Home
Menu
904-383-7448
Florida Statute 397.334 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 397.334 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 397.334

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)

Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTH
Chapter 397
SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 397.334
397.334 Treatment-based drug court programs.
(1) Each county may fund a treatment-based drug court program under which persons in the justice system assessed with a substance abuse problem will be processed in such a manner as to appropriately address the severity of the identified substance abuse problem through treatment services tailored to the individual needs of the participant. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage the Department of Corrections, the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Health, the Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of Education, and such agencies, local governments, law enforcement agencies, other interested public or private sources, and individuals to support the creation and establishment of these problem-solving court programs. Participation in the treatment-based drug court programs does not divest any public or private agency of its responsibility for a child or adult, but enables these agencies to better meet their needs through shared responsibility and resources.
(2) Entry into any pretrial treatment-based drug court program shall be voluntary. When neither s. 948.08(6)(c)1. nor 2. applies, the court may order an eligible individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program only upon written agreement by the individual, which shall include a statement that the individual understands the requirements of the program and the potential sanctions for noncompliance.
(3)(a) Entry into any postadjudicatory treatment-based drug court program as a condition of probation or community control pursuant to s. 948.01, s. 948.06, or s. 948.20 must be based upon the sentencing court’s assessment of the defendant’s criminal history, substance abuse screening outcome, amenability to the services of the program, total sentence points, the recommendation of the state attorney and the victim, if any, and the defendant’s agreement to enter the program.
(b) An offender who is sentenced to a postadjudicatory drug court program and who, while a drug court participant, is the subject of a violation of probation or community control under s. 948.06 shall have the violation of probation or community control heard by the judge presiding over the postadjudicatory drug court program. The judge shall dispose of any such violation, after a hearing on or admission of the violation, as he or she deems appropriate if the resulting sentence or conditions are lawful.
(4) The treatment-based drug court programs shall include therapeutic jurisprudence principles and adhere to the following 10 key components, recognized by the Drug Courts Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice and adopted by the Florida Supreme Court Treatment-Based Drug Court Steering Committee:
(a) Drug court programs integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.
(b) Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.
(c) Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
(d) Drug court programs provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
(e) Abstinence is monitored by frequent testing for alcohol and other drugs.
(f) A coordinated strategy governs drug court program responses to participants’ compliance.
(g) Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court program participant is essential.
(h) Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge program effectiveness.
(i) Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court program planning, implementation, and operations.
(j) Forging partnerships among drug court programs, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness.
(5) Treatment-based drug court programs may include pretrial intervention programs as provided in ss. 948.08, 948.16, and 985.345, treatment-based drug court programs authorized in chapter 39, postadjudicatory programs as provided in ss. 948.01, 948.06, and 948.20, and review of the status of compliance or noncompliance of sentenced offenders through a treatment-based drug court program. While enrolled in a treatment-based drug court program, the participant is subject to a coordinated strategy developed by a drug court team under subsection (4). The coordinated strategy may include a protocol of sanctions that may be imposed upon the participant for noncompliance with program rules. The protocol of sanctions may include, but is not limited to, placement in a substance abuse treatment program offered by a licensed service provider as defined in s. 397.311 or in a jail-based treatment program or serving a period of secure detention under chapter 985 if a child or a period of incarceration within the time limits established for contempt of court if an adult. The coordinated strategy must be provided in writing to the participant before the participant agrees to enter into a treatment-based drug court program.
(6)(a) Contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature, each judicial circuit shall establish, at a minimum, one coordinator position for the treatment-based drug court program within the state courts system to coordinate the responsibilities of the participating agencies and service providers. Each coordinator shall provide direct support to the treatment-based drug court program by providing coordination between the multidisciplinary team and the judiciary, providing case management, monitoring compliance of the participants in the treatment-based drug court program with court requirements, and providing program evaluation and accountability.
(b) Each circuit shall report sufficient client-level and programmatic data to the Office of State Courts Administrator annually for purposes of program evaluation. Client-level data include primary offenses that resulted in the drug court referral or sentence, treatment compliance, completion status and reasons for failure to complete, offenses committed during treatment and the sanctions imposed, frequency of court appearances, and units of service. Programmatic data include referral and screening procedures, eligibility criteria, type and duration of treatment offered, and residential treatment resources.
(7)(a) The Florida Association of Drug Court Professionals is created. The membership of the association may consist of treatment-based drug court program practitioners who comprise the multidisciplinary treatment-based drug court program team, including, but not limited to, judges, state attorneys, defense counsel, treatment-based drug court program coordinators, probation officers, law enforcement officers, community representatives, members of the academic community, and treatment professionals. Membership in the association shall be voluntary.
(b) The association shall annually elect a chair whose duty is to solicit recommendations from members on issues relating to the expansion, operation, and institutionalization of treatment-based drug court programs. The chair is responsible for providing on or before October 1 of each year the association’s recommendations and an annual report to the appropriate Supreme Court committee or to the appropriate personnel of the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
(8) If a county chooses to fund a treatment-based drug court program, the county must secure funding from sources other than the state for those costs not otherwise assumed by the state pursuant to s. 29.004. However, this does not preclude counties from using treatment and other service dollars provided through state executive branch agencies. Counties may provide, by interlocal agreement, for the collective funding of these programs.
(9) The chief judge of each judicial circuit may appoint an advisory committee for the treatment-based drug court program. The committee shall be composed of the chief judge, or his or her designee, who shall serve as chair; the judge of the treatment-based drug court program, if not otherwise designated by the chief judge as his or her designee; the state attorney, or his or her designee; the public defender, or his or her designee; the treatment-based drug court program coordinators; community representatives; treatment representatives; and any other persons the chair finds are appropriate.
(10)(a) Information relating to a participant or a person considered for participation in a treatment-based drug court program which is contained in the following records is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution:
1. Records created or compiled during screenings for participation in the program.
2. Records created or compiled during substance abuse screenings.
3. Behavioral health evaluations.
4. Subsequent treatment status reports.
(b) Such confidential and exempt information may be disclosed:
1. Pursuant to a written request of the participant or person considered for participation, or his or her legal representative.
2. To another governmental entity in the furtherance of its responsibilities associated with the screening of a person considered for participation in or the provision of treatment to a person in a treatment-based drug court program.
(c) Records of a service provider which pertain to the identity, diagnosis, and prognosis of or provision of service to any person shall be disclosed pursuant to s. 397.501(7).
(d) This exemption applies to such information described in paragraph (a) relating to a participant or a person considered for participation in a treatment-based drug court program before, on, or after the effective date of this exemption.
History.s. 1, ch. 2001-48; s. 109, ch. 2003-402; s. 72, ch. 2004-265; s. 6, ch. 2006-97; s. 108, ch. 2006-120; s. 1, ch. 2009-64; s. 81, ch. 2010-5; s. 1, ch. 2011-33; s. 114, ch. 2014-19; s. 1, ch. 2014-174; s. 21, ch. 2016-127; s. 1, ch. 2019-30; ss. 15, 143, ch. 2019-167.

