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.

Most child pornography cases in Tampa begin with an automated report from a tech company, months before anyone knocks on a door. I learned how investigators build these cases as a police academy instructor teaching officers search-and-seizure law, and as a Major Crimes Unit attorney handling sex crime and child abuse cases. Today, as founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, I lead a team that defends people charged in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, many of whom had no record before the search warrant. Our attorneys start with the evidence trail: the report, the warrant, and the forensic image of each device.

How do child pornography investigations start in Florida?

Most cases start with a CyberTipline report from an online platform to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which routes it to law enforcement. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, requires providers to report apparent CSAM once they have actual knowledge of it, but expressly does not require them to monitor users or scan content. Many large platforms scan anyway, usually by comparing a file’s hash value, a digital fingerprint, to a list of known images.

The volume is enormous. In 2025, NCMEC made 126,256 CyberTipline reports available to law enforcement for Florida, including 70,812 referrals, according to NCMEC’s 2025 CyberTipline Reports by State. Nationally, NCMEC received 20.5 million reports in 2024. Each report then has to be traced to a person through subpoenas for subscriber and IP address records, which is where the State’s first assumptions enter the case.

Can the search be challenged?

Yes. A search challenge is often the strongest defense, because if the warrant falls, the files usually fall with it. In Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), a case investigated by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, the Second District held that the affidavit supporting the warrant for the defendant’s computer and diskettes was fatally defective and reversed 136 counts of possession that flowed from the seizure. The court affirmed other convictions but threw out every possession count.

Our attorneys look for these warrant problems in every case:

• Thin probable cause. The affidavit must connect the person and the place to be searched to the files, not just repeat that a tip exists.
• Staleness. Months can pass between the tip and the warrant. Our article on the 10-day search warrant rule explains a reversal on timing grounds.
• Scope. A warrant for one device or account does not authorize a search of everything a person owns.
• Account warrants. Warrants to Google, Apple, or other providers raise their own issues, covered in our guide to a Google account legal request.

What is a private search doctrine motion to suppress?

A private search doctrine motion asks the court to suppress evidence because police opened a flagged file without a warrant when no person at the reporting company had looked at that file first. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s private search cases, police may repeat a search a private party already did, but may not go beyond it without a warrant. When a tech company flags a file only by an automated hash match, the defense argues that no private person ever saw the contents, so the officer who opened the file conducted a new government search. Because police in many CyberTip cases open the files first and get warrants afterward, a win on this motion can take down every warrant built on that first look.

Our firm files these motions in Hillsborough County cases, and we build them from the CyberTip itself. Google’s CyberTips answer a question for each reported file: “Was File Reviewed by Company?” A “No” means no Google reviewer looked at that file for the report; the flag rests on a hash match to a different file someone reviewed in the past. We match every file the detective opened to that answer, and we point out what the State must prove at the hearing. A warrantless search shifts the burden to the State, so the prosecution must show, file by file, that a private person actually viewed what the officer opened.

Where do the courts stand on opening hash-matched files?

The courts are split, and Florida’s state appellate courts have not settled the question for the files a company never viewed. In Morales v. State, 274 So. 3d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a Santa Rosa County defendant uploaded an image to a chatroom whose service matched it to known CSAM through Microsoft’s PhotoDNA. No one at the company or NCMEC opened it before an FDLE agent did, without a warrant. The First District held that the agent’s viewing did not exceed the private search because the hash match identified the image with near certainty.

In Lowers, Google hash-matched 156 files in a Google Drive account, a reviewer opened 31, and the CyberTip showed which files were opened and which were not. A detective then opened files that neither Google nor NCMEC had viewed. The Fourth Circuit held that was an unconstitutional search. Brillhart, an appeal from the Middle District of Florida, went the other way on its record, but only because the file’s hash traced to a file a human at Google had already confirmed. The Second District, which hears appeals from Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, has not squarely decided the question in the decisions we have reviewed. In Youngman v. State, 342 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), it held only that police software finding files a defendant shared publicly on BitTorrent was not a search at all.

Legal scholars have questioned how far hash searches should reach. A 2018 Stanford Law Review note, Dennis Martin’s Demystifying Hash Searches, argues that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search whenever they use an algorithm to do what would be a search if done by hand.

How do our attorneys build a private search motion?

Our attorneys build the motion from the State’s own documents, in five steps:

1. Pull the per-file review answers. We read the CyberTip’s “Was File Reviewed by Company?” answer for every reported file.
2. Match them to what the detective opened. The warrant affidavits usually describe specific files; we check whether each described file was one no company employee viewed.
3. Hold the State to its burden. At the evidentiary hearing, the State must prove with competent evidence, not the tip’s own label, that a person reviewed each file the officer opened.
4. Excise the tainted descriptions. We ask the court to strike the officer’s descriptions of unlawfully viewed files from each warrant affidavit and test whether probable cause remains.
5. Defeat good faith and attenuation. Searches done after the 2021 Wilson decision are harder to excuse as good faith, and a client who invoked the right to counsel and gave no statement leaves the State no break in the chain, unlike the defendant in Lowers.

Lowers carries a practical lesson. The Fourth Circuit found the search unconstitutional and still let the evidence in because the defendant talked to police and consented to searches afterward. A person who stays silent and asks for a lawyer protects the motion as well as the case.

Can a CyberTip be wrong?

Yes. A CyberTip is a report, not proof, and both its labels and its claims about human review can be wrong. The clearest Florida example involves William Lawshe, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer who had been named national wildlife officer of the year in 2014. According to News4JAX reporting, a St. Johns County investigation that began with a February 2023 tip led to three counts of possessing child pornography, he left the agency, and the charges were dropped that December after his lawyers produced evidence they said proved his innocence.

Lawshe then sued Verizon and its cloud-storage contractor. In Lawshe v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-137-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2025), he alleged that his account held legal images of adult models and that the CyberTip behind his arrest rested on a hash match to an image tagged only “unconfirmed.” He alleged the report still stated that the company “had viewed the entire contents” of the image and that it showed a “pre-pubescent” minor, when the people pictured were plainly adults. Judge Marcia Morales Howard held that federal reporting immunity did not defeat his defamation and Stored Communications Act claims over that report at the pleading stage, writing that the defendants “conflate an intent to immunize mistaken reports with an intent to immunize unfounded reports.” The parties later settled, and in February 2026 the court vacated the order at their request, so it is not precedent. It remains a public record of how an automated flag, and a claim that someone reviewed it, can be wrong.

That is why our attorneys never accept a CyberTip at face value. We check whether each file was actually reviewed, whether it was labeled “apparent” or only “unconfirmed,” and whether an independent examiner agrees the image shows a minor at all. A person who has been falsely flagged has a defense, and the first step is to say nothing to investigators and call a lawyer.

What does the State have to prove about knowledge?

The State must prove you knowingly possessed, controlled, or intentionally viewed material you knew contained CSAM. Under section 827.071, Florida Statutes, the file’s presence on a device is not enough by itself. When the device or home is shared, Florida applies constructive possession rules: the State must show you knew of the files and could exercise control over them through evidence beyond mere proximity, as the Second District explained in Jenrette-Smith v. State, 114 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Forensic evidence decides most knowledge disputes. Our attorneys retain independent digital forensic examiners to answer questions the State’s report often skips:

1. Who was using the device? Login records, user profiles, and activity at the time of download.
2. Were the files ever opened? Access dates, thumbnails, and viewing history.
3. Where did the files sit? A deleted file, a cache, or an automatic sync folder tells a different story than an organized collection.
4. How did they arrive? Bulk downloads, file-sharing programs, malware, or a synced account a user never opened.
5. Are the counts right? Duplicates, thumbnails of the same image, and files of uncertain age inflate the count.

Deleted files raise their own issue. In Burnett, the State’s expert found deleted images on diskettes but could not say when or by whom they were deleted. The Second District resolved the case on the warrant and expressly left open whether deleted images retrievable only by an expert prove knowing possession. Our attorneys press that question when the evidence is deleted or fragmentary. Because constructive possession works the same way across offenses, our guide to constructive possession in Florida is useful background.

What changed in Florida’s CSAM law on July 1, 2026?

On July 1, 2026, Chapter 2026-20, Laws of Florida (CS/CS/HB 1159), renamed “child pornography” as “child sexual abuse material” throughout the statutes and raised several penalties. Possessing, controlling, or intentionally viewing CSAM under section 827.071(5) became a second-degree felony, and each image and each child depicted is still a separate offense. Our post on child pornography penalties in Florida covers sentencing, scoring, and the image-count enhancement in detail. The changes that most affect defense strategy are these:

The transmission change builds on earlier law about file sharing. Section 847.0137 reaches a person who knew or reasonably should have known he was transmitting CSAM. In Jeror v. State, 313 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), a Sarasota County defendant moved downloaded videos into a folder a BitTorrent program shared automatically. The Second District held the evidence let the jury find he reasonably should have known the files were being shared, and affirmed. With cloud links now included, how a folder was shared, and whether the user knew, is a central fact our attorneys investigate.

Can a child pornography charge be dropped or reduced in Florida?

Yes. Charges can be dismissed, reduced, or resolved for fewer counts when the search is suppressed, the knowledge evidence is weak, or mitigation persuades the prosecutor. Counts tied to unreliable forensics can also be dropped. Early work matters most, and when an investigation is still underway, pre-file advocacy can shape what the State files.

One example from our firm: a young man who had just turned 18 was charged with possession of child pornography and faced prison and sexual offender registration. Our attorneys built a detailed mitigation case and negotiated with the prosecutor, and the case resolved with a plea to a non-registerable offense with treatment. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Our guide to a mitigation report explains that work, and our overview of sex offender registration in Florida explains what registration under section 943.0435, Florida Statutes requires.

Charges involving chats with a minor are a different offense with different defenses; see solicitation of a child using a computer and what to do if you messaged a minor online. Our Tampa internet crimes attorney page describes how our firm defends these cases.

What should you do if police contact you about a CSAM investigation?

Do not answer questions, consent to a device search, or delete anything; call a defense attorney first. Deleting files after you learn of an investigation can lead to a separate tampering charge and can be argued as evidence of knowledge. Investigators often arrive with a warrant already signed and ask friendly questions while the search happens. Anything said during that visit can supply the knowledge element the forensic evidence lacks.

• Say you want a lawyer and will not answer questions.
• Do not give passwords or unlock devices without advice from counsel.
• Write down who came, what they took, and what they said.
• Keep the warrant and inventory paperwork.

Frequently asked questions about fighting a child pornography charge in Florida

Is accidentally downloading child pornography a crime in Florida?

Not if it was accidental. Section 827.071(5) requires knowing possession or intentional viewing of material the person knew contained CSAM. The Brancato Law Firm uses forensic evidence, such as whether a file was ever opened, to show what a client did and did not know.

Can I be charged if other people used my computer or Wi-Fi?

You can be charged, but shared access is a real defense. On a shared device or network, the State must prove knowledge and control beyond simple proximity to the files. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm build a timeline of who used each device and account when the files arrived.

Is sharing a Google Drive or Dropbox link a crime under Florida’s 2026 law?

Sharing a link or access credential to cloud storage that contains CSAM can now be charged as transmission under section 847.0137, a second-degree felony. The Brancato Law Firm examines whether the client created the link, knew what it contained, and knew it was shared, which is where these cases are won or lost.

Can a CyberTip search be suppressed if no one at Google viewed the file?

It can, in some courts. Several federal appeals courts have held that police violate the Fourth Amendment by opening a hash-matched file no company employee viewed, while others, including the Eleventh Circuit on a record of prior human review, have allowed it. The Brancato Law Firm files private search doctrine motions built on the CyberTip’s file-by-file review answers, a question Florida’s Second District has not settled.

What if a CyberTip flagged an image of an adult?

Then the State cannot prove a key element, because CSAM must depict a minor. Automated tags such as “unconfirmed” signal that even the reporting system was unsure of the person’s age. The Brancato Law Firm retains independent examiners to test age and origin, and cases like Lawshe v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-137-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2025) show that these reports can be wrong.

Can a search warrant based on a CyberTip be thrown out?

Yes, if the affidavit lacks probable cause, the information was stale, or police exceeded the scope of the warrant or the private search. In Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), a defective affidavit led to reversal of 136 possession counts. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm file motions to suppress when the warrant or the tip falls short.

Does Florida’s July 2026 law apply to my case if the files were downloaded earlier?

The new penalties apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2026. When downloads span that date, The Brancato Law Firm uses the forensic timeline to argue which law applies to each count; our internet crimes defense team reviews the file dates in every case.

Will I be arrested before I know I am being investigated?

Often, yes. Many people first learn of a CSAM investigation when police execute a search warrant, sometimes months after the original tip. If you think an investigation is underway, The Brancato Law Firm can step in before charges are filed through representation before charges are filed.

For how The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. defends these cases, see our Tampa sex crimes defense practice.

Talk to our attorneys before you talk to investigators

The first conversation with police and the first forensic image of a device shape everything that follows. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. was founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, and our attorneys can step in before an interview, review the warrant and CyberTip, and bring in an independent forensic examiner. Call us at any hour at (813) 727-7159 for a confidential consultation. 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 Internet 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.

As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy instructor who taught officers the law of stops and searches, I read Vasquez Perdomo as a case about the Fourth Amendment as much as immigration. Many Florida criminal cases now begin with an encounter involving an officer who also holds federal immigration authority. Our attorneys look at how every stop started, because a stop without reasonable suspicion can still lead to suppression of evidence in a Florida criminal case.

What Happened in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo?

The case began as a challenge to immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area in the summer of 2025. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and other plaintiffs, along with immigrant rights groups, sued the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 2:25-cv-05605). They alleged that agents were stopping people at bus stops, car washes, tow yards, farms, and day-labor sites based on how they looked, what language they spoke, where they were, and what work they did.

On July 11, 2025, District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order that barred stops based solely on four factors, alone or in combination:

1. Apparent race or ethnicity.
2. Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent.
3. Presence at a particular location, such as a bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day-labor pickup site, or agricultural site.
4. The type of work a person does.

The Ninth Circuit refused to stay that order on August 1, 2025. The government then asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court granted the government’s application and stayed the district court’s order. In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 606 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 1 (2025), the Court’s one-paragraph order stayed the July 11 order “pending the disposition of the appeal” in the Ninth Circuit and any timely petition for certiorari. The order did not explain the Court’s reasons, which is common for rulings on the emergency docket.

What Did Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence Say?

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the four factors, taken together, can give agents reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the Los Angeles area. He wrote: “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.” He relied on the high number of people in the Los Angeles region without legal status, which he put at “about 2 million illegal immigrants out of a total population of 20 million.”

He also described the stops as brief: “If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter.” And he concluded that the plaintiffs likely lacked standing to seek a broad, forward-looking injunction under Los Angeles v. Lyons, because they could not show they were likely to be stopped again. Commentators have since used the term “Kavanaugh stop” for a brief immigration stop justified by a combination of these factors.

What Did Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent Say?

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that stops based on the four factors violate the Fourth Amendment because they are not individualized. Quoting earlier precedent, she wrote that a set of facts cannot be reasonable suspicion if it “describe[s] a very large category of presumably innocent” people. She warned that the ruling pushes citizens to carry proof of status to move freely, which she described as creating a second-class citizenship status for people who look or sound a certain way.

How Does Vasquez Perdomo Fit With Brignoni-Ponce?

Vasquez Perdomo builds on a 50-year-old case about roving Border Patrol stops. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), Border Patrol officers in southern California stopped a car only because its three occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent. The Supreme Court held that officers on roving patrol need “specific articulable facts” supporting reasonable suspicion, and that Mexican ancestry “standing alone” does not justify a stop, though it can be “a relevant factor.” Justice Kavanaugh cited that “relevant factor” language; Justice Sotomayor cited the same case for its holding that appearance alone is not enough.

Scholars warned about this tension long before 2025. In “How Racial Profiling in America Became the Law of the Land: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and Whren v. United States and the Need for Truly Rebellious Lawyering,” 98 Geo. L.J. 1005 (2010), presented at a Georgetown Law Journal symposium, then-Dean Kevin R. Johnson of UC Davis School of Law examined how Brignoni-Ponce’s “relevant factor” language and Whren’s tolerance of pretext stops left room for race to shape enforcement decisions.

Has the Supreme Court Said Anything About Race-Based Stops Since?

