Tampa Drug Lawyer Tampa Drug Lawyer

Tampa Drug Lawyer

Understanding Drug Crimes in Tampa Bay

Drug crimes are taken seriously in Tampa Bay and can result in severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment. These charges can range from possession and distribution to trafficking and manufacturing. In some cases, the severity of the charges can be influenced by the type of drug involved, the quantity, and the location of the offense.

 

 

Drug Crime Defense Strategies

As a seasoned drug crimes defense attorney, Casey the Lawyer has developed several strategies for defending his clients against drug-related charges. Some of the most effective defense strategies include:

  • Challenging the evidence: In many cases, the prosecution’s case hinges on the evidence gathered by law enforcement. By challenging the admissibility of this evidence, a skilled attorney can weaken the prosecution’s case and potentially get the charges dismissed.
  • Questioning the search and seizure: Law enforcement officers must follow specific procedures when conducting searches and seizures. If these procedures are not followed correctly, any evidence gathered may be inadmissible in court.
  • Arguing entrapment: In some cases, law enforcement may use tactics to lure individuals into committing drug crimes that they would not have otherwise committed. An experienced attorney can argue that the individual was entrapped and should not be held accountable for their actions.

Why Choose Casey the Lawyer

Choosing the right attorney can make all the difference in the outcome of your case. When it comes to drug crimes defense, Casey the Lawyer has a reputation for being one of the best in the Tampa Bay area. Some of the reasons why clients choose Casey include:

  • Years of experience: Casey the Lawyer has been practicing law for over 30 years and has handled numerous drug crimes cases during that time. He understands the intricacies of these types of cases and knows how to build an effective defense strategy.
  • Personalized attention: Casey the Lawyer understands that every case is unique, and he takes the time to get to know his clients and their specific circumstances. He works closely with clients to develop a strategy that best meets their needs and goals.
  • Results-driven approach: Casey the Lawyer is committed to achieving the best possible outcome for his clients. Whether that means negotiating a plea deal or taking the case to trial, he is dedicated to protecting his clients’ rights and achieving a favorable outcome.

 

If you or someone you know is facing drug-related charges in Tampa Bay, don’t wait to seek out legal guidance. Casey the Lawyer is here to help. Contact his office today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how he can help defend you against these serious charges.

Citations:

  • Florida Statute §893.13 – Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
  • Florida Bar Association – Criminal Law Section
  • American Bar Association – Criminal Justice Section

 

Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer
Seek expert legal defense with a Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer. Call 813-222-2220 for experienced representation in drug-related cases. Protect your rights today.

Drug Crimes in Tampa Bay: Understanding the Consequences

Drug crimes in Tampa Bay can have serious consequences, ranging from steep fines and probation to lengthy prison sentences. The severity of the punishment depends on the specifics of the crime and the type of drug involved.

In Florida, drug crimes fall under the state’s Drug Abuse Prevention and Control statutes, specifically Chapter 893. These laws set out the various offenses related to drug crimes and the associated penalties.

Some of the most common drug crimes in Tampa Bay include:

  • Possession of controlled substances: This offense involves possessing illegal drugs or prescription drugs without a valid prescription. Possession of controlled substances is a misdemeanor, but the severity of the charges depends on the quantity of drugs involved.
  • Drug trafficking: Drug trafficking involves the sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, or possession of large quantities of illegal drugs. This offense carries a minimum mandatory sentence of three years in prison and up to life in prison, depending on the specifics of the case.
  • Drug manufacturing: This offense involves the production of illegal drugs, such as methamphetamine or cocaine. Drug manufacturing is a serious offense and carries significant penalties.
  • Prescription drug fraud: Prescription drug fraud involves obtaining prescription drugs through fraudulent means, such as by forging a prescription or using someone else’s prescription. This offense can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment.

Drug Crimes Defense Attorney in Tampa Bay: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a drug crime in Tampa Bay, it’s essential to seek out the services of an experienced drug crimes defense attorney. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a seasoned attorney who has represented countless individuals facing drug-related charges. His experience, knowledge, and dedication make him a top choice for those in need of legal guidance.

Casey the Lawyer understands that every case is unique and requires a personalized approach. He works closely with his clients to understand their specific circumstances and goals and develops a defense strategy that best meets their needs.

