200 to 400 grams of cocaine, which qualifies for a cocaine trafficking charge in Florida. However, the trafficking charge against one of the defendants was thrown out because the state could not prove that he was in actual or constructive possession of the drugs. Actual possession is straightforward- if you are holding drugs or have drugs in your pocket, you are in actual possession of the drugs. Constructive possession is more of a gray area. A person can be convicted of possession of drugs even though the drugs are not actually in the person's possession. If the person knows of the drugs and has the ability to control the drugs, he can be convicted of possession of the drugs. A good example would be the CD's in my car. I am not anywhere near them, but I know they are there and I have the ability to access and control them since they are in my car and I have the key.

In this cocaine trafficking case, the police received information that several individuals were manufacturing and selling cocaine from some apartments. The police found cocaine in one of the apartments but only drug paraphernalia in the second apartment. There was no evidence that the defendant had any ownership or control over the apartment with the cocaine. He did have control over the second apartment, but no actual cocaine was found there. When the defendant was arrested, there was no cocaine on his person or in his vicinity. The defendant did not make any statements admitting to possessing any cocaine.

The state did present evidence that suggested the defendant was involved with cocaine, but no actual evidence linking the defendant to the possession of any specific amount of cocaine. As a result, the state could not prove actual or constructive possession of 200 to 400 grams of cocaine, and the drug trafficking charge against him was dismissed.

In a recent criminal case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was charged with obtaining prescription drugs by fraud, which is a felony crime. This crime is actually more common these days as more people gain access to various prescription drugs. Many police departments have special units designed to make arrests relating to illegal possession and sale of prescription drugs.

In this case, the police received a tip that the defendant was doctor shopping. Doctor shopping involves a person going to different doctors to obtain the same or similar prescriptions. The suspect will not tell the subsequent doctor that he/she has already seen a previous doctor to obtain the same or similar prescription. The suspect will then obtain multiple prescriptions to be filled at different pharmacies to obtain a larger quantity of prescription drugs.

Pharmacies keep computer files of patients, their prescriptions, the dates prescriptions were filled and the doctors who prescribed them for at least two years. The police in this case obtained the computer printout for the suspect from the pharmacy without a subpoena or court order and saw that she had multiple prescriptions for drugs from different doctors in a short period of time. The prescriptions were for common drugs like Oxycontin and Oxycodone. The police then obtained the prescriptions and showed them to the prescribing doctors who indicated they did not know of the other prescriptions when they wrote their particular prescription.

After being charged with the crime for obtaining prescription drugs by fraud, the criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the different prescriptions because the police did not get a search warrant before obtaining that information from the pharmacies. The criminal defense attorney argued that prescription drug information is private, and a court order, or subpoena, is required before such information can be released.

In Florida, one's medical records are private and are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Neither a police officer nor anyone else can look at another person's medical records without express permission or a court order. However, controlled substance records at a pharmacy do not carry the same privacy protections in Florida. In fact, Florida law specifically allows the police to obtain a person's pharmacy records without a subpoena or search warrant and without notifying the patient in advance. Therefore, if the police are involved in an investigation of a person relating to prescription drugs that are controlled substances (such as Vicodin, Percocet, Xanax, Oxycontin and many other common drugs), they may be able to look into your pharmacy records without your knowledge.

In a recent drug case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the police received a call that a black male wearing a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers was selling drugs beside a particular road. Police responded to the area and saw the defendant who met the general description. However, the police did not observe the defendant selling drugs or doing anything else that appeared to be illegal. One police officer drove right up to the defendant and put his spotlight on him while the other police officer asked the defendant some questions including permission to search the defendant for illegal drugs. The defendant emptied his pockets, and the police recovered a bag with cocaine inside. The defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine.

This was a bad search, and the criminal defense lawyer was able to file a motion to suppress the evidence that resulted in the evidence of the cocaine being thrown out. Every person has a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means the police cannot just approach someone in an intimidating manner giving the impression that the person cannot leave and request a search for drugs or anything else. Likewise, the police cannot detain or search a person based on an anonymous tip of illegal activity if the police do not verify that the person is actually engaged in any illegal activity.