Yes. Three months later, in Trump v. Illinois, 607 U.S. 1 (2025), a December 23, 2025 decision about the National Guard deployment in Illinois, Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that the Fourth Amendment requires that immigration stops “be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force.” He added: “Moreover, the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity.”

Where Does the Vasquez Perdomo Case Stand in 2026?

The Supreme Court’s stay is still the last word on the July 2025 restraining order, and the lawsuit continues in the district court. According to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse docket summary, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back in October 2025 so the district court could dissolve the Fourth Amendment portion of the restraining order. In 2026, the district court largely denied the government’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and in June 2026 they moved for class certification and a new preliminary injunction against alleged warrantless arrests. As of the most recent docket update we reviewed, those motions had not been decided.

Does Vasquez Perdomo Apply in Florida?

The stay itself applies only to the Los Angeles order, but the reasoning reaches Florida because immigration enforcement here runs heavily through local police and sheriffs. Section 908.11, Florida Statutes, requires every sheriff or chief correctional officer operating a county jail to enter a written 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which lets trained local officers perform certain immigration functions.

Participation goes well beyond county jails. A statewide snapshot posted by FDLE, the Immigration Agency Data Summary, which uses ICE and Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission data as of June 2026, shows that 272 of 394 Florida law enforcement agencies held a 287(g) Task Force Officer agreement, and that Florida had 9,026 credentialed designated immigration officers.

That means a stop in Tampa Bay may be made by an officer who can ask both criminal and immigration questions. Justice Kavanaugh’s later statement in Trump v. Illinois, that officers “must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity,” is a point our attorneys raise when the facts show appearance or language drove the stop.

Can Evidence From an Unlawful Immigration Stop Be Suppressed in Florida?

In a Florida criminal case, yes, evidence from a stop made without reasonable suspicion can be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, no matter which agency made the stop. A traffic or street stop that leads to drugs, a weapon, or a no-valid-license charge rises or falls on what the officer knew before the stop. Our Tampa criminal traffic lawyer page covers the license charges that often follow these stops.

Immigration court is different. In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in civil deportation proceedings, while leaving open “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties.” So a suppression win in state court does not automatically end an immigration case, and a person facing both needs advice on each. Our firm handles the Florida criminal case and works with the client’s immigration counsel.

What Should You Do If You Are Stopped and Questioned About Immigration Status?

Stay calm, do not run or resist, and do not lie or show false documents. You can ask whether you are free to leave. You can decline to answer questions about where you were born or your immigration status and say you want to speak with a lawyer, though a driver must still produce a license, registration, and proof of insurance on request in Florida. Remember the officer’s name, agency, and badge number, and write down what happened as soon as you can.

If a family member is arrested in Hillsborough County, language matters from the first hearing. Under section 903.046, Florida Statutes, immigration status is one of the factors a judge considers in setting bail, and in the 13th Judicial Circuit, the Court Interpreter Center provides interpreters for first appearance, arraignment, and trial. Our guides to how a bond hearing works in Tampa and to our Spanish-speaking criminal defense team explain what families can expect. For another recent Fourth Amendment decision, see our post on Case v. Montana and police welfare checks.

Frequently Asked Questions About Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo

Did the Supreme Court rule that ICE can use race in immigration stops?

No, the Court issued an unexplained stay, and Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence said apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion, though it can be one factor among others. The Brancato Law Firm reads the stop reports in our clients’ Florida cases to see whether anything beyond appearance or language supported the stop.

Is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo a final decision?

No, it is an emergency stay that keeps the July 2025 restraining order on hold while the case continues in the lower courts. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm follow the litigation because a later ruling could change how courts view these stops.

What is a Kavanaugh stop?

A Kavanaugh stop is a commentator’s term for a brief immigration stop justified by a combination of factors such as location, type of work, language, and apparent ethnicity, based on Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence. The Brancato Law Firm challenges the reasonable suspicion behind any stop that leads to a Florida criminal charge; see our criminal traffic defense page for license cases.

Do I have to answer an officer’s questions about my immigration status in Florida?

No, you generally have the right to remain silent and to ask for a lawyer, but you should not lie, run, or present false documents, and drivers must show a license on request. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm, including Spanish-speaking staff, can explain these rights to your family in their own language.

Can a U.S. citizen be detained in an immigration stop?

Yes, the stops allowed by the stay can involve U.S. citizens, and Justice Kavanaugh wrote that a citizen “will be free to go after the brief encounter.” The Brancato Law Firm advises clients who were detained to write down the details right away, because those facts matter if a criminal charge follows.

Can a Florida criminal case be dismissed because of an illegal stop?

Often the remedy is suppression of the evidence, which can lead the State to drop the charge if the evidence was its whole case. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm file motions to suppress in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County courts when a stop lacked reasonable suspicion; our Tampa criminal defense team can review the report.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our stage-by-stage guide to the Florida criminal case process.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney After a Stop

If a stop led to an arrest, the first decision is whether to challenge how the officer made it, and that review should happen before the arraignment. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159. 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, so families can talk with us directly about the criminal case and its immigration consequences.

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.

If you opened an email from Google saying it received legal process about your account, an investigation has already reached your data, and what you do in the next few days matters. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and in more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms, including my years in the Major Crimes Unit, I have seen how many serious cases begin with a subpoena to a tech company. Today our attorneys take these notices from the other side: we call the agency, learn what it wants, and work to keep the case from ever being filed.

What Does a Google Legal Process Notice Mean?

It means a government agency served Google with legal process for information tied to your account, and Google is telling you about it. Google’s published policy on how it handles government requests for user information says it emails the user before disclosing information unless the law prohibits notice, the account is disabled or hijacked, or an emergency, such as a threat to a child’s safety, justifies waiting. When the gag order or emergency ends, Google sends the notice.

That last point explains why many notices arrive late. The data may have been produced long before you heard about it. Other companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon, send similar notices under their own policies.

Florida law follows the same pattern. Under section 934.25, Florida Statutes, officers can delay notice to a subscriber for up to 90 days at a time, with 90-day extensions, if notice might lead to flight, destroyed evidence, witness intimidation, danger to someone’s safety, or a seriously jeopardized investigation. A court can also order the provider not to tell anyone for “such period as the court deems appropriate.” The federal version, 18 U.S.C. § 2705, works the same way for federal agencies.

Is a Google Legal Request Email a Scam?

Usually not, but verify it without clicking anything. Real notices come from Google’s own domain and name an agency or court, while fake ones ask for passwords, payment, or a phone call to a number in the email. Sign in to your Google account directly through a browser, not through a link, and do not reply to the message. Then forward the notice to your attorney, who can confirm it with the agency.

What Legal Process Can Police Use to Get Your Google Data?

The type of legal process depends on what the government wants. Under section 934.23, Florida Statutes, a Florida officer can get basic subscriber records with a subpoena: your name, address, session times, length of service, payment method, and assigned IP addresses. Officers who get records this way do not have to notify you at all. Recent stored content, such as emails held 180 days or less, requires a warrant from a judge.

Google’s policy tracks the same tiers for U.S. requests: a subpoena for basic subscriber information and certain IP addresses, a court order for other non-content records in criminal cases, and a search warrant for content. Professor Orin Kerr’s widely cited article, “A User’s Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator’s Guide to Amending It,” 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1208 (2004), explains how this tiered system lets the government get more data with less judicial review when it asks for records instead of content.

Courts have pushed the warrant line outward. In United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010), a federal fraud case, the Sixth Circuit held that the government “may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber’s emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.” In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court required a warrant for historical cell site location records. When the State skipped a required warrant, our attorneys file a motion to suppress.

Why Would Police Want Your Google Account?

Police want an account because it holds evidence about someone, and that someone is not always the account owner. Account requests usually fall into a few groups:

• Child exploitation tips. Providers scan uploads and report suspected child sexual abuse material to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which routes the tip to local police.
• Fraud and scams. Account, payment, and login records are central to wire fraud, identity theft, and investment fraud cases.
• Threats, stalking, and harassment. Messages, posts, and IP logs can identify who sent them.
• Drug cases. Messages and location history can show transactions and meetings.
• Someone else’s conduct. A family member on your Wi-Fi, a hacked account, or contact with a suspect can put your account in the file.

Internet crime reports are heavy in Florida. The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center 2024 report counted 52,191 complaints from Florida in 2024, the 3rd most of any state, with reported losses of $1,071,909,632. Each complaint is a possible subpoena to a tech company.

How Does an Account Request Turn Into an Arrest?

It usually follows a set path: a tip or complaint, a subpoena for subscriber information, a visit to the home, and then a search warrant. A Second District case from nearby Manatee County shows each step. In State v. McNeela, No. 2D2022-1418 (Fla. 2d DCA June 21, 2023), Microsoft reported suspected child pornography uploaded from a Sarasota IP address. A detective subpoenaed the internet provider, which returned the account holder’s name, phone number, and address. Officers went to the house, the man told them he was the computer’s primary user, and he consented to a search. The court reversed an order suppressing the evidence and held that those facts were enough for a search warrant.

The lesson is about the knock on the door. The subpoena gave police a name and address. The conversation and the consent gave them the rest. A lawyer who is already on the case before that visit can tell the agency that you will not be interviewed and will not consent to a search.

What Should You Do After Getting a Google Legal Request Notice?

Take five steps, in this order:

1. Do not contact the agency yourself. Anything you say can be used to build probable cause, and calling to “clear it up” is how many cases are made.
2. Do not delete data or the account. Deleting can be charged as tampering with evidence, and the provider has often preserved a copy already.
3. Do not discuss the notice. Texts, emails, and calls with friends or family are not privileged and can be subpoenaed too.
4. Save the notice and secure your devices. Keep the original email, change passwords on shared devices, and note who else uses your Wi-Fi or accounts.
5. Call a defense attorney. Your lawyer can contact the agency, learn whether you are a target or a witness, and speak for you from that point forward.

How Can a Lawyer Help Before Charges Are Filed?

A lawyer can often learn what the investigation is about and stop it from growing. Our attorneys contact the investigating agency directly and tell it that you are represented, so detectives must go through us and cannot question you on your doorstep. We work to find out which agency served the process, what data it got, whether the case is open or closed, and whether you are a suspect or a witness. Some clients learn they were only a witness, and that answer alone ends weeks of worry.

When the risk is real, we advocate with investigators and the prosecutor before a filing decision is made. Our firm offers this representation before charges are filed for a separate flat fee, and that fee is credited toward the full defense fee if a case is later filed and you keep us on it. If the request involves an online sex offense, our Tampa internet crimes attorney page explains how we defend those cases.

How Soon Should You Act on an Account Notice?

Act right away, within days. Because notice can be delayed for months, the investigation may be far along when the email arrives, and the next step could be a search warrant for your home. In Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, our attorneys contact the investigating detective as soon as we know the agency, because an early call is the best chance to shape what happens next. Our Hillsborough County criminal defense attorneys handle these calls with HCSO, Tampa PD, and federal agencies.

For more on how digital evidence is gathered and challenged, see our posts on social media evidence in Tampa criminal cases and cell phone location evidence, and our guide to geofence warrants and the Chatrie case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a Google legal process notice mean I am being charged with a crime?

No. A notice means an agency obtained or sought your data, not that a charge has been filed, and many people who get one are witnesses or account holders whose network someone else used. The Brancato Law Firm contacts the agency to find out where you stand, as described on our pre-file advocacy page.

Why did I get the notice months after Google gave police my data?

A court or a supervising officer probably delayed the notice, which Florida’s section 934.25 allows for up to 90 days at a time with extensions. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm treat a late notice as a sign the investigation is advanced, because Google sends it only after the delay ends.

Can I ask Google or a court to stop the disclosure?

Sometimes, if the data has not yet been produced, a lawyer can ask the agency to narrow the request or move to quash process that is overbroad or lacks the required approval. The Brancato Law Firm reviews the process itself to see whether it met the requirements of section 934.23.

Should I delete my Google account after getting the notice?

No. Deleting data after you know about an investigation can lead to a separate charge for tampering with evidence, and the provider may have preserved a copy anyway. Our team at The Brancato Law Firm advises clients on what to keep and how to protect their devices without creating new problems.

What if someone else used my account or Wi-Fi?

Tell your lawyer, not the police. Shared devices, hacked accounts, and open networks are real explanations, but they must be supported with evidence such as login records and device data before they are raised. The Brancato Law Firm gathers that proof, and our Tampa internet crime defense attorneys use it when an account is wrongly tied to a client.

Can Google account charges be dropped in Florida if a case is filed?

Yes, a filed case can still be dropped. The State Attorney’s Office can decline to prosecute or later dismiss the case (a nolle prosequi) when the account evidence does not prove who used the account, or when the data was obtained without required legal process. The Brancato Law Firm presses those weaknesses with prosecutors and in a motion to suppress when the facts support it.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our guide to each stage of a Florida criminal case.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney About an Account Notice

Before a detective knocks on your door, put a lawyer between you and the investigation. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, will contact the agency, find out what it has, and speak for you from that point on. Call (813) 727-7159; 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-speaking criminal defense clients in Tampa.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Internet Crimes 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.

This article is not affiliated with or endorsed by Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, or any law enforcement agency.

Many Tampa drivers pulled their dealer frames off in the fall of 2025 after a viral video claimed any frame was now a crime. We said at the time that standard frames remained legal, and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and then the Legislature agreed. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy instructor who taught officers the law of traffic stops. In more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms I have seen minor equipment stops turn into drug, gun, and DUI cases. Our attorneys challenge those stops when the officer had no lawful reason to make them.

What Does Florida’s License Plate Frame Law Say Now?

Florida now states expressly that frames are lawful if they leave the plate number and sticker visible. Two statutes govern, and both were amended in 2026 by SB 488 (chapter 2026-39, Laws of Florida), which Governor DeSantis signed in April 2026:

Section 320.262(5), Florida Statutes, now reads that “the use of a license plate frame or decorative border device is not an offense under this section, provided that the device does not obscure the visibility” of “the alphanumeric designation or license plate number” and “the registration decal or validation sticker located in the upper right corner.” Section 320.061(2) contains the same rule for frames and borders. The 2026 amendment also removed the phrase “primary features or details” from the definition of an obscuring device, which was the language that fueled the 2025 confusion.

What Does Section 320.262 Actually Target?

Section 320.262 targets devices built to hide or swap a plate, not decorative frames. The statute defines a “license plate obscuring device” as a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to switch between plates, flip a plate so the number is not visible, cover or interfere with the legibility of the plate number or validation sticker, or interfere with the ability to record them. Those are the tools used to beat toll readers, red-light cameras, and license plate reader cameras.

The penalties are real for those devices. Simply buying or possessing one is a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine, and using one to commit a crime or avoid arrest is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison. License plate reader cameras such as Flock are now common across Tampa Bay, and our post on Flock cameras and license plate readers in Tampa explains how those systems use your plate.

How Did the License Plate Frame Confusion Start?

It started with a misreading of the 2025 law. Chapter 2025-36 created section 320.262 effective October 1, 2025, and its definition referred to the plate’s “primary features or details, including the license plate number or validation sticker.” A viral video read that phrase to cover every word on the plate, some law enforcement agencies repeated it, and drivers across the state removed their frames.

On December 12, 2025, FLHSMV Executive Director Dave Kerner sent a memo to all Florida law enforcement agencies stating that the act “does not prohibit the use of a license plate frame” as long as it does not obscure the plate number or the decal in the top right corner. The memo added that the department “does not consider the information on the bottom of the plate to be a primary feature of the plate,” and that a frame touching the top of the plate is permissible if officers can still identify the issuing state. The 2026 Legislature then wrote the frame rule into both statutes.

Can Police Still Stop You Because of a License Plate Frame?

Only if the frame actually makes the plate number, the decal, or other required lettering unreadable from 100 feet. Under section 316.605(1), all “letters, numerals, printing, writing, the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation” must be “plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” A violation is a noncriminal traffic infraction, but it is still a legal basis for a stop when it truly exists.

Florida courts have refused to let a typical dealer frame justify a stop. In State v. Morris, 270 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), a Broward County officer stopped a car whose Drive Pink AutoNation frame partially covered letters in “Sunshine State” and “MyFlorida.com.” The officer admitted he “didn’t have any trouble” reading the word “Florida,” and the trial judge found that “everything that needs to be identified is identifiable.” The Fourth District affirmed the suppression of the evidence from the stop, holding that “all the letters and words on the license plate were visible within 100 feet.”

