If you were charged with a crime you know you did not commit because you were somewhere else, the most important evidence in your case may already be disappearing: a receipt, a phone record, a security video that overwrites itself in days. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and I have tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict over more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms. Our attorneys build alibi defenses from records first and witnesses second, because that is the order in which juries tend to believe them.

What is an alibi defense in Florida?

An alibi is proof that the accused was at a different place when the crime was committed. The word is Latin for “elsewhere.” An alibi is a direct denial that you were there, so it attacks the State’s proof of identity.

An alibi is not an affirmative defense like self-defense or insanity. You are not admitting the act and offering a legal excuse. You are saying the State has the wrong person, and the State keeps the full burden of proving you were the one who did it.

Do you have to prove your alibi beyond a reasonable doubt?

No. The defense only needs to raise a reasonable doubt that you were present. Sanders v. State, 779 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), shows how seriously Florida courts take this rule. Bryant Sanders was charged with robbing two men at gunpoint at a St. Petersburg car wash. Five witnesses testified he was at a family barbecue at the time. In closing, prosecutors told the jury four times that the defense had to prove the alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Second District reversed the conviction. It held that “the proof of an alibi is sufficient if it raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury” that the defendant was present, and that shifting the burden deprived Sanders of due process. The court noted that the eyewitnesses saw the robber’s face for only a few seconds and that no physical evidence tied Sanders to the robbery. The Second District hears appeals from Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, which makes Sanders a decision local prosecutors and judges know well.

What is Florida’s notice of alibi rule?

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.200 requires the defense to disclose an alibi after the prosecutor makes a written demand. The demand must state, as particularly as the prosecutor knows, the place, date, and time of the alleged crime. The defense then must file and serve a written notice not less than 10 days before trial, or at another time the court sets. The notice must state where the defendant claims to have been and give the names and addresses of the alibi witnesses.

The rule runs both ways. Within 5 days after receiving the defense witness list, the prosecutor must disclose the witnesses the State will call to rebut the alibi. Both sides have a continuing duty to disclose new witnesses.

What happens if the notice of alibi deadline is missed?

The judge may exclude the alibi witnesses, but not your own testimony. Rule 3.200 says the court may exclude alibi evidence “except the defendant’s own testimony,” and it allows the court to waive the rule for good cause.

Small v. State, 630 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1994), explains why judges treat this rule strictly. Small was tried for robbery, and his lawyer never filed the notice for an alibi witness, even after a first trial ended in a mistrial. The Florida Supreme Court held that a notice violation “inherently prejudices the prosecution” because the State loses the chance to investigate the alibi. Unlike ordinary discovery violations, the remedy is limited to excluding the evidence or waiving the rule for good cause, and a missing good-cause hearing is reviewed for harm. The lesson for anyone with an alibi is simple: file early, and list every witness.

What makes an alibi convincing to a jury?

Records beat relatives. Juries tend to discount an alibi supported only by family or close friends, because those witnesses have a reason to help. Research supports that instinct. In What Makes a Good Alibi? A Proposed Taxonomy, 28 Law and Human Behavior 157 (2004), psychologists Elizabeth Olson and Gary Wells sorted alibi support into physical evidence and person evidence and found that physical evidence, when present, tended to overwhelm person evidence. They also found that people evaluating alibis did not consider that a stranger who corroborates an alibi might be mistaken about who they saw.

Business records are often the backbone of an alibi. Under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, records made at or near the time and kept in the regular course of business are an exception to the hearsay rule, and under section 90.902(11) they can be authenticated by a custodian’s certification instead of live testimony. Phone location evidence has its own strengths and limits, covered in our guide on whether cell phone location evidence can prove your alibi.

Why are alibi cases usually eyewitness cases?

Most alibi defenses answer an identification. If the State had fingerprints, DNA, or video of the accused, an alibi would be hard to raise. The cases where an alibi matters most are the ones built on a witness who picked a face. In 2024, 38 of the 147 exonerations recorded by the National Registry of Exonerations (26%) involved mistaken witness identification, according to the Registry’s 2024 Annual Report.

That is why our attorneys pair an alibi with an attack on the identification itself: how long the witness saw the person, lighting and distance, stress and weapon focus, and how the photo lineup was run. In Sanders, the court specifically noted that the eyewitnesses saw the robber for only seconds. Our Tampa violent crime lawyer page covers how we defend robbery, battery, and other cases that often turn on identification.

Do you have to testify to raise an alibi?