Some of the reasons why clients choose Casey the Lawyer include:

  • Dedication to achieving the best possible outcome: Casey the Lawyer is committed to protecting his clients’ rights and achieving the best possible outcome for their case. He has a track record of success and has helped many clients get their charges reduced or dismissed.
  • Extensive experience: Casey the Lawyer has been practicing law for over three decades and has a wealth of experience in drug crimes defense. He knows the ins and outs of these types of cases and understands how to build an effective defense strategy.
  • Personalized attention: Casey the Lawyer understands that facing drug-related charges can be overwhelming and stressful. He provides his clients with personalized attention and support throughout the legal process.

Contact Casey the Lawyer Today

If you or someone you know is facing drug-related charges in Tampa Bay, don’t wait to seek out legal guidance. Contact W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how he can help defend you against these serious charges.

Let us help you 813.222.2220

 

Citations:

  • Florida Statute §893.13 – Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
  • Florida Bar Association – Criminal Law Section
  • American Bar Association – Criminal Justice Section
  • Tampa Police Easy on #Cannabis at #Gasparilla?

    Are Tampa Police Easy on #Cannabis at #Gasparilla?

    2019 Drug Crimes Arrests

    ZERO

    Felony Arrests

    1 Domestic Battery
    2 Battery on a law enforcement officer
    2 Criminal mischief

    Misdemeanor Arrests

    1 Obstruct Oppose w/o Violence
    2 Minor Possession Alcohol
    3 Disorderly Conduct

    Video – Tampa Police and Cannabis Arrests

    What are Tampa Police Doing About Marijuana Possession?

    I’m driving down Bayshore Boulevard scene of the largest party in the State of Florida, the Gasparilla pirate fest. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of police out here and there wasn’t a single arrest for cannabis; or for that matter for any drug crime.

    So answer the question, “What are Tampa police doing about marijuana and arresting for marijuana?” I would say this year’s festival would establish that they are doing nothing about marijuana criminally.

    But, there is a civil citation program where they can issue a ticket for possession of marijuana. For more details:

    https://go2attorney.com/2019/01/17/staying-safe-and-festive-at-gasparilla-arrest-criminal-defense/

  • Drug Crimes Defense – Tampa Board Certified – 813-222-2220

    Drug Crimes Lawyer Tampa

    Drug Crimes Lawyer Tampa

    “Free Phone Consultation directly with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer”

    Casey Ebsary is a Board Certified Trial Lawyer with diverse criminal litigation experience in drug cases.
    813-222-2220
    Fast, Easy, and Free Phone Consultation directly with a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer.  I will personally speak to you about your charges.
     
    Conveniently Located: Tampa, Florida 
     
    Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr
    2102 W Cleveland St
    Tampa, Florida 33606
    (813) 222-2220
    centrallaw@centrallaw.com

    Google Review Links

    Call Casey at 813-222-2220 or Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.
     

    Check Out our Reviews

    Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Reviews
    “Casey’s strong arguments during the hearing made all the difference …”
    Written by: Google+ User
    5.0 / 5 stars
    More Reviews are Here:
    Drug Crimes Defense Attorney
  • Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida – New 1 Minute Video

    Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida
    Violation of Probation in Tampa Bay, Florida

    Violation of probation cases are usually handled by the judge or in the division that the case was originally heard. Many of these cases can be resolved by trying to complete the conditions of probation before a court date.

    Violation of Probation for Drug Cases in Tampa Bay, Florida

    If a case can be handled before a warrant is issued, then jail may be avoided. Many of the judges in both felony and misdemeanor cases issue warrants for violating probation without a bond. That means that you will stay in jail until a court date is set.

    In this 1 minute video, Casey Ebsary notes that if you have been charged with Probation Violation, Violation of Probation, or VOP in Florida, a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney can and will protect your rights. Some Florida circuit courts have special divisions that handle violation of probation allegations.

    Drug Treatment for Probation Violation

    A Tampa Drug Lawyer noted that a celebrity returned to a California to continue her drug rehabilitation. A judge had ordered her to enter drug treatment. She had previously filmed the VH-1 reality show “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew.”
    Tampa Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Judge Daniel Perry asked Florida probation officials contact California probation officials. Treatment was ordered late last year. Hillsborough County and Tampa Bay Area Judges are more and more inclined to offer drug treatment instead of jail.

    Tampa Drug Lawyer for Violation of Probation

    Often a probation violation comes when the highly technical conditions of probation have been violated. We can and help. Sometimes, violation of probation can occur for being arrested for a new charge. We may be able to help there also. We want to prevent or minimize time spent in jail. Video Courtesy CentralLaw.com – Probation Violation

    Violation of Probation? Call Today For a Free Phone Consultation 1-877-793-9290 .