In this case, the police received an anonymous tip that someone was selling drugs. They found the person described in the tip, but the police officers did not see any evidence of illegal activity. When they drove up to the defendant, shined the spotlight on him and started interrogating him, that was considered a detention. Since the police did not have any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was doing anything illegal, it was an illegal detention and any cocaine or other evidence found by the police during the illegal detention was thrown out of court and the possession of cocaine charge was ultimately dropped.

In a recent criminal case near Jacksonville, Florida where the defendant was charged with marijuana manufacturing and cocaine possession charges, the case was ultimately thrown out because it was found that the police searched the defendant's home and found the drugs based on an improper search warrant. In this case, the police received an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing marijuana and had a quantity of cocaine in his home. The tip also provided certain information about the defendant's identity, home and place of employment. The police were able to confirm the details about the defendant's identity, vehicle, home and job. However, the police did not corroborate any details that indicated the defendant was growing marijuana plants, had cocaine in his home or was actually doing anything illegal.

The police obtained a search warrant and found marijuana plants, fluorescent lights, a generator, digital scales, guns, cocaine and other drug paraphernalia in the home. The defendant was arrested for manufacturing marijuana, possession of cocaine and other charges.

The criminal defense lawyer was able to have the evidence of the drugs, guns and drug paraphernalia thrown out because the search warrant was improper. The police are allowed to search a person's home for drugs or other evidence of a crime with a search warrant only if the search warrant is valid. A search warrant that is based on information in an anonymous tip is not valid if there is no indication that the police corroborated any of the incriminating information in the tip. It is not enough for the police to corroborate general, easily obtained information about the tip, such as a description of a person or vehicle, an address or a place of employment. The police have to actually corroborate some fact that indicates the suspect is committing a crime. Without that corroboration, the anonymous tip of illegal activity is not sufficiently reliable, and any search warrant based on that tip will be invalid.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that legal immigrants should not be automatically deported after being convicted of minor drug crimes, although federal authorities may classify a second minor drug offense as an aggravated felony. Under federal law, legal immigrants are supposed to be deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony. The question then is: what is considered an aggravated felony? In the past, under federal immigration law, federal authorities were able to characterize a second minor drug crime like possession of marijuana or possession of a small amount of pills as an aggravated felony, and deportation proceedings were initiated. However, the USSC has ruled that minor drug crimes where defendants typical receive probation or a minimal jail sentence were not intended to be aggravated felonies. Felonies are defined as more serious crimes for which a person can be imprisoned for at least one year.

This Supreme Court ruling does not mean that no legal immigrant convicted of relatively minor drug crimes will be deported. What it does mean is that deportation proceedings should not be automatic for minor drug convictions because a second minor drug conviction should not be characterized as an aggravated felony. However, it is certainly still possible that a legal immigrant convicted of a drug offense, whether misdemeanor or felony, may be deported.

In a recent trafficking in cocaine case that occurred south of Jacksonville, Florida, the criminal case was dismissed after the court found that the drugs were illegally seized when the police entered the defendant's home without consent, a search warrant or exigent circumstances. In order for the police to lawfully enter one's residence, they must either have consent to enter, a valid search warrant or emergency circumstances.

In this case, the suspect called the police after a robbery occurred at his apartment. The police arrived approximately 30 minutes after the robbers left the apartment. When the police arrived, the robbery was clearly over and there was no indication that any of the robbers were in the area. However, the police entered the defendant's apartment without permission and found cocaine and other drugs inside. At that point, the person who called the police was arrested for trafficking cocaine and possession of illegal pills.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in the apartment and asserted that the police did not have a right to be in his apartment in the first place since the defendant did not give them permission to enter, the police did not have a search warrant and there were no exigent circumstances allowing the entry and search. The state argued that the recent robbery provided the exigent circumstances to justify the entry and search. The state argued that because a robbery had just occurred and the suspects could be inside the apartment, the police had a right to look for them. This might be true and a legitimate basis for a search without a warrant if the robbery was recent and there were some specific facts leading the police to believe the robbers were still in the apartment. However, the police could not point to any specific facts indicating there was anything in the apartment related to the robbery that needed to be searched on an emergency basis. As a result, there was no legitimate basis for the police to enter the apartment, and the search for the drugs was found to be illegal. The drugs were thrown out of court along with the drug charges.