The officer’s testimony decides close cases. In Williams v. State, No. 4D19-1578 (Fla. 4th DCA May 13, 2020), the court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress because the officer testified the tag “was obscured” and “you can barely see it.” In a concurring opinion, Judge Melanie May wrote that “there is nothing about those words that helps law enforcement identify the vehicle’s owner” and that treating frames over “MyFlorida.com” and “Sunshine State” as grounds for a stop “leads to an absurd result,” a view the Legislature effectively adopted in 2026.

How Often Are Florida Drivers Cited for Obscured Plates?

Thousands of times a year. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles’ Uniform Traffic Citation database recorded 2,927 violations related to obscuring a license plate in 2023, and 3,449 violations related to prohibited vehicle lights, according to the Florida Senate Rules Committee analysis of the 2025 bill. Each of those citations began as a traffic stop.

Minor equipment stops matter because of what can follow them. A study published in Nature Human Behaviour in 2020, A Large-Scale Analysis of Racial Disparities in Police Stops Across the United States by Emma Pierson and colleagues at the Stanford Open Policing Project, examined nearly 100 million traffic stops and found that “the bar for searching black and Hispanic drivers was lower than that for searching white drivers.” For drivers, the practical lesson is that the legal basis for the stop is often the most important issue in the case.

Can Evidence Be Suppressed If the Plate Frame Stop Was Illegal?

Yes. If the frame did not violate any statute, the officer had no lawful basis for the stop, and drugs, weapons, or DUI evidence found afterward can be suppressed, as happened in Morris. The flip side is Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred,” whatever the officer’s real motive. Because a real violation makes even a pretextual stop lawful, our attorneys focus on whether the violation existed at all.

Our approach in these cases follows three steps:

1. Get the video. Body camera and dash camera footage often shows the plate clearly, contradicting a report that it was unreadable.
2. Photograph the plate and frame. A photo taken from the officer’s position and distance tests the 100-foot standard.
3. Hold the State to the statute. Under the 2026 amendments, the question is whether the frame covered the number or the upper-right decal, not whether it touched any other word.

Our motion to suppress guide explains how these challenges are filed, and our Tampa criminal traffic lawyer page covers the traffic charges that often follow a stop. Our Hillsborough County criminal defense attorney page explains how a case moves through the local courts after an arrest.

What Should You Do If You Are Stopped for a License Plate Frame?

Stay calm, accept the citation if one is issued, and document the plate before you change anything:

1. Do not argue the law at the roadside. Cooperate and save the challenge for court.
2. Take photos of the plate and frame from about 100 feet behind the car and up close, as soon as it is safe.
3. Do not consent to a search. A frame stop gives no right to search the car without consent or probable cause.
4. Keep the frame. If the case involves an arrest, the frame itself may become evidence for the defense.
5. Call a defense attorney if the stop led to an arrest, so the body camera footage is requested before it is purged.

Frequently Asked Questions About Florida License Plate Frames

Is my car dealership frame illegal in Florida?

No, a dealership frame is legal as long as it leaves the plate number and the upper-right decal visible, under sections 320.061(2) and 320.262(5). The Brancato Law Firm challenges stops based on dealer frames that met that standard, as the defense did in State v. Morris.

Can I be pulled over if my frame covers the word “Florida”?

A frame covering “Florida” alone does not violate the frame provisions, and FLHSMV told officers that frames at the top of the plate are allowed if the issuing state can still be identified. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm compare the officer’s report with the body camera footage to test any claim that the plate was unreadable.

Are clear license plate covers legal in Florida?

A clear cover is not banned by name, but section 320.061 prohibits any covering that interferes with the legibility of the plate number or sticker, and glare or condensation can do that. The Brancato Law Firm advises drivers that removing the cover is the safest choice; see our criminal traffic defense page for related charges.

Is it a crime to own a license plate flipper in Florida?

Yes, buying or possessing a license plate obscuring device is a second-degree misdemeanor under section 320.262(2), even if it is never used. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm look at whether the item actually meets the statute’s definition of a device designed to switch, flip, or hide a plate.

Can a frame stop lead to a search of my car?

Not by itself, because a traffic infraction allows a stop and a citation, not a search, unless the officer has consent or probable cause. The Brancato Law Firm moves to suppress evidence when a frame stop expanded into a search without a lawful basis; our suppression guide explains how.

Did the 2026 law change the penalty for an obscured plate?

No, the penalties stayed the same: a noncriminal infraction under section 316.605, a second-degree misdemeanor for knowingly obscuring the number or sticker under section 320.061, and the device offenses in section 320.262. The Brancato Law Firm reviews which statute was charged, because the defenses differ for each one.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney About a License Plate Stop

If a frame or plate stop led to an arrest, the body camera footage and a photo of your plate are the first evidence to secure. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, will review whether the stop was lawful and what can be suppressed; call (813) 727-7159. 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 criminal defense in Spanish and Haitian Creole in Tampa.

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.

If your husband, wife, or child was just walked off a cruise ship at Port Tampa Bay, the next 24 hours shape the whole case. I’m Rocky Brancato, 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 spent more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms. Our attorneys take these calls while the ship is still at the dock, and we can be mobilized and ready for your loved one’s first appearance.

Why do people get arrested at the Tampa cruise terminals?

People get arrested at the Tampa cruise terminals because every bag is screened before boarding, and law enforcement officers work the terminals on cruise days. In 2025, Port Tampa Bay welcomed 1.66 million cruise passengers, the highest total in its history, according to Port Tampa Bay. The port says it is tracking toward 1.8 million passengers in 2026. More passengers means more luggage screened and more arrests.

In the cruise terminal cases our firm has handled, the arrest is made by an off-duty Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office deputy working a paid detail at the terminal. Private security screens the luggage, flags a bag, and calls the deputy. The cruise terminals sit inside Tampa city limits, so a Tampa Police officer can make the same arrest. Either way, the case goes to the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office and the Hillsborough County criminal courts in the 13th Judicial Circuit.

Passengers are often already in their cabin when the bag is flagged. Ship security finds them on board, walks them off the ship, and turns them over to the deputy at the terminal.

Can you bring marijuana, CBD, or hemp on a cruise from Tampa?

No. Cruise lines ban marijuana on board, and the published policies of Carnival and Norwegian also ban CBD and THC products, including products sold as medical marijuana. A product that is legal at a Florida smoke shop can still get you removed from the ship and arrested at the terminal.

A Florida medical marijuana card does not change this. Florida’s medical marijuana law, section 381.986, Florida Statutes, excludes use or administration of marijuana “on any form of public transportation” from protected medical use, except for low-THC cannabis not in a form for smoking. Federal law does not recognize state medical marijuana programs at all. Our post on how to legally transport medical marijuana in Florida covers the rules on land.

Is hemp legal on a cruise ship?

Hemp is legal under Florida law, but that does not protect you on a cruise. Florida defines hemp in section 581.217, Florida Statutes as cannabis with a total delta-9 THC concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis. Florida’s drug statute, section 893.02, Florida Statutes, excludes that hemp from the definition of cannabis. The problem is proof. A deputy at the terminal cannot tell a lawful hemp gummy from a marijuana gummy by looking at it, so the passenger gets arrested and the lab sorts it out later.

Federal hemp law is also changing. Congress rewrote the federal definition of hemp in Public Law 119-37, enacted November 12, 2025, according to the Congressional Research Service. Under the new definition, final hemp-derived cannabinoid products with more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container are no longer hemp under federal law. Congress delayed that change to December 11, 2026, in H.R. 6500, signed September 2, 2026. Unless Congress acts again, intoxicating hemp gummies, drinks, and vapes over that limit will be treated as marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, under federal law. That matters when a ship returns to Tampa from a foreign port and passes through U.S. Customs.

Will a cruise ship arrest be in state court or federal court?

Where the case lands depends on where the drugs were found and who found them. Drugs found at the terminal before the ship sails are almost always a Hillsborough County state case. Drugs found by U.S. Customs and Border Protection when the ship returns from Mexico, Honduras, or the Bahamas can become a federal case, a federal civil penalty, or a state case referred to local deputies. Crimes committed against another person at sea are usually investigated by the FBI.

Federal jurisdiction over crimes at sea is broad. Under 18 U.S.C. § 7(8), the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States reaches any foreign vessel “during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States” for offenses committed by or against a U.S. national, to the extent international law allows. Florida has its own special maritime jurisdiction statute, section 910.006, Florida Statutes, which covers acts against people and property aboard ships on voyages where over half of the passengers embarked and plan to disembark in Florida.

Cruise lines must report serious crimes to the FBI under the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act. In 2025, cruise lines reported 182 alleged crimes to the FBI across the four quarterly reports published by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Those reports cover assaults, sexual assaults, thefts over $10,000, and missing persons. They do not count drug offenses.

When a cruise ship case is charged federally in Tampa, the first court date is an initial appearance before a federal magistrate judge, and the charges come from federal statutes, not Florida’s. Our firm’s practice is Florida state court in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, where arrests made at the terminal before the ship sails are prosecuted.

What are the penalties for marijuana or THC found on a cruise ship?

In Florida, possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis flower is a first-degree misdemeanor, and possession of more than 20 grams is a third-degree felony under section 893.13, Florida Statutes. The 20-gram misdemeanor exception does not apply to resin or any “derivative, mixture, or preparation of such resin.” That means THC gummies, vape cartridges, and wax are charged as felonies in Florida regardless of weight, unless they qualify as lawful hemp.

Under federal law, simple possession under 21 U.S.C. § 844 carries up to one year in prison and a minimum $1,000 fine for a first offense. Bringing or possessing a Schedule I drug such as marijuana on board a vessel arriving in or departing from the United States is a separate federal crime under 21 U.S.C. § 955. For less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 960 sends sentencing to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D), which allows up to five years. For small personal-use amounts, federal authorities can instead impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 under 21 U.S.C. § 844a, which is not available to anyone with a prior drug conviction.

Our attorneys handle these cases through our Tampa drug crimes attorney practice, and the first question we ask is what exactly the officers found and how they tested it.

Can cruise security or customs search your cabin without a warrant?

Yes, in most situations. Two different rules apply depending on who does the searching and when.

Cruise line security is private. The Fourth Amendment limits government searches, and a search by the cruise line’s own security acting on its own generally falls outside it. Cruise ticket contracts typically give the cruise line the right to search cabins and luggage. Federal law adds a second layer. A House committee report on the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act noted that “American citizens who travel on cruise ships are subject to the laws of the vessel’s flag state,” which “may not afford them the same rights and protections” as U.S. law, per House Report 111-332.

Customs officers can search at the border without a warrant. In United States v. Hill, 939 F.2d 934 (11th Cir. 1991), customs agents watching a cruise ship at Port Everglades stopped a crew member’s ride inside the port and found cocaine after a dog alert. The Eleventh Circuit held that the port was the functional equivalent of the border, so no suspicion was required, and reversed the order suppressing the cocaine. In United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010), the same court upheld a suspicionless search of a crew member’s cabin on a foreign cargo ship docked in Miami.

A passenger’s cabin may deserve more protection. In United States v. Whitted, 541 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2008), customs officers searched a passenger’s stateroom when the Adventure of the Seas docked in St. Thomas. The Third Circuit held that searching a passenger’s private cabin at the border is a “nonroutine border search” that requires reasonable suspicion, though it found that suspicion existed and upheld the search. Florida is in the Eleventh Circuit, not the Third, and Alfaro-Moncada involved a crew cabin on a cargo ship. That difference gives the defense room to argue when customs searches a paying passenger’s stateroom.

Your phone is also open to inspection at the border. In United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit held that “no suspicion is necessary to search electronic devices at the border,” including forensic searches. Texts about buying or packing marijuana can become evidence.

A lawful search does not end the case. The State still has to prove the substance is illegal and that you knowingly possessed it. Statements are a separate issue too: if deputies questioned you without proper Miranda warnings, our attorneys can file a motion to suppress those statements even when the search itself holds up.

What should you do if you are detained on the cruise ship?

Stay calm, identify yourself, and stop talking about the bag. Many cruise terminal drug cases are built on what the passenger says in the first ten minutes. In a 2026 cruise terminal case our firm handled, where prosecutors ultimately filed no charges, the arrest affidavit relied on the husband’s and wife’s statements, made after Miranda warnings, that they both owned and possessed everything in the bag.

1. Cooperate physically. Go with ship security when asked. Do not argue, resist, or try to stay on board.
2. Give your name and identification. You must identify yourself. You do not have to explain what is in the bag.
3. Ask for a lawyer and stop answering questions. Say, “I want to speak with a lawyer, and I am not answering questions.” Then stop. This applies to ship security, deputies, and customs officers.
4. Do not consent to more searches. If asked for permission to search your cabin, other bags, your car, or your phone, say no. Officers may search anyway, but your refusal preserves the issue for your lawyer.
5. Do not take the blame for someone else. Couples and friends often try to protect each other by claiming everything. That statement can convict you, and it rarely helps the other person.
6. Do not get rid of anything. Flushing a vape or tossing a bag overboard can create a new charge.
7. Do not sign a written statement. Politely decline to write or sign anything about the drugs until you have spoken with a lawyer.
8. Get a message to family. Before your phone is taken, text one person the ship name, the terminal number, and the words “arrested, call a lawyer.”

What should your family do while you are still on the ship?

Your family should call a criminal defense attorney right away, while you are still on the ship or at the terminal. The early hours matter because our attorneys can start preparing for first appearance, track where you are being booked, and make sure you do not talk to anyone about the case on a recorded jail phone.

Have your family gather this information before they call:

• Your full legal name and date of birth
• The cruise line, ship name, and terminal number (Port Tampa Bay runs several terminals off Channelside Drive)
• The sail date and your home state
• The arresting agency, if known (HCSO or Tampa Police)
• What was found, if you were able to say
• Any medical marijuana card, hemp product receipts, or certificates of analysis

Once you are booked, your family can find you through the Hillsborough County jail inmate search and follow our step-by-step Hillsborough County bond walkthrough. Many cruise passengers are visiting from other states or countries. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French, so family members can explain the situation in their own language.

What happens at first appearance after a cruise terminal arrest?

Every arrested person must be taken before a judge within 24 hours of arrest under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130. In Hillsborough County, cruise terminal arrests are booked into the Orient Road Jail, and the first appearance judge decides bond and release conditions. If you have hired a lawyer, the rule requires the judge to give a reasonable time to send for counsel, which is one reason to call us before the hearing.

For cruise passengers, first appearance decides practical questions fast. Can an out-of-state passenger go home? What bond is fair for someone with no Florida ties? Will the judge order drug testing or other conditions that are hard to meet from another state? Our attorneys come to first appearance ready to answer those questions with facts: home address, employment, family, and the travel plans that were interrupted. Our guide on what to do after being arrested in Tampa explains the rest of the early process.

If a passenger was released at the terminal without an arrest and the deputy said the report would be sent to the State Attorney, you may not have a court date yet. That is the time for representation before charges are filed, when our attorneys can present lab questions and mitigation to the prosecutor before a charging decision is made.

How do our attorneys fight cruise ship drug charges?

Our attorneys attack cruise ship drug cases at five points: the testing, the possession, the statements, the search, and the classification of the charge.

1. The testing. Field tests used at the terminals detect cannabinoids. They do not measure delta-9 THC concentration, which is what separates legal hemp from illegal cannabis under Florida law. In our 2026 cruise terminal case, the deputy’s field test reported THC gummies, joints, and flower as “synthetic cannabinoids.” We demand a laboratory analysis that actually quantifies THC before any plea is discussed.
2. The possession. Shared luggage and shared cabins create real questions about who owned what. The State must prove each person knew about the drugs and had control over them.
3. The statements. We review when Miranda warnings were given, who asked the questions, and whether ship security questioned the passenger first.
4. The search. We identify who searched, when, and under what authority: private screeners, ship security, a deputy, or customs. Each has different rules.
5. The classification. A felony charge for THC edibles or vapes depends on the product not qualifying as hemp. Flower under 20 grams is a misdemeanor. Getting the weight and the product type right can change the entire case.

For first-time offenders, pretrial diversion may also be available, which can lead to a dismissal after the program is completed. For more about our defense strategies, visit our Drug Crimes page.

Case result

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

How fast do you need to act after a cruise ship arrest?