F.S. 397.334 on Google Scholar

F.S. 397.334 on Casetext

Amendments to 397.334


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 397.334
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 397.334.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All
  1. Maderi v. State

    311 So. 3d 235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times
    coordinated strategy should be modeled after the therapeutic jurisprudence principles and key components in s. 397.334(4), with treatment specific to the needs of veterans and servicemembers. The coordinated strategy may include a protocol of sanctions that may be imposed upon the participant for noncompliance with program rules. The protocol of sanctions may include, but need not be limited to, placement in a treatment program offered by a licensed service provider or in a jail-based treatment program or serving a period of incarceration within the time limits established for contempt of court. The coordinated strategy must be provided in writing to the participant before the participant agrees to enter into a misdemeanor pretrial veterans' treatment intervention program or other pretrial intervention program. Any person whose charges are dismissed after successful completion of the misdemeanor pretrial veterans' treatment intervention program, if otherwise eligible, may have his or her arrest record of the dismissed charges expunged under s. 943.0585.
    PAGE 237
  2. Gaither v. State

    296 So. 3d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times
    In this case, we must determine whether Gaither was afforded an appropriate level of due process protection at the drug court hearing before he was terminated from the program and sentenced to prison. The parties have not directed us to, and our independent research has not located any Florida case that specifically addresses the due process that defendants participating in a drug court program pursuant to a plea agreement are entitled to prior to termination from drug court. Gaither urges us to adopt the same due process requirements afforded defendants in probation revocation proceedings. A trial court may order a defendant to complete a drug court program as a special condition of ordinary probation, as a condition of drug offender probation under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2019), or as a part of a treatment-based drug court program under section 397.334, Florida Statutes (2019). See Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222, 231 (Fla. 2007). If an individual is participating in drug court as a condition of probation, he or she is entitled to notice of an alleged violation and a hearing before being terminated. § 397.334( 3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing that…
  3. Byrd v. State