Drug tests are used for a variety of reasons in the criminal justice system. They are used by pretrial services in Federal court to see if a person recently arrested tests positive for drugs in reference to a bond request. They are used by the probation officers in the state system to make sure probationers are not using drugs. A positive test in either circumstance can result in the person being in violation of his/her probation and being put back in jail. Employers, school officials, coaches, parents and others may use drug tests for various reasons.

According to a recent article, a new product called DrugWipe, is available that can tell is a person has used seven different kinds of drugs with 100% accuracy, according to a recent article on News4Jax.com. According to the manufacture of DrugWipe, the product is wiped across a non-porous surface that the person has recently touched, and it can determine if that [person has used one or more for the various illegal drugs. Currently, drug testers typically use urine tests. There are certain products on the market that can mask the results of a urine-based drug test. Additionally, those tests can only show the results of certain types of drugs.

It remains to be seen whether this new product is accurate in detecting drugs in a person’s system.

In a recent drug case that occurred south of Jacksonville, Florida, police had information that heroin, marijuana and other illegal drugs were being kept and sold at a particular house. The police conducted surveillance of the house and saw one person exit the house and sell drugs to a customer. The police ultimately arrested that person for sale of heroin in the front yard of the house. Upon arrest, the police observed that the front door was open and people were in the house. The police went inside the house without a search warrant and found more heroin, marijuana and other drugs. The other occupants of the house were then also arrested for trafficking and possession of heroin and illegal drugs.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendants filed a motion to suppress evidence of the seized drugs based on the fact that the police search of the house was unlawful. The general rule is that police cannot enter and search a person's house without consent or a valid search warrant. There are exceptions. For instance, when the police make an arrest, they are permitted to search the immediate area to make sure there are not any threats to the safety of the officers. This is called a protective sweep. However, the police cannot do this automatically. There must be evidence indicating there is may be some threat to the police officers. In this case, there was no specific evidence indicating that there was anything in the house that was a threat to the police officers who made the arrest outside of the house. There was no evidence that anyone in the house was armed or any threat to any police officer. As a result, the police did not have a right to enter and search the house for drugs without consent or a search warrant. Because the search was unlawful, all of the evidence of the heroin, marijuana and other drugs in the house was thrown out.

A recent article has concluded something just about all of us already knew- not that 2 + 2 = 4, but something much more fundamental: that the war on drugs was a catastrophically expensive failure. The article notes that even the U.S. drug czar acknowledges that the war on drugs has not worked. As a result, the Obama administration has decided to focus more on prevention and treatment and less on wasteful enforcement of ineffective criminal laws.

The article is worth reading and gives a brief, but interesting, history of U.S. drug policies. One troubling part of the article notes that the first war on drugs budget was $100 million in the 1970's. Now, it's $15.1 billion. It is scary to think where all of that money is going, why it's being spent and how much of it is wasted.

In a recent trafficking in cocaine case that took place a couple of hours south of Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer found cocaine in a person's vehicle and arrested him after a long police encounter that was initiated as merely a traffic stop. Because the police officer too too long to conduct the search, the court ultimately threw the case out due to an illegal search.

Many drug arrests start out simply as traffic stops but turn into something more serious after the police officer searches the car. Once the police officer has stopped the driver for speeding, running a red light or some other traffic violation, the police officer may try to look for a way to conduct a search of the vehicle. Most of the time, the police officer will simply ask the driver for consent to search the vehicle. Everyone should understand that they have an absolute right to refuse when a police officer asks for permission to search a vehicle or anything else owned by that person.

If the police officer cannot get consent to search, he/she may look for evidence that drugs or other evidence of illegal activity are in the vehicle and use that as a basis for a search. However, if the basis for the traffic stop was a traffic violation, the police officer has limited time to come up with such evidence. The police officer cannot ask a bunch of questions or make up reasons to keep the driver at the scene while he/she waits for a drug dog to show up. If the police officer cannot uncover specific evidence of illegal activity within the time it would take to write a normal citation or warning for the traffic violation, he/she cannot extend the encounter in the hopes that incriminating evidence will surface or the drug dog will get there to sniff the vehicle. Once the time necessary for the traffic violation investigation has elapsed, the police officer has to let the driver go if no other incriminating evidence is revealed. If the police officer keeps the driver at the scene any longer, any evidence that is ultimately uncovered should be thrown out of court pursuant to the criminal defense lawyer's motion to suppress.