Act within hours, not days. The table below shows the timeline our attorneys work against in a typical terminal arrest in Hillsborough County.

Frequently asked questions

Can you bring CBD gummies on a cruise leaving Tampa?

No, because major cruise lines, including Carnival and Norwegian, list CBD and THC products as prohibited items even when they are legal in Florida. The Brancato Law Firm defends passengers whose hemp or CBD products were flagged at the terminal, starting with whether the product actually exceeds Florida’s 0.3 percent delta-9 THC limit under section 581.217, Florida Statutes.

Does a Florida medical marijuana card protect you on a cruise ship?

No, because Florida’s medical marijuana law does not protect use on public transportation, cruise lines ban medical marijuana, and federal law does not recognize state medical cards. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm still use a valid card, and the dispensary records behind it, as mitigation when a card holder is charged at the terminal.

What happens if customs finds marijuana when a cruise returns to Tampa?

U.S. Customs and Border Protection can seize the marijuana and refer the case for federal prosecution, impose a federal civil penalty of up to $10,000, or turn the passenger over to local law enforcement. The Brancato Law Firm handles the cases that are referred to Hillsborough County state court and can explain the options when customs is involved.

Can cruise ship security search my cabin without a warrant?

Yes, in most cases, because cruise line security is private, ticket contracts typically allow searches, and customs officers can search at the border without a warrant. When a deputy or customs officer goes beyond those limits, The Brancato Law Firm challenges the search in a motion to suppress.

Can marijuana charges from a Tampa cruise terminal be dropped?

Yes, prosecutors can drop or dismiss cruise terminal drug charges when the lab cannot prove the substance is illegal, when possession of shared luggage cannot be proven, or when key statements are suppressed. The Brancato Law Firm represented a husband and wife arrested on felony possession charges at a Port Tampa Bay terminal in 2026, and the State Attorney’s Office filed no charges against either one. Our Tampa drug crimes defense lawyer page explains how we build these cases.

Do I have to come back to Florida for court after a cruise terminal arrest?

It depends on the charge and the judge, since some court dates can be handled through your attorney while others require you to appear in person or by video. The Brancato Law Firm asks the court at first appearance to let out-of-state clients go home and to handle as much of the case through counsel as the court allows.

For a look at how jurisdiction works when something happens at sea, see our analysis of which laws applied in the Disney cruise overboard incident.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our step-by-step guide to what happens in a Florida criminal case.

Arrested at a Tampa cruise terminal? Call before first appearance

The best time to call is while your loved one is still at the terminal or being booked, before first appearance. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, defends cruise passengers charged in Hillsborough County, and we can be mobilized and ready for first appearance. Call (813) 727-7159. 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.

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 judge rules on a suppression motion after a welfare check, the question is what the officers knew at the moment they crossed the threshold, and what they did after. I taught officers those rules as a former police academy instructor, and I have argued them for more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and our attorneys challenge warrantless home entries in criminal cases across Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

What Happened in Case v. Montana?

William Case told his ex-girlfriend on the phone that he was going to kill himself. She heard a clicking sound like a gun being cocked, then “a pop” and silence, and she called 911. Three officers were sent to do “a welfare check on a suicidal male.” They knew Case had alcohol and mental health problems, had threatened suicide before, and had once appeared to try “suicide by cop.”

At the house, nobody answered their knocks or calls. Through the windows the officers saw empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad they believed was a suicide note. About 40 minutes after arriving, they went in. Case stepped out of a bedroom closet holding what looked like a gun, and an officer shot and injured him. Officers found a handgun nearby, and Case was charged with assaulting a police officer.

Case moved to suppress all evidence from the entry. The trial court denied the motion, a Montana jury convicted him, and a divided Montana Supreme Court upheld the entry. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case because federal appeals courts disagreed about whether emergency entries require probable cause.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold in Case v. Montana?

The Court held that an officer may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency aid if the officer has “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. Justice Kagan’s opinion for a unanimous Court in Case v. Montana, 607 U.S. 107 (2026) reaffirmed the test from Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), where officers entered after seeing a fight through a window, and said that test applies “with no further gloss.”

The Court also repeated a limit that matters in criminal cases: “an emergency-aid entry provides no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers’ safety.” Applying the standard, the Court found the officers had a reasonable basis to believe Case had shot himself or was about to, and it affirmed his conviction.

How Did Case v. Montana Change the Law in Florida?

Case v. Montana changed the federal rule that applied in Florida. The Court listed the Eleventh Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Florida, among the courts that had required probable cause for emergency entries, citing United States v. Cooks, 920 F.3d 735 (11th Cir. 2019). That probable-cause gloss is gone; federal courts in Florida now apply the Brigham City standard as written.

Florida’s state courts were already close to the Brigham City test. In Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2006), a roommate called 911 to report that Michael Seibert was suicidal. Seibert took several minutes to answer the door, opened it only partway, and slammed it shut. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the entry because “an objectively reasonable basis” existed to believe there was “an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life.” The court also held that the search must be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation,” and that once officers determine no emergency exists, “any subsequent search is illegal.”

That scope rule is where many Florida welfare-check cases are won. Under Seibert, officers may seize contraband in plain view while the emergency is still being resolved, but not after it ends. Our attorneys build the timeline from body camera footage, dispatch records, and CAD logs to show the moment the emergency ended and what the officers did next.

What Did Justice Sotomayor Say About Mental Health Welfare Checks?

Justice Sotomayor joined the Court’s opinion but wrote separately to warn that entering a home is not always the reasonable response to a person in a mental health crisis, because “the presence of law enforcement at times can escalate the situation rather than ameliorate it, putting both the occupant and the officers in danger.” She cited research showing that people with serious mental health conditions are “seven times more likely to be killed during police interactions” than the general population, and a Washington Post review finding that over a 2-year period, “calls for help resulted in law enforcement officers shooting and killing the very people they were called on to assist” in 178 cases.

She also cited a 2024 American Journal of Public Health study by Ward and colleagues finding that police shootings involving behavioral health concerns were 2.1 times more likely to be fatal than other police shootings, and a 2018 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry study by Saleh and colleagues finding that people with mental illness were “2.8 times more likely” to “be killed in their own homes.” She suggested officers may sometimes do better to call from a distance, contact family, or bring in crisis-trained officers or mental health professionals before entering, and she wrote that once officers decide to go in, the “manner” of the entry and their conduct inside must also be “reasonable.”

A concurrence is not the holding, but it is persuasive authority a Florida judge can consider. The majority noted that Case never challenged how the officers entered or what they did inside, so those questions remain open for future cases.

How Often Do Florida Police Respond to Mental Health Crises?

Constantly. In fiscal year 2023-2024, Florida conducted 161,576 involuntary examinations under the Baker Act, and 52.36% of them were initiated by law enforcement, according to the Baker Act Reporting Center at the University of South Florida. Involuntary examinations fell 20% from fiscal year 2019-2020, when there were 202,598.

Under section 394.463, Florida Statutes, an officer “may take a person who appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination into custody.” Many welfare checks end that way. Some end with a criminal charge instead, based on what officers saw inside the home or on how the encounter went. When the person in crisis is also charged with a crime, our Tampa criminal mental health lawyer team handles both the Fourth Amendment issues and the mental health defense.

Can You Challenge Evidence Found During a Welfare Check in Florida?

Yes. A motion to suppress can challenge a welfare-check entry on several grounds, even after Case v. Montana. These are the questions our attorneys ask in every case:

1. Did officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside was seriously hurt or in imminent danger? A stale tip, an anonymous call with no detail, or a report contradicted by what officers saw at the door may fall short.
2. Did the emergency end before the search? Once officers found the person and saw no one needed aid, further searching required a warrant or another exception, under both Case v. Montana and Seibert.
3. Did the search stay within the emergency? Opening drawers, containers, or rooms where no person could be is beyond “what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency.”
4. Was the manner of entry reasonable? Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence supports arguments about forced entry, weapons drawn, and refusal to try de-escalation first.
5. Was this really community caretaking? In Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021), the Court refused to let a general “community caretaking” rationale justify warrantless home entries. A check on someone’s general well-being, without a real emergency, does not qualify.

Our motion to suppress guide explains how these hearings work in Florida, and our post on when police can enter your home without a warrant in Florida covers the other exceptions, including consent, hot pursuit, and destruction of evidence.

What Charges Come Out of Welfare Checks in Tampa?

Welfare checks can lead to several kinds of charges: drug or weapons charges based on items officers saw inside, domestic violence charges based on what a family member reported, and charges against the person in crisis for how the encounter ended. In Case itself, the charge was assaulting an officer. In Florida, section 784.07, Florida Statutes, reclassifies an assault on a law enforcement officer “engaged in the performance of his or her official duties” from a second-degree to a first-degree misdemeanor, and a battery from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.

Because the suppression ruling and the trial defense often turn on the same facts about the entry, our attorneys prepare them together. Drug cases often turn on the scope of the search; our Tampa drug crimes attorney page explains how we defend them. Charges for battery on an officer are covered on our violent crimes defense page.

Why Does Police Training Matter in Welfare-Check Cases?

Police training matters because the officer’s account of what he knew and why he went in is the heart of the suppression hearing. As Rocky Brancato puts it: “As a former police academy instructor in criminal procedure and courtroom testimony, I taught officers the constitutional requirements they must follow, including when they can and cannot enter a home without a warrant. When I cross-examine an officer about a welfare check entry, I know what they were taught about the emergency aid exception, and I know when their actions deviate from proper constitutional standards.”

In Hillsborough County, suppression motions in felony cases are heard in circuit court in the 13th Judicial Circuit before trial. Our Hillsborough County criminal defense attorney page explains how those cases move, and our post on how Tampa police mistakes can lead to a dismissal shows what a successful challenge can mean for the case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Case v. Montana and Welfare Checks

Do Florida police need a warrant to do a welfare check inside my home?

No, not if they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is seriously injured or in imminent danger. The Brancato Law Firm tests that basis against the 911 call, the dispatch notes, and the body camera footage; see our guide on warrantless home entry in Florida.

Can police search my whole house during a welfare check in Florida?

No. Case v. Montana says an emergency entry gives “no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency,” and Seibert makes any search after the emergency ends illegal. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm use that limit to suppress evidence found in drawers, closets, and containers.

What if the welfare check was based on a false or mistaken report?

The entry can still be lawful if the report reasonably appeared true when officers acted, because Florida courts judge the officer’s belief at the time of entry. The Brancato Law Firm looks for facts at the scene that should have dispelled the report, since they can undercut the officers’ basis.

Does Case v. Montana apply if I told police I was fine?

Your statement is part of the totality of circumstances, but officers may weigh it against other facts such as a weapon or a third-party report. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm rely on Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, which cited cases where officers forced entry after the occupant said he was okay.

Can I be Baker Acted after a welfare check in Florida?

Yes, an officer may take a person who appears to meet the criteria into custody for an involuntary examination under section 394.463. The Brancato Law Firm represents clients whose crisis also led to criminal charges; see our criminal mental health defense page.

Is a welfare check the same as community caretaking?

No. After Caniglia v. Strom, a general community caretaking purpose does not justify entering a home; officers need a real emergency under the Brigham City standard. The Brancato Law Firm challenges entries where the facts show only a general concern for someone’s well-being.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our stage-by-stage guide to the Florida criminal case process.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney About an Unlawful Home Entry

The best time to challenge a welfare-check entry is before the State finalizes its case, while body camera footage, 911 audio, and dispatch logs are still easy to obtain. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159, and our attorneys will review how the officers got in and what they did inside. 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 our guide for criminal defense in Spanish and Haitian Creole in Tampa.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Criminal Mental Health 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.

If an officer stopped you in Tampa and mentioned a “hit” on your plate, a camera on a pole may have made the first decision in your case before any person did. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy instructor who has spent more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms. I taught officers how stops are supposed to work, and our attorneys now use that training to test whether a plate-reader alert gave police a lawful reason to pull a car over.

What Is a Flock Camera?

A Flock camera is an automated license plate reader sold by Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that is one of the largest ALPR vendors in the country. Florida law, in section 316.0777, Florida Statutes, defines an automated license plate recognition system as one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms that convert images of license plates into computer-readable data. Flock’s version also records the vehicle’s make, color, and distinguishing features such as roof racks or bumper stickers, which Flock markets as a “Vehicle Fingerprint.”

The cameras take still photographs of the rear of passing cars, not continuous video of drivers. Each read is time-stamped and stored in a database that the agency that owns the camera can search, and agencies can choose to share access with other agencies. The Brancato Law Firm treats every ALPR read in a case as evidence with a source, a time stamp, and an error rate that can be tested.

Does Florida Have Flock Cameras, and Are They Legal?

Yes. ALPRs, including Flock cameras, are legal in Florida, and law enforcement agencies, cities, homeowners associations, and businesses across Tampa Bay use them. Section 316.0777(2)(b) lets the Department of Transportation, at its discretion, allow a law enforcement agency to install an ALPR in the right-of-way of a state highway for the purpose of collecting active criminal intelligence or investigative information. The same statute says an ALPR may not be used to issue a traffic citation or notice of violation, and that a camera must come down within 30 days after the department tells the agency to remove it.

The department used that power on August 31, 2026. FDOT Engineering and Operations Memorandum No. 26-01 revoked every approval for law enforcement ALPRs on state highway rights-of-way, gave agencies 30 days to remove them, and stopped issuing new permits. The memo cited “the recent exponential increase in deployments” and “concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns, and surveillance schemes.” The order does not reach cameras on city or county roads, private property, or HOA entrances, so many Flock cameras in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties remain in place. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm check where the camera in a client’s case was mounted and whether its permit was valid on the date of the read.

Are There Flock Cameras in Tampa, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco?

Yes. All three counties’ largest law enforcement agencies have used license plate readers, and each responded differently to the state order. In September 2026, the Tampa Police Department said it would remove 17 cameras on the State Highway System and reported that its readers had aided in 622 arrests, recovered 485 vehicles and 68 firearms, and helped in 14 missing persons cases, according to WUSF reporting on the removals. The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office said it was removing all 70 of its Flock cameras in county and state rights-of-way. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office declined to say how many cameras had to come down, citing a public records exemption.

In Pinellas County, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told county commissioners in October 2026 that his office runs 79 stationary cameras under a Flock contract costing $287,000 a year, according to Bay News 9. That presentation came about a week after a former Pinellas deputy was arrested on felony charges for allegedly running a license plate reader database about 300 times to track a woman. Prosecutors dropped that deputy’s charges on October 29, 2026, and on November 5, 2026, a third former Pinellas deputy, Ronald Scott, was arrested after an agency audit found more than 100 unauthorized Flock and driver’s license searches on his estranged wife and her circle. Our separate guide on whether police can be charged for misusing Flock cameras in Florida covers that side of the issue.

These agency figures describe what the cameras find, and they leave out what defense lawyers see. In a 2019 study published in Police Quarterly, George Mason University researchers Christopher Koper and Cynthia Lum examined a city that installed nearly 100 fixed readers and found that clearances for auto theft and robbery improved, but the improvements were not statistically significant once other factors were controlled (National Criminal Justice Reference Service abstract). A camera network produces many reads; each read still has to be connected to the right car, the right driver, and the right moment.

Can a Flock Camera Hit Lead to a Traffic Stop and Arrest in Tampa?

Yes. A plate-reader alert can lead to a stop, but the officer must still have reasonable suspicion that the specific car or driver is involved in a crime or traffic violation. Florida’s stop law, section 901.151, Florida Statutes, and the Fourth Amendment both require it. The usual sequence in Hillsborough County looks like this:

1. The camera reads a plate and the system matches it to a hotlist entry, such as a stolen vehicle, a warrant, or a be-on-the-lookout alert.
2. Nearby officers receive the alert with the read’s location, time, and photo.
3. An officer finds the car and decides whether to stop it.
4. During the stop, the officer may find a suspended license, drugs, a weapon, or a warrant, and that is where most criminal cases start.

Kansas v. Glover: what a database check can and cannot justify

In Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. 376 (2020), a Kansas deputy ran a pickup’s plate, learned the registered owner’s license was revoked, and stopped the truck without seeing any traffic violation. The U.S. Supreme Court held the stop was lawful because it was reasonable to infer that the owner was driving, and the deputy had no information suggesting otherwise. The Court stressed that its holding was narrow: if the officer knows facts that undercut the inference, such as an owner in his mid-sixties and a driver who looks to be in her mid-twenties, the database result alone does not justify the stop. Our attorneys look for those facts in the body-camera video.

