Last updated by at .

Marijuana DUI | Florida Law

Marijuana DUI Blood Test

Marijuana DUI Blood Test

Marijuana DUI | Amendment 2

In November 2016, the citizens of Florida passed Amendment 2.  Amendment 2 legalizes possession and use of marijuana for individuals who have been diagnosed with certain debilitating illnesses. It is common sense that marijuana use will increase given the passage of Amendment 2.  Anticipating an increase in the use of marijuana, both recreationally and out of medical necessity, law enforcement must find a way to accurately test for impairment by marijuana to enforce the state’s impaired driving laws.

Marijuana DUI Urine Testing | The Current Test

In Florida, it is nearly impossible for the state to get a conviction for DUI under a marijuana impairment theory.  The state is typically limited to urine testing for drug impairment.  A urinalysis alone cannot determine if an individual is impaired.  Impairment by drugs is more accurately measured with a blood test.  However, Florida law restricts an officer’s ability to obtain a blood test in a DUI case. A DUI conviction can result in serious penalties. A first time DUI is almost always a misdemeanor, but there are situations where the state will pursue felony charges.

Florida House Bill 237 | Marijuana DUI Blood Test

Florida House Bill 237 was introduced into the Florida House of Representatives by Representative Brandes on January 12, 2017. The purpose of the bill is to amend Florida Statute 316.193 by establishing a quantitative threshold of an active marijuana metabolite which, if established, would prove the crime of driving under the influence.  This is like the .08 quantitative threshold for breathalyzer tests.

The specific amendment adds a subsection (d) to Florida Statute 316.193 (1). The proposed amendment reads as follows:

“A person commits the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(1) (d) the person has a blood level of 9 nanograms or more of delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol per milliliter of blood, as shown by an analysis of the person’s blood.”

DUI Blood Test|Typically Illegal

A police officer can request a breath or urine test to determine the presence of alcohol or a controlled substance when an individual has been arrested for driving under the influence. However, a police officer is not able to request a blood test in every instance. Florida law restricts a police officer’s ability to obtain a blood sample for testing in the vast majority of DUI cases.  There are two exceptions that permit a police officer to obtain a warrantless blood draw from a suspect.  Those exceptions are:

  • Florida Statute 316.1932(1)(c) – “There is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible” and

 

  • Florida Statute 316.1933(1)(a) – “If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, a law enforcement officer shall require the person driving or in actual physical control of the motor vehicle to submit to a test of the person’s blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content thereof or the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or any substance controlled under chapter 893. The law enforcement officer may use reasonable force if necessary to require such person to submit to the administration of the blood test. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Notwithstanding s. 316.1932, the testing required by this paragraph need not be incidental to a lawful arrest of the person.”

 

It is important to note that an individual can refuse a test under the circumstances set forth in Florida Statute 316.1932(1)(c). However, a police officer is required to perform a blood draw under the circumstances set forth in Florida Statute 316.1933(1)(a).  Under the latter, the officer is permitted to use force to obtain the blood sample.

The proposed amendment to the DUI statute contained in Florida House Bill 237 is ineffective and will have no or minimal impact in DUI prosecutions.  When an officer suspects drug use in a DUI case, the implied consent statute permits the officer to request a urine test to determine the presence of a controlled substance.  However, the proposed amendment specifically states that a blood sample is required. There are no legal means for an officer to collect a blood sample in the overwhelming majority of cases today.  House Bill 237 does not provide any additional legal means for an officer to obtain a blood sample and is, therefore, essentially useless.

For additional information, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525

Adjudication Withheld | Collateral Consequences

Adjudication Withheld

Adjudication Withheld

Florida Statute 948.01 gives the trial court discretion to “withhold adjudication” after imposition of a sentence of probation in felony cases.  You are supposedly spared the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction if adjudication is withheld.  There are several benefits to having adjudication withheld.  You can say that you have never been convicted of a crime on employment applications. Your keep your civil rights.  You are eligible to have your record sealed after you complete probation and pay all court costs and fines.  Having adjudication withheld would appear to be a “get out of jail free” card or a “free pass.”  However, a withhold of adjudication is not without collateral consequences.  Don’t let the following talk you out of accepting a withhold of adjudication.  Talk to your lawyer about the decision.  A withhold is almost always better than an outright conviction.

Adjudication Withheld -When You Can’t

The Florida Legislature has been slowly eating away at the offenses that qualify for a withhold of adjudication.  Adjudication cannot be withheld for a First Degree Felony.  Adjudication cannot be withheld in Second Degree Felonies unless one of the two following conditions is met:

  1. The prosecutor must file a written motion with the court requesting that adjudication be withheld; or
  2. The court makes written findings of fact that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant a withhold of adjudication.  In making this finding, the court is required to look to the criteria found in Florida Statute 921.0026.