In this case, the police officer pulled the defendant over for speeding. After a few minutes, the officer indicated he was going to give the driver a warning for the speeding offense. Thereafter, the police officer asked the driver and his passenger a bunch of questions about who they were, where they came from and where they were going. He asked the driver questions about the rental car and his occupation while he was waiting for the drug dog to show up. After almost 30 minutes, the police drug dog arrived, sniffed the exterior of the car and alerted to cocaine inside. The driver was arrested for trafficking in cocaine after the cocaine was found by the officer in the vehicle. However, the evidence of the cocaine was ultimately thrown out because the police officer had detained the driver for much longer than it took to handle the speeding offense. Because the drug dog did not arrive to locate the cocaine for almost 30 minutes and the stop was only based on a speeding violation, the detention of the driver was too long and violated his Constitutional rights. As a result the trafficking charge was ultimately dismissed.

In Jacksonville and throughout Florida, when a person pleads guilty or no contest to a crime or has a trial that ends in a guilty verdict, the judge will sentence the defendant. For more serious crimes, that sentence may include jail or prison time, probation or a combination of the two. When a person is on probation, he/she will have certain conditions with which he/she must comply or risk going back in front of the sentencing judge, having the probation revoked and being re-sentenced to harsher penalties. Prior to any sentence for a violation of probation, the defendant is entitled to a hearing on the probation violation allegations. These hearings are unlike a trial in two major ways. First, the judge decides whether the defendant violated his/her probation. A defendant does not have a right to have a jury decide probation violation cases in Florida. Second, the legal standard is lower for probation violation cases. In regular criminal cases, the state must prove the defendant is guilty by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In probation violation cases, the state need only prove a violation(s) occurred by "a preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is much lower. That latter standard is basically a "more likely than not" or "50% plus 1" standard.

A new crime committed by the defendant can certainly be the basis for a violation of probation case if the defendant was on probation when the new crime occurred. However, when the alleged violation of probation is a new crime, the state must still prove the elements of that crime. If the new alleged crime is a possession of marijuana or other illegal drug case and the state is relying on a constructive possession theory, the state must prove the elements required for constructive possession.

As we have written several times in the past, the state can prove possession of illegal drugs in two general ways. Actual possession is what it sounds like- a person is holding the drugs or has them on his person. Constructive possession deals with drugs near a person or in a place the person controls (such as his/her car or home) where the person knows the drugs are there and has the ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs. Where drugs are near a person or in a place he/she is commonly found but the person does not know the drugs are present, the elements of constructive possession are not met and the person is not guilty of possession of the illegal drugs. This is true whether the allegation is a new drug possession charge or a violation of existing probation.

In a recent case in Jacksonville, Florida, a person who was on felony probation was driving his car and had a woman passenger in the backseat. Jacksonville police found marijuana concealed in a makeup bag in the backseat of the car. The defendant did not admit to knowing anything about the marijuana but did say that he knew the woman used marijuana and told the officer he probably should not have had her in his car. The state attempted to violate his probation based on his alleged possession of the marijuana.

Even though this was a probation violation case with the lower legal standard, the violation of probation charge was improper. The state still had to prove the elements of constructive possession of the marijuana. However, the state could not prove that the defendant driver knew the marijuana was in the makeup bag and had any ownership or control of the makeup bag and the marijuana inside. As a result, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant driver constructively possessed the marijuana. The violation of probation case was thrown out as to the possession of marijuana allegation.

Police searched the home of a Jacksonville, Florida couple on East Stanford Road and found illegal mushrooms growing in one of the closets, according to an article on News4Jax.com. The criminal drug statutes in Florida cover possession and manufacture of many illegal drugs including these kinds of mushrooms. However, in cases such as this where the police go into someone's home based on an anonymous tip, the search of the house and seizure of the mushrooms may not be legal. Police often get anonymous tips about certain allegedly criminal activity, but that kind of tip alone does not authorize the police to search someone's house.

Under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, a person has a strong privacy interest in being free from illegal searches and seizures in his/her home. Because of that Constitutional protection, the police cannot just come into a person's home, or get a search warrant, based on an anonymous tip. The tip has to be specifically verified or corroborated before it can even be considered as a legitimate basis for a search. Any time an anonymous tip is used by the police as a reason for a search, the criminal defense lawyer should closely scrutinize all of the facts the police allegedly had to justify the search and consider a motion to suppress any evidence found as a result of the search based on the defense that the search was illegal. If the search is found to be illegal, any evidence of illegal drugs found during the search will be thrown out of court.