State v. Teamer: a mismatch in the database is not enough by itself

In State v. Teamer, 151 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 2014), a deputy ran a plate and saw that the registration listed a different color than the car in front of him. The Florida Supreme Court held that the color discrepancy alone did not give reasonable suspicion for a stop, because it is not illegal in Florida to repaint a car without telling the state, and ordered the defendant discharged. Flock’s “Vehicle Fingerprint” records the same kind of color and feature data, so Teamer gives our attorneys a Florida Supreme Court rule for stops based on a description mismatch in the system.

These cases matter at more than one stage. A stop that lacked reasonable suspicion can be challenged with a motion to suppress before trial, and if the motion succeeds, the drugs, weapon, or statements found after the stop can be excluded. For impaired-driving arrests that began with a plate-reader alert, our Tampa DUI lawyer page explains how the stop is evaluated with the rest of the case.

Is a License Plate Scan a Search Under the Fourth Amendment?

Usually not. Courts have generally held that photographing a license plate on a public road is not a Fourth Amendment search, because the plate is displayed for anyone to see. The harder question is what happens when police search weeks of stored reads to reconstruct where a person drove, and no Florida appellate decision we have found resolves that question for ALPR databases.

The guidepost is Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). The Supreme Court held that obtaining 127 days of historical cell-site location records was a search that generally requires a warrant, because the records gave an all-encompassing picture of the person’s movements. The Court called its decision narrow and said it was not calling into question conventional surveillance tools such as security cameras. Defense lawyers nationwide argue that a dense ALPR network can approach the tracking Carpenter described; prosecutors answer that scattered plate photos are closer to a security camera. The Brancato Law Firm raises the argument when the State’s case depends on a long history of reads rather than a single alert.

Historical searches are already being used as trial evidence in Florida. In Mathis v. State, No. 4D2024-1543 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 8, 2026), a Broward County second-degree murder case, license plate readers in Lighthouse Point captured the defendant’s car following the victim’s van into the city and leaving about six minutes later, and the reader database showed the car had never been in Lighthouse Point before. The Fourth District affirmed the conviction, relying on that evidence along with DNA, video, and phone records. The case shows how an ALPR history becomes part of a circumstantial case, which is why our attorneys demand the full search log, not just the reads the State chose to print.

Who Can See Flock Camera Data, and How Long Is It Kept?

In Florida, ALPR images and data that contain personal identifying information are confidential and exempt from public records requests under section 316.0777(3). The statute allows the information to be shared with criminal justice agencies performing their official duties, and it gives one important right to drivers: information relating to a license plate registered to you may be disclosed to you, unless it is active criminal intelligence or active criminal investigative information. The Brancato Law Firm uses that provision, along with criminal discovery, to obtain the reads of a client’s own plate.

Retention is capped by section 316.0778, Florida Statutes, which directs the Department of State, in consultation with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to set a maximum retention period by schedule. Agencies often keep data for much less. Flock’s long-standing default was 30 days, and on August 13, 2026, Flock’s CEO announced that the company recommends agencies cut retention to seven days, according to WECT reporting. A shorter retention period means a defense request has to go out fast, before the reads that help a client are deleted.

Do Flock Cameras Record Speed or Share Data With ICE?

Flock license plate readers do not measure speed. School-zone speed cameras are a separate system governed by section 316.1896, Florida Statutes, which bars using those cameras for remote surveillance, limits their photos and video to school-zone speeding enforcement and incidents captured along the way, and requires the images to be destroyed within 90 days after final disposition. Tampa’s school-zone program uses RedSpeed cameras, and Tampa police told the City Council in July 2026 that the cameras will not include license plate readers or share data with Flock, according to the Pineapple Report.

On immigration, Flock says it does not contract directly with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but local agencies can share the data they collect. Suncoast Searchlight reported in 2025 that the Florida Highway Patrol ran more than 250 immigration-related searches of the Flock network between March 13 and May 5, 2025 (WUSF republication). If a family member was stopped and questioned about immigration status, our attorneys defend the criminal case and coordinate with immigration counsel on the immigration side. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French, so families can talk through what happened in their own language.

How Do Our Attorneys Challenge License Plate Reader Evidence?

Our attorneys challenge ALPR evidence by testing the read, the alert, the stop, and the data trail, in that order. These are the questions we answer first:

1. Was the plate read correctly? We obtain the raw image and compare every character. Plate-reading software can confuse similar characters, and a misread can send officers after the wrong car.
2. Was the alert still valid? We obtain the hotlist entry and its time stamp. A stolen car that was recovered or a warrant that was cleared can stay on a list after it should have been removed.
3. Did the officer confirm before stopping? Under Glover and Teamer, we look at what the officer saw: whether the car, the driver, and the alert actually matched.
4. Was the camera lawfully placed? After FDOT Memorandum No. 26-01, a camera still operating on a state right-of-way after the removal deadline is a fact worth litigating.
5. Who searched the data, and why? We request the audit log of searches on the client’s plate, which can reveal fishing expeditions or misuse.
6. Was the data preserved? We send preservation requests early, because short retention periods can erase reads that support the defense.

Drug, weapon, and stolen-vehicle cases often begin with a plate-reader stop, and our Tampa drug crimes attorney page describes how we defend the charges that follow. When someone learns that investigators are pulling plate-reader history before any arrest, our representation before charges are filed can address the investigation directly.

What Should You Do If Police Stop You Because of a License Plate Reader?

Stay calm, do not argue about the camera at the roadside, and protect the record. The stop itself is where the strongest defenses are built, so details matter:

• Ask, calmly, why you were stopped, and remember the officer’s exact words about a “hit” or “alert.”
• Do not consent to a search of your car; you can say so politely.
• Do not answer questions about where you have been; the reads already tell police where the car went.
• Write down the time, the street, and the direction you were driving as soon as you can.
• Call a defense attorney quickly so preservation requests go out before the data is deleted.

Frequently Asked Questions About Flock Cameras in Florida

Are Flock cameras being removed from Florida roads?

Yes, Flock and other law enforcement license plate readers on state highway rights-of-way had to come down within 30 days of the FDOT memorandum issued August 31, 2026. The Brancato Law Firm checks whether the camera in a client’s case sat on a state, county, city, or private site, because only state rights-of-way were covered.

Who pays for Flock cameras in Tampa Bay?

Taxpayers pay for law enforcement cameras through agency contracts, and HOAs or businesses pay for the cameras they buy. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm request the contract and sharing settings in cases where a private camera fed an alert to police, as with the Pinellas Sheriff’s $287,000-a-year Flock contract reported in October 2026.

Can police use a Flock camera to give me a speeding or red-light ticket?

No, an ALPR installed on a state highway may not be used to issue a traffic citation or notice of violation under section 316.0777. The Brancato Law Firm separates camera-based school-zone and red-light tickets, which have their own statutes, from criminal stops that start with a plate-reader alert; see our Hillsborough County criminal defense attorney page for the criminal side.

Can I find out whether a Flock camera recorded my car?

Often yes, because section 316.0777(4)(b) allows information about a plate registered to you to be disclosed to you unless it is active criminal intelligence or investigative information. When a client is charged, The Brancato Law Firm obtains those reads through discovery, which reaches more than a public records request.

Can a license plate reader stop be thrown out in Florida?

Yes, if the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the specific car and driver, the evidence from the stop can be suppressed. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm build those motions around the raw image, the hotlist time stamp, and the body-camera video, using Teamer and Glover as the framework, including in St. Petersburg and Clearwater cases covered on our Pinellas County criminal defense page.

Are Flock cameras the same as police misusing the database?

No, using the cameras is legal, but searching the database for personal reasons can be a crime for the officer who does it. The Brancato Law Firm explains those charges in our guide to police misuse of Flock cameras in Florida.

For how The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. defends these cases, see our Tampa internet crimes defense practice.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney About a License Plate Reader Stop

Write down where and when you were stopped, then call us before the reads are deleted. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, can be reached at (813) 727-7159, and our attorneys will start by requesting the raw image, the alert record, and the search log for your plate. 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.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa DUI 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.

A Florida judge grants a motion to suppress only when the defense proves, with testimony and records, that police broke a specific legal rule and that the evidence came from that violation. My name is Rocky Brancato, and I am the founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. I taught criminal procedure and courtroom testimony as a police academy instructor, and I have spent more than 25 years testing police testimony in Hillsborough County courtrooms. When a stop, search, or interrogation is in question, our attorneys obtain the body camera video, dashcam footage, dispatch logs, and computer-aided dispatch timestamps, and we build the motion around what those records show.

What Is a Motion to Suppress in Florida?

A motion to suppress is a written request asking the court to exclude evidence the State obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The evidence can be physical, such as drugs found in a car, or verbal, such as a confession given without Miranda warnings. The remedy is called the exclusionary rule: unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be used to prove guilt.

The rule also reaches evidence police found by exploiting the first violation. In Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), federal agents broke into a man’s home without probable cause, and his statements in the bedroom led them to heroin held by another person. The Supreme Court excluded both the statements and the heroin against him because police reached the drugs by exploiting the illegal entry. Lawyers call this “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Suppression motions come up most often in drug and gun cases, because those charges usually depend on what police found during a search. For possession and trafficking charges, our Tampa drug crimes attorney page explains how The Brancato Law Firm attacks the search itself.

Does Florida’s Constitution Protect More Than the Fourth Amendment?

Florida’s search-and-seizure protection is tied to the federal standard. Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and it says that right “shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.” It also bars evidence only when the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment decisions would bar it.

The Florida Supreme Court applied that conformity clause in Bernie v. State, 524 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1988). That case began with an air freight package of cocaine that broke open in transit, and one of the defendants later asked about it at the carrier’s Tampa office. The court held that Florida courts are bound by every U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decision, including later ones, and cannot give greater protection. In practice, a Florida search motion rises or falls on federal precedent plus Florida statutes and rules, and the Second District Court of Appeal’s decisions bind trial courts in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. The Brancato Law Firm builds every search motion on that combination of federal precedent and Second District case law.

What Are the Most Common Grounds for Suppression in Florida?

Most suppression motions in Florida fall into four groups: stops held too long, warrantless entries into a home, statements taken in violation of Miranda, and evidence that flowed from one of those violations. Each ground has its own legal test, and the defense must name the specific evidence and the specific reason in the motion. The table below shows how The Brancato Law Firm sorts the issues at the start of a case.

Traffic stops held too long

A traffic stop can last only as long as the tasks tied to the traffic violation. In Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), an officer issued a written warning, returned the driver’s documents, and then held him seven or eight minutes until a drug dog alerted. The Supreme Court held that police may not prolong a completed stop for a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion of another crime. Florida’s Stop and Frisk Law, section 901.151(3), Florida Statutes, likewise limits a temporary detention to the time reasonably necessary for its purpose.

Our post on how long a traffic stop can last in Florida covers the 2026 Florida decisions on dog sniffs and lane-drift stops. The same timing analysis drives many DUI suppression motions, which our Tampa DUI lawyer page discusses along with field sobriety exercises and breath testing.

Warrantless entry into a home

Police generally need a warrant, valid consent, or a true emergency to enter a home. In Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), officers forced their way into an apartment without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest, and the Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment forbids that absent exigent circumstances. Florida adds a statutory layer: section 933.18, Florida Statutes, allows a search warrant for a private dwelling only in listed situations and only on a sworn affidavit setting out the facts.

When the State relies on a warrantless search, the State carries the burden of proving it was legal. In Ross v. State, 319 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), a Charlotte County deputy impounded and inventoried a locked car parked at a public park and found drugs. The Second District reversed the denial of suppression because the State offered no evidence of a standard governing the decision to impound. Our post on whether police can enter your home without a warrant in Florida covers welfare checks, knock-and-announce, and the 2026 decisions on home entries.

Statements taken in violation of Miranda

Police must give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation, and unwarned answers cannot be used to prove guilt. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) requires warnings of the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, and the right to an attorney, appointed if needed. The prosecution must show the warnings were given and the rights were knowingly waived.

Custody is often the fight. In Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999), detectives questioned a 17-year-old in a small station-house room, told him they knew he was involved, and never told him he could leave. The Florida Supreme Court used four factors to find he was in custody: how police summoned him, the purpose, place, and manner of questioning, how far he was confronted with evidence of guilt, and whether he was told he was free to leave. The court held the confession should have been suppressed and ordered a new trial. For interrogation tactics that produce unreliable statements, see our post on false confessions in Florida.

What Does Florida Rule 3.190(g) Require After the 2026 Amendment?

Since July 13, 2026, one subdivision of Florida’s pretrial-motion rule governs both kinds of suppression motion. In In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190, 421 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 2025), the Florida Supreme Court combined the subdivisions on suppressing evidence and suppressing statements into Rule 3.190(g). The former confession subdivision, 3.190(h), no longer exists in that form, and subdivision (h) now covers depositions to perpetuate testimony.

The amended rule also removed the old list of five warrant defects from the rule text. Those arguments, such as a warrant that is defective on its face or lacks probable cause, remain available under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 12. The rule now states the ground generally: evidence the State obtained through an unlawful search or seizure by a government agent, or statements the State obtained unlawfully from the defendant.

The deadline change matters most. A motion to suppress must now be filed before trial or before the deadline the trial judge sets. A late motion survives only if there is good cause for the delay or the State does not object, so The Brancato Law Firm treats the judge’s scheduling order as the real deadline in every case.

What Happens at a Suppression Hearing in Florida?

A suppression hearing is a pretrial evidentiary hearing in front of a judge, with no jury. Under Rule 3.190(g)(3), the judge first decides whether the written motion is legally sufficient and denies it if it is not. If the judge reaches the merits, the defense presents evidence, the State may offer rebuttal, and the judge may take evidence on any factual issue needed to rule.

The arresting officer is usually the key witness. I taught criminal procedure and courtroom testimony at the police academy, and our attorneys build the cross-examination around three sources: the officer’s written report, the body camera and dashcam video, and the dispatch timestamps. A gap between the report and the video is the kind of concrete fact a judge can rely on in a written order. In prolonged-stop cases, the minute-by-minute timeline often decides the motion.

Judges rule on the evidence presented. That is why our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm subpoena the records early, compare every timestamp, and decide before the hearing whether the client should testify.

How Often Are Motions to Suppress Filed and Granted?

Motions to suppress are filed in a minority of criminal cases, and they succeed when the records support them. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice reviewed 7,500 criminal cases in nine medium-sized counties in Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Peter F. Nardulli reported in the American Bar Foundation Research Journal in 1983 that motions to suppress physical evidence were filed in fewer than five percent of those cases, and that those cases primarily involved drugs and weapons. The same study found that unsuccessful motions to exclude confessions were the only motions that produced real sentencing concessions.

Searches start with police contact, and most police-initiated contact happens in a car. In 2022, about 10.1 million U.S. residents age 16 or older said their most recent contact with police was as a driver in a traffic stop, 58 percent of all police-initiated contacts, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2022. About 4.0 percent of those drivers reported being searched or arrested. Those numbers explain why traffic stops supply so many of the suppression issues The Brancato Law Firm litigates.

What Happens After the Judge Rules?

A granted motion removes the evidence from the State’s case, and the State then decides whether it can still prove the charge. If the suppressed drugs, gun, or confession was the heart of the case, prosecutors may reduce or dismiss the charge. Florida law also lets the State appeal certain pretrial orders and orders suppressing evidence at trial under section 924.07, Florida Statutes, which is why The Brancato Law Firm asks for the written findings the new rule allows.

A denied motion does not end the issue. The officer’s credibility and the gaps in the video remain fair game at trial in front of the jury. A defendant who chooses to plead can preserve the suppression issue for appeal only by expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, as section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes requires.

Suppression of a statement has one important limit. In Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), the defendant’s unwarned statement was kept out of the prosecution’s main case, but he testified differently at trial, and the Supreme Court allowed the statement to impeach him. He had not claimed the statement was coerced. That rule shapes whether our attorneys advise a client to testify after a Miranda suppression.

Our Suppression Results

The Brancato Law Firm has published these results involving challenges to searches and statements. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

How Soon Should You Raise a Suppression Issue?

