Home
Menu
Call outside Criminal Attorney Mark S. Barnett
904-562-8444
F.S. 893.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 893.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 893.07


The 2021 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 893
DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 893.07 Florida Statutes and Case Law
893.07 Records.
(1) Every person who engages in the manufacture, compounding, mixing, cultivating, growing, or by any other process producing or preparing, or in the dispensing, importation, or, as a wholesaler, distribution, of controlled substances shall:
(a) On January 1, 1974, or as soon thereafter as any person first engages in such activity, and every second year thereafter, make a complete and accurate record of all stocks of controlled substances on hand. The inventory may be prepared on the regular physical inventory date which is nearest to, and does not vary by more than 6 months from, the biennial date that would otherwise apply. As additional substances are designated for control under this chapter, they shall be inventoried as provided for in this subsection.
(b) On and after January 1, 1974, maintain, on a current basis, a complete and accurate record of each substance manufactured, received, sold, delivered, or otherwise disposed of by him or her, except that this subsection shall not require the maintenance of a perpetual inventory.

Compliance with the provisions of federal law pertaining to the keeping of records of controlled substances shall be deemed a compliance with the requirements of this subsection.

(2) The record of controlled substances received shall in every case show:
(a) The date of receipt.
(b) The name and address of the person from whom received.
(c) The kind and quantity of controlled substances received.
(3) The record of all controlled substances sold, administered, dispensed, or otherwise disposed of shall show:
(a) The date of selling, administering, or dispensing.
(b) The correct name and address of the person to whom or for whose use, or the owner and species of animal for which, sold, administered, or dispensed.
(c) The kind and quantity of controlled substances sold, administered, or dispensed.
(4) Every inventory or record required by this chapter, including prescription records, shall be maintained:
(a) Separately from all other records of the registrant, or
(b) Alternatively, in the case of Schedule III, IV, or V controlled substances, in such form that information required by this chapter is readily retrievable from the ordinary business records of the registrant.

In either case, the records described in this subsection shall be kept and made available for a period of at least 2 years for inspection and copying by law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state relating to controlled substances. Law enforcement officers are not required to obtain a subpoena, court order, or search warrant in order to obtain access to or copies of such records.

(5) Each person described in subsection (1) shall:
(a) Maintain a record which shall contain a detailed list of controlled substances lost, destroyed, or stolen, if any; the kind and quantity of such controlled substances; and the date of the discovering of such loss, destruction, or theft.
(b) In the event of the discovery of the theft or significant loss of controlled substances, report such theft or significant loss to the sheriff of that county within 24 hours after discovery. A person who fails to report a theft or significant loss of a substance listed in s. 893.03(3), (4), or (5) within 24 hours after discovery as required in this paragraph commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who fails to report a theft or significant loss of a substance listed in s. 893.03(2) within 24 hours after discovery as required in this paragraph commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.s. 7, ch. 73-331; s. 1439, ch. 97-102; s. 25, ch. 2011-141; s. 32, ch. 2016-105; s. 5, ch. 2019-166.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: January 26, 2022
F.S. 893.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 893.07 on Casetext

Amendments to 893.07


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 893.07
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

893.07 - HEALTH-SAFETY - FAIL TO MAINTAIN NARCOTIC RECORD SUBSQ VIOL - F: T
893.07 - HEALTH-SAFETY - FAIL TO MAINTAIN NARCOTIC RECORD 1ST VIOL - M: F
893.07 5b - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - FAIL TO REPORT THEFT LOSS SCHEDULE III IV V - M: S
893.07 5b - DRUGS-HEALTH OR SAFETY - FAIL TO REPORT THEFT LOSS SCHEDULE II - M: F


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S893.07
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 893.07.


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Wenke ex rel. Laufenberg v. Gehl Co.

    2004 WI 103 (Wis. 2004)   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    ¶ 4. After engaging in the required exercise in statutory interpretation, we conclude that the phrase "period of limitation" in § 893.07 pertains equally to foreign statutes of limitation and foreign statutes of repose. The legislature did not distinguish between these different types of limitation periods when enacting § 893.07. Our interpretation comports with the clear purpose and context of § 893.07, along with a proper understanding of the Judicial Council Committee Note to § 893.07. Accordingly, Wenke's action to recover damages for injuries sustained in Iowa is barred in Wisconsin and was properly dismissed by the circuit court.
    PAGE 228
  2. State v. Tamulonis

    39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 16 times
    (Emphasis added.) Tamulonis's records were obtained pursuant to chapter 893. Section 893.07 requires pharmacists to maintain controlled substance records, including prescription records, and to make the records "available for a period of at least 2 years for inspection and copying by law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state relating to controlled substances." § 893.07(4).
    PAGE 527
  3. Scott v. First State Ins. Co.

    155 Wis. 2d 608 (Wis. 1990)   Cited 31 times
    Contrary to the assertions of the defendants, we read sec. 893.16(5) as expressly making sec. 893.16 applicable to sec. 893.07(1). Section 893.07(1) expressly permits the adoption of the Alberta period of limitation as the statute of limitation applicable in Wisconsin. Thus through the operation of sec. 893.07(1) the Alberta period of limitation becomes a statute in chapter 893 limiting the time for commencement of an action. The Alberta period of limitation meets the requirements of sec. 893.16(5). The language of sec. 893.16 persuades us that sec. 893.16(1) applies in this case.
    PAGE 616
  4. Guertin v. Harbour Assur. Co.