Many people in Florida and throughout the country face serious challenges in getting basic health care. They do not have access to doctors and other medical providers nor do they have the ability to obtain prescriptions for necessary painkillers and other drugs used to treat their various medical conditions. These people are often forced to obtain medicine, which includes prescription drugs and controlled substances, in less traditional ways. The Florida legislature has addressed this issue by making crimes and penalties for the illegal possession of prescription drugs more extremely severe.

For instance, most people think of drug traffickers as people involved in moving large amounts of illegal drugs through the state. However, in order to qualify for drug trafficking of illegal pills such as Hydrocodone, Xanax, Percocet, Vicodin, Oxycontin and others, a person only needs to have four or more grams of illegal pills in his/her possession. Four grams are far from a large amount and what a normal person would expect to be a trafficking amount. In fact, for people who are prescribed painkillers by a doctor, four grams are within a normal daily prescription amount, although at the very high end for one day. So, contrary to what people might believe about the crime of drug trafficking, being in possession of a daily dose of illegal pills (i.e. without a prescription) may subject someone to a charge of drug trafficking. By contrast, a person must possess more than 25 pounds of marijuana to reach the first level of trafficking marijuana.

Despite the very low threshold for the crime of drug trafficking of various pills in Florida, the penalties are still very severe. There are different levels of drug trafficking in Florida. At the lowest level is someone in possession of 4 or more grams but fewer than 14 grams of pills. That person faces a minimum mandatory sentence of three years in prison and a potential maximum sentence of thirty years in prison. In other words, if a person has a daily dosage of Vicodin or other prescription drug without the prescription, he/she faces at least three years in prison if charged and prosecuted for trafficking. If a person has 14 or more grams of a controlled substance in his/her possession but less than 28 grams, which is still not a extremely large amount and reasonable for someone who has a condition that causes him/her severe pain, the minimum mandatory penalty is 15 years in prison.

Considering the disastrous state of health care in this country, there are many people out there who need painkillers and other prescription drugs such as Percocet, Vicodin, Hydrocodone and others to manage their pain and other medical conditions but do not have traditional access to them. As a result, their medical conditions and less fortunate financial and insurance status may leave them no choice but to treat their pain by obtaining needed drugs in other ways. However, the criminal laws in Florida do not make any concessions for these folks who do not have insurance and cannot afford proper medical treatment but feel the need to relieve their pain just as the more fortunate members of society do. For those more fortunate members of society, they have insurance cards and access to medical providers and prescriptions for pain relieving medicine and they are well on their way to treatment, or at least pain management. For those less fortunate with similar or worse conditions, they have no access to doctors or prescriptions, must find some other way to get treatment and pain relief and may be on their way to a drug trafficking conviction and a mandatory long prison sentence.

A cook working at the Flagler County, Florida jail was arrested for allegedly bringing drugs such as Oxycontin into the jail and giving them to inmates, according to an article on Firstcoastnews.com. Unauthorized possession of prescription drugs like Oxycontin is illegal, but bringing Oxycontin and other things that are not permitted into the jail for the inmates is a separate felony crime in Florida.

Under Florida criminal law, it is a felony to bring into a county jail or detention facility, or attempt to do so, anything the law considers contraband without going through the normal procedures set forth by the sheriff operating the jail. Contraband does not just cover the obvious things like illegal drugs, prescription drugs and weapons, it also includes money, written or recorded communications, food, clothing, tobacco products, medicine and other items. Some of these things can be brought to inmates in the local jails, however, they must first be authorized through the normal channels.

When police find drugs such as marijuana, crack, cocaine and methamphetamine in a particular place, they often arrest everyone in the vicinity of the drugs because they are not sure who exactly owned and/or was in possession of the drugs. However, this is not proper under Florida law, and criminal defense lawyers can often get these cases relying on constructive possession of drugs thrown out of court.

