Drugs found in the same traffic stop do not necessarily belong to the same “criminal episode” for purposes of Florida’s speedy trial clock. The Second District Court of Appeal said so on November 6, 2026, in State v. Muhammad, No. 2D2025-0756, and reversed a trial court order that had discharged a man from a hydrocodone trafficking charge. Judge Atkinson wrote the opinion. Judges Black and Smith concurred in result only, without a written opinion.
The timeline
On April 16, 2024, a detective stopped Bobby Rocell Muhammad’s vehicle for speeding and failing to stay in his lane. The detective saw a two-liter Sprite bottle and a Styrofoam cup in the center console, each holding a purple liquid he believed was hydrocodone. Mr. Muhammad told him it was “codeine.” After Mr. Muhammad consented to a search, officers found a sock under the hood holding three bags of substances that tested presumptively positive for fentanyl and cocaine. He was arrested that day for those drugs. The State sent the purple liquid to FDLE two days later.
On May 7, 2024, the State sent Mr. Muhammad a letter of release saying it would not file charges in the first case. FDLE finished its analysis of the liquid on November 26, 2024. On January 3, 2025, the State prepared a second criminal report affidavit charging trafficking in hydrocodone, 300 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms. He was arrested on that charge and charged by information on January 8, 2025.
Mr. Muhammad moved for discharge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, arguing that the speedy trial period began with his April 16, 2024 arrest. The trial court agreed that the hydrocodone possession was part of the same criminal episode as the other drugs and discharged him.
The holding on the speedy trial clock
Rule 3.191(a) requires a felony defendant to be brought to trial within 175 days of arrest. The court explained that the period can run on an uncharged crime if it is part of the same criminal episode as the crime for which the person was arrested. But “the defendant must show more than the mere fact that the evidence leading to the subsequent charge was first discovered as a result of the original arrest.” Crimes are the same episode when “based on the same conduct,” and “[t]he conduct needs to be more than ‘merely related’—it should be ‘the same conduct.'”
The court, quoting State v. Baynham (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), said the speedy trial analysis “depends on the activities of the defendant, not the activities of the police investigating the defendant.” Here, the liquid was in plain view in containers within reach, which the court said indicated it was available to drink while driving. The other drugs were hidden in a sock under the hood, which the court said indicated concealment for safekeeping and transport. The court concluded these were “distinct, concurrent criminal episodes.” It also noted Mr. Muhammad presented no evidence that the substances were connected, for example that all of them were being taken to a single sale. The speedy trial period for the hydrocodone charge began on January 8, 2025.
The court added that whether police had probable cause to arrest for the hydrocodone at the first arrest “is irrelevant.” The State was not required to arrest him for every crime it had probable cause to believe he committed.
What this does and does not mean
The court was careful about its limits. It wrote that it “need not answer the question of whether the crimes could be considered as arising from the same criminal episode if Mr. Muhammad had been transporting all the controlled substances in his vehicle for one or more ultimate sales,” because the record had no such evidence. It also noted that Mr. Muhammad was never charged with driving under the influence connected to drinking hydrocodone. The reasoning is Judge Atkinson’s alone, because the other two judges concurred in result only. The opinion also applies the 2024 version of Rule 3.191. It says the FDLE analysis “indicated that it contained codeine” and then describes the later charge as trafficking in hydrocodone, without explaining the difference.
The opinion is subject to revision prior to official publication.
Related decisions: Can Police Frisk a Man Detained for a Bicycle Light Violation Who Appears to Be Carrying a Gun? The Fourth DCA Says Yes on These Facts, Over a Dissent Do Identically Worded Counts Under the Same Statute Violate Double Jeopardy? Not When the Record Shows Separate Acts, the First DCA Held
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Also on tagerlaw.com: Does the Speedy Trial Clock Start at the First Arrest if Police Find Different Drugs in the Same Car? Not Always
Source: State v. Muhammad, No. 2D2025-0756 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 6, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.