    Federal Violation of Supervised Release


    Federal Violation of Supervised Release
    Casey is available to help in federal violation defense
    matters by contacting him Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.
    Sentencing guidelines apply in federal cases where United States district court judges are deciding what to do about alleged violations of conditions after sentencing in a federal case. These judges have much discretion. Although they use the United States sentencing guidelines as an advisory, but not mandatory, resource to decide what, if anything should be done when our federal clients are before the court.
    In a strongly worded and important per curiam summary reversal today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Kimbrough that “district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.” 
    In Spears v. United States, __ S.Ct. __, 2009 WL 129044 (Jan. 21, 2008), the Court explained what Kimbrough meant:
    [E]ven when a particular defendant in a crack cocaine case presents no special mitigating circumstances – no outstanding service to country or community, no unusually disadvantaged childhood, no overstated criminal history score, no post-offense rehabilitation – a sentencing court may nonetheless vary downward from the advisory guideline range. The court may do so based solely on its view that the 100-to-1 ratio embodied in the sentencing guidelines for the treatment of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine creates “an unwarranted disparity within the meaning of § 3553(a)” and is “at odds with § 3553(a).” The only fact necessary to justify such a variance is the sentencing court’s disagreement with the guidelines – its policy view that the 100-to-1 ratio creates an unwarranted disparity.
    See Spears, __ S.Ct. at __, 2009 WL 129044 at *2 (quoting United States v. Spears, 533 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2008) (Colloton, J., dissenting)).
    Spears is the latest indication that the Supreme Court is running out of patience with appellate courts and government arguments that attempt to artificially narrow judicial discretion post-Booker. Use Spears in any case involving a guideline that does not exemplify the Commission’s characteristic institutional role – meaning any guideline that was not the product of (1) reliance on empirical evidence of pre-guidelines sentencing practice, or (2) review and revision in light of judicial decisions, sentencing data, and comments from participants and experts in the field.
    These would include the following guidelines, among others:
    • Career offender
    • Child pornography and other sex offenses
    • Drugs
    • Economic crimes
    • Firearms
    • Immigration
    • Limitations on the availability of probation or other alternatives to
    • Incarceration
    • Relevant Conduct
    For violation of supervised release sample briefs, litigation strategy memoranda and further resources on how to raise these attacks, click  “Deconstructing the Guidelines” 

  • Attorney Qualifications

  • Marijuana

    Frequently Asked Questions FAQ Marijuana Drug Crimes

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Marijuana Charges in Tampa, Florida | Hillsborough County

    Marijuana charges can leave you with a permanent criminal record. Some communities have laws that allow forfeiture or the seizing and taking of a vehicle involved with an alleged marijuana crime. A Tampa marijuana Lawyer who is Board Certified as a Criminal Trial Lawyer, can help save you and your vehicle when there are  drug charges including cannabis a/k/a “weed.”


    Ask a Lawyer – Free Phone Consultation Call 813-222-2220


     

    Isn’t Marijuana Legal in Florida?

    No – the Drug Remains Illegal absent a Compassionate Use Card issued upon recommendation of a doctor.  With all the media attention on the ballot issue in November, people may still forget that Cannabis / Marijuana is still a violation of Chapter 893 of the Florida Statutes. Stories of a typical drug bust can be found here.
    Florida Marijuana
    Laws Summary
    Legal Issues of constructive possession, knowledge, dominion and control, lack of a search warrant, and probable cause still remain issues to be challenged and presented to the court, the prosecutor or a Jury. If and when the law on medical marijuana changes, the drug remains a controlled substance under both State and Federal laws.

    Here are a Few Frequently Asked Questions FAQ

     

    Can Marijuana Charges be Dropped? 

     
    Yes, Florida Drug Court Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer Casey Ebsary of Tampa helps with, Marijuana, cocaine, prescription, and other drug charges that can be dropped. We have experience and training as both a drug court Prosecutor and is  on the defense side helping people navigate treacherous waters when drug charges are at hand. Call 813-222-2220 for a free consultation at no cost or obligation.
    Notice: Under Florida law all drug convictions can result in a 2-year (24 month) suspension of driver’s license.
    We defend cannabis charges in the following Tampa Bay area Florida counties: Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, and Polk County. Possible defenses include search and seizure, constructive possession, invalid search warrants, invalid pat-downs, and Miranda violations, to name a few.

    You can search this site by entering your question in to the search bar at the top of the right column or below to find more information about defenses that can be used. We have hundreds of pages of information on Florida Drug Laws and Florida Marijuana and Drug Law News. This site is one of the largest sites on the web devoted to Florida Marijuana and Drug Law News and information.

