In Ross v. State, 528 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), two officers observed the defendant throw a brown paper bag to the ground and then walk away, only to return shortly thereafter to pick the bag up, place something in it, and then throw it back to the ground again. 528 So. 2d at 1238. The officers detained the defendant and searched the bag. Id. The officers discovered two bundles of individually wrapped plastic packets containing white powder in the bag. Id. The first bundle contained thirty-six individually wrapped packets, while the second bundle contained fifty-six packets. Id. A forensic chemist tested two of the packets, one from the first bundle and one from the second, and concluded that those packets contained cocaine. Id. The two packets that tested positive for cocaine were then combined with all of the remaining packets from each bundle and weighed. Id. The chemist testified that the white powder found in all ninety-two packets looked alike after a visual inspection. Id. Although the total weight of the packets which had been chemically tested fell below the statutory weight for trafficking, the aggregate weight of the two chemically tested packets along with the other ninety untested packets satisfied the statutory weight threshold. Id. The defendant was charged with trafficking in cocaine under section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). Id. After the evidence was presented during trial, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, alleging that the State had failed to establish that the defendant was in possession of twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine--an essential element of the crime. Id. at 1239. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury subsequently convicted the defendant of trafficking. Id. On appeal, the Third District reversed the defendant's conviction, holding that to sustain a cocaine trafficking conviction it is essential that each packet of white powder be individually chemically tested and found to contain cocaine, and that the total weight of the material in the tested packets equal or exceed the requisite statutory weight. Id. The Third District further concluded that only a visual examination of untested packets was insufficient to convict a defendant of trafficking because visual examination does not establish that the substance contained within an individual packet is cocaine. Id. The district court reasoned that simply because one or two packets containing cocaine are found amongst other packets containing a similar-looking white powder is no assurance that the latter untested packets also contain cocaine because: (1) the white powder contained within each individual packet may be any one of a vast variety of other white powdery chemical compounds not containing cocaine; and (2) the material in the untested packets was intentionally separated from the material in the tested packets. Id. at 1239-40. The district court did recognize other case law which allows random positive testing of one allegedly illegal pill commingled in a single packet that contains other similar-looking pills, or the random positive testing of a substance suspected to be marijuana commingled in a single bag that contains similar-looking material, to demonstrate that the entire packet or bag contains illegal pills or marijuana. However, the district court distinguished those cases from the random testing of only one of many individually wrapped packets of a substance suspected to be powdered cocaine. Id. at 1240. The court reasoned that when suspected drugs are taken from a single package--i.e., which have been commingled by the defendant--it is a fair inference that the remaining similar-looking commingled material is chemically identical to the random positive sample. However, the same inference cannot be made where the untested material has not been commingled with the random sample by the defendant, but is contained in a separately wrapped package from which a random sample is not tested. Id. Consequently, the Third District limited the principle of law to require independent chemical testing only when the suspected substance is contained in individually wrapped packets. Id. at 1240. Based on the above analysis, the Third District concluded that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence to submit the question of whether the defendant was guilty of trafficking in cocaine to the jury. Id. at 1240-41. Specifically, the court noted: "the fact that the forensic chemist broke open all of the above ninety-two packets, poured their contents into two envelopes, and thereby created two separate packets containing a mixture of cocaine weighing 38.8 grams cannot satisfy the State's burden of proof on this issue. Obviously, the State's representative cannot himself make his own packets of cocaine by combining separately wrapped packets of tested and untested material which in the aggregate weigh the requisite statutory weight or more; the packets which he tests and weighs must be the packets as seized from the defendant." Id. at 1241. Consequently, the Third District reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to reduce the conviction to simple possession of cocaine. Id.