No. You have a constitutional right not to testify, and an alibi can be proven entirely through other witnesses and records. Rule 3.200 also protects your own testimony from exclusion if the notice was missed. Whether you should testify is a strategic decision made with your lawyer after seeing how the State’s case comes in.

What can hurt an alibi defense?

A weak alibi can be worse than none. If the State rebuts an alibi witness, jurors may hold it against the whole defense. Common problems include:

• Inconsistent statements: telling police one location and later claiming another.
• Timing gaps: an alibi that covers 8:00 p.m. when the crime happened at 8:40 p.m.
• Device versus person: a phone’s location proves where the phone was, not who had it.
• Late disclosure: an alibi first raised on the eve of trial invites suspicion and a Rule 3.200 fight.
• Coached witnesses: witnesses who talk to each other before giving statements become easy to impeach.

When should you start building an alibi?

Immediately, because the best proof disappears first. Security video is often recorded over within days, and businesses do not keep every record forever. Our firm sends preservation requests, subpoenas records, and interviews witnesses while memories are fresh. If you are under investigation and have not been charged, our representation before charges are filed can put alibi evidence in front of prosecutors before a filing decision is made.

Frequently asked questions

Can my spouse or parent be my alibi witness in Florida?

Yes. Family members can testify to an alibi, but jurors often weigh their testimony against their interest in protecting you. The Brancato Law Firm looks for records and neutral witnesses that confirm what family members say, so the alibi does not rest on relatives alone.

What if I filed my notice of alibi late?

The judge can still allow the evidence if there is good cause, and your own testimony cannot be excluded under Rule 3.200. The Brancato Law Firm files alibi notices early and complete, and when a deadline problem exists, we ask the court for a good-cause hearing as Small v. State contemplates.

Can cell phone records prove where I was?

They can show where your phone connected to the network or recorded location data, which is strong evidence if other proof ties the phone to you. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm work with records custodians and, when needed, experts to read location data correctly; our post on cell phone alibi evidence explains the limits.

Does the State have to disprove my alibi?

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were the person who committed the crime, and an alibi only needs to raise a reasonable doubt about your presence. The Brancato Law Firm objects when a prosecutor suggests otherwise, because Sanders v. State treats that kind of burden shifting as reversible error.

What if I do not remember where I was on the date of the crime?

Start with records rather than memory: bank and card statements, phone history, work schedules, and social media activity can rebuild a day. The Brancato Law Firm helps clients reconstruct timelines before anyone gives a statement, and our violent crime defense work often starts with that timeline.

Can I be charged with a crime if I have an alibi?

Yes. Police can arrest on probable cause, often based on an identification, without checking an alibi first. The Brancato Law Firm can present alibi proof to the State Attorney’s Office early, which can lead prosecutors to drop or decline charges.

Get your alibi evidence secured now

Video and records do not wait for a trial date. Call (813) 727-7159 to have our attorneys start preserving your alibi evidence this week. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. was founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, and you can call us at any hour; our office is two blocks from the courthouse. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish-speaking and Haitian Creole-speaking clients. For more about our defense strategies, visit our Violent Crimes page.

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.

If police placed your phone at a crime scene, the case against you may rest on data the Constitution now protects. As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy legal instructor, I taught officers where the Fourth Amendment line sits, and I have spent more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms. Our attorneys use that 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, 146 S. Ct. 2193 (2026), extends the Court’s landmark 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (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. Our Tampa forensic science defense attorney page explains how we bring in digital-forensics experts to test that evidence.

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. If you learn you are under investigation before any arrest, our representation before charges are filed can put those challenges in front of the prosecutor early.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Criminal Forensic Science Attorney page.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our overview of how a Florida criminal case moves from investigation to appeal.

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. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish-speaking and Haitian Creole-speaking clients.

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.

When a fleeing and eluding case reaches a prosecutor or a judge, the first question is what the driver knew: whether the patrol car’s lights and siren were on, whether its markings were visible, and how long the driver kept going. Those questions are familiar to me as a former police academy instructor. My name is Rocky Brancato; I founded The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and I have tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict. Our attorneys defend fleeing charges across Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties by testing that proof against the video, the dispatch records, and the statute as it reads after the 2025 changes. The same knowledge questions decide boat and jet ski cases that FWC officers charge under section 843.18, covered below.

Is fleeing and eluding a felony in Florida?