    Drug2103 Possession of Cannabis Less than 20 Grams

    Florida Courts Do  Not Require and Expert or a Lab Test to Prove Possession Charges or to establish the chemical makeup of Cannabis or Marijuana. The field presumptive test and the testimony of the arresting officer is all they need.

     

    Possession of Cannabis
    Less Than 20 Grams

     

    “the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree”


    Form Code: DRUG2103
    Florida Statute: 893.13.6B
    Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
    Degree: 1st
    Description: POSSESSION OF CANNABIS  LESS THAN 20 GRAMS
    DRUG2103 is one of the most commonly charged offenses in Tampa and Hillsborough County, Florida.
    Florida Statute 893.13.6B

    Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

    893.13.6(b) If the offense is the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. For the purposes of this subsection, “cannabis” does not include the resin extracted from the plants of the genus Cannabis, or any compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.

    Drug2102 Possession of Cannabis More than 20 Grams

    Possession of more than 20 grams of weed is a felony in Florida. Cops can and do attempt to seize and forfeit motor vehicles used during the alleged crime. Additionally, judges and prosecutors can and do seek suspension of a driver’s license for 2 years. In short, Florida drug laws remain harsh for those who do not have a compassionate use medical marijuana card.
    Felony Possession of Cannabis
    Felony Possession of Cannabis
    Form Code: DRUG2102
     
    Florida Statute: 893.13.6A
    Level: Fel (Felony)
    Degree: 3rd
    Description: POSSESSION OF CANNABIS
    DRUG2102 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

    Title XLVI CRIMES
    Chapter 893 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

    893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.

    (6)(a) It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    Can Other Drug Charges be Dropped?
    There are three main ways to avoid a conviction. Win the case at trial, get the evidence suppressed, or have the case diverted into the Drug Court. Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer Casey Ebsary of Tampa helps with, Marijuana and other drug charges that can be dropped. Tampa Bay area marijuana / cannabis defense lawyer W. F. ”Casey” Ebsary has experience and training as both a drug court Prosecutor and on the defense side helping people navigate treacherous waters when drug charges are at hand.

     

    “drug charges result in suspension of Driver’s License”

     

    Florida State Marijuana Law Penalty Summary
    Florida State Marijuana
    Law Penalty Summary
    Aside from the drug court, sometimes law enforcement fails to follow the requirements of the Fourth Amendment on Search and Seizure. Courts sometimes suppress evidence and marijuana seized without a valid Search Warrant.The case cannot be prosecuted if key evidence is tossed.

     

    What are the Penalties – Florida State Marijuana Law Penalty Summary:

     

    An ever-increasing number of drug charges result in suspension of Driver’s License. Additionally the penalties are listed below. Any conviction can result driver’s license suspension for 6 months to 2 years.
    “sale or delivery occurring within 1,000 feet of a specified location is punishable by up to 15 years in prison”



    Possession:

    20 g or less Misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
    More than 20 g Felony 5 years $5,000

    Sale or Cultivation:

    Delivery of 20 g or less Misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
    25 lbs or less Felony 5 years $5,000
    25 to 2,000 lbs (or 2,000 plants) Felony 3 years MinMan* $25,000
    2,000 to 10,000 lbs (or 10,000 plants) Felony 7 years Min Man* $50,000
    10,000 lbs (or 10,000 plants) or more Felony 15 years MinMan* $200,000
    Within 1,000 feet of school or other Felony 15 years $10,000

    * MinMan = Mandatory minimum sentence.

    Other Penalties:

    Paraphernalia possession misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
    Any conviction causes driver’s license suspension for 6 months to 2 years.

    Any sale or delivery occurring within 1,000 feet of a specified location is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

    What Are Charge Codes?

     

    Charge Codes, Drug2102, Drug2103, Drug2300, Drug2500, Criminal Defense Attorney Lawyer Hillsborough Tampa Florida

    Law enforcement is using rather obscure codes to classify marijuana offenses when they are entered into the various report systems. For your convenience we have decoded a few common cannabis charges:

     

    Drug2103 Possession Of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams – First Degree Misdemeanor punishable by 12 months in county jail.