In Florida, there are two ways to possess drugs which can lead to a valid possession of drugs charge. The obvious one is actual possession. If you are holding a bag of marijuana or have a bag of cocaine in your pocket, that is actual possession of drugs. However, even if you do not have the drugs on you, you can still be charged with possession of drugs. The other kind of possession is constructive possession which can also lead to a legitimate possession of drugs charge if the elements can be proven. In order to establish constructive possession, the state has to show that you knew about the drugs and maintained some control over the drugs. For instance, if the police find a bag of marijuana in a room that you live in by yourself in a drawer with your wallet and other items belonging to you, you may not be in actual possession of the drugs but there is an argument that you are in constructive possession of the marijuana. As another example, I am not in my car, but I know I have CD's in my locked car and I have control over them so I am in constructive possession of those CD's.

On the other hand, if I go over to a party at a friend's house and police come in and find a bag of cocaine in the closed cookie jar next to where I am standing, I am not in constructive possession of that cocaine because it cannot be proven that I knew the cocaine was in there or that I had any custody or control over the cocaine. Of course, an incriminating statement admitting knowledge of the drugs can go a long way towards disrupting that defense.

In a recent possession of marijuana case south of Jacksonville, Florida, police responded to a possible burglary call at a vacant residence. The police arrived and saw four people in a room that smelled of marijuana. Two of the people dropped bags of marijuana. The defendant in the case did not have any marijuana on him, but another bag of marijuana was found in the room. The defendant did say he was there to smoke.

The two people who dropped bags of marijuana were properly charged with possession of marijuana. However, the defendant was improperly charged with possession of marijuana, and that charge was ultimately dropped. The defendant did not have any marijuana on him, and the state could not prove that he knew about the bags marijuana and had any sort of custody or control over the marijuana. Of course, his statement about being there to smoke made this a close call. The defendant should have just kept quiet. However, that statement could certainly be interpreted to mean he was there to smoke cigarettes. Because that was a reasonable explanation for his statement, there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was in constructive possession of the marijuana.

The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill that would make sentences for crack cocaine crimes more in line with sentences for similar powder cocaine crimes in federal courts. As it stands now, defendants can be sentenced much more harshly for crack cocaine crimes as opposed to equivalent powder cocaine crimes. In other words, a person can have a relatively small amount of crack cocaine and receive a much higher prison sentence than a person who has an equal or even lesser amount of powder cocaine. The unfairness of this system in federal courts has been discussed for years, and the Obama administration has given a clear indication of its intent to move towards equalizing the two crimes or at least pulling sentences closer together.

The bill that passed in the Senate does not go as far as making crack cocaine and powder cocaine crimes equal in terms of penalties, but it does reduce the disparity when a person is sentenced for crack cocaine crimes versus powder cocaine crimes. The bill also eliminates minimum mandatory sentences for people charged with simple possession of crack cocaine.

The bill making crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences more similar, though not equal, is not yet the law. The bill still has to go through the normal legislative process. However, it is likely that at some point in the future, crack cocaine sentences and powder cocaine sentences will get in the same ballpark. But until that happens, the sentences for crack cocaine cases are much more serious than sentences for powder cocaine cases in federal courts.

Police in Columbia County, Florida (which is just over an hour west of Jacksonville, Florida) arrested a man after they allegedly found 112 grams of cocaine in his home, according to an article on News4jax.com. When police arrest someone for being in possession of any drug, whether it is crack, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine or some other drug, the quantity of the drugs often dictate what the actual criminal charge will be. If there is a small amount of drugs, the charge is often simple possession of the drugs. This will be a misdemeanor if the drug is marijuana and the amount is less than 20 grams. Otherwise, for small amounts of drugs like crack, cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine and pills without a prescription, the possession charge will be a third degree felony which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison but is often considered much less seriously by the state and the judge.

However, when the quantity of illegal drugs found is larger, the possible penalties under Florida law get much larger as well. For cocaine, that threshold amount is 28 grams or more. If a person has between 28 and less than 200 grams of cocaine in his/her possession, he/she can, and likely will, be charged with trafficking in cocaine which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of three years in prison. Of course, the sentence is always negotiable by the criminal defense lawyer and prosecutor, but when the amount of drugs reaches that trafficking threshold, the state has much more leverage because of the three year minimum mandatory prison sentence.