Raise it within days of the arrest. In Hillsborough County, felony cases move from arrest to the State Attorney’s filing decision in a matter of weeks, and the amended rule now lets the trial judge set a suppression deadline before trial. Video, dispatch audio, and timestamp records are easiest to obtain and compare early in the case.

If no charge has been filed yet, the investigation stage is the best time to protect your rights. Our representation before charges are filed lets The Brancato Law Firm deal with investigators and prosecutors before the filing decision is made.

Frequently Asked Questions About Motions to Suppress in Florida

Can charges be dropped in Florida if a motion to suppress is granted?

Yes. When the suppressed evidence was the core of the State’s proof, prosecutors may have nothing left to prove and can dismiss or reduce the charge. In a fentanyl trafficking case, The Brancato Law Firm obtained a dismissal after challenging the legality of the vehicle search, a result described on our drug crimes defense page.

Does a judge or a jury decide a motion to suppress?

A judge decides it, at a pretrial evidentiary hearing with no jury present. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm prepare for that hearing with subpoenaed officers, video exhibits, and a minute-by-minute timeline of the stop or search.

Do police have to read Miranda rights during a DUI traffic stop?

Usually not during routine roadside questioning, because a driver in an ordinary traffic stop is not in custody under Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). The Brancato Law Firm looks for the moment a DUI stop turned into custody, since questions asked after that point without warnings can be suppressed.

Can the State appeal if a judge suppresses evidence in Florida?

Yes. Section 924.07, Florida Statutes, lists the orders the State may appeal, including pretrial orders and orders suppressing evidence at trial. When our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm win a motion, we request the written findings of fact Rule 3.190(g)(5) now allows, because appellate courts defer to factual findings supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Can I still appeal a denied motion to suppress if I take a plea?

Only if you expressly reserve the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue before the plea is entered, under section 924.051(4), Florida Statutes. The Brancato Law Firm puts that reservation on the record in plain terms when a client decides to plead after losing a dispositive suppression ruling.

Should I answer police questions if I think I am under investigation?

You are not required to answer investigative questions, and anything you say can be used against you. The Brancato Law Firm can communicate with investigators for you through pre-file advocacy, which keeps your own words from becoming the State’s best evidence.

Is evidence found after an illegal stop always thrown out?

Not always. Under Wong Sun, evidence is excluded when police reached it by exploiting the illegality, and courts can admit evidence that came from an independent source or whose link to the violation became too weak. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm trace each piece of evidence back to the stop or entry to show the court exactly how police found it.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our step-by-step guide to what happens in a Florida criminal case.

Talk to a Tampa Suppression Lawyer About Your Case

Our attorneys start by pulling the body camera video, dispatch records, and timestamps from your stop or search and comparing them line by line against the officer’s report. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. was founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, and we handle suppression motions in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. Under Florida’s amended rule, a motion to suppress must be filed before trial or before the deadline your judge sets, so call (813) 727-7159 now. You can call us at any hour.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Drug Crimes page, or our DUI defense page if your case began with a traffic stop.

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.

A Florida judge lets a jury see a photo pulled from your phone only after the State shows two things: the photo is what the State says it is, and it connects to the crime charged. I have fought over that kind of evidence for more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms, including as a former Major Crimes Unit attorney, and today as founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. When a case turns on a phone, our attorneys bring in defense-side forensic experts who re-run the State’s extraction, check the timestamps, and look for content law enforcement missed.

Can police recover deleted photos and posts from your phone?

Yes. Police can often recover deleted photos, messages, and posts, because pressing “delete” on a phone rarely erases the data right away. The National Institute of Standards and Technology explains in its Guidelines on Mobile Device Forensics (NIST SP 800-101 Rev. 1, 2014) that a “physical” extraction of a phone’s memory allows deleted objects and data remnants to be examined. A simpler “logical” extraction captures less, and a manual review of the screen cannot recover deleted information at all. So the type of extraction in your case matters, and our attorneys find out which one was used before deciding how to attack it. Our Tampa criminal forensic science attorney page explains how we use independent experts on this kind of evidence.

Deleted content also survives outside the phone. Apple’s support page states that deleted iPhone photos go to the Recently Deleted album for 30 days, and Google says a deleted photo backed up to Google Photos stays in the trash for 30 days. Copies can sit on a synced computer, in a cloud account, or on the phone of anyone who received the picture or took a screenshot.

Most crime labs do not analyze phones at all. In 2020, publicly funded crime labs in the United States received about 27,000 digital evidence requests, less than 1% of their 3.3 million total requests, and only 23% of those labs performed digital evidence analysis at all, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories. That means the person who extracted the phone in your case may be a detective trained on extraction software rather than a crime lab analyst. Our firm finds out who did the work, which tool and version they used, and whether anyone checked the results.

What makes a phone photo or social media post admissible in Florida?

A photo or post is admissible in a Florida criminal trial only if it is relevant, authentic, and not unfairly prejudicial. Three sections of the Florida Evidence Code do most of the work:

• Relevance. Under section 90.401, relevant evidence is evidence “tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” A photo with no link to the charged crime fails this test.
• Unfair prejudice. Under section 90.403, a judge must exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury.
• Authentication. Under section 90.901, the State must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item “is what its proponent claims.”

Authentication is a low bar, but it is a real one. In State v. Torres, 304 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), a teenage victim kept screenshots of sexual messages sent through the Kik app by someone she said was her adult cousin. The appeals court held the screenshots were authenticated by circumstantial proof: the sender used a family nickname, the messages mentioned facts only the two of them knew, and the victim had a long history of messaging him on the app. The court said the State did not need to search the sender’s phone, and it noted that testimony that a person merely received a message from someone is not enough by itself to prove who sent it. Our attorneys use that line to press the State on who actually typed a message or posted a picture, especially when accounts are shared, hacked, or created under fake names.

Can a deleted photo of you holding a gun be used if police never found the gun?

Yes, if the State links the photo to the crime with enough other facts. The Third District Court of Appeal applied that rule this summer in Cosby v. State, No. 3D24-2141 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 2026), a felony murder appeal built largely on data recovered from a phone.

What happened. On April 7, 2020, a high school student selling aftermarket sneakers drove with his girlfriend to an abandoned house in Southwest Miami-Dade County to meet a buyer. The meeting had been arranged through Instagram messages. While George Walton talked to the seller about the shoes, Adrian Cosby walked up from behind the car and fired. The seller was hit in the arm and survived. His girlfriend died. Both were shot with a 9mm gun that police never recovered.

The phone. Cosby had lost his own phone, so he and Walton were sharing Walton’s. The day after the shooting, police canvassed the neighborhood and questioned the Cosby family. That night the family held a meeting at home, and Cosby’s mother’s phone recorded video of Cosby and Walton deleting items from Walton’s phone. A forensic examination later showed that 161 items had been deleted on the day of the shooting and another 541 that night. One of the recovered items was a selfie taken about two months earlier showing Cosby and Walton posing with 9mm guns. Police also found 9mm ammunition in Cosby’s bedroom under a search warrant.

The ruling. Cosby argued the photo was irrelevant under section 90.401 and unfairly prejudicial under section 90.403, because nothing tied the pictured gun to the murder weapon and the photo invited the jury to see him as a violent person. The court found the State’s response persuasive and pointed to the matching caliber, the ammunition in his room, the trial court’s finding that the pictured gun was “consistent” with the gun used, the two-month gap, and the deletion the night after the shooting. Given that “aggregation of facts connecting the photograph to the charged crimes,” the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed his convictions for first-degree felony murder, attempted felony murder, and attempted robbery, with life sentences on the murder and attempted murder counts. Because it found no error, the court never reached the State’s fallback argument that any error was harmless.

Why the same kind of photo gets excluded in other cases. Cosby is a link case, and the links decided it. In Agatheas v. State, 77 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011), the Florida Supreme Court held that a .45-caliber revolver found in the defendant’s backpack five years after a murder was inadmissible, because it was undisputed that the revolver was not the murder weapon. The court held that firearm evidence requires “a sufficient link between the weapon and the crime,” and that the unrelated gun confused and misled the jury.

The lesson for anyone facing a gun charge or a violent felony is that a photo of you with a firearm is a fight about links. Our attorneys build the record on each factor in that table before trial, because a judge’s ruling on admissibility is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is hard to reverse on appeal. Our Tampa gun crimes lawyer page covers how we defend cases where the State relies on firearm photos and ammunition.

Is deleting photos or posts after an arrest a crime in Florida?

It can be. Under section 918.13, a person commits tampering with evidence if, knowing that a criminal investigation, proceeding, or trial is pending or about to begin, the person alters, destroys, conceals, or removes any record, document, or other item with the purpose of impairing its truth or availability. Tampering is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison under section 775.082. It becomes a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years, when the investigation involves a capital felony.

Knowledge is the element that matters most. Clearing old photos long before you had any reason to expect an investigation does not meet that element. Deleting a thread the night after a detective knocks on your door looks different, and the Cosby record shows why: the deletions came the same day police canvassed the family home, and the State used them as part of its case.

Deleting can also hurt you even if no tampering charge is filed. In Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981), the Florida Supreme Court held that evidence a suspect tried to evade prosecution through flight, concealment, or similar conduct is admissible because a jury may infer consciousness of guilt from it. Prosecutors make that argument about deleted messages and photos. Our firm’s guidance in what to do if you are named in an “I Am Jane Doe” post applies here too: once you know an investigation may be coming, do not delete anything.

Do police need a warrant to search your phone in Florida?

Generally, yes. In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that police who arrest someone and take a phone must generally get a warrant before searching the data on it. The Court summed up the rule in three words: “get a warrant.” It stressed that a phone can hold thousands of pictures and a record of nearly every part of a person’s life. Exceptions still exist, such as a real emergency or your own consent.

Social media companies are a separate route. Under the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703, police need a warrant to make a provider disclose the contents of messages stored for 180 days or less. The same statute lets police ask a provider to preserve your records for 90 days, extended another 90 days on request, while they apply for a warrant or court order. A post you delete today may already be frozen on the company’s servers. Location data follows its own rules, which we cover in can police track your phone without a warrant in Florida.

A phone search without a valid warrant or exception can be suppressed. When a warrant exists, our attorneys read it line by line, because the search must stay within what the warrant actually authorizes.

How do defense attorneys fight photo and social media evidence?

Defense attorneys fight digital evidence on five fronts: relevance, prejudice, authentication, the legality of the search, and the reliability of the extraction. A loss on one front does not end the others. A judge can deny a motion to suppress and still exclude the same photo at trial as unfairly prejudicial, and an authentication ruling at trial does not stop the defense from arguing to the jury that a message was fabricated, which Torres treated as a question of weight.

The reliability challenge usually requires an expert. NIST’s guidelines report that testing has found “discrepancies in recovering and reporting the data residing on a device,” that tool updates were sometimes less capable than earlier versions, and that examiners can compare the output of several tools to verify results. Our attorneys hire independent examiners to do exactly that. A timestamp that reflects when a file was copied, not when the photo was taken, can change the meaning of an entire exhibit.

Can social media help your defense?

Yes. The same posts and messages prosecutors use can disprove an accusation, and our firm looks for them. In one Tampa case, our client was charged with unlawful sexual contact with a minor. I investigated the alleged victim’s social media and found posts that directly contradicted the story she had told police, and the State Attorney’s Office dismissed the charges completely. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Messages also matter before an arrest. In delayed sexual assault reports, detectives with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Tampa Police Department, and Pasco Sheriff’s Office commonly have the accuser call or text the accused while they record, hoping for an apology or admission. Those texts become evidence, and our post on whether it is illegal to secretly record someone in Florida explains how recordings are handled in court.

Social media monitoring continues through trial. In one high-profile trial, I caught a juror posting online about the active case in violation of the judge’s instructions, and the defense raised the misconduct in court.

What should you do right now if police want your phone or your posts?

Act before you are charged, because the decisions you make in the first days shape what evidence exists. If you see the warning signs described in our post on signs you are being investigated for a crime in Florida, follow these steps:

1. Do not delete anything. Deleting after you know of an investigation can be charged under section 918.13 and argued as consciousness of guilt.
2. Stop posting. Do not post about the incident, the accuser, or the police, and ask friends not to post about you.
3. Do not consent to a phone search. You can tell officers you do not consent and that you want to speak with a lawyer.
4. Do not message witnesses or the accuser. A controlled text or call may be recorded by detectives.
5. Tell your lawyer what exists. Photos, messages, and posts that help you should be preserved by your attorney, not by you sending them around.
6. Get counsel before charges are filed. Our firm’s pre-file advocacy work includes sending preservation letters, investigating the social media of witnesses and alleged victims, and presenting favorable evidence to the prosecutor before a charging decision.

For how The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. defends these cases, see our Tampa internet crimes defense practice.

Frequently asked questions

Is deleting texts after being arrested a crime in Florida?

It can be tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony under section 918.13, if you delete texts knowing an investigation or prosecution is pending or about to begin. The Brancato Law Firm tells clients on the first call to stop deleting and to let our attorneys handle preservation, so a cleanup impulse does not become a new felony.

Can police make Instagram or Facebook hand over my deleted messages?

Police can ask the company to preserve your records for up to 90 days, renewable for 90 more, and can then seek a warrant for message content under 18 U.S.C. § 2703. When the State relies on records from a provider, our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm compare the full return with the State’s exhibits and look for missing context.

Can screenshots of social media messages be used as evidence in Florida?

Yes, if the State authenticates them, which can be done with circumstantial proof such as nicknames, shared facts, and message history under State v. Torres. The Brancato Law Firm challenges screenshots that are cropped, missing context, or tied to accounts other people could access.

Can the State use photos from someone else’s phone against me?

Yes, if the State authenticates the photo and links it to the charged crime; the selfie in Cosby came from a co-defendant’s phone, not Cosby’s own. The Brancato Law Firm challenges these photos for relevance and unfair prejudice under sections 90.401 and 90.403, and our gun crime defense work often turns on exactly this kind of exhibit.

Can police look through my phone during a traffic stop in Florida?

Generally no; Riley v. California requires a warrant to search a phone’s data even after an arrest, unless an exception such as an emergency or your consent applies. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm move to suppress phone evidence obtained without a valid warrant, and our post on how long a traffic stop can last in Florida explains your other rights at the roadside.

Do I need a digital forensic expert in a phone evidence case?

In many cases yes, because only an examiner can test whether the State’s extraction tool reported dates, sources, and deleted items correctly. The Brancato Law Firm retains independent experts to re-run extractions and recover content law enforcement missed, as described on our forensic science defense page.

What should I do if I think police are investigating my social media?

Stop posting, delete nothing, and contact a lawyer before you speak with detectives. The Brancato Law Firm offers representation before charges are filed so that favorable posts and messages are preserved and the State hears our side early.

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

The first thing our team does in a phone or social media case is lock down the evidence: we send preservation letters, obtain the State’s extraction report, and put an independent examiner on the data before anything else is lost. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. was founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, and we defend clients in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. If police have your phone or have contacted you about your posts, call (813) 727-7159 today, before you talk to detectives or delete a single file.

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 thrown-drugs case, the suppression hearing usually comes down to a few seconds of video: did the person stop before the object left his hand, or after? I’m Rocky Brancato, and before founding The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, I taught officers the legal limits of arrest authority as a police academy instructor. I have since tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict. Our attorneys build every abandonment challenge around that sequence, matching the officer’s report against body camera footage frame by frame.

What Does “Abandonment” Mean When Police Find Drugs You Threw?

Abandonment means you gave up your privacy interest in an item by throwing it, dropping it, or leaving it behind, so police can pick it up and use it without a warrant. Florida courts apply one critical limit: the abandonment must be voluntary. An item you discard because police illegally seized you is treated as the product of that illegal seizure, and it can be suppressed.

The Florida Supreme Court drew this line in Hollinger v. State, 620 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1993). The court explained that a person who flees from a show of police authority has not been seized, while a person who stays in place and submits has been seized. If a person submits to an illegal stop and then drops contraband, the evidence must be suppressed. The court added that police do not have to order a person to drop anything for the abandonment to be involuntary.

This matters most in drug possession cases, which our Tampa drug crimes attorney page covers in more detail, because a tossed baggie or pill bottle is often the only evidence the State has.

What Is the Difference Between “Drop Then Stop” and “Stop Then Drop”?