     

    Drug2102 Possession Of Cannabis – Third Degree Felony Punishable by 5 years Florida State Prison

     

    Drug2300 Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell – Third Degree Felony Punishable by 5 years Florida State Prison

    Drug2500 Manufacture Of Cannabis – Third Degree Felony Punishable by 5 years Florida State Prison

     

    Source: 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b

    Marijuana Florida Drug Defense Attorney, Pat Down, Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion


    Constructive Possession Cannabis | Defense Win

     

    Constructive Possession
    Trafficking Cannabis
    The drug charge was Trafficking in Cannabis. When the state failed to prove the defendant’s constructive possession of cannabis discovered in a suitcase in trunk of her car during a consent search, the defense got a win. The appeals court ruled there must be independent proof that a defendant in a possession of cannabis case had knowledge of presence of cannabis or had dominion and control over a container found in the trunk of a car.
    Notably, the suitcase had no fingerprints, had jeans of a size fitting a passenger, and the defense put on unrefuted testimony that she was not in exclusive possession of vehicle, a passenger had keys to vehicle and also had access to the vehicle’s trunk. Even though the defendant had nearly $1,000 in cash, the state failed to show that $939 cash in her possession was in any way connected with trafficking in cannabis. The defendant testified the money was for school .
    The court ruled, “Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion for judgment of acquittal, and we reverse and remand with directions for the court to discharge [defendant] Reversed and remanded . . . .”
    Constructive Possession of Cannabis Questions? Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .
    Constructive Possession of Cannabis Case Excerpts:
     
    The defendant “was arrested after the police discovered a suitcase containing cannabis in the trunk of the car she was driving. A jury found her guilty of trafficking in cannabis; possession of a conveyance used for trafficking, sale, or manufacturing of controlled substances; and possession of drug paraphernalia. We reverse because, in this constructive possession case, the State failed to establish [defendant’s] knowledge of the presence of the cannabis or her dominion and control over the suitcase containing the cannabis.”
     
    “The facts of this case are analogous to those in K.A.K. v. State, 885 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In K.A.K., the juvenile defendant was the driver of a vehicle that contained three passengers and was involved in an automobile accident. 885 So. 2d at 406. When the sheriff’s deputy arrived on the scene, he noticed what appeared to be a glass pipe used to smoke drugs on the floorboard of the driver’s side. The deputy searched the car’s interior and discovered a leafy substance that appeared to be cannabis scattered about the driver’s side. In the open glove compartment, the deputy found a box containing rolling papers and tweezers with a burnt tip.”
     
    “In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, such as this one, the evidence must also exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence propounded by the defense. See Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803. The evidence must “lead ‘to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of, and be consistent with, guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence.’ ” Lindsey v. State, 14 So. 3d 211, 215 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Frank v. State, 163 So. 223, 223 (Fla. 1935)).”
     
    “[E]vidence which furnishes nothing stronger than a suspicion, even though it would tend to justify the suspicion that the defendant committed the crime, is not sufficient to sustain [a] conviction. It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict. Circumstantial evidence which leaves uncertain several hypotheses, any one of which may be sound and some of which may be entirely consistent with innocence, is not adequate to sustain a verdict of guilt. Even though the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to suggest a probability of guilt, it is not thereby adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

    Source: 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1266a
     
    Drug Charge Defense Attorney

    Free Phone Consultation 1-877-793-9290

     

    Florida Grow House Defense


    “Florida law has harsh penalties for those 

    convicted of operating a grow house”
    Growhouse, Defense Attorney, Defense Lawyer
    Grow House Defense

    Florida Grow House Defense Attorney in Tampa, Florida, W.F.”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. notes that there have been numerous recent Grow House Busts in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Polk Counties Florida. Some arrests are part of statewide investigations of marijuana grow houses.

    Generally charges of cultivating marijuana and manufacturing marijuana are filed. Some Grow house Search Warrants are issued after informant, landlord, or anonymous tips.

    Florida Grow House Lawyer

    Get professional affordable help from a Florida Grow House Attorney, Former Prosecutor, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.,. Casey was an Assistant State Attorney / Prosecutor in the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office. Practice also covers Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Citrus, and Hernando County, Florida.

    Board Certified Criminal Trial

    Growhouse Lawyer Attorney Cannabis Marijuana Florida Grow House

    Tampa, Florida Grow House Attorney, Casey Ebsary, is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar. Less than one-half of one-percent of Florida’s attorneys have qualified for this distinction. Click on the Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Icon / Symbol above to review Casey’s qualifications.

    W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. has mastered his skills and earned a Rating of AV Preeminent – the pinnacle of Professional excellence earned through a strenuous Peer review Rating process that is managed and monitored by the world’s most trusted resource, Martindale / Lawyers.com.

    Casey is AV Rated – The ratings body has stated: “AV® Preeminent™ certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment – a testament to the fact that [Casey’s] peers rank him at the highest level of professional excellence.”