    141 Wis. 2d 622 (Wis. 1987)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In 1979, the legislature restructured Chapter 893, Limitations of Commencement of Actions and Proceedings and Procedure for Claims Against Governmental Units. Within that comprehensive revision, the Judicial Council redrafted Wisconsin's borrowing statute, sec. 893.205, Stats., renumbering it to sec. 893.07. The "written comments of legislatively created advisory committees are relevant in construing statutes and ascertaining the legislative intent of statutes recommended by such committees." Champlin v. State, 84 Wis.2d 621, 625, 267 N.W.2d 295, 297 (1978). The Judicial Council Committee's Note to the newly-enacted sec. 893.07 stated:
    PAGE 629
  5. Terranova v. Terranova

    883 F. Supp. 1273 (W.D. Wis. 1995)   Cited 10 times
    With the conclusion that under § 893.07(1), plaintiffs' tort claims are subject to California's statutes of limitation and plaintiffs' indemnification claims are subject to Wisconsin's, the question becomes whether any of these periods have expired. Because plaintiffs virtually concede that their tort claims are time-barred if subject to California's statutes of limitation, I will address these claims first.
    PAGE 1281
  6. Thus, unlike Guertin and Johnson, we are not faced with a cause of action that is available in both jurisdictions. The cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment termination, being available only in California, is truly a "foreign cause of action" under the Wisconsin borrowing statute. Therefore we apply § 893.07 to decide whether the statute of limitations of Wisconsin or California applies. Section 893.07(1) requires that we first determine whether California's limitations period has run. Because California's statutes of limitations for breach of oral contracts (two years) and written contracts (four years) have expired, the claim is barred under § 893.07.
    PAGE 1260
  7. Beard v. J.I. Case Co.

    823 F.2d 1095 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times
    The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Wisconsin borrowing statute, Wis.Stat. Ann. § 893.07 (West 1983), barred the action. The statute provides that no action may be maintained in a Wisconsin court on a "foreign cause of action" if the "foreign period of limitations which applies has expired." Id. The defendants argued that the borrowing statute required the use of the period of limitation and the period of repose contained in the Tennessee Products Liability Act, Tenn.Stat. § 29-28-103(a) (1980 Supp. 1983). The Tennessee statute bars any products liability action not brought within six years of the injury (the period of limitation) and within ten years "from the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption" (the period of repose). Id. Because the cornpicker was first purchased in 1950, the defendants argued that the Tennessee period of repose barred the action.
    PAGE 1097
  8. Johnson v. Deltadynamics, Inc.

    813 F.2d 944 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 11 times
    We are asked to interpret the phrase "foreign cause of action" in a Wisconsin statute that provides that if a suit is brought in a Wisconsin court "on a foreign cause of action and the foreign period of limitation which applies has expired, no action may be maintained in this state." Wis. Stat. § 893.07(2). Anthony Johnson, the plaintiff, was severely injured in 1983 at his place of work when a machine for testing motor vehicle transmissions malfunctioned. He is a resident of Indiana, and the accident occurred there. The machine had been made, however, in Wisconsin, in 1966, by Deltadynamics, a Wisconsin corporation. Johnson's employer had bought it from a firm in Ohio in 1971.
  9. State v. Carter

    23 So. 3d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 17 times
    Florida legislative enactments do not supply a legal basis upon which to suppress the records at issue. To the contrary, section 893.07(4), Florida Statutes, requires pharmacies to maintain the records at issue here for a period of 2 years "for inspection and copying by law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state relating to controlled substances." The statute does not require a subpoena, warrant, or prior notice to the patient. The enactment of section 893.07 was an extension of warrantless search and seizure power by the Legislature "as part of a major legislative revision of the Florida drug abuse laws." Gettel v. State, 449 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
    PAGE 800
  10. Hendley v. State

    58 So. 3d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 11 times
    In Tamulonis, this court addressed the interplay between sections 465.017 and 893.07 and concluded that section 893.07( 4) authorizes "law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state relating to controlled substances" to obtain an individual's prescription records related to controlled substances without a warrant, a subpoena, or prior notice to the patient. 39 So.3d at 528 (quoting § 893.07( 4)); see also Shukitis, ___ So.3d at ___ (noting same). Although we recognized that individuals have a privacy interest in their prescription records, we concluded that the State has a compelling interest in regulating controlled substances and that section 893.07( 4) is narrowly tailored to accomplish this goal. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d at 527-28. Thus section 893.07( 4) authorized Detective Armstrong — a narcotics detective investigating a pharmacy alert bulletin concerning Mr. Hendley's passing fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances — to obtain information from Ms. Provencal at Hedges Pharmacy with regard to Mr. Hendley's passing a prescription for oxycodone. It follows that the circuit court properly denied…
    PAGE 299