“Drop then stop” means you got rid of the item before you were seized, so it is voluntarily abandoned and admissible. “Stop then drop” means you had already submitted to police authority when you got rid of it, so the abandonment is involuntary if the stop was illegal. The legality of the officer’s order does not matter in a “drop then stop” case.

The U.S. Supreme Court set the federal rule in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991). Hodari ran when he saw officers, and he tossed a rock of crack cocaine just before an officer tackled him. The State conceded the officer had no reasonable suspicion to stop him. The Court still held the cocaine admissible because a person is seized only by physical force or by submitting to a show of authority, and Hodari had done neither when he threw it.

Florida’s Fourth District applied that rule in Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). An officer told Johnson to stop. Johnson kept walking briskly, stepped onto a porch, threw something down, and only then turned toward the officer and said, “What, officer?” The State conceded the officers had no lawful reason to stop him. The court called it a very close case, but it upheld the trial judge’s finding that the drop came before the stop, so the evidence came in.

When Are You “Seized” by Police in Florida?

You are seized when an officer physically restrains you or when you submit to an officer’s show of authority, such as an order to stop. Submission does not require handcuffs or even a spoken command. Courts look at what you actually did in the seconds before the item left your hand.

Hollinger shows how little it can take. Masked Orange County deputies in SWAT-style gear pulled into a parking lot during a drug sweep, announced “Orange County Sheriff’s Office,” and approached a group. Hollinger put his hand behind his back and dropped a tissue holding six rocks of cocaine. No deputy told him to freeze. The trial judge found that a reasonable person would have felt he was not to move, and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the suppression.

In Lang v. State, 671 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), a deputy stopped Lang, who was walking at night with a flashlight in a high-crime area, without any reasonable basis. The deputy told Lang to step back to the patrol car, and Lang began to comply. When the deputy told him to take his hand out of his pocket, Lang threw a pill bottle behind him. The Fifth District held that Lang had submitted by starting to comply, so the abandonment was involuntary, and it reversed his conviction.

Compare State v. Canada, 715 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Officers asked Canada what was in his hand. Instead of showing them, he turned, threw a film container about 25 feet over a chain-link fence, and tried to run. Because Canada never yielded, the Fifth District held the abandonment voluntary and reversed the trial court’s suppression order.

When our attorneys evaluate a thrown-evidence case, we ask five questions:

1. Did an officer give an order or make a show of authority, such as lights, commands, or blocking your path?
2. Did you stop, turn toward the officer, raise your hands, or begin following an instruction?
3. Did the item leave your hand before or after that act of compliance?
4. Did you try to run after throwing it?
5. What does the video show, compared with what the arrest report says?

What Did the Fifth District Decide in Jeffries v. State (2026)?

The Fifth District held that a man who stopped and turned toward an officer before throwing a pill bottle had already submitted, so the abandonment was involuntary. The case is Jeffries v. State, No. 5D2024-1721 (Fla. 5th DCA July 31, 2026), and it is the newest Florida appellate decision applying the stop-then-drop rule.

Larry Sapp, an off-duty Clay County School District police officer, was home in Putnam County, outside his jurisdiction, when his daughter told him someone had tried to break into his patrol car. Sapp saw Jeffries leaving his property, identified himself as law enforcement, and ordered him to stop. Jeffries kept walking. Sapp later found him near an apartment complex and again ordered him to stop. This time Jeffries stopped and turned toward Sapp. As Sapp moved in to arrest him, Jeffries made a throwing motion. A responding officer found a pill bottle containing narcotics where the object landed, and a search of Jeffries turned up a stun gun.

The court applied Hollinger, Hodari D., and Johnson. It found that Jeffries had already complied with the second order to stop when he threw the bottle, which made the facts line up with Lang rather than Canada. The court noted that Jeffries had walked away the first time but stopped the second time, and the second stop is what mattered. Because the abandonment was involuntary, the pill bottle could not justify the search that found the stun gun as a lawful search incident to arrest.

The court reversed the order denying suppression, vacated Jeffries’s conviction for possession of an electric weapon or device by a convicted felon under section 790.23, Florida Statutes, and remanded. At the hearing, defense counsel had limited the motion to suppress to the stun gun count, so the opinion does not decide what happens to the drug possession counts.

Jeffries also held that the arrest itself was unlawful. An officer outside his jurisdiction has only a private citizen’s arrest powers, which reach only a felony or a breach of the peace committed in the citizen’s presence, and the court found Sapp saw neither. We cover that part of the case in our posts on disorderly conduct and breach of the peace and on whether an off-duty police officer can arrest you in Florida.

The evergreen lesson from Jeffries is simple. Stopping and turning toward an officer is submission, and anything thrown after that moment is suppressible if the stop or arrest was illegal.

Why Does the Legality of the Stop Decide Everything?

The legality of the stop decides the case because a stop-then-drop argument wins only when the seizure was illegal. If the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain you, the evidence comes in even though you had submitted before you threw it. Every abandonment motion therefore has two parts: when you were seized, and whether the officer had a lawful basis to seize you at that moment.

Under the Florida Stop and Frisk Law, section 901.151, Florida Statutes, an officer may temporarily detain a person only when the circumstances reasonably indicate the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The statute also bars evidence from a search under that section unless the search complied with the statute. Our post on whether police can stop and frisk you in Florida walks through what counts as reasonable suspicion.

A recent First District case shows why the defense must attack the stop directly. In Smith v. State, No. 1D2025-0497 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 23, 2026), Smith tried to keep officers from seeing a cellophane baggie in his hand, including by stomping on it after he dropped it, and the court counted those efforts among the facts supporting probable cause to search his vehicle. Smith also challenged his initial detention, but his brief argued only probable cause and never addressed reasonable suspicion, so the court held he had not shown the detention was unlawful and affirmed. The Second District, which hears appeals from Tampa Bay, treats cannabis odor differently than the First District did in Smith, as we explain in our post on whether police can search your car for smelling weed in Florida.

Can Throwing Drugs Add a Tampering With Evidence Charge?

Yes, throwing drugs can lead to a tampering charge, but tossing them in plain view does not automatically qualify. Under section 918.13, Florida Statutes, the State must prove you knew an investigation was pending or about to begin and that you altered, destroyed, concealed, or removed an item with the purpose of impairing its availability. Tampering is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

In State v. Jennings, 666 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1995), Jennings swallowed suspected cocaine rocks the moment an officer shouted “police!” The Florida Supreme Court held that swallowing an item can be tampering, and that throwing evidence away in an officer’s presence may also be tampering depending on the circumstances.

The Second District, whose decisions bind Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco courts, applied that rule in E.I. v. State, 25 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). During a traffic stop in Plant City, a passenger tossed a package of methamphetamine out the truck window at the driver’s direction, and it landed in plain view on a gas station parking lot. The court held this was abandonment, not attempted tampering, because nothing showed he intended to alter, destroy, or conceal the package, and it ordered him discharged. The court pointed to swallowing drugs or dropping them into a drainage outlet as the kind of acts aimed at destroying evidence.

Abandonment doctrine works at two stages of the same case. At the suppression hearing, the question is whether the toss was voluntary. At trial on a tampering count, the question is whether the toss was a plain abandonment or an act meant to destroy or hide the evidence. Losing the first argument does not end the second.

Is Running From Police a Separate Crime in Florida?

Running from police can be charged as resisting an officer without violence, a first-degree misdemeanor under section 843.02, Florida Statutes, punishable by up to one year in jail. The charge requires that the officer was lawfully executing a legal duty when you ran.

In C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 2009), a juvenile ran when he saw deputies at an apartment complex known for drug activity, then kept running after they ordered him to stop. The Florida Supreme Court held that his unprovoked flight in a high-crime area gave the deputies reasonable suspicion, so his continued flight in defiance of their order was resisting without violence. The court also held that the person must know the officer intends to detain him, and the officer must be justified in making the stop when the resistance occurs.

Running rarely helps. Anything you throw while running is admissible under Hodari D., and if the officer had a lawful basis to stop you, the flight adds a separate charge. In Tampa Bay arrest paperwork, our attorneys routinely see a resisting count stacked on top of the charge that started the encounter, and in our Hillsborough County practice it is often the most winnable charge on the arrest affidavit. Our post on resisting an officer without violence in Florida explains those defenses.

What Charges Can Follow When Police Recover Thrown Evidence?

A thrown item usually produces a possession charge, and the throw itself can add tampering or resisting counts. Drug charges are a steady share of local arrests: in 2020, law enforcement in Hillsborough County reported 3,028 drug arrests out of 32,519 total arrests, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s 2020 county arrest data, the last year FDLE published county arrest totals in that format. That is about one of every eleven arrests in the county.

How Do Our Attorneys Challenge Thrown Evidence?

Our attorneys challenge thrown evidence by rebuilding the encounter second by second and filing a motion to suppress when the timeline shows a stop-then-drop on an illegal stop. The motion asks the judge to exclude the item and anything found because of it, as happened with the stun gun in Jeffries.

1. Pin down the sequence. We compare body camera and dash camera footage, dispatch audio, and the arrest report to fix the exact moment of the order, the moment of compliance, and the moment of the throw.
2. Test the basis for the stop. We identify what the officer knew before giving the order and whether it amounted to reasonable suspicion under section 901.151.
3. Challenge the officer’s account. Legal scholars have flagged “dropsy” testimony for decades. Law professor Christopher Slobogin, in Testilying: Police Perjury and What to Do About It, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037 (1996), describes data showing that police testimony that arrestees dropped drugs as officers approached increased after Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court decision that applied the exclusionary rule to state police. Video now lets us test that kind of claim.
4. Follow the fruit. If the throw was involuntary, we move to suppress everything that flowed from it, including later searches of your person or car.
5. Defend the add-on counts. We attack tampering and resisting charges on their own elements, even if the suppression motion fails.

Our post on motions to suppress evidence in Tampa explains how these hearings work.

What Should You Do After an Arrest Involving Thrown Drugs?

Talk to a defense attorney before you talk to anyone else about the case, and do it quickly, because the evidence that proves the sequence can disappear. Private surveillance systems often record over old footage, and witnesses forget details.

• Do not explain to police, cellmates, or friends why you threw something. Those statements can be used against you.
• Write down, privately, the order of events: when the officer spoke, when you stopped, and when the item left your hand.
• Note any businesses, homes, or vehicles nearby that may have cameras, and anyone who saw the encounter.
• Do not post about the arrest on social media.
• If officers released you and said the item would be tested, charges can still be filed later. Our representation before charges are filed can begin now.

Frequently Asked Questions About Thrown Evidence in Florida

Can police use drugs I threw while running away from them?

Usually yes, because a person who is running has not been seized, so anything thrown during the chase is treated as voluntarily abandoned under Hodari D. and Canada. The Brancato Law Firm still examines whether you actually stopped, even briefly, before the throw, since that moment can change the outcome. Our stop and frisk guide explains when police can lawfully chase and detain you.

Is it tampering with evidence to throw drugs on the ground in front of an officer?

Not automatically, because Florida requires proof that you intended to destroy, conceal, or remove the item, and a toss in plain view that police easily recover can be plain abandonment under E.I. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm attack the intent element directly and use the recovery location and video to show nothing was hidden. Swallowing drugs or dropping them down a drain is treated more seriously under section 918.13.

Can thrown drug charges be dropped in Florida?

Yes, thrown drug charges can be dropped, most often when a judge suppresses the item and the State has no other evidence to prove possession. The Brancato Law Firm also evaluates diversion options, and Hillsborough County offers programs such as Pretrial Intervention and Drug Court that can result in dismissal. See our page on drug possession defense in Tampa for more.

What if I threw a gun when police approached me in Florida?

The same abandonment rules apply to a gun as to drugs, so a gun thrown before you were seized is admissible, while a gun thrown after you submitted to an illegal stop can be suppressed. For clients with a prior felony, The Brancato Law Firm treats the suppression issue as the center of the defense, because possession by a convicted felon under section 790.23 is a second-degree felony. Our Tampa gun crimes lawyer page explains those charges.

What if police let me go after I threw something and said they would test it?

You can still be charged later, because the State can file charges after lab results come back. The Brancato Law Firm can contact the prosecutor before a decision is made and preserve video while it still exists. Learn more about our pre-file advocacy work.

Does it matter if the officer was off duty or outside his jurisdiction?

Yes, because an officer outside his jurisdiction generally has only a private citizen’s arrest powers, and Jeffries shows an arrest outside those limits is unlawful. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm check where the officer was, whether he was on duty, and what he personally saw before the arrest. Read more in our post on whether an off-duty police officer can arrest you in Florida.

What if the police report says I dropped the drugs before I stopped?

The report is not the final word, because the judge decides the sequence at the suppression hearing from all the evidence, including video and your testimony. The Brancato Law Firm lines up the report against the footage and dispatch timeline to find gaps. Johnson shows how close these calls can be.

Thrown Evidence Cases Are Won on the Timeline

The first thing our attorneys do in a thrown-evidence case is lock down the timeline: the video, the dispatch audio, and the officer’s report, compared second by second before footage is lost or memories fade. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. was founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, and our attorneys defend drug, gun, and resisting charges in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. Call (813) 727-7159 now, while the evidence that shows when you stopped still exists. For more about our defense strategies, visit our Drug 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.

Before I founded The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, I taught criminal arrest procedure to recruits as a police academy instructor, and jurisdiction was one of the first limits every class learned. I am Rocky Brancato, and across more than 25 years of Hillsborough County practice and over 150 jury trials, I have seen cases turn on one plain question: where was the officer standing when the arrest happened? Our attorneys ask that question about every arrest made by an off-duty or out-of-town officer, and when the answer falls on the wrong side of a city or county line, we move to suppress what the officer found.

Does an off-duty officer still have arrest powers in Florida?

Yes. Inside the officer’s own jurisdiction, being off duty does not shrink a Florida officer’s arrest authority. In Sinquefield v. State, 1 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), a City of Palmetto officer tried to stop a man in another part of Manatee County. The Second District Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco counties, said the officer’s off-duty status did not change his arrest authority. The problem was location: he was sworn only inside Palmetto, so outside the city he acted as a private citizen.

Officers who work paid private details are also still police. In State v. Williams, 297 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), a uniformed Tampa police sergeant hired by a dance hall to work during his off-duty hours seized a handgun from a patron’s handbag and arrested her. The court agreed with the trial judge that the sergeant “acted as an officer of the City of Tampa,” so the constitutional rules for police searches applied to him. The court still reversed the suppression order, because it found the patron had consented to the search.

That rule matters in Tampa because extra-duty work is an organized program here. The Tampa Police Department’s Extra Duty Office contracts with private citizens, businesses, and organizations for uniformed officers at special events, construction-site traffic control, and escorts, and it requires a background check for establishments with an alcohol license. As we have noted in our Ybor City disorderly conduct cases, Tampa Police also maintain a heavy presence along Seventh Avenue at closing time. A uniformed officer working a bar door inside Tampa city limits has full police power, and the same Fourth Amendment limits that govern a stop and frisk in Florida apply to that officer. Our attorneys test an extra-duty officer’s stop, search, and arrest exactly as we would an on-duty officer’s.

Where does a Tampa Bay officer’s arrest authority stop?

A Florida officer’s full arrest power stops at the edge of the agency’s territory. For a city police officer, that edge is the city limit. For a sheriff’s deputy, it is the county line. The Florida Supreme Court explained in State v. Repple, 428 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 2025) that, under Article VIII, section 2(c) of the Florida Constitution, a city’s police power outside its borders exists only where the Legislature has authorized it. Sheriffs work differently. Under section 30.15(5)(a), Florida Statutes, a sheriff’s jurisdiction runs throughout the entire county, including incorporated cities, concurrently with city police.

The patchwork is large. In 2025, Florida police departments employed 20,647 full-time officers, sheriffs’ offices employed 23,776 full-time law enforcement officers, and school and port agencies employed another 1,987, according to FDLE’s Criminal Justice Agency Profile report. Every one of those officers carries a badge with a boundary. A Tampa officer driving home through Brandon, which is unincorporated Hillsborough County, has left Tampa’s jurisdiction. A Hillsborough deputy standing in the same spot has not. A Pasco deputy who stops a driver on Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa is outside Pasco County, and the question becomes which exception, if any, gave that deputy authority. When a Hillsborough County case involves an out-of-town officer, our Hillsborough County criminal defense team starts by mapping exactly where each step of the stop, detention, and arrest took place.