    272 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
    Appellant, who was diagnosed with a substance abuse problem and had no prior criminal convictions, was charged with three counts: trafficking in a controlled substance; possession of a controlled substance; and possession of paraphernalia. He moved to transfer his case to a pre-trial treatment-based program, but the trial judge denied relief. A trial court's decision to grant entry into a pretrial treatment-based program is discretionary. See § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2019) (A "court may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program ....") (emphasis added). Appellant makes two arguments, first that he was eligible for the pre-trial treatment-based program notwithstanding a local administrative order to the contrary, and second that the trial judge erred in denying his motion.
    PAGE 1290
  4. Paylan v. Dep't of Health

    226 So. 3d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times
    Although not addressed by the parties and not dispositive of this case, we note that section 397.334(2), Florida Statutes (2014), provides in relevant part that "[e]ntry into any pretrial treatment-based drug court program shall be voluntary." And the website for the Drug Pretrial Intervention Program for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit indicates that "[a]ny person over the age of 18 who has not had a prior felony or pretrial intervention episode is eligible provided they waive their right to a speedy trial, admit to having a drug problem and express a desire for treatment." Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Hillsborough County Drug Pretrial Intervention Program FAQs, http://www.fljud13.org/CourtPrograms/DrugCourtPrograms/DrugPretrialIntervention/FAQs.aspx (last visited May 18, 2017).
    PAGE 300
  5. Orr v. State

    206 So. 3d 120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
    The State argues that even if Orr's offense does not qualify for drug offender probation, the trial court was authorized to impose drug offender probation because it is an alternative to the sentencing guidelines. See Jones v. State, 813 So.2d 22, 24–25 (Fla. 2002) (holding that drug offender probation "provides an alternative sentencing scheme for drug abusers that is outside of the sentencing guidelines" and that the laws prohibiting downward departure sentences based on substance abuse or addiction do not apply when the trial court chooses to impose drug offender probation for a qualifying offense). The State contends that the language of section 948.20(1) applies only when the trial court imposes drug offender probation in lieu of a sentence, not when the trial court imposes such probation in addition to a jail or prison sentence. This argument is not supported by Jones or the language in section 948.20, which authorizes the trial court to impose drug offender probation only under certain circumstances for qualifying offenses. As noted above, drug offender probation was not an option for the offense of resisting an officer with violence. See Lawson v. State, 969 So.2d 222
  6. State v. Richard

    197 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    A person who violates paragraph (2)(f) [soliciting prostitution] shall be assessed a civil penalty of $5,000 if the violation results in any judicial disposition other than acquittal or dismissal. Of the proceeds from each penalty assessed under this subsection, the first $500 shall be paid to the circuit court administrator for the sole purpose of paying the administrative costs of treatment-based drug court programs provided under s. 397.334. The remainder of the penalty assessed shall be deposited in the Operations and Maintenance Trust Fund of the Department of Children and Families for the sole purpose of funding safe houses and safe foster homes as provided in s. 409.1678.
    PAGE 1100
  7. to a drug court program. § 397.334(10)(a), Fla. Stat.
    PAGE 502
  8. Keating v. State

    110 So. 3d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times
    Petitioner acknowledges that the court had discretion in deciding whether to permit him to enter into the drug court program. The statute provides that a court “ may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program.” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis supplied). The State does not dispute that petitioner qualifies for participation in the drug court program. See§ 948.08(6), Fla. Stat. (2012). Section 948.08(6)(a) 2 provides:
    PAGE 539
  9. J.W., the father of a dependent child, appeals from an order requiring him to participate in a drug court program as a case plan requirement. Appellant highlights that section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which authorizes counties to fund drug court programs for criminal defendants provides that "[e]ntry into ... [the] program shall be voluntary." § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). It also specifies that a "court may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program only upon written agreement by the individual...." Id. Appellant reasons that since this statute provides only for voluntary drug court programs, the trial judge should have been required to select an alternative drug treatment program when he objected to drug court as a case plan requirement. This argument ignores the applicable provision of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, which expressly authorizes the court in a dependency case, upon a showing of "good cause [,]" to:
    PAGE 1157
  10. State v. Espinoza