Third degree felonies are typically eligible to have adjudication withheld.  However, if you have had adjudication withheld on two prior felony offenses, you are not eligible to get a withhold of adjudication.

The court is prohibited from withholding adjudication in certain criminal offenses.  You are not eligible to receive a withhold for the following offenses:

  • Florida Statute 784.07 – Assault or Battery of a Law Enforcement Officers, Firefighters, Emergency Medical Care Providers, Public Transit Employees or Agents, or Other Specified Officers;
  • Florida Statute 316.1935 – Fleeing or Attempting to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer; Aggravated Fleeing or Eluding;
  • Florida Statute 316.193 – Any criminal offense involving a violation of Florida’s Driving Under the Influence Statute.

This is not a complete list of specific exclusions. These are the statutes that I know off the top of my head.

Adjudication Withheld – When it Doesn’t Count

Sentencing Enhancements:

Although Florida Law authorizes a Judge to withhold adjudication in his/her own discretion, the Florida Legislature also instructs the court to disregard a withheld adjudication and treat it as a prior conviction for certain crimes.  A prior withhold for a driving while license suspended will be treated as a conviction in future driving while license suspended cases.  The same is true with a withhold in petit theft cases.

Federal Law:

Federal Law does not recognize a withheld adjudication.  There is no comparable provision under Federal Law.  If you received a withhold of adjudication in a felony case under Florida Law, you are a convicted felon under Federal Law.  While Florida Law permits an individual to own a firearm if adjudication is withheld, Federal Law does not.  So you can be charged federally for convicted felon in possession of a firearm notwithstanding the withhold.

The same is true with immigration.  Criminal convictions can have severe immigration consequences.  A withhold on a crime of “moral turpitude” can still result in deportation since Federal Law does not recognize a withheld adjudication.

Foreign Countries:

Foreign countries do not have to and, in my experience, typically treat a withheld adjudication as a criminal conviction.  Countries can and do refuse to grant tourist visas to individuals convicted of certain criminal offenses.  You can typically come and go as you please at the Mexican Border.  I don’t even remember somebody checking my ID most times that I went across the Mexican Border.  However, Canada is a bit different, meaning that they, sometimes, actually check your background.  People are regularly denied admission to Canada for misdemeanor convictions.  Canada may or may not honor the withhold.  If you have a withhold, it would be good idea would be to check to make sure you are admissible before you travel to a foreign county.

Ft. Lauderdale criminal attorney, Michael Dye, handles cases with complex sentencing issues.  Mr. Dye has been able to obtain favorable sentences for clients including downward departures, alternative sentences and numerous withheld adjudications.  For additional information, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525.

Florida Sentencing Guidelines

Florida Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet

It’s like golf! Less Points = Better!

Am I Going to Prison?

Every criminal defense attorney gets asked this question. From DUI cases to murder cases, every defendant is concerned with their exposure to a prison sentence. In felony cases, if you are found guilty, the length of your prison sentence is typically determined by a simple mathematical calculation.  I will use algebra to explain thereby making this unnecessarily complicated and creating job security.  P = Total Sentence Points.  If P > or = 44 then your recommended prison sentence is calculated as follows, .75(P – 28) .

Florida Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet

The form for the Florida Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet is found in Florida Rule of Criminal  Procedure 3.992. The assistant state attorney handling the prosecution of a felony matter is required to complete a Florida Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet. The Florida Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet is also known as the sentencing scoresheet. The purpose of the criminal punishment code scoresheet is to provide the court with a “recommended” sentence.

How is it Scored?

Think of sentencing points like a golf score.  The less points you have, the better off you will be.  The sentencing scoresheet assigns a point value to all criminal offenses currently before the court. All felonies are divided into various “offense levels.” The various offense levels can be found in Florida Statute 921.0022. Section 1 is called the primary offense. The primary offense carries the most sentence points out of all charges on the scoresheet. I use a felony DUI in the example below. A fourth(4th) DUI conviction, and all subsequent DUI convictions, are 3rd degree felonies pursuant to Florida Law. Looking at section 1, you can see that a fifth(5th) DUI conviction is a third-degree felony, the statute is 316.193 and the offense level is six. A level VI primary offense earns 36 sentence points. However, a level VI additional offense is only 18 points.

Additional points are added for certain aggravating factors and prior convictions. The assistant state attorney will calculate the total amount of sentence points.  However, the defense attorney needs to check to make sure it is correct.  If the total amount of sentence points is less than 44, the lowest permissible sense is a non-state prison sanction. A non-state prison sanction can include some jail time, probation, community control or a combination of all of the above.

