I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. I have served as a police academy legal instructor teaching officers the constitutional limits of search, seizure, and arrest, and I served as Chief Operating Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office. Today our attorneys defend gun and drug charges across Tampa Bay, and this question — marijuana and guns — now sits at the center of one of the fastest-moving areas in criminal law.

What Does Federal Law Say About Marijuana Users and Guns?

Federal law makes it a crime for any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm or ammunition. That ban lives in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and because marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, it has always applied to marijuana users — including Florida’s hundreds of thousands of registered medical marijuana patients. A state card has never been a defense to the federal statute, because Florida’s medical marijuana program does not change what federal law says.

The federal ban shows up in a second place that trips up ordinary gun buyers: ATF Form 4473, the questionnaire every purchaser completes at a licensed dealer. The form asks directly whether you are an unlawful user of marijuana or any other controlled substance, and it warns that marijuana remains federally unlawful regardless of state medical programs. Answering falsely is a separate federal felony. Our attorneys have seen careful, law-abiding people put themselves in federal jeopardy with one checkbox — which is why the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision matters so much, and why it must be read carefully rather than treated as a green light.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in United States v. Hemani?

In United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government’s prosecution of a regular marijuana user under § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment — the first time the Court has struck down the application of a federal gun ban to drug users. Ali Hemani was prosecuted for having a gun in his home while being a regular marijuana user; the government’s theory was that regular use of a controlled substance, by itself, was enough to disarm him. It did not claim he was addicted, that he was high when found with the gun, or that he posed any particular danger.

Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, affirming the Fifth Circuit 7-2, rejected that theory under the historical-tradition test. The government leaned on founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws, but the Court found those laws targeted people whose drinking left them “practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs” — not everyone who drank regularly. The Court also stressed how the modern statute operates: it “automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user . . . all without any pre-deprivation process,” while the historical laws required some proceeding — a conviction, a guardianship, a hearing — before anyone lost liberty. And the Court pointed out that the government’s own conduct undercuts the claim that all marijuana users are categorically dangerous: federal prosecutors have been directed to curtail enforcement against marijuana users, most states have legalized some use, and the government itself recently moved certain marijuana products down the federal schedules.

For Florida gun owners who hold medical marijuana cards, the practical takeaway is this: after Hemani, a federal prosecution built on nothing more than the fact that you regularly use marijuana is unconstitutional. That is a real shield. But it is a shield with defined edges, described next.

What Did Hemani Leave Undecided?

Hemani was an as-applied ruling, not a repeal — § 922(g)(3) is still on the books, and the Court expressly reserved several theories the government may still pursue. Anyone mixing marijuana and firearms in Florida should understand exactly where the line now sits.

That last row deserves emphasis. Nothing in Hemani changed the purchase paperwork. Until ATF revises Form 4473, a medical marijuana patient who answers “no” to the unlawful-user question is still committing a federal crime, whatever the Second Amendment now says about possession prosecutions. This is exactly the kind of trap where getting legal advice before you act is worth far more than defending a charge afterward.

Does a Florida Medical Marijuana Card Take Away Your Gun Rights?

No — holding a Florida medical marijuana card does not, by itself, disqualify you from owning or possessing a firearm under Florida law. Florida’s medical marijuana statute, Fla. Stat. § 381.986, created a physician-certification system with a patient registry, and nothing in Florida’s gun statutes makes registered patients prohibited possessors.

Florida’s concealed-carry licensing statute, Fla. Stat. § 790.06, does contain drug-related disqualifiers that patients should know about. The Department of Agriculture must deny a license to an applicant who “chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages or other substances to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired,” and to anyone found guilty of a chapter 893 drug crime within the three years before applying. A conviction for a controlled-substance offense also triggers revocation of an existing license. So while the card itself is not a disqualifier, a marijuana-related conviction — even a misdemeanor — can cost you your carry license for years.

Where Is Medical Marijuana Use Still Illegal Even With a Card?

A Florida medical marijuana card authorizes “medical use” — and the statute defines that term to exclude specific places, so using marijuana in the wrong location remains a crime even for a fully registered patient. Under § 381.986, “medical use” does not include using or administering marijuana on public transportation, in any public place, in an enclosed indoor workplace, on school grounds, or — critically for Tampa Bay’s boaters and drivers — “in a school bus, a vehicle, an aircraft, or a motorboat,” with a narrow exception for low-THC cannabis not in a form for smoking. A qualified patient who uses marijuana in plain view of the public or in a vehicle or boat commits a first-degree misdemeanor.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal enforced exactly this limit in Tanaka v. State, No. 6D2024-1581 (Fla. 6th DCA June 19, 2026), a Collier County case where the court affirmed a conviction by quoting the statute’s rule that “medical use” does not cover marijuana in a vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat. The lesson for the hundreds of thousands of Floridians with cards: your protection travels with the statute’s definitions, not with the card in your wallet. Smoking in your car — parked or moving — is outside the program, and once an officer smells it, you may face both the misdemeanor and a vehicle search. Our attorneys have litigated where the odor-of-cannabis doctrine now stands in the Tampa Bay area; see our analysis of Florida’s Second DCA limiting the plain-smell doctrine.

Can 18-to-20-Year-Olds Carry a Concealed Gun in Florida Now?

As of mid-2026, Florida’s ban on concealed-carry licenses for adults under 21 has been declared facially unconstitutional by one of Florida’s appellate courts — a major shift, though not yet a statewide settled rule. In Eubanks v. State, No. 4D2025-1698 (Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 2026), a Broward County prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm, the Fourth District held that § 790.06(2)(b) — which requires concealed-carry applicants to be 21 — “is facially unconstitutional as it relates to 18- to 20-year-olds.” The court reasoned that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people” the Second Amendment protects, that the State produced no historical tradition of categorically disarming young adults, and — quoting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision — that a group cannot be “disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible.’” The court reversed the young man’s conviction outright.

Two cautions before anyone under 21 straps on a holster. First, Eubanks is a Fourth District decision; Tampa, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties sit in the Second District, which has not yet spoken, and the State may seek further review in the Florida Supreme Court. Second, the decision addressed concealed carry — it did not touch Florida’s open-carry ban or the separate federal rules for handgun purchases by under-21 buyers. Anyone in that age group facing a carry charge should treat Eubanks as a powerful defense to raise, not a settled right to rely on. For the broader landscape — permitless carry under Fla. Stat. § 790.01, where guns are still prohibited, and how gun charges are penalized — see our guide to gun crime laws in Florida.

How Do These Decisions Change a Florida Gun Charge Defense?

They add constitutional attacks to a defense toolbox that already starts with the Fourth Amendment. When our attorneys defend a Tampa Bay gun charge involving marijuana, the analysis now runs on three tracks at once.

1. Was the stop and search lawful? Most marijuana-and-gun cases begin with a traffic stop, a pat-down, or a search justified by the smell of cannabis. If the stop was unlawfully prolonged or the frisk exceeded its limits, the gun itself can be suppressed — see our breakdown of stop and frisk law in Florida.
2. Is the charge constitutional after Hemani and Eubanks? A federal § 922(g)(3) charge premised on use alone is now unconstitutional as applied. A state concealed-carry charge against an otherwise law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old is squarely challenged by Eubanks. These arguments are raised by motion — and where a district conflict exists, preserving the issue protects your appeal.
3. Does the statute even fit the facts? Was the marijuana “medical use” within § 381.986? Was the firearm actually “possessed”? Was a license exception satisfied? The State must prove every element, and pre-file advocacy — engaging the State Attorney’s Office before charges are formalized — can resolve borderline cases before they ever reach a courtroom.

What Should You Do If You Are Arrested on a Marijuana-Related Gun Charge?

Move fast, and say nothing about your marijuana use to anyone but your lawyer. Statements about how often you use — the exact fact that decides whether the government can build a lawful case after Hemani — are routinely volunteered in the first police interview, and they are admissible. In Hillsborough County, a felony gun arrest means booking at Orient Road Jail, first appearance within 24 hours, and formal charging decisions by the State Attorney’s Office in the weeks that follow. That charging window is where an early defense presentation can change everything: our attorneys use it to put suppression problems, Hemani and Eubanks issues, and medical-marijuana documentation in front of the prosecutor before the filing decision is made. If you were just arrested, our step-by-step guide to what to do after being arrested in Tampa walks through the first 72 hours.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I buy a gun in Florida if I have a medical marijuana card?

Florida law does not prohibit the purchase, but the federal purchase form still asks whether you are an unlawful user of marijuana, and marijuana remains federally unlawful even for state medical patients. Answering falsely on ATF Form 4473 is a federal felony that Hemani did not eliminate. Our attorneys advise cardholders on lawful paths before purchase, because this is far easier to get right in advance than to defend afterward.

Did the Supreme Court legalize gun ownership for all drug users?

No. United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026), held only that prosecuting a person for regular marijuana use alone violates the Second Amendment. The Court expressly left open prosecutions of people who are addicted, armed while presently intoxicated, or shown by individualized proof to be dangerous — and it did not touch the felon-in-possession ban.

Can I keep a gun in my car along with my medical marijuana?

Carrying a firearm in your vehicle can be lawful under Florida’s permitless-carry framework, but using marijuana in a vehicle is never “medical use” under Fla. Stat. § 381.986 — it is a first-degree misdemeanor even for cardholders. Combining the two also invites a search and a charging decision that treats you as an unlawful user. Keep the marijuana sealed, in its original packaging, and never use it in the car or on a boat.

Can an 18-year-old legally carry a concealed gun in Florida in 2026?

The Fourth District held in Eubanks v. State that the 21-and-over rule in § 790.06(2)(b) is facially unconstitutional, but that ruling comes from South Florida’s appellate district and the issue is not finally settled statewide. In Tampa Bay — the Second District — prosecutors may still file the charge, and the defense must raise Eubanks by motion. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. litigates these constitutional challenges and preserves them for appeal.

Will a marijuana conviction cost me my concealed weapons license?

Yes — a finding of guilt for a chapter 893 drug crime requires revocation of a Florida concealed-carry license, and it bars a new license for three years under Fla. Stat. § 790.06. That collateral consequence is one more reason to fight a “minor” possession charge rather than plead it out quickly. We routinely defend possession cases with the license consequences as a central goal.

Does Florida report medical marijuana patients to the federal government?

Florida’s medical marijuana use registry is a state system, and Florida law treats patient records as confidential; the registry is not a public list handed to federal authorities. But dispensary purchases, statements to police, and social media can all establish “unlawful user” status in a federal case. If you hold a card and own firearms, The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. can walk you through how the two programs actually interact.

Marijuana-and-gun law is moving faster right now than at any point in decades — Hemani and Eubanks both landed within a single week of June 2026, and the next round of decisions will decide how far they reach in Tampa Bay. If you are facing a gun or marijuana charge, or you hold a medical card and want to keep your gun rights intact, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 today. Constitutional defenses are strongest when they are raised before the State’s filing decision, not after.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As a former police academy legal instructor, I taught officers what the Fourth Amendment lets them do — and where the line sits. Our attorneys use that same line every week in suppression litigation, and Chatrie just redrew it for every criminal case in Florida built on cell-phone location data.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Chatrie v. United States?

The Supreme Court held that when police obtained a suspect’s Google “Location History” through a geofence warrant, they conducted a Fourth Amendment search — because people keep a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location data. Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (U.S. June 29, 2026), extends the Court’s landmark 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States (which protected cell-site location records) to the far more precise location logs generated by smartphone apps.

Three points from the decision matter most for anyone facing charges. First, duration doesn’t save the government: the Court rejected the argument that a “short” window — the two hours pulled in Chatrie’s case — is too little to trigger the Fourth Amendment, explaining that even brief location records can reveal deeply private facts. Second, storage by a third party doesn’t matter: the Court held the “third-party doctrine” does not apply, because location data is “not truly shared” in any meaningful sense — it is simply the automatic price of using a modern phone. Third, the Court decided only that a search occurred. It vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to decide whether the warrant satisfied probable cause and particularity, and whether the good-faith exception saves the evidence if it did not.

What Was the Chatrie Case About?

The case began with a bank robbery that stumped investigators. On May 20, 2019, a man robbed a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia; witnesses and surveillance showed him approaching from the corner of a neighboring church while appearing to talk on a cell phone, but the trail went cold. Police then obtained a geofence warrant directing Google to identify devices with Location History enabled near the credit union around the robbery. That process ultimately pointed to Okello Chatrie, whose phone data placed him at the scene — two hours of his movements, pulled from Google’s servers. He moved to suppress, lost on good-faith grounds in the lower courts, and the Supreme Court took the case to answer the threshold question: was this a “search” at all? Six Justices said yes.

What Is a Geofence Warrant — and Can Google Still Answer One?

A geofence warrant works in reverse: instead of naming a suspect and searching their data, police draw a virtual perimeter around a crime scene and ask a company — most famously Google — to identify every device inside it during a time window. The process in Chatrie ran in steps: first an anonymized list of devices in the zone, then expanded data to narrow the list, then the “unmasking” of specific accounts — names, emails, phone numbers. Justice Jackson’s concurrence flagged the core defect defense lawyers now argue: the later steps often happen with no criteria and no judge supervising which devices get unmasked, leaving “too much to the discretion” of the officers.

Geofence Surveillance, By the Numbers

The scale of this surveillance tool is why the decision matters far beyond one Virginia robbery — the numbers below come from the opinion itself.

Two details from the opinion deserve emphasis. Location History runs constantly in the background once enabled — whether or not the app is open, whether or not the phone is in use — and it keeps running even if the user deletes the app that turned it on. And Android users are specifically warned their devices will not “work correctly” unless they turn it on. The Court treated that reality for what it is: tracking as a default condition of modern life, not a voluntary broadcast of your whereabouts.

Is My Cell-Phone Location Data Protected by the Fourth Amendment?

Yes — after Chatrie, your historical location data is constitutionally protected whether it comes from cell towers or from app-based logs, and regardless of how short the time window is. The decision closes the two arguments the government had been using to avoid Carpenter.

The undecided fourth row is not a footnote — it is the battleground. A ruling that a search occurred means nothing in a specific case until a court examines whether the warrant (if there was one) was supported by probable cause and described the search with particularity. That examination is defense work, done case by case, device by device.

How Did the Justices Vote in Chatrie?

Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson — with Justice Gorsuch concurring in the judgment, making six votes for the outcome. Justice Jackson added a concurrence (joined by Justice Sotomayor) arguing the multi-step geofence process gave officers an unsupervised “roving commission.” Justice Gorsuch would have reached the result on different reasoning. Justice Alito dissented — warning the decision “will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine” — joined in part by Justices Thomas and Barrett, and Justice Barrett filed her own dissent.

The lineup matters for what comes next: the majority’s reasoning was joined by five Justices, the case produced four separate opinions, and the open questions — warrant validity, good faith, other kinds of digital records — will be litigated against that backdrop for years.

Does Chatrie Apply to Criminal Cases in Florida?

Yes — immediately and automatically. Florida’s own constitution, Article I, Section 12, commands that Florida’s search-and-seizure right “shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.” So Chatrie is not persuasive authority here; it is the governing rule in every Florida courtroom, from the 13th Judicial Circuit in Tampa outward.

Florida law enforcement already works with location technology under state statutes like Fla. Stat. § 934.42, which lets officers get court orders for mobile tracking devices — and which expressly makes U.S. Supreme Court standards govern their installation and monitoring. After Chatrie, those standards now clearly include a warrant requirement for historical app-based location data. In practice, our attorneys look for location evidence in Tampa Bay cases in three familiar places: geofence-style requests tied to a crime scene, account-specific demands for a suspect’s Google or Apple data, and downloads from a seized phone itself. Each source now has its own constitutional checklist, and a defect in any of them supports a motion to suppress.

What Comes Next — Are Reverse Keyword Warrants Legal?

Chatrie answered the geofence question but teed up the next fight: reverse keyword warrants, where police ask a search engine to identify everyone who searched a particular term — a victim’s name, an address, a chemical — during a window of time. The logic of Chatrie (a dragnet over mostly innocent people’s private data, revealed only because using the internet is the price of modern life) applies with obvious force, but the Supreme Court has not yet decided it, and lower courts are split on how far Carpenter and now Chatrie reach. The same goes for other data dragnets: tower dumps, automated license-plate reader networks, and purchases of location data from commercial brokers. Currency matters in this area more than almost any other — the constitutional rules your case is judged by may literally change between arrest and trial, which is why preserving these issues early is essential.

What Should You Do If Police Used Phone Location Data in Your Case?

Get the warrant paperwork in front of a defense lawyer before you make any decisions about your case. After Chatrie, the questions our attorneys ask are concrete: Was there a warrant at all, or just a subpoena or “exigent” request? Does the affidavit establish probable cause tied to the place and time searched? Did the warrant limit the geofence’s size, duration, and the unmasking steps — or did officers get a blank check? Was your data pulled at step one or only after unsupervised narrowing? Every one of those defects is a suppression argument, and in a case built on placing your phone at a scene, suppression is usually the whole case. Location-data challenges also travel with the rest of the digital-privacy toolbox — see our guides to whether the State can get your medical records in a DUI case and what to do after being arrested in Tampa. And because these motions are won on timing — witnesses’ memories, preservation letters to Google, litigation before the State’s filing decision — the sooner the defense starts, the more options you have.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do police need a warrant to get my Google location history?

Yes. After Chatrie v. United States (2026), obtaining your historical cell-phone location data — including Google Location History — is a Fourth Amendment search, so police generally need a valid warrant supported by probable cause. Our attorneys examine whether the warrant in your case actually meets those requirements, because “a warrant existed” is not the same as “the warrant was valid.”

Can police still use geofence warrants after Chatrie?

Geofence warrants were not banned — the Court held only that they are searches, which means they require valid warrants. Whether any particular geofence warrant satisfies probable cause and particularity is now the contested question, and Justice Jackson’s concurrence gives the defense a roadmap for attacking the unmasking steps. We raise those challenges by motion to suppress in Florida courts.

Does Chatrie apply if police only got a couple hours of my location data?

Yes — that was precisely the government’s argument, and the Court rejected it. Two hours of Location History was enough to trigger the Fourth Amendment because even short windows reveal private associations. There is no minimum number of hours before your rights apply.

Will the evidence in my case be thrown out automatically?

No. Chatrie decided that a search occurred; whether evidence is suppressed depends on whether the warrant was valid and whether the good-faith exception applies — the questions remanded in Chatrie’s own case. That is exactly the analysis The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. performs when location data appears in discovery, because the suppression fight is where these cases are won or lost.

How do I know if a geofence warrant was used in my case?

You usually learn it from discovery — search warrant returns, affidavits, or references to Google legal process in reports. Defense counsel can demand the full warrant package, the data Google produced at each step, and the communications around it. If you were arrested in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County and phone location evidence is involved, The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. can obtain and audit that paperwork.

Does turning off Location History protect me?

Turning it off stops Google’s Location History logging going forward, but other apps, your carrier’s cell-site records, and data brokers still generate location trails — each with its own legal protections. Chatrie and Carpenter now protect the two biggest categories. The safest assumption is that your phone creates records someone may one day try to use, and the Constitution now stands between those records and warrantless access.

Chatrie redrew the digital-privacy map on June 29, 2026, and the next rounds — warrant validity, good faith, keyword warrants — are being litigated right now. If cell-phone location data shows up anywhere in your Tampa Bay case, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 before the State’s filing decision is made. Suppression issues are strongest when they are raised early, and location-data challenges are the sharpest new tool in the box.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.