Yes, at every level. Section 316.1935, Florida Statutes makes the lowest form of fleeing a third-degree felony, and the charge climbs with speed, recklessness, injury, and a connection to a crash.

The maximums come from section 775.082, Florida Statutes. There is no misdemeanor version, and section 316.1935(6) provides that “no court may suspend, defer, or withhold adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for any violation of this section.” A conviction is a felony conviction. Our Tampa criminal traffic lawyer team looks for a path to a lesser charge from the first review of the file.

What does the State have to prove in a fleeing and eluding case?

It depends on the subsection. Under section 316.1935(1), the State must prove the driver had “knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop such vehicle by a duly authorized law enforcement officer” and then willfully refused or failed to stop, or stopped and then willfully fled. Subsection (1) has no lights, siren, or marked-car element.

The more common charge under subsection (2) adds three facts about the police car: it was “an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle,” it had “agency jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle,” and it had its “siren and lights activated.” The statute requires both the siren and the lights.

Each element is a defense point. A driver who never heard a siren, never saw lights in the mirror, or could not tell an unmarked car was police has a knowledge defense. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm match the officer’s account to the dash camera, body camera, and radio timeline second by second.

What did Florida’s 2025 fleeing law change?

It changed the markings language, raised two offense rankings, and added a repeat-offender multiplier. CS/CS/HB 113, enacted as chapter 2025-75, Laws of Florida, took effect October 1, 2025. It passed the House 101 to 9 and the Senate 36 to 0.

1. Markings. The law removed the requirement that the pursuing car “prominently display agency insignia.” The statute once read “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings”; it now reads “agency jurisdictional markings.”
2. Rankings. Section 921.0022, the offense severity chart that drives the sentencing scoresheet, now ranks subsection (3)(a) at Level 5 instead of Level 4 and aggravated fleeing under (4)(a) at Level 6 instead of Level 5. A higher level means more points and a higher lowest permissible sentence.
3. The 1.5 multiplier. Under section 921.0024(1)(b), Florida Statutes, “If the primary offense is fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer or aggravated fleeing or eluding in violation of s. 316.1935, and in the offender’s prior record, there is one or more violation of s. 316.1935, the subtotal sentence points are multiplied by 1.5.”

The 2025 law did not create the 3-year mandatory minimums, the ban on withholding adjudication, or vehicle forfeiture. Those were already in the statute. The offense date matters: for a chase before October 1, 2025, the older insignia element and the older rankings still apply.

What is the mandatory minimum for fleeing and eluding?

Three years in prison, but only for the two first-degree tiers. Subsection (3)(b), fleeing at high speed or with wanton disregard that causes serious bodily injury or death, and subsection (4)(b), aggravated fleeing that causes serious bodily injury or death, each carry a “mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment.” Under section 316.1935(6), those minimums are not eligible for gain-time or discretionary early release, except for pardon, clemency, or conditional medical release.

The other tiers have no mandatory minimum, but the scoresheet still controls. A Level 5 or Level 6 ranking, plus the 1.5 multiplier for a repeat case, can produce a prison score even when no one was hurt. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm prepare an independent scoresheet and challenge every point the State adds.

Will you lose your license or your car for fleeing?

Possibly both. Section 316.1935(5) provides that “The court shall revoke, for a period not less than 1 year nor exceeding 5 years, the driver license” of anyone convicted under subsections (1) through (4). Under section 316.1935(7), a vehicle used in the offense is “deemed to be contraband” and can be forfeited under Florida’s contraband forfeiture law.

Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm raise the revocation length and any forfeiture claim in negotiations, because a family car or a commercial license can be at stake.

How do our attorneys fight a fleeing and eluding charge?

We attack the element the State is weakest on, then push for a lesser charge. Three appellate cases show how the arguments work.

Markings for older offense dates. In Slack v. State, 30 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the officer drove a “marked patrol car” with “lights on top,” and the lights and siren were on. The First District held that was not enough because “there was no evidence of ‘agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle,'” and it directed a conviction under subsection (1) instead. The insignia requirement is gone for chases on or after October 1, 2025, but the State must still prove jurisdictional markings were “prominently displayed.”

High speed and wanton disregard. In Canidate v. State, 238 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a Martin County driver went 40 in a 35 zone with occasional weaving, and no person or property was affected. The court held that was not “wanton disregard,” which it defined as “a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences and with knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property.” The second-degree conviction was reversed and the case sent back for a conviction under subsection (2).