Calculating a Hypothetical Scoresheet

Primary and Additional Offenses: In the example that I use below, John Smith has been arrested for a fifth DUI and possession of cocaine. Both crimes are felonies. The fifth DUI is the primary offense because it is a level VI offense. The possession of cocaine is an additional offense because it is a level III offense. Accordingly, Mr. Smith is assessed 36 sentence points for the DUI and 2.4 sentence points for the possession of cocaine.

Victim Injury: Section 3 deals with victim injury. This area of the scoresheet is a bit more subjective and there is room for a criminal defense attorney to attempt to get less sentencing points. In this example, there was a victim injury and the injury was described as moderate. An additional 18 sentence points are added due to the degree of the injury of the victim.

Prior Criminal Record: Section 4 assigns points based on the defendant’s prior criminal record. In this section, you will find yourself going back to Florida statute 921.0022 in order to find the offense levels for any prior convictions. In the example below I simply put four prior DUIs for the sake of simplicity.

Legal Status: Section 5 assigns points for legal status violations. A legal status is when an individual can be classified as an escapee, and absconder or, amongst others, already incarcerated. Section 6 assigns points for violating terms of pretrial release or probation.

Community Sanction Violation: Section 6 is used quite often because of high recidivism levels. So if an individual is on probation when he or she gets convicted for a new charge,  it will enhance the length of the sentence for the new charge.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 are fairly self explanatory.  These sections are not used as often because they typically apply to much more serious criminal offenses.

If the total sentencing points is greater than 44, you subtract 44 from the total score and multiply times .75 which gives you the minimum amount of prison time. A judge is authorized to sentence a defendant to consecutive maximum terms of imprisonment.  The guidelines are merely suggestions. A Judge may be required to provide a written explanation concerning a deviation from the guidelines under certain circumstances In the example below, the maximum sentence would be 10 years. However, the recommended sentence would be 29.55 months. When you are not a criminal and want a human resource manager for your business, pick Salopek consulting Ottawa. They can help you out so visit them now.

Download (PDF, 137KB)

For more information, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Florida DUI Laws | Changes are Needed

Florida DUI Laws

Florida DUI Laws | The War on Drugs

Florida DUI Laws & The War on Drugs

Florida DUI laws and the war on drugs are unnecessarily inextricably intertwined with one another.  Florida Statute 316.193 states:

“(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;”
Accordingly, an individual can only be convicted of DUI if that individual is impaired by 1) alcoholic beverages, 2) chemical substances enumerated in Florida Statute 877.111 or 3) controlled substances specifically listed in Chapter 893 Florida Statutes.

The Problem with Chapter 893

Florida Statute 316.193 prohibits driving while impaired by drugs by referencing Florida Statute Chapter 893.  The problem is that Chapter 893 Florida Statutes does not contain all psychoactive substances that can impair an individuals ability to drive a vehicle.  There are some glaring omissions in Chapter 893.  For example, Ambien, generic name zolpidem, is not a controlled substance under Florida Law.  Ambien is a federally controlled substance, but the Florida DUI statute does not specify substances controlled under federal law.  Also excluded from Florida’s DUI statute are over the counter substances such as dextromethorphan and diphenhydramine.  It is possible to be charged with other offenses while high on unscheduled substances.  You might be convicted of reckless driving or vehicular homicide, if somebody dies, but you cannot be convicted of DUI.

Where DUI and The War on Drugs Meet

In order for a substance to be a “DUI eligible” substance it must be a controlled substance under Chapter 893.  A substance must come to the attention of state lawmakers in order for a substance to be listed in Chapter 893.  Accordingly, Florida DUI laws regarding drugs are reactive.  Admittedly, there is no way to create a statute that will specifically enumerate all substances capable of impairment.  However, the law, as written, does not take into account the changing nature of the recreational pharmaceutical market.  The law addresses the issue on a substance by substance basis.  The law is ineffective against specific drugs until such time as that specific drug causes a problem.

Currently, the only way to make a substance “DUI eligible” is to place it on the controlled substance list.  However, reactively adding new substances to the controlled substance list is unnecessary if impairment wasn’t limited to controlled substances under Chapter 893.  Florida Statute 316.193 needs to be changed unless the legislature wants to go back to the drawing board every legislative session when a new concoction rolls out.

