Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 893.146 (2025)

Determination of paraphernalia.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

893.146 Determination of paraphernalia.—In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority or jury shall consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:

(1) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.

(2) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act.

(3) The proximity of the object to controlled substances.

(4) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object.

(5) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons who he or she knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this act. The innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this act shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use, or designed for use, as drug paraphernalia.

(6) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.

(7) Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.

(8) Any advertising concerning its use.

(9) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.

(10) Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor of or dealer in tobacco products.

(11) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or objects to the total sales of the business enterprise.

(12) The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.

(13) Expert testimony concerning its use.

History.—s. 2, ch. 80-30; s. 1445, ch. 97-102.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: In Re Stand. Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3), 969 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Stand. Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3), 969 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 5× “§ 893.146, Fla. Stat. In addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following factors shall be considered in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia: 1.”

Florida Businessmen for Free Enter. v. State, 499 F. Supp. 346 (N.D. Fla. 1980). · cites it 4× “Section 893.146, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 893.”

State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 33-602 (1993); Fla.Stat.Ann. § 893.146 (Supp.2000); Ga.Code Ann.”

McKenzie v. State, 830 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). · cites it 2× “14; § 893.146, Fla. Stat. (2000). Defense counsel agreed with the court and did not think it applied either.”

C.M. v. State, 83 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). · cites it 8× “Section 893.146, Florida Statutes (2010) provides in pertinent part: In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority or jury shall consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following: (1) Statements by an owner or by…”

Florida Businessmen for Free Enter. v. City of Hollywood, 673 F.2d 1213 (11th Cir. 1982). “20,1980) (emphasis added); accord Fla.Stat. § 893.146(10) (Supp. 1982). The district court upheld this provision in the Hollywood ordinance, stating that the “legitimate supplier” guideline “is supplemented by an example.”

Baggett v. State, 562 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). · cites it 4× “§ 893.146, Fla. Stat. (1987). Here, there was no evidence whatsoever available to the officers at the time of the search of the purse which connected these syringes with narcotics or controlled substances.”

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2016-09, 216 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 893.146, Fla. Stat. In addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following factors shall be considered in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia: 1.”

Grady v. State, 753 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). · cites it 3× “§ 893.146, Fla. Stat. (1997). These factors include: “(2) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act.”

In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2018-12., 272 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 893.146, Fla.Stat. In addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following factors shall be considered in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia: 1.”

United States v. Bergin, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (M.D. Fla. 2010). · cites it 2× “Given the broad definition of drug paraphernalia, and the numerous factors which have been identified as bearing on the determination of whether an item is drug paraphernalia, Fla. Stat. § 893.146 , an affidavit which states an officer observed "drug paraphernalia" states a…”

Subuh v. State, 732 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). · cites it 4× “A non-exclusive list of considerations for a court or jury to evaluate in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia is set forth in section 893.146, Florida Statutes (1997).”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— 893.146(1) — 1 case

C.M. v. State, 83 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “Section 893.146, Florida Statutes (2010) provides in pertinent part: In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority or jury shall consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following: (1) Statements by an owner or by…”

— 893.146(10) — 1 case

— 893.146(3) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.