    42 So. 3d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times
    (6)(a) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, a person who is charged with a felony of the second or third degree for purchase or possession of a controlled substance under chapter 893, prostitution, tampering with evidence, solicitation for purchase of a controlled substance, or obtaining a prescription by fraud; who has not been charged with a crime involving violence, including, but not limited to, murder, sexual battery, robbery, carjacking, home-invasion robbery, or any other crime involving violence; and who has not previously been convicted of a felony nor been admitted to a felony pretrial program referred to in this section is eligible for voluntary admission into a pretrial substance abuse education and treatment intervention program, including a treatment-based drug court program established pursuant to s. 397.334, approved by the chief judge of the circuit, for a period of not less than 1 year in duration, upon motion of either party or the court's own motion, except:
    PAGE 896

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    BYRD, v. STATE, 272 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . See § 397.334(2), Fla. . . .

    PAYLAN, M. D. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 226 So. 3d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Although not addressed by the parties and not dispositive of this case, we note that section 397.334( . . .

    ORR, v. STATE, 206 So.3d 120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005); or (3) as part of a ’treatment based drug court program’ under section 397.334 . . .

    STATE v. RICHARD,, 197 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . purpose of paying the administrative costs of treatment-based drug court programs provided under s. 397.334 . . .

    In FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, 156 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 2015)

    . . . (creating § 397.334(10)(a), Fla. Stat., effective June 20, 2014). . . . treatment status reports for defendants referred to or considered for referral to a drug court program. § 397.334 . . .

    KEATING, v. STATE, 110 So. 3d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

    . . . .” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis supplied). . . .

    J. W. J. W. A v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 84 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

    . . . Appellant highlights that section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which authorizes counties to fund drug court . . . [the] program shall be voluntary.” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . available, participation in and compliance with a treatment-based drug court program established under s. 397.334 . . .

    STATE v. Ta PUGH,, 42 So. 3d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    . . . treatment intervention program, including a treatment-based drug court program established pursuant to s. 397.334 . . .

    STATE v. I. ESPINOZA,, 42 So. 3d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    . . . treatment intervention program, including a treatment-based drug court program established pursuant to s. 397.334 . . .

    CARSON, v. STATE, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    . . . and 948.20, Florida Statutes, or as part of a treatment based drug court program pursuant to section 397.334 . . .

    WALKER, v. Al LAMBERTI,, 29 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    . . . Stat. (2009); see also § 397.334, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . The current order tracks the language of section 397.334(3)(a) and now provides: “Entry into the felony . . . subsection, the participant is subject to a coordinated strategy developed by a drug court team under s. 397.334 . . . Stat. (2009) (emphasis added) ; see also § 397.334(5), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

    BEALS, v. STATE, 14 So. 3d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

    . . . 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005); or (3) as part of a ‘treatment based drug court program’ under section 397.334 . . .

    STATE v. LEUKEL,, 979 So. 2d 292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

    . . . The court stated that section 397.334(2) would allow any person who has a substance abuse problem to . . . Unlike section 948.08(6), section 397.334 does not provide for the dismissal of criminal charges upon . . . It includes by direct reference treatment-based drug court programs established pursuant to section 397.334 . . . Under the trial court’s interpretation of sections 397.334 and 948.08(6)(a), the trial court would have . . . If section 948.08(6)(a) must be harmonized with section 397.334, section 397.334 is the general statute . . .

    LAWSON, v. STATE, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)

    . . . 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005); or (3) as part of a “treatment based drug court program” under section 397.334 . . . Additionally, the Legislature authorized the creation of “treatment-based drug court programs.” § 397.334 . . . substance abuse problem through treatment plans tailored to the individual needs of the participant.” § 397.334 . . . Legislature mandated that the drug court programs comport with “therapeutic jurisprudence principles,” § 397.334 . . . including the importance of “[o]ngoing judicial interaction with each drug court program participant.” § 397.334 . . .

    In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, AND THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON TREATMENT- BASED DRUG COURTS, 959 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2007)

    . . . formally recognizing the Ten Key Components of drug courts recently codified by the Legislature, see § 397.334 . . .

    MULLIN, v. JENNE, J. V., 890 So. 2d 543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

    . . . In 2001, the legislature enacted section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which adopted the Ten Key Components . . .

    STATE v. CENTER FOR DRUG- FREE LIVING, INC., 842 So. 2d 177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

    . . . with the Florida Legislature’s concept of how to deal with substance abusers, as embodied in section 397.334 . . .

    ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION, 818 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2002)

    . . . See §§ 397.334, 948.08(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . See §§ 397.12, 397.334(c)-(d), 948.08, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . .