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.

In a homicide case, prosecutors love to show the jury photographs of the defendant holding a gun. After all, such images create a powerful visual association: this person had a gun, and someone died from a gunshot. However, for such evidence to be admissible, the prosecution must establish a nexus—a connection between the gun in the photograph and the gun used in the crime.

When the guns merely look similar, that connection does not exist. Similar is not the same. In this homicide case, a firearms expert with decades of experience identified the precise model of the gun in my client’s social media photo—and proved it was not the murder weapon. As a result, we kept the prejudicial photograph out of evidence entirely.  I am Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato. This post is part of our forensic series put out by the Brancato Law Firm, P.A., your Tampa criminal forensic evidence law firm.

The Case: A Young Defendant and a Damaging Photo

My client, a young man, faced homicide charges. The state had recovered the murder weapon and placed it into evidence. They also had something else they wanted the jury to see: photographs from my client’s social media showing him holding a gun.

To a casual observer, the gun in the social media photos looked similar to the murder weapon. Both appeared to be the same general type of firearm. The prosecution intended to use these images to suggest my client had possessed a gun like the one used in the killing—creating a damaging association in the jurors’ minds.

However, when I examined the photographs closely, I noticed something important: certain features of the gun in the photo appeared different from the murder weapon. The guns were similar, but were they actually the same model? If not, the prosecution had no business showing these photos to the jury.

The Expert: A Lifetime of Firearms Knowledge

To challenge the prosecution’s evidence, I needed someone who could look at a photograph and identify the precise make and model of the firearm depicted. Fortunately, I found an expert whose qualifications were extraordinary.

This expert had grown up around firearms, handling guns since childhood. Subsequently, he built a career in law enforcement, working first for a local police department and then retiring from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Throughout his career, he developed an encyclopedic knowledge of weapons.

Most impressively, he had toured nearly every major firearms manufacturing factory in the world. As a result, he possessed firsthand knowledge of how different manufacturers design and produce their weapons—knowledge that allowed him to identify subtle differences between similar-looking firearms that most people would never notice.

The Analysis: Identifying the Precise Model

I provided my expert with the social media photographs and access to examine the murder weapon in evidence. His task was straightforward: determine whether the gun in the photos matched the gun used in the homicide.

The expert examined the photographs carefully, focusing on specific features of the firearm: the shape of the slide, the configuration of the grip, the placement of controls, and other distinguishing characteristics. Based on these features, he identified the precise make and model of the gun my client held in the social media photos.

His conclusion was definitive: the gun in the photographs was not the same model as the murder weapon.

Although both firearms appeared similar at first glance, they were manufactured by different companies or represented different product lines. The distinguishing features that the expert identified made clear that my client’s social media photos depicted an entirely different weapon than the one used in the killing.

What Firearms Experts Look For When Identifying Weapons

The Legal Argument: No Nexus, No Admission

Armed with the expert’s findings, I filed a motion to exclude the social media photographs. The argument was straightforward: without a nexus between the gun in the photos and the murder weapon, the photographs lacked relevance to the charged offense.

Moreover, the prejudicial effect of the photographs far outweighed any probative value. Showing the jury images of a young defendant holding a gun—when that gun had nothing to do with the crime—would serve only to inflame the jury and create an unfair association in their minds.

The expert’s identification of the precise firearm model made this argument airtight. Because he could demonstrate that the social media gun was definitively not the murder weapon, the prosecution could not establish the required nexus.

Why Excluding This Evidence Mattered

The exclusion of the social media photographs removed a powerful piece of visual evidence from the prosecution’s case. Without those images, the jury could not form the mental association the state wanted: seeing the defendant with a gun and connecting him to the shooting.

Consequently, the jury had to evaluate the remaining evidence on its own merits. While they convicted my client of a lesser offense, they acquitted him of the homicide charge—a significant difference in terms of potential punishment and consequences.

This outcome demonstrates the importance of challenging every piece of evidence the prosecution intends to use. Evidence that appears damaging at first glance may not withstand expert scrutiny.

What This Case Teaches About Firearms Evidence

• First, similar does not mean same. Two firearms may look alike to untrained observers but represent completely different makes and models. An expert can identify the differences.
• Second, the prosecution must establish a nexus. For evidence to be admissible, it must connect to the charged offense. A photograph of the defendant with a different gun lacks that connection.
• Third, expert qualifications matter enormously. An expert who has toured firearms factories worldwide and spent a career handling weapons brings credibility that generalists cannot match.
• Fourth, challenge prejudicial evidence aggressively. Photographs of defendants with weapons create powerful negative associations. If the evidence lacks relevance, fight to keep it out.
• Finally, social media evidence requires scrutiny. Prosecutors increasingly use social media photographs against defendants. However, such evidence must still meet admissibility standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can prosecutors use social media photos against me?

Prosecutors can attempt to use social media photographs, but such evidence must meet admissibility requirements. Specifically, the photos must be relevant to the charged offense, and the prosecution must authenticate them. Additionally, if a photo’s prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, the defense can move to exclude it.

What does nexus mean in evidence law?

Nexus refers to the connection between a piece of evidence and the facts at issue in a case. For evidence to be relevant and admissible, it must have a logical connection to something the prosecution needs to prove. Without that connection, the evidence lacks relevance.

What does a firearms expert do?

A firearms expert identifies weapons, analyzes ballistic evidence, and provides expert testimony about firearms-related issues. They can determine whether a specific weapon fired particular ammunition, identify the make and model of firearms from photographs, and explain technical aspects of weapons to judges and juries.

How can an expert identify a gun from a photograph?

Experienced firearms experts recognize distinguishing features that identify specific makes and models: slide shapes, grip configurations, control placements, trigger guard designs, and sight configurations. By analyzing these visible features, an expert can often determine the precise firearm depicted—even from a photograph.

What makes firearms evidence prejudicial?

Photographs of defendants holding weapons create powerful negative impressions on juries. Even when the pictured weapon has no connection to the charged crime, such images can make defendants appear dangerous or violent. Consequently, courts may exclude such evidence when its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative value.

Should I delete gun photos from my social media?

If you face criminal charges, do not delete anything from social media without consulting your attorney first. Deleting evidence after charges can constitute obstruction of justice or spoliation of evidence. Instead, discuss your social media presence with your attorney, who can advise you on the best course of action.

Facing Gun-Related Charges?

Prosecutors use every piece of evidence they can find—including social media photographs that may have nothing to do with the charged offense. However, such evidence must meet legal standards for relevance and admissibility.

For over 25 years, I have defended clients against serious charges throughout Tampa Bay. As a result, I know how to challenge firearms evidence, retain qualified experts who can identify weapons and break the prosecution’s nexus arguments, and fight to exclude prejudicial photographs from trial.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

620 E Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Part of the Forensic Evidence Series

Related Case Studies: DNA Evidence Defense | Aggravated Child Abuse Defense | Forensic Pathologist | Fingerprint Evidence is Not as Reliable as You Think | Cell Phone Location Data Can prove You Were Not There | When Brain Damage Explains Criminal Conduct | Your BAC at the Station is Not Your BAC Behind the Wheel | When Police Destroy Evidence They Do Not Get the Benefit of the Doubt | When a Confession is Not a Confession | When the Car–Not the Driver–Caused the Crash | The Injuries Were Real–But They Were Not From the Alleged Rape

Related Pages

Tampa Murder Attorney

Tampa Gun Crimes Attorney

Social Media Evidence in Tampa Criminal Cases

Why Expert Witnesses are Not Optional in Major Crimes Case

This happens more often than you might expect. However, Florida law provides a powerful shield against this prosecutorial tactic. It is called collateral estoppel defense Tampa courts recognize, and a skilled attorney can use it to protect you.

I’m Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have defended clients against felony charges throughout Tampa Bay. As the former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, I’ve handled thousands of cases. I understand exactly how to leverage prior rulings to protect your rights. Consequently, when prosecutors try to retry settled issues, I know how to shut them down.

What Is Collateral Estoppel in Florida Criminal Cases?

Collateral estoppel, also known as “issue preclusion,” prevents prosecutors from relitigating a factual issue that a court or jury has already decided. In other words, once a fact has been determined in your favor, the State cannot reopen that same question in another case.

This principle serves two important purposes. First, it ensures fairness by protecting defendants from repetitive prosecution on identical issues. Second, it promotes judicial efficiency by preventing courts from wasting resources on questions already resolved.

For example, suppose a Tampa jury acquits you of “Aggravated Battery with a Firearm.” The prosecution cannot later charge you with “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” based on the same incident. The jury already determined you did not possess the weapon. Therefore, that finding binds the State in any related case.

Collateral Estoppel vs. Double Jeopardy

Many people confuse these two defenses. Although both protect defendants from prosecutorial overreach, they work differently.

Comparison: Collateral Estoppel vs. Double Jeopardy

How a Collateral Estoppel Defense Tampa Attorney Helps

This defense frequently plays a decisive role in felony cases involving firearms. Florida’s 10-20-Life law imposes severe mandatory minimums for crimes involving guns. As a result, prosecutors often file separate firearm-related charges stemming from a single incident.

Here is where a collateral estoppel defense Tampa strategy becomes powerful. If a jury acquits you of a firearm-related charge in one case, that finding can block prosecution in related cases.

This defense commonly applies in cases involving:

• Felon in possession of a firearm charges.
• Firearm sentence enhancements under Florida’s 10-20-Life law.
• Aggravated battery with a deadly weapon charges.
• Armed robbery and related theft offenses.

The Burden of Proof in Florida

In Florida, the defendant bears the burden of proving that collateral estoppel applies. You must present clear and convincing evidence that the issue in question was already decided in your favor. This requirement makes having an experienced collateral estoppel defense Tampa attorney essential.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal addressed this standard in State v. Brice, 192 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In that case, the court emphasized a practical approach. Judges focus on substance rather than technicalities when determining whether an issue has been conclusively resolved.

To successfully assert this defense, your attorney must demonstrate:

1. The identical issue was previously litigated.
2. The issue was actually decided by the prior court or jury.
3. The determination was essential to the prior judgment.
4. The party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full opportunity to litigate the issue.

Why Special Jury Findings Matter

Collateral estoppel depends entirely on what the jury actually decided. General verdicts of “guilty” or “not guilty” sometimes leave ambiguity about which specific facts the jury determined. Consequently, special jury findings become critically important.

A special jury finding is a verdict form that asks the jury to answer specific factual questions. For example, a form might ask: “Did the defendant possess a firearm during the commission of this offense?”

If the jury answers “no,” that finding creates an unambiguous record. An experienced collateral estoppel defense Tampa attorney will request these findings on key facts whenever possible.

Florida Case Law on Collateral Estoppel

Florida appellate courts have applied this doctrine in several landmark decisions. Understanding these cases helps illustrate how this defense works in practice.

Key Precedents for Tampa Cases

The Ferguson case underscores why special jury findings matter so much. Without a clear determination from the first jury, the defense cannot apply. Therefore, your attorney must anticipate this strategy from the very beginning.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is collateral estoppel?

It prevents prosecutors from relitigating an issue that a prior jury or judge already decided in your favor. If you were acquitted on a factual question, such as firearm possession, the State cannot retry that same issue in a related case.

Who has to prove that it applies?

You do. The defendant bears the burden of proving it applies. You must show through court records and verdict forms that the issue was conclusively determined in your favor.

Can this defense get my charges dismissed?

Yes, in certain circumstances. If a prior jury determined a key factual issue in your favor, and the State’s new charges depend on that same issue, it can result in dismissal.

How is this different from double jeopardy?

Double jeopardy prevents being tried twice for the same offense. Collateral estoppel prevents relitigating specific factual issues across different charges. Both protect you, but they work in different ways.

Protect Your Rights with a Tampa Defense Attorney

If you believe a prior verdict should block your current charges, you need an attorney who understands how to prove it. These cases require meticulous preparation and strategic foresight. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. can help.

Call (813) 727-7159 Today to Discuss Your Defense Options.

Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato has spent decades defending complex cases in Hillsborough County.

We are located at 620 E Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602