Evidence from every county. In Johnson v. State, No. 1D2024-0912 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 5, 2025), a pursuit in marked cars with lights and sirens followed a vehicle theft. Radar captured 127 mph in Jackson County, and the court held that evidence was admissible to prove the high-speed element of a Bay County charge, because each element need not occur in the charging county. The lesson for the defense is to gather records from every agency the chase passed through.

In practice, our attorneys:

1. Test knowledge. We check the video for when lights and siren came on, what the driver could see, and how long the driver drove afterward.
2. Test the patrol car. We get photographs of the vehicle and its markings.
3. Test speed and wanton disregard. We compare radar, GPS, and video with the road and traffic conditions.
4. Test the stop. If the officer had no lawful basis for the order to stop, we challenge it. Our post on how long a traffic stop can last in Florida covers the limits on stops.
5. Test identity. In chases where the driver ran from the car, we look at who was actually seen driving.
6. Negotiate a reduction. Florida’s reckless driving statute, section 316.192, Florida Statutes, provides that “Fleeing a law enforcement officer in a motor vehicle is reckless driving per se,” which makes reckless driving a natural reduction target. Our guides on reckless driving in Florida and fighting a reckless driving charge explain that charge.

How often do police pursuits end in deaths?

More often than they used to, nationally. Pursuit-related deaths in the United States rose from 382 in 2015 to 532 in 2020, a 39% increase, according to NHTSA crash data reported by the Police Executive Research Forum in Vehicular Pursuits: A Guide for Law Enforcement Executives on Managing the Associated Risks (COPS Office, U.S. Department of Justice, 2023). The report counted 2,604 pursuit-related deaths from 2015 through 2020.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated about 68,000 police pursuits in 2012, about 186 a day, in Police Vehicle Pursuits, 2012-2013 (May 2017). We could not find a published Florida count of pursuits, so these figures are national. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm treat every fleeing charge as a serious felony case from the start.

What should you do after a fleeing and eluding arrest?

Get the video preserved. Dash camera, body camera, and dispatch recordings often decide fleeing cases, and every agency involved in the chase may hold a piece. A person arrested in Hillsborough County sees a judge at first appearance within 24 hours, held at the Orient Road Jail, and the State Attorney’s Office for the 13th Judicial Circuit files the charging information. Before then:

1. Say nothing about the chase, including why you did not stop.
2. Write down the route and times while you remember them.
3. Keep your phone records, which can show calls, navigation, or location.
4. Call a lawyer quickly, so preservation requests go out to every agency.

If the chase began after a crash, the case may also include a leaving the scene charge, covered in our guide on whether leaving the scene of an accident is a felony in Florida.

Is fleeing FWC in a boat or on a jet ski a felony in Florida?

Yes. Under section 843.18, Florida Statutes, it is a third-degree felony for “the operator of any boat plying the waters of the state” who knows an officer has directed the vessel to stop to willfully refuse or fail to stop, or to stop and then willfully flee. The maximum sentence is 5 years in prison under section 775.082 and a $5,000 fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) brings most of these cases, because its officers patrol the state’s waters.

A jet ski counts. Florida’s boating law, section 327.02, Florida Statutes, defines a “personal watercraft” as a vessel under 16 feet powered by a water jet pump, and says “vessel” is synonymous with “boat.” Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm read a vessel fleeing charge element by element, because each one is a fact the State has to prove.

How is fleeing in a boat different from fleeing in a car?

The boat statute has one level and fewer built-in penalties. Section 843.18 is a single third-degree felony, while section 316.1935 climbs to first-degree felonies with 3-year mandatory minimums. The comparison below comes from the text of each statute.

The missing withhold ban matters. Because section 843.18 has no clause like section 316.1935(6), the statute itself does not stop a judge from withholding adjudication, which can keep a client from being a convicted felon. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm build the mitigation for that request from the start of a vessel case.

One rule from car cases will likely carry over. In State v. Kirer, 120 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), a driver kept going for about five minutes at roughly 10 mph despite a deputy’s lights, siren, and loudspeaker orders. The Fourth District held the deputy had probable cause for fleeing “regardless of whether probable cause initially justified the stop.” We found no published Florida appellate opinion applying section 843.18, but its wording tracks section 316.1935(1), so we expect prosecutors to argue that an unlawful stop is no defense to vessel fleeing either.

The lawfulness of the stop still matters to the companion charge. Resisting without violence under section 843.02, Florida Statutes requires that the officer was acting “in the lawful execution of any legal duty.” Our post on resisting an officer without violence in Florida explains that element.