    AV Rated Martindale / Lawyers.com

    See Florida Attorney Casey Ebsary Qualifications

    Maps of Recent Tampa Grow House Busts:

    • 204 marijuana plants
    • 9 mm handgun
    • 213 pounds
    • $320,000 worth of Weed
    • $8,000 in electricity

     

     

     

    2506 Mabry St Tampa, FL 33618

    This year, despite efforts to legalize, cops continue to bust growhouses. Here are details and a couple of maps of recent targets. There were Two Tampa Bay Area Growhouse Busts in one week.

    UPDATE: Here is a map of a recent grow house bust in Tampa, Florida. The alleged haul was equipment plus $170,000 worth of cultivated cannibis.

    7205 North Coolidge Avenue, Tampa, FL

     

     

    Florida Marijuana Grow House Eradication Act Cannabis Law

    Florida Statutes and Rules regarding seized drugs have changed. After seized drug evidence is documented, it may be destroyed. Florida law has harsh penalties for those convicted of operating a grow house. Serious charges an be filed for as few as 25 plants.

    Florida Drug Law law defines “cultivating” and also prohibits owning, leasing, or possessing place, structure, trailer, or other described place with knowledge that it will be used to manufacture, sell, or traffic in controlled substance. We have seen cases where property owners or landlords turn in tenants to avoid the consequences of a grow house bust in a rented property.Forfeiture provisions can result in the government seizing and selling a property used as a grow house.

     

    Grow House Defense Lawyer Florida
    Expert Defense Attorney
    The Florida grow house statute provides that possession of specified number or more of cannabis plants is prima facie evidence of intent to sell or distribute. Florida law also provides that a person possessing place or conveyance used to manufacture controlled substance for sale distribution commits an enhanced felony if a minor is present or resides there.  Florida drug laws allow for equipment used in manufacture to be photographed or videotaped and that photograph or recording can then be used as evidence. Cops can and do destroy the facility and equipment.

     

    Inside the Growhouse | Videos


    “videos shot by cops during an actual grow house raid”

     

    Video Tampa Florida Growhouse Attorney Lawyer Cannabis Marijuana

    Videos from inside a recently-raided Growhouse are belowThese videos document Florida Law Enforcement officers’ efforts to raid growhouses in Hillsborough County but similar operations are found throughout the Tampa Bay area. These Videos are shot by cops during an actual grow house raid.

    What About The Florida Cultivation Laws?

    Florida Grow House Attorney Lawyer Marijuana Cannabis 893.13 Florid Statutes


    Recently, the rules regarding seized marijuana changed. Under the Florida Marijuana Grow House Eradication Act Cannabis Law, once the evidence is documented, it can be destroyed. New Florida Cultivation Laws law also dictate harsher penalties for those who are convicted of running a grow house. Previously, growers had only faced serious charges if they cultivated at least 300 plants. After the new law went into effect, the standard was reduced to 25 plants.

    Cultivation of Marijuana Laws in Florida are tough. Florida has especially harsh marijuana laws when it comes to manufacture of cannabis. Recently law enforcement has targeted grow houses. Florida Statutes Section 893.13 applies to cultivation charges.

    What About Federal Charges in Cannabis Cultivation Cases?

    Florida Grow House Attorney | Lawyer Near Tampa, Fl


    According to one news report from Lakeland in Polk County, Florida, asset forfeiture and prison are a real possibility upon conviction. One federal judge sentenced three Polk County men in Tampa for operating a marijuana grow house network. Each defendant was sentenced to 5 years in federal prison and ordered to pay a total of $41,876 in restitution to the electric companies involved for stolen electricity at five grow houses, according to the United States Attorney’s Office.

    Another grower was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison and his home was also forfeited. In that federal indictment, the charges were conspiracy to manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants. The indictment also alleged the defendants maintained a place for the purpose of manufacturing marijuana plants.


    Casey is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with diverse criminal litigation experience. Licensed in Florida, Federal Middle District of Florida, and the 11th Federal Circuit. Main Tampa Office Conveniently Located

    Florida Grow House Attorney | Lawyer Near Tampa

     

    Law Office of 

     

    W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

     

     

    2102 W Cleveland St

     

    Tampa, FL 33606
    Phone: (813) 222-2220         Fax: (813) 225-0202
    Email: CentralLaw@CentralLaw.com

     

     

    Florida Grow House Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer, Office in Tampa, Florida, Lawyer, Attorney, Near Tampa, Fl

     

     

     

    Florida Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

     

  • Busted on Video | Photographer Arrested

    Civil Rights, consent to search, Copwatch, Drug Bust, Michael P Maddux, Probable Cause, search warrant,
    Citizen Journalist

    Drug Bust on Video

    Tampa Drug Defense Attorney Michael P Maddux has recently reviewed a case where there was a Drug Bust on Video. The citizen photographer was arrested. Criminal Defense issues will be was there a Search Warrant, Probable Cause, or Consent to Search? The video mentions a “warrant”, but the police office claims consent to search the vehicle.

    Civil Rights issue will be can the police arrest a citizen reporter recording police actions on a city street? What do you think?

    Documentary | Copwatch: These Streets are Watching

  • Dog Sniff Delay Of 20 Minutes is Too Much – Case Dismissed

    drug dog, dog sniff, supreme court drug dog Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015)
    Dog Sniff Delay Of 20 Minutes is Too Much 

    Dog Sniff Delayed in Florida

    Doggie delayed is Justice denied?
    This guy was driving on I-75 in Alachua County near Gainesville Florida home of the Florida Gators. The cop claimed he had cut off a truck, perform a traffic stop, and then called for a drug dog. This case has the shortest delay I have ever seen in any drug dog case since the Supreme Court ruled recently. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015).
    The delay was at most 20 minutes. This court essentially ruled that any delay without a reasonable suspicion was unconstitutional. Doggie delayed is Justice denied?
    One commentator summarized, “Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress drugs found after dog alerted to presence of narcotics in vehicle where traffic stop was delayed in order to perform dog sniff and there was no basis in record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop . . . .” Florida Law Weekly 

    Excerpts From Dog Sniff Opinion


    “driving on I-75 when he was pulled over by an officer due to an improper lane change that cut off a semi-truck. At the initiation of the traffic stop, the officer called for a K-9 unit to perform a sniff search”

     “sixteen minutes later, and twenty minutes into the stop, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and Wooden was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance”

    “the trial court found that the traffic stop was delayed, characterizing it as “de minimis” and a “very little” delay. As Wooden points out on appeal, the decision in Rodriguez does not frame the quantum of permissible delay in these terms. Rather, the “critical question . . . is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, . . . but whether conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’—i.e., adds time to—‘the stop.’” 135 S. Ct. at 1616.”

    “because there is no basis in the record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop . . . we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying . . .  dispositive motion to suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate his conviction.”
    Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015)
    20 Minutes is Too Much – Drug Case Tossed


    Complete Dog Sniff Opinion

    FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D16-2077
    _____________________________
    GREGORY WOODEN,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
    Mark W. Moseley, Judge.
    April 18, 2018
    PER CURIAM.
    Gregory Wooden appeals his conviction for possession of narcotics, arguing that the traffic stop that led to his arrest was unconstitutionally prolonged in order to perform a dog sniff search.
    At approximately midnight on September 30, 2015, Wooden was driving on I-75 when he was pulled over by an officer due to an improper lane change that cut off a semi-truck. At the initiation of the traffic stop, the officer called for a K-9 unit to perform a sniff search of the exterior of Wooden’s car. After its arrival approximately sixteen minutes later, and twenty minutes into the stop, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and Wooden was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance without a prescription. Wooden moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the original traffic stop that led to his arrest
    2
    was prolonged in order to perform the dog sniff search, contrary to the dictates of Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). The trial court denied the motion, stating that Wooden was “not unreasonably detained during the traffic stop as [the officer] was still in the process of issuing a written warning to the Defendant while the narcotics K-9 alerted to the Defendant’s vehicle.” Appellant pled nolo contendere to the possession charge, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the dispositive motion.
    In its oral pronouncement, the trial court found that the traffic stop was delayed, characterizing it as “de minimis” and a “very little” delay. As Wooden points out on appeal, the decision in Rodriguez does not frame the quantum of permissible delay in these terms. Rather, the “critical question . . . is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, . . . but whether conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’—i.e., adds time to—‘the stop.’” 135 S. Ct. at 1616.
    Because the trial court concluded that time was added, which delayed the traffic stop before the dog sniff was performed, it was necessary for the trial court to make a baseline finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Wooden for the prolonged period during which the sniff occurred. Although an officer “may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. . . ., he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.” Id. at 1615. Because reasonable suspicion was not addressed below, and because there is no basis in the record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop in accordance with Rodriguez, we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying Wooden’s dispositive motion to suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate his conviction. See Maldonado v. State, 992 So. 2d 839, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
    RAY, MAKAR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
    3
    _____________________________
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Richard M. Bracey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
  • Mysterious Marijuana Delivery from UPS and The Party Animal

    Mysterious Marijuana Delivery Cannabis and UPS in Polk County
    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:

  • Can Drug Charges Destroy Opportunities for Student Financial Aid?