Changes Needed

No drastic changes are needed to change the current statute to a statute that evolves as legal and illegal drugs are developed and hit the market.  This is the change that I would propose:

“(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893 a controlled substance under Chapter 893 Florida Statutes or any other drug or psychoactive substance capable of impairing a person’s physical or mental faculties, or any combination of said substances, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;”

The revision, as written above, eliminates the continuous need to amend Chapter 893 Florida Statutes in order to incorporate new substances into the DUI statute.  Not only is it efficient, but it also effectively closes the over the counter loop hole in Florida’s DUI Laws.

From a defense perspective, this really doesn’t change anything.  The state still has the burden to prove that there was a substance in the driver’s system and that the substance is capable of and did impair the defendant’s ability to drive a car.  This is not a metabolite DUI statute.  The state would still have to perform lab tests on blood and urine.  The belief that this would somehow permit a DUI conviction based on the unsubstantiated belief of a police officer does not have any merit.

For more information, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Drugged Driving Florida 2015 | Prediction No Change

Florida DUI Legislation

Who is Writing the DUI Laws?

Drugged driving has rapidly become an issue that has a significant impact on public safety.  With 2015 just around the corner I am going to go out on a limb and make my drugged driving predictions for 2015.

My Conclusion:

At least one poorly drafted, overbroad and unconstitutional bill purportedly drafted to curb drugged driving will not make it through the legislature.  To the public, that means no change.

Here is what history has taught us:

Florida Statute 316.193 is Florida’s DUI statute. For at least the last three years, there has been at least 1 bill introduced in the Florida Legislature which has attempted to redefine the crime of DUI.  The majority of the proposed changes to Florida’s DUI statute have focused on drugged driving.

All 50 states have laws prohibiting driving while impaired by drugs. The differences between the various state statutes is a) which drugs and substances qualify as an “impairing substance” and b) the legal definition of “impairment.”  Two recent attempts, Florida Senate Bill 1810, 2012 & Florida Senate Bill 1118, 2014 would have changed the definition of impairment, for drugged driving cases, from an “actual impairment” standard to a “per se” definition of impairment.  A “per se” standard is also referred to as “metabolite DUI.”

Florida’s Current DUI Statute Requires Actual Impairment

Florida’s DUI statute permits an individual to be charged with and convicted for DUI under an alcohol or drug theory.  With regard to drug impairment, under the current statute, an individual’s ability to drive a car must actually be impaired by a controlled substance while driving in order for the state to secure a conviction for DUIThe recent attempts to change Florida to a per se DUI state would have made it a crime to have any detectable amount of a controlled substance, a controlled substance analogue or a metabolite of a controlled substance while driving.  The obvious benefit of creating a per se standard is that prosecutors do not have to prove actual impairment.  Under a per se statute, a person can be convicted of DUI even if he was completely sober at the time he was driving but remember that there is a cosmetic surgeon performing nose surgery in New Jersey to help you.  The number of people convicted of DUI will rise simply because a per se statute expands criminalizes what was previously lawful behavior.

The flawed logic behind a per se DUI statute is that a conviction equals justice.  However, does convicting a sober individual of DUI truly amount to justice?  How is the public good served by convicting a sober driver of DUI?  Who are we trying to protect from the menace of sober drivers?   Almost any politician would be glad to take responsibility for creating a law that lead to an increase in drugged driving convictions.

In a rush to be seen as “tough on crime” politicians throughout the country have proposed some of the worst legislation imaginable.  Florida Senate Bill 1810, 2012 is pretty much the “gold standard” for poorly drafted legislation.  The bill died in committee.  I do not believe that Senator Stephen Wise, who proposed Senate Bill 1810, is ignorant or that the bill was in any way malicious.  He recognized that there is a problem and tried to solve it.  By taking an extremely broad approach to the problem of drugged driving, Senator Wise drafted a bill that would have created some unintended and otherwise comical results.  Let’s look at some of the ridiculous results that would have arisen from a strict interpretation of Florida Senate Bill 1810 had it become law in 2012.

Proposed Statutory Amendments Expanding the Definition of Impairment:

FL Stat 316.193(1)(c): “The person has in the blood or urine a substance  identified as a controlled substance as defined in Schedule I of chapter 893 or the Federal Register, or one of its metabolites or analogs;”

Florida Stat 316.193(1)(d): “The person has in the blood or urine a substance identified as a controlled substance in Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV of chapter or the Federal Register, or one of its metabolites or analogs.”

Proposed Statutory Amendments Creating New Affirmative Defenses

FL Stat 316.193(15)(a): “If a person who is charged with violating subsection (1)(d) introduced into his or her body a controlled substance prescribed by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe the controlled substance and if the person consumed the controlled substance in accordance with the health professional’s directions, the person is entitled to an affirmative defense against any allegation that the person violated subsection (1)(d). The introduction of a non-prescribed substance into the person’s body does not constitute an affirmative defense with respect to any non-prescribed substance.”