What other charges come with fleeing on the water?

Most vessel fleeing cases carry a stack of lesser charges and citations. They are listed below with the classification each statute gives them.

The small citations are not just paperwork. Registration records tie a vessel to its owner, and an expired registration citation cannot be paid by mail under section 327.73. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm handle the infractions with the felony so nothing is left open.

How did FWC identify two Tampa jet ski riders months after the chase?

With surveillance video, witnesses, and phone data. On October 30, 2026, FOX 13 reported that FWC officers served arrest warrants on two Tampa men, ages 25 and 23, over a July 12 incident in Hillsborough County. According to the report, a caller said three jet skis were running through a designated slow speed area, an officer found two matching jet skis, identified himself, and ordered the riders to stop, and both riders “sped away at high speeds through the slow speed zone.” FWC said investigators identified them through surveillance recordings, witness statements, and mobile phone data.

The reported charges were fleeing to elude, resisting without violence, interference with an FWC officer, and the slow speed zone violation, plus citations for improper display of a registration number, expired registration, and failing to update a driver license address. One jet ski was impounded. These are allegations, and both men are presumed innocent. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm point to cases like this one because they show how FWC builds a case after the rider is gone.

Getting away on the water does not end the case. About 3.5 months passed between the July 12 incident and the late-October warrants, and under section 775.15, Florida Statutes, the State generally has 3 years to file a third-degree felony. Jet skis are also a large share of Florida’s boating accidents: in 2025, personal watercraft were involved in 23% (161) of Florida’s 694 reportable boating accidents while making up 17% of registered vessels, according to the FWC 2025 Boating Accident Statistical Report. The same report counts 42,528 registered vessels in Hillsborough County in 2025.

How do our attorneys challenge phone data and video in a vessel fleeing case?

We test how the State got the data and whether it actually points to our client. Phone location evidence comes in different forms, including carrier cell-site records, “tower dumps” listing every phone that used a tower in a time window, and geofence requests to companies like Google, and each one has its own warrant rules.

• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018): the government obtained 127 days of a robbery suspect’s cell-site records from his carrier, and the Supreme Court held that police “must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause” for those records.
• Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014): police tracked a suspect’s phone in real time without a warrant, and the Florida Supreme Court held that real-time cell-site tracking is a search requiring probable cause and that the evidence was subject to suppression.
• Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. 605 (2026): police used a geofence warrant to get Google location data after a credit union robbery, and on June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6 to 3 that obtaining that data is a Fourth Amendment search. It sent the case back to decide whether the warrant was valid. Our post on whether police can track your phone without a warrant in Florida covers the ruling.

Broad location warrants sweep in strangers. U.S. Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz warns that these tools let the government “over-collect location data of uninvolved third parties,” in Simulating More Particularity: Ideas for Approaching Search Warrants for Geofences, Tower Dumps, and Cell-Site Simulators, 16 Federal Courts Law Review (2024). In a vessel case, our attorneys:

• Get every warrant and application for phone records, and check the time window, the area covered, and the probable cause behind each step.
• Find out whether the data came from a tower dump or a geofence, and how investigators narrowed a list of phones to our client. Our guide to cell phone location evidence explains what the records can and cannot show.
• Test identification from video. Distance, glare, sunglasses, life jackets, and look-alike jet skis make faces hard to read, and a registration number identifies a vessel, not its rider.
• Test the stop order. We ask whether the officer was identifiable as law enforcement, how the order was given, and whether a rider could hear it over the engine.
• Compare witness statements with the video and the timeline, because callers often describe a group of riders rather than one person.

What should you do if FWC is looking for you?

Do not talk to the investigator, and call a defense lawyer before a warrant issues. FWC officers are law enforcement officers with “full power to investigate and arrest” under section 379.3313, Florida Statutes, and a casual phone call can fill the gap between a jet ski and the person riding it.

• Do not return the officer’s call or explain what happened. A statement that you were on the water that day may be the identification the case is missing.
• Do not delete texts, photos, or location history, and do not sell, repaint, or hide the vessel. Doing so can lead to a separate tampering charge.
• Let a lawyer contact the investigator. Our representation before charges are filed can include presenting facts to the State Attorney’s Office before a decision is made.
• If a warrant is coming, plan the surrender. In Hillsborough County, a person arrested on a warrant is booked into the jail and sees a judge at first appearance, and our post on the bond walkthrough process in Hillsborough County explains how a planned surrender works.

Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm defend FWC boating cases in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

Frequently asked questions about fleeing and eluding in Florida

Can fleeing and eluding charges be dropped in Florida?

Yes, when the State cannot prove the driver knew of the order to stop, cannot prove the patrol car’s markings, lights, and siren, or cannot prove who was driving. The Brancato Law Firm builds those arguments from the video and presents them to the prosecutor, as described on our criminal traffic defense page.

Does the police car have to be marked in a Florida fleeing case?

For a subsection (2) charge, yes: since October 1, 2025, the car must have “agency jurisdictional markings prominently displayed,” though agency insignia is no longer required. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm check the offense date first, because older cases still require insignia.

Can you get a withhold of adjudication for fleeing and eluding in Florida?

No; section 316.1935(6) bars a court from withholding adjudication for any fleeing offense. The Brancato Law Firm therefore works to defeat the charge or negotiate a reduction to a different offense, such as reckless driving.

How long is your license revoked for fleeing and eluding in Florida?

At least 1 year and up to 5 years, under section 316.1935(5). Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm argue for the shortest revocation the facts support.

Can fleeing and eluding be reduced to reckless driving in Florida?

It can be, because the reckless driving statute treats fleeing in a vehicle as reckless driving per se. The Brancato Law Firm pursues that reduction when the State’s proof on knowledge or markings is weak, and our post on reckless driving in Florida explains the penalties.

What is the 1.5 multiplier for repeat fleeing in Florida?

It multiplies the subtotal sentence points by 1.5 when the primary offense is fleeing and the prior record includes a fleeing violation, under section 921.0024(1)(b). Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm check whether the prior actually counts and whether the offense date is on or after October 1, 2025.

Is fleeing on a jet ski a felony in Florida?

Yes; a jet ski is a vessel, and fleeing an officer’s directive to stop in any boat is a third-degree felony under section 843.18, Florida Statutes, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The Brancato Law Firm defends these FWC cases by testing who was operating the jet ski and whether the rider knew of the order.

Do you lose your driver license for fleeing in a boat in Florida?

Section 843.18 has no driver license revocation provision, unlike section 316.1935(5) for vehicles. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm still check for related citations, such as an outdated license address, that need to be resolved in court.

Can FWC arrest you months after a boat chase?

Yes; FWC can investigate after the fact and obtain an arrest warrant, and the State generally has 3 years to file a third-degree felony. If you think FWC is looking for you, The Brancato Law Firm can step in through pre-file advocacy before a warrant is served.

Call a Tampa fleeing and eluding defense attorney

Pursuit video and dispatch recordings are easiest to secure in the first days after an arrest. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, will send preservation requests to every agency involved, including FWC in a boat or jet ski case, test the State’s proof on knowledge and markings, and push for a reduction. Call (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation. You can call us at any hour. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read about our Spanish and Haitian Creole criminal defense services.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Criminal Traffic Lawyer page.

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.

As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where I oversaw a staff of over 100 attorneys, I have watched phone data decide cases in both directions. Prosecutors use it to put a client at the scene. Our attorneys use the same records, examined by an independent forensic expert, to show the jury where the client actually was.

What Is Cell Phone Location Evidence?

Cell phone location evidence is any record that shows where a phone was at a specific time. It comes from two places: the phone itself, and the companies that serve it. The phone stores GPS points, Wi-Fi connections, photo metadata, and app histories. The carrier keeps cell site records showing which tower and sector handled each call, text, or data session.

These sources are not equally precise. A GPS point from the phone can place it on a single block. A cell tower record only shows the general area the tower covers. The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), which held that police generally need a warrant to obtain historical cell site records, that the precision of tower data “depends on the size of the geographic area covered by the cell site,” and that carriers can now pinpoint some phones within 50 meters. Knowing which kind of record you have is the first step in using it.

Can Cell Phone Location Data Prove You Were Not at the Crime Scene?

Yes, if three things line up: the data puts the phone somewhere else at the time of the crime, the phone is proven to be yours, and the evidence shows you had it with you. Location data proves where a device was. It does not, by itself, prove where a person was. The defense case is built on closing that gap.

This matters most in cases that turn on identification. Hillsborough County recorded 2,473 violent crime arrests in 2025 (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), according to Florida Department of Law Enforcement arrest data published by Florida Health CHARTS. In many of those cases the State’s proof that the accused was present rests on a witness who saw the offender for seconds. The National Registry of Exonerations 2024 Annual Report found that 38 of the 147 exonerations recorded nationwide in 2024, or 26%, were based at least in part on mistaken witness identification. Objective phone data is one of the few kinds of evidence that can contradict an eyewitness who is sincere but wrong.

Case Study: The Robbery Case Where Police Never Examined the Phone

In a Hillsborough County robbery case from my time leading the Public Defender’s Office, the client was accused of committing a robbery at one location and was arrested later at another. His cell phone was left in the car and went into police evidence. Nobody from law enforcement ever examined it.

As Chief Operations Officer, I held daily case conferences with trial attorneys on their hardest strategy calls. This was one of them. The phone could hold location data that cleared the client. It could also hold texts, photos, or searches that made the case worse.

Why asking for the phone was a calculated risk

Once the defense asks to examine evidence the State has ignored, the State will examine it too. If the client was lying about where he was, the defense would have handed the prosecution new proof. I sent the attorney back to the jail to question the client hard on one point: was he certain he was nowhere near the robbery? He was. He insisted the phone would help him, and he understood the downside.

How the phone was examined

The defense filed a motion to obtain the phone from evidence and retained an independent forensic data expert. The expert used Cellebrite, a forensic extraction tool that copies the phone’s contents without altering them, including location records, photos, messages, and app data. The extraction showed that location services were on and that the phone was miles from the robbery when it happened.

How the State attacked the evidence, and how it failed

The prosecution argued that someone else may have been carrying the phone. The extraction answered that, too. It held photos of the client, email accounts in his name, social media profiles linked to him, and personal messages consistent with his identity. The case went to trial, the jury heard the location evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case turns on its own facts.

How Do You Prove the Phone Was Yours and With You?

You prove ownership and possession with the contents of the phone and the circumstances around it. Florida requires every exhibit to be authenticated, which section 90.901, Florida Statutes, satisfies with “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”

Florida courts accept circumstantial proof of who used a phone. In Symonette v. State, 100 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), a robbery and murder case, the Fourth District upheld the State’s use of text messages from a phone taken from the defendant at arrest, because a witness identified the messages she exchanged with him and explained their context. The same rule works for the defense. The evidence that tied the phone to our client included:

• Photos of the client stored on the device
• Email and social media accounts in his name, logged in on the phone
• Messages whose content matched his relationships and daily routine
• Activity on the phone, such as calls, texts, or app use, during the window of the crime

That last item answers the State’s other argument: that you owned the phone but left it with someone else. Active use at the critical time, such as a call to a family member, a payment, or a selfie, helps show the phone was in your hand.

Is Cell Phone Location Evidence Admissible in Florida Courts?

Yes. Carrier records and forensic extraction reports are both regularly admitted in Florida trials, but each needs the right foundation.

Carrier records are business records. Under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, they come in through a records custodian’s testimony or a certification, and a party using a certification must give the other side reasonable written notice. In Perez v. State, 980 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), a Miami-Dade robbery and shooting case, the Third District held that carrier custodians could explain which towers handled the calls without being qualified as experts, because they were only explaining the records and did not claim to place the phone at a precise spot inside the tower’s one-to-three-mile coverage area. Our attorneys treat any testimony that tries to pinpoint a phone inside that area as expert testimony that must meet the rules below.

Phone extraction reports are treated differently. In Gayle v. State, 216 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), the Fourth District held that a report generated by forensic extraction software was not hearsay, because it “was created by a machine” and not by a person. The court noted it was not deciding whether such a report could be challenged as inaccurate. That leaves room for both sides to fight about how the extraction was done, which is why the defense expert’s process matters.

Any expert who interprets location data must meet section 90.702, Florida Statutes: the testimony must rest on sufficient facts or data, use reliable principles and methods, and apply them reliably to the case. Our attorneys use the same three requirements to challenge a State analyst who claims more precision than tower records can give.

Do You Have to Tell the Prosecutor About a Cell Phone Alibi?

Yes, if the State demands it. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.200, once the prosecutor serves a written demand, a defendant who intends to offer an alibi must file a notice not less than 10 days before trial. The notice must state where the defendant claims to have been and list the alibi witnesses, which can include the forensic expert and records custodians.

If the defense skips the notice, the judge may exclude the alibi evidence except the defendant’s own testimony. The State then gets 5 days to list its rebuttal witnesses. Our attorneys plan for this deadline from the start, because a strong phone alibi is worth nothing if the jury never hears it.

What Are the Steps to Build a Cell Phone Alibi Defense?

A cell phone alibi is built in five steps, and the order matters:

1. Question the client before touching the phone. Once the defense asks for it, the State will look too. Our attorneys make sure the client understands that risk and is certain about where he was.
2. Preserve the data fast. Carrier and app records are not kept forever. We send preservation letters and subpoenas early, and we move to obtain a phone held in evidence.
3. Use an independent forensic expert. A proper extraction, with tools like Cellebrite, preserves the original and captures location data, deleted items, and proof of ownership.
4. Prove the phone was yours and with you. We gather photos, accounts, messages, and activity during the time of the crime.
5. Give notice and prepare for the attack. We serve the Rule 3.200 notice when demanded and prepare the expert for a cross-examination about precision and possession.

Can Police Get Your Location Data Without a Warrant?

Usually no. In Carpenter, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government “must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause” before getting historical cell site records from a carrier. Florida’s Supreme Court reached a similar result for real-time tracking in Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014), where officers followed a suspect’s phone in real time under an order that only authorized call records. The court held that tracking him that way was a search requiring probable cause and that the evidence should have been suppressed.

When the State’s location data was obtained without a valid warrant, our attorneys file a motion to suppress. Our post on Chatrie and geofence warrants covers the government’s side of this issue in more detail. If you think police are looking at your phone before any charge is filed, representation before charges are filed can protect both your rights and your data.

How Soon Should You Act on Cell Phone Evidence?

Act within days, not months. Phone records are routinely overwritten or deleted on schedules set by carriers and app companies, and a phone sitting in a property room can lose its charge, update, or be returned. In the Hillsborough County case above, the defense needed a court order to get the phone out of police evidence for an independent extraction, and that takes time to schedule. Our Hillsborough County criminal defense attorneys start that process at the first meeting when location evidence could matter.

Our Tampa criminal forensic science attorney page explains how we work with forensic experts on digital evidence. When police data has been lost or destroyed, see our case study on what happens when police destroy evidence. For robbery charges specifically, read how to defend against an armed robbery charge in Florida.

Frequently Asked Questions

How accurate are cell tower records compared to GPS?

Cell tower records are much less precise than GPS. A tower record shows only that the phone was somewhere inside that tower’s coverage area, which can be a fraction of a mile in a city or several miles in a rural area, while GPS can place the phone on a specific block. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm have an expert explain that difference to the jury, whether the State is overstating its tower data or we are relying on GPS.

Can the prosecutor use my phone against me if I ask to have it examined?

Yes. Once the defense seeks to examine a phone, the State can examine it too, and anything on it may become evidence. That is why The Brancato Law Firm questions the client closely before requesting a phone from evidence, as described in our Tampa criminal forensic science lawyer work.

What is Cellebrite, and can the defense use it?

Cellebrite is forensic software that makes a complete copy of a phone’s data, including location history, deleted files, messages, and photos, without changing the original. The defense can hire an independent expert who uses it. Our team at The Brancato Law Firm works with forensic data experts who perform the extraction and testify about how it was done, as explained in our post on expert witnesses in criminal defense.

What if I did not have location services turned on?

You may still have location evidence. Carrier cell site records exist whether or not location services are on, and Wi-Fi logs, photo metadata, and app activity can fill gaps. The Brancato Law Firm subpoenas carrier records and reviews the full extraction to find every timestamped location point.

Can social media posts or check-ins prove where I was?

Yes, they can add to an alibi. Timestamped posts, check-ins, and uploads can place your account at a location, but the State may argue someone else posted them, so they work best alongside phone data. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm collect and authenticate this material, as covered in our guide to social media evidence in Tampa criminal cases.

Can cell phone evidence get robbery charges dropped in Florida?

It can. If phone data clearly puts you elsewhere before trial, the State Attorney’s Office may drop the charge (a nolle prosequi) rather than try a case it is likely to lose. The Brancato Law Firm presents strong alibi evidence to prosecutors early when doing so helps the client, and our Tampa violent crime lawyer page explains how we defend robbery cases.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney About Cell Phone Evidence

Location records can disappear on a carrier’s schedule, so the time to secure them is now. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159, and our attorneys will identify every source of location data in your case and move to preserve it. You can call us at any hour, and our office is two blocks from the courthouse. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish and Haitian Creole speakers facing criminal charges.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Criminal Forensic Science Attorney page.

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.