    FAFSA No Student Aid After Drug Conviction
    No Student Aid After Drug Conviction

    Can a student lose financial aid for the possession or sale of illegal drugs that occurred while receiving federal student aid?

    Yes. If you are convicted of possessing or selling drugs after you submit your FAFSA, (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) you must notify the financial aid administrator at your college immediately. You will lose your eligibility for federal student aid and will be required to pay back all aid you received after your conviction.
    “Have you been convicted for the possession or sale of illegal drugs 
    for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid 
    (grants, work-study, and/or loans)? Yes [or] No”
    Drug Conviction Questions for Federal Student Financial Aid Worksheet Question 23
    Drug Conviction - FAFSA Student Aid Application
    FAFSA Student Aid
    Application

    How to regain eligibility for Financial Aid after a conviction?

    The rules require that someone who has become ineligible due to a drug conviction must complete an approved rehabilitation program or pass two drug screens administered by a drug rehab program. Once either of these options have been completed, you can become eligible for financial aid again. Failure to comply with these rules can result in liability to return any financial aid received while the person was ineligible due to a drug conviction.

    Drug Convictions and Federal Student Aid

    If you are convicted of possessing or selling drugs after you submit your FAFSA, you must notify the financial aid administrator at your college immediately. You will lose your eligibility for federal student aid and will be required to pay back all aid you received after your conviction.
    Students who are receiving financial aid can have their financial aid eligibility suspended if they are convicted while they are receiving federal student aid student grants, student loans, or work-study benefits. When a financial aid form (FAFSA) is completed, there is a question that asks about drug convictions or offenses that may have occurred while receiving student aid. If a student answers “yes” to this question, they must complete the worksheet that we have included below.
    Students seeking financial aid must complete a worksheet because it was reported that they had a conviction for possessing or selling illegal drugs or because they left question 23 on the Student Financial Aid Worksheet or the question was not answered or left blank. Here is a sample worksheet sent to a student.

    Federal Student Aid Eligibility Worksheet

     
     Here are the key questions that will impact your eligibility:
    1. Have you ever received Federal Title IV financial aid? Answer “No” if you have never received Federal student grants, Federal student loans or Federal Work Study. You should also answer “No” if you have never attended college.
    If Yes, go to question 2 on this worksheet.
    2. Have you been convicted for the possession or sale of Illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you were receiving Federal Title IV financial aid (grants, loans and/or Federal Work Study)? Only include federal and/or state convictions. Do not include any convictions that have been removed from your record or that occurred before you turned age 18, unless you were tried as an adult.
    If Yes, go to question 3 on this worksheet.
    3. Did the offense for possessing or selling illegal drugs occur during a period of enrollment for which you were receiving Federal Title IV financial aid (grants, loans and/or Federal Work Study)?
    If Yes, go to question 4 on this worksheet.
    4. Have you completed an acceptable drug rehabilitation program since your conviction?
    An acceptable drug rehabilitation program must include at least two unannounced drug tests, and:
    (1) Be qualified to receive funds from a federal, state or local government or from a federally or state-licensed insurance company; or
    (2) be administered or recognized by a federal, state or local government agency or court or a federally or state-licensed hospital, health clinic or medical doctor.
    If Yes, you are eligible for Federal Title IV financial aid. Sign the certification on page 2 and return this form to One- Stop Student Services
    If No, go to question 5 on this worksheet.
    5. Do you have more than two convictions for possessing illegal drugs? Only count convictions for offenses that occurred during a period of enrollment for which you were receiving Federal Title IV financial aid (grants, loans and/or Federal Work Study).

    If Yes, you are not eligible for Federal Title IV financial aid for this school year unless you completed an acceptable drug rehabilitation program or passed two unannounced drug tests administered by an acceptable drug rehabilitation program. Even if you are not eligible for Federal Title IV financial aid, you may still be eligible for aid from the State of Florida.



    Federal Student Aid Eligibility Worksheet

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

    Marijuana Grow, Knock and Talk, marijuana, cannabis

    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.”
    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.  
  • Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Review

     

    Drug2Go.com

    Casey the Lawyer

    Best and fair attorney period. Casey had helped me during and after the case. Even years later he still recall every detail. If you are looking for a hardworker, someone that knows the in and outs of the system Casey is your man.

    Let us help you 813.222.2220