Police in St. Johns County, Florida arrested two people after conducting a search warrant in a home that resulted in the seizure of cocaine, marijuana plants and prescription pills, according to an article on News4Jax.com. According to St. Johns County police, they received anonymous complaints about the house and obtained a search warrant for drugs as a result. They apparently seized about $50,000 worth of illegal drugs in the house.

In a drug trafficking case like this, one of the first things a criminal defense lawyer would look at is whether the police had the right to enter and search the house. The police apparently had a search warrant, but that is not an automatically legitimate basis for searching a house. The search warrant has to be based on specific and reliable evidence that there is illegal activity taking place in the house. The article only references anonymous complaints about the house. The police may have had more specific information when they obtained the search warrant, but anonymous tips, without more, usually would not be sufficient information to obtain a valid search warrant. Anonymous complaints may be enough for police to initiate an investigation of the house, but without more specific evidence and corroboration of the anonymous complaints, the validity of the search warrant may be called into question. If the search warrant is found to be invalid in court after the criminal defense attorney files a motion to suppress, all of the drugs and other evidence found pursuant to the illegal search warrant would be thrown out of court.

A doctor in the pulmonary medicine department at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida was arrested for allegedly obtaining controlled substances by fraud, according to an article on News4jax.com. As criminal defense attorneys in Jacksonville, we have handled many cases involving obtaining controlled substances by fraud. What that charge typically means is that someone is suspected of obtaining prescription drugs without a prescription. As opposed to well know illegal drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin, methamphetamine or marijuana, the drugs in these cases are often painkillers such as Percocet, Vicodin, Oxycontin and similar drugs.

These crimes most often involve people who have developed an addiction to highly addictive painkillers rather than people distributing or trafficking the drugs for profit. Quite often, the person developed the addiction after being prescribed the drugs after an injury or medical procedure and is unable to withstand the pain without the drugs after the prescription runs out. This makes this kind of crime less serious, in our opinion, than more traditional drug crimes.

However, the Florida legislature has enacted laws that provide for extremely harsh penalties for people charged with this kind of crime. For instance, it only takes a few pills to reach the trafficking in controlled substances threshold which, at the lowest level, carries a minimum mandatory sentence of three years in Florida state prison. For this reason, any charge involving obtaining prescription drugs or controlled substances by fraud must be taken very seriously and addressed at the earliest opportunity.

When people think of the crime of trafficking in illegal drugs and drug traffickers, they think of people moving large amounts of illegal drugs in and out of Florida. The people charged with drug trafficking charges in Florida are alleged to be major drug dealers because it is supposed to take a large quantity of illegal drugs to reach the level of trafficking. The crime of trafficking in illegal drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine requires a large amount of drugs because the penalties associated with those crimes are very severe. Otherwise, for smaller quantities of illegal drugs consistent with someone who just uses them should come with more minor penalties.

For marijuana and cocaine in Florida, this is often the case. A person has to be in possession of more than 25 pounds of cannabis (marijuana) to be charged with trafficking in marijuana. It is difficult for someone to argue that more than 25 pounds of marijuana is for personal use. A person has to have 28 grams or more of cocaine to be charged with trafficking in cocaine. 28 grams does not actually appear to be a large quantity of anything, but it is certainly more than what one would consider a personal use amount.

However, for illegal pills that are obtained without the appropriate doctor's prescription, a person can have very few pills and be charged with the serious crime of trafficking. It only requires possession of 4 grams or more of pills such as Vicodin, Percocet, Oxycodone, Oxycontin and other similar pills to be charged with trafficking. While those pills actually have just a very small amount of the actual drug in them (most of those pills are comprised of other substances), it is the weight of the entire pill, not just the portion of the actual drug in the pill, that is relevant to the trafficking quantity determination. Four grams of illegal pills are not very much. If a person has a few pills without a prescription, he/she could be subject to a trafficking charge that comes with a minimum mandatory prison sentence of 3 years.

We think this part of the law is unreasonable. There are people who lawfully acquired pain pills due to injuries and other conditions who become addicted to them or otherwise need them to deal with constant pain. It does not take very many pills for that person to be considered a drug trafficker under the law. A person who brings bricks of cocaine into the state in the trunk of the case may be appropriately considered a drug trafficker. Someone who gets a few pain pills without a prescription to treat pain should not be considered a drug trafficker under Florida law.