FL Stat 316.193(15)(b): Except for paragraph (a), the fact that a person charged with violating subsection (1) is or was legally entitled to introduce into the human body alcohol, a chemical substance, a controlled substance, a medication, a drug, or any other impairing substance does not constitute a defense against any charge of violating subsection (1).

Absurd Results Created by Poorly Drafted Legislation:

Absurd Result # 1 DUI Marijuana

A chemotherapy patient who smokes 1 puff of marijuana for medicinal purposes and drives 10 days later will be guilty of DUI.  Despite the fact he would no longer be impaired by marijuana, he would still be found guilty of a DUI because marijuana metabolites can be detected in biological fluid for up to one month.  The patient is not entitled to either of the above listed affirmative defenses because marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance at the state and federal level.  If marijuana were to become legal in Florida, the same individual would still not have an affirmative defense due to marijuana remaining a Schedule I Controlled Substance at the federal level;

Absurd Result # 2 DUI Antidepressant

Wellbutrin is a substituted cathinone.  Cathinone is a schedule I controlled substance on both the state and federal levels.  Wellbutrin, a/k/a Bupropion, is an analogue of cathinone.  The proposed legislation does not define the term “analogue” as used in the proposed amendments to Florida Statute 316.193(c).  The affirmative defense of “legal prescribed use” is not available for analogues of Schedule I Controlled Substances.  According to the language in the proposed amendment, all individuals prescribed and taking Wellbutrin would be found guilty of DUI.  If the legislation were amended to specifically exclude bupropion or define “analogue” in accordance with the Federal Analog Act 21 U.S.C. 813 then taking Wellbutrin and driving would not be illegal.  Nevertheless, these amendments were never made.

Absurd Result # 3 DUI Anabolic Steroids

Professional athletes and gym rats beware!  Steroids are Schedule III Controlled Substances on both the state and federal level.  According to the proposed amendment, you would be convicted of DUI for taking steroids if you get caught driving a car.  If you use Nandrolone Undecanoate a/k/a Deca Durabolin or “Deca”, you should be prepared to take the bus for a long time as “Deca” can be detected in your biological fluids for up to  17 or 18 months after last use.

Absurd Result # 4 DUI Testicles

Adult males naturally produce testosterone.  Accordingly, all men will have a certain level of testosterone in their system.  Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance and the amendment proposed by Senator Wise made no distinction between endogenous testosterone production as opposed to “supplementing” your natural testosterone levels with external sources.  All men with healthy, functioning testicles have testosterone in their system 100% of the time.  Accordingly, a strict construction of the proposed amendment would result in all men with functioning testicles being guilty of DUI whenever they get behind the wheel of a car.

Absurd Result # 5 DUI’s for Everybody

It also bears mentioning that, on the average, women naturally produce testosterone at around 1/7 the rate of men.  Accordingly, all normal healthy women will have some testosterone in their system 100% of the time.  Since the amendment made no distinction between endogenous testosterone or illegally obtained testosterone, all normal, healthy women would be guilty of DUI.

Absurd Conclusion: Anybody who operates a motor vehicle on the streets or highways of the State of Florida is guilty of DUI.

Do These Results Seem Absurd to You?

I admit that the hypotheticals #4 and #5 above are a tad on the “extreme” side.  However, that is the plain language of the statute.  The results are absurd.  Yet, that is what is on the horizon.  Approximately 1/3 of all states have passed per se DUI statutes.  These statutes are written in such a way as to criminalize innocent and socially acceptable conduct.  Different states have enacted different versions of per se statutes and some drugged driving laws are better than others. For example, some states exclude specific commonly abused illegal drugs. Some limit the specimens that can be collected (urine, oral fluid, blood) or specify specific cut-off levels.

The Solution is Education

Educating younger drivers on the dangers of drugged driving is only 1/2 of the equation.  However, there will be no meaningful change until the law makers educate themselves.  The proposed legislation that I listed above shows exactly how out of touch politicians are with the problems faced in today’s society.  How does criminalizing driving with high testosterone levels help society?  There will be no change until the law makers can accurately identify the problem.

Accordingly, I stand by my conclusion.  The legislature will attempt to fix a problem which they cannot identify by proposing more dumb laws.  Unfortunately, sometimes those dumb ideas pass and become law.

My Offer

If any member of the Florida Legislature reads this and would like my assistance drafting a tough, effective and reasonable drugged driving statute, contact me and I will help you draft it from A to Z.

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286