What can an officer legally do outside their jurisdiction?

An officer outside their jurisdiction can arrest only through fresh pursuit, a mutual aid agreement, or a citizen’s arrest. A fourth, narrower rule covers DUI breath tests after an in-city arrest. If no rule applies, the officer acted without authority, and the defense can ask the court to suppress what followed.

Fresh pursuit. The pursuit has to start inside the officer’s territory. When a fresh pursuit arrest happens outside the officer’s county, the officer must immediately notify the officer in charge of that jurisdiction, and both must bring the arrested person before a trial court judge of the county where the arrest was made without unnecessary delay.

Mutual aid agreements. Florida’s Mutual Aid Act allows written voluntary cooperation agreements for routine work across jurisdictional lines and written requested operational assistance agreements for emergencies. Each agreement must spell out the assistance, the agency in command, and a time limit, and a copy must be filed with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement within 14 days after it is signed. The writing requirement can be waived for up to 90 days only after a Governor-declared state of emergency. Because the agreement is a document, our attorneys demand it in discovery and read its terms against what the officer actually did.

The DUI breath test rule. Repple involved a Maitland officer who arrested a driver for DUI inside Maitland and then requested a breath test at a sheriff-run facility outside the city. The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida’s implied consent law authorized that request, quashed the Sixth District decision that had upheld suppression, and approved the result in State v. Torres, 350 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), a Winter Park case with the same pattern. The Court expressly declined to adopt a broader “continuing investigation” exception. That matters locally: as we have explained in our post on refusing a breathalyzer in Florida, breath testing in the 13th Judicial Circuit runs through the sheriff’s central breath testing facility. Under Repple, a city officer’s request there is authorized when the DUI arrest itself happened inside the officer’s city. An arrest made outside the city needs its own lawful basis first.

What counts as a lawful citizen’s arrest in Florida?

A private person in Florida may arrest someone who commits a felony or a breach of the peace in that person’s presence, and an officer outside their jurisdiction has that same power and no more. In Phoenix v. State, 455 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1984), the Martin County Sheriff and a deputy stopped a truck in St. Lucie County after an air and ground surveillance operation and arrested the occupants. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the arrests as citizen’s arrests, reasoning that officers outside their jurisdiction should not be any less capable of making a felony arrest than a private citizen, nor have any greater power.

Drunk driving is the classic out-of-jurisdiction breach of the peace, which is why so many of these cases are DUI cases. In Edwards v. State, 462 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), an off-duty Okeechobee officer, not in uniform and showing no badge, followed a pickup truck outside the city limits for about five miles. The driver crossed the center line three to seven times, forced oncoming cars onto the shoulder, and nearly hit a bridge abutment. The court held that this driving was a breach of the peace and upheld the citizen’s arrest. If you were stopped for DUI by an officer from another city or county, our Tampa DUI lawyer page explains how our attorneys build that challenge.

Two more limits narrow the doctrine. First, for a misdemeanor, there must be an actual arrest, meaning the person is deprived of the freedom to leave. In Steiner v. State, 690 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the State tried to support a DUI arrest with a security guard’s account of a driver whose car later caught fire. The guard never detained the driver, so there was no citizen’s arrest, and the officer could not rely on the guard’s account for a misdemeanor the officer did not see. The Fourth District restored the county court’s order suppressing the evidence. Second, “breach of the peace” is read narrowly. The definition comes from section 877.03, Florida Statutes, the same statute that defines disorderly conduct, and conduct that creates no more than annoyance does not qualify.

Legal scholars have criticized how vague the doctrine is. In Vilifying the Vigilante: A Narrowed Scope of Citizen’s Arrest, 25 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 557 (2016), Professor Ira P. Robbins argues that citizen’s arrest rules are unclear on the level of suspicion required, how long a person may be held, and how much force is allowed. He recommends limiting the power to a few groups, including out-of-jurisdiction police. Our attorneys use those narrow edges to test every off-duty arrest.

What happened in Jeffries v. State?

In Jeffries v. State, No. 5D2024-1721 (Fla. 5th DCA July 31, 2026), the Fifth District threw out evidence from an off-duty officer’s citizen’s arrest because the man he arrested had not committed a felony or a breach of the peace in his presence. The officer worked for the Clay County School District police but lived in Putnam County, outside his jurisdiction. His daughter told him someone had been trying to break into his patrol car. He went outside, saw Christien Jeffries already leaving his property, identified himself as law enforcement, and ordered him to stop. Jeffries kept walking and went through an open gate into a neighbor’s backyard, and the officer did not follow him in.

The officer then drove his personal truck to a nearby apartment complex, found Jeffries, again identified himself as law enforcement, and ordered him to stop. He testified that he did not identify himself as a private citizen because most people would not stop for one. Jeffries stopped, turned, and tossed an object that turned out to be a pill bottle. The officer restrained him, and responding officers found a stun gun on him. Jeffries was later convicted of possession of an electric weapon or device by a convicted felon.

The State conceded that the officer never saw a felony, so the case came down to breach of the peace. The court rejected each piece of the State’s argument. The officer never saw anyone touch his patrol car, his daughter’s report was not his own observation, and the smudges he photographed were found only after the arrest. Leaving a yard when confronted, walking through a neighbor’s open gate, and appearing intoxicated without endangering anyone were not breaches of the peace. Approaching an elderly woman at the complex in the middle of the day, without threatening her or even raising his voice, was not one either. The court distinguished drunk-driving cases like Edwards because they involved conduct that “clearly and significantly endangers the public.” It reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the conviction for possession of an electric weapon by a convicted felon.

The court also held that the tossed pill bottle could not justify the search that turned up the stun gun, because Jeffries had already stopped in compliance with the order when he threw it. We cover that abandonment issue in our post on whether police can use drugs you threw down in Florida.

Jeffries is a Fifth District decision, but it reaches Tampa Bay courtrooms. Under Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992), a district court decision binds every Florida trial court when no other district has ruled differently, so Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco judges must follow it unless the Second District decides otherwise. Our post on disorderly conduct in Florida covers how the same narrow breach-of-the-peace definition plays out in Ybor City arrests.

What is the “color of office” rule?

The color of office rule bars an officer outside their jurisdiction from using police authority to see unlawful activity or gain evidence that a private citizen could not get. Phoenix set the line. Using a police car and announcing “police” at the moment of arrest does not, by itself, ruin a citizen’s arrest, as long as the evidence for the arrest was gathered before the officer asserted any official authority.

The rule bites when an officer uses the badge to get something. In State v. Sills, 852 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Coconut Creek officers arrested a man for traffic offenses inside their city, then drove him in handcuffs to his apartment in a neighboring city. There they had him sign a Coconut Creek police waiver of a search warrant and talked about him becoming an informant. The Fourth District affirmed suppression of the pills they found, because the officers obtained his consent through the power of their office, including the prospect of leniency that no private citizen could offer.

In Jeffries, the officer repeatedly announced himself as law enforcement, but the court decided the case on breach of the peace and did not reach a color of office theory. Our attorneys raise both arguments when the facts support them, because they attack different parts of the State’s case.

Is evidence thrown out if an off-duty arrest was unlawful?

Often, yes. When an out-of-jurisdiction arrest has no lawful basis, the usual remedy is a motion to suppress, which asks the judge to exclude the evidence the arrest produced. Our post on the motion to suppress evidence in Tampa explains that process. Suppression is not automatic, though, as the table shows.

One warning sign for the future: in Repple, Justice Grosshans wrote separately that suppression should not be the remedy when an officer oversteps territorial limits, because those limits protect neighboring governments rather than the accused. No other justice joined that view, and the majority did not adopt it. Prosecutors will cite it anyway, which is one more reason our attorneys pair the jurisdiction argument with Fourth Amendment and citizen’s arrest arguments.

Is it resisting arrest to walk away from an off-duty officer outside their jurisdiction?

Not under the resisting without violence statute, if the officer had no authority there. Section 843.02, Florida Statutes requires proof that the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. In Sinquefield, the Second District held that a Palmetto officer acting outside his city was only a private citizen, refused to read the statute as creating a crime of resisting a citizen’s arrest, and reversed the conviction. Our post on resisting an officer without violence in Florida covers the other elements of that charge.

That defense belongs in a courtroom. At the scene, you cannot tell whether an officer is in fresh pursuit, working under a mutual aid agreement, or standing one block inside the city line, and using force can bring new charges that do not depend on jurisdiction. Comply, stay quiet, and let our attorneys contest the officer’s authority later with the records in hand.

What should you do after an arrest by an off-duty or out-of-town officer?

Act within days, because the strongest evidence of where and how the arrest happened disappears fastest.

1. Write down the details while they are fresh. Note the exact location, whether the officer was in uniform or plain clothes, what agency the officer named, what vehicle the officer drove, and the exact words used to make you stop.
2. Identify every camera. Bars, apartment complexes, gas stations, and doorbell cameras can record over old footage within days. Our attorneys send preservation requests right away.
3. Request the DUI license hearing on time. After a DUI arrest, section 322.2615, Florida Statutes gives you 10 days from the notice of suspension to request a formal or informal review hearing.
4. Use the window before charges are filed. The State Attorney’s Office decides what to file after the arrest. Our representation before charges are filed can put the jurisdiction problem in front of the prosecutor before a charging decision is made.
5. File the motion to suppress before trial. Florida’s rules generally require a motion to suppress to be filed before trial, and the hearing depends on dispatch records, body-worn camera video, the agency’s jurisdiction, and any mutual aid agreement on file with FDLE.

Frequently asked questions

Can an off-duty officer working security at a Tampa bar arrest me?

Yes, if the bar is inside the officer’s jurisdiction, because an off-duty officer working a private detail still acts as a police officer, as the court held about a Tampa sergeant in State v. Williams. The Brancato Law Firm reviews extra-duty arrests the same way it reviews on-duty arrests, starting with whether the officer had a lawful reason to stop you. The same review applies when a detail officer outside a bar makes a DUI stop.

Can a Hillsborough County deputy arrest me inside Tampa city limits?

Yes. Under section 30.15(5)(a), Florida Statutes, a sheriff’s jurisdiction runs throughout the entire county, including cities like Tampa, alongside city police. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm focus those cases on whether the deputy had a lawful basis for the stop, since jurisdiction will not be in dispute.

Can a Pinellas or Pasco officer arrest me for DUI in Hillsborough County?

Only through fresh pursuit that began in the officer’s own county, a written mutual aid agreement that covers the activity, or a valid citizen’s arrest for a felony or breach of the peace the officer personally saw. The Brancato Law Firm demands the pursuit records and any mutual aid agreement in these cases and holds the State to proving one of those grounds. If an out-of-county officer arrested you, our DUI defense team can review whether any of them applies.

What counts as a breach of the peace for a citizen’s arrest in Florida?

Conduct that clearly disturbs or endangers others, such as fighting or dangerous drunk driving, can qualify, while conduct that is merely annoying does not. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm compare the officer’s own report against the narrow definition courts apply under Jeffries and section 877.03, Florida Statutes.

Can charges be dropped if the arresting officer was outside their jurisdiction?

Yes, charges can be dropped or reduced when the arrest was unlawful and the key evidence is suppressed, although the outcome depends on whether the State can prove fresh pursuit, a mutual aid agreement, or a valid citizen’s arrest. The Brancato Law Firm raises the jurisdiction problem early, often before the prosecutor makes a filing decision, through our pre-file advocacy.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our stage-by-stage guide to the Florida criminal case process.

Talk to a Tampa defense lawyer about an off-duty arrest

Ten days is all you have to challenge a DUI license suspension, and the video that shows where an off-duty or out-of-town officer stopped you can be recorded over even sooner. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, will start by pinning down the officer’s agency, jurisdiction, and legal basis for the arrest, then preserve the footage and records that prove it. Call (813) 727-7159 today to discuss your case. For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa DUI defense 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.

Officers who misuse a license plate reader leave a record of every search, and that audit trail decides these cases on both sides. I’m Rocky Brancato, 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 also taught at the police academy and am on call for the Tampa PBA and Suncoast PBA. Today our attorneys handle license plate reader cases from both sides of the badge: people whose movements were tracked, and officers accused of tracking them.

Our earlier guide, What Are Flock Cameras and ALPRs in Tampa?, explains how the cameras work. This article covers what happens when the people with access abuse it.

What Happened in the Pinellas County Deputy Arrests?

Three former Pinellas County deputies have been arrested in about five weeks in separate cases involving personal use of law enforcement databases, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced. Travis Stanton and Karl Gwynne were arrested on September 30, 2026, and Ronald Scott on November 5, 2026. All three resigned before their arrests, and each is presumed innocent. The facts of the first two arrests come from the sheriff’s public account, as reported by IONTB.

The 17-year-old and the “ALPR hit” that never happened

Former Deputy Travis Stanton, 33, was a community deputy in Seminole. According to the sheriff, a 17-year-old restaurant worker told him her age and her car on July 28, 2026. Minutes later, Stanton allegedly ran her plate through the Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) and then used other databases to identify her mother’s household and pull driver’s license photos of the girl and her twin sister. On August 19, he allegedly ran more searches from the Seminole High School parking lot, entering the reason code “verifying an identity.”

Stanton later told the girl he had received an ALPR alert showing her license was suspended for truancy. Gualtieri said no such alert existed, and that Stanton’s case did not involve misuse of the ALPR database itself. He was arrested on charges of unlawful access to a computer network under section 815.06 and official misconduct under section 838.022. Prosecutors later chose different charges. Court records show Stanton is now charged with harassment by use of personal identification information under section 817.568, charged as a third-degree felony, and stalking under section 784.048, a first-degree misdemeanor, the Tampa Bay Times reported. His arraignment is set for November 16, 2026.

381 searches of one woman across five databases

Former Deputy Karl Gwynne, 57, joined the agency in 2005. According to the sheriff, he ran 381 searches on a 35-year-old woman across five databases between January 2025 and July 2026, including 300 ALPR searches. He made 207 of them off duty. Gwynne had arrested the woman in 2010, and she had rejected his advances. He was arrested on four counts of unlawfully accessing a computer system and one count of official misconduct. On October 29, 2026, Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bruce Bartlett filed a no information, dropping all five charges. Bartlett wrote that current Florida statutes “do not address the wrongful conduct reported” and said his office would ask the Legislature to correct the problem next session, the Tampa Bay Times reported. Gualtieri attributed the decision to disagreements over the elements of the statute and noted that a no information does not stop prosecutors from refiling. A no information is not an acquittal, so the audit trail still matters if the state brings the case back.

Third arrest: tracking an estranged wife through Flock

Former Deputy Ronald Scott, 35, joined the agency in 2016. According to the sheriff, from February 14, 2026, until his divorce became final in June, Scott ran more than 100 unauthorized queries through the Flock license plate reader system and driver’s license records, often off duty. He searched his estranged wife, her boyfriend, the boyfriend’s wife, and his wife’s father, and entered false reasons for the searches, including claims of ongoing investigations. An agency audit uncovered them. Scott resigned on November 4, 2026, and was arrested the next morning on three counts of unlawfully accessing a computer and one count of official misconduct, the same charges prosecutors dropped against Gwynne. Bond was set at $20,000, FOX 13 and the Tampa Bay Times reported.

Gualtieri said he believes the elements are in place to justify the charges, and that historical audits of the agency’s systems, which go back to 2022, are now complete. Whether the State Attorney agrees is the open question after the Gwynne dismissal. The Scott case also shows why our attorneys request the audit log and the reason entered for each query in any case that starts with a Flock “hit.” The log shows who searched, when, and why they said they did, and the Pinellas cases show that the stated reason can be false.

What Florida Crimes Apply When an Officer Misuses a License Plate Reader?

Two felony statutes carry most Florida prosecutions, and a third law decides the officer’s pension. Our attorneys analyze all three at the outset of any officer database case.

Why “exceeds authorization” is the heart of the case

Florida courts have debated this question for 30 years. In Gallagher v. State, 618 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), a Sunrise Police Department aide ran her boyfriend through NCIC and FCIC out of curiosity. The Fourth District affirmed her conviction without an opinion, while Chief Judge Glickstein dissented, arguing that the statute punished unauthorized access, not improper use. The current statute was written to close that gap, although the Gwynne dismissal shows that prosecutors do not all read it that way. The 2018 version reached only access “without authorization,” and the version in force after the 2019 amendment also reaches access where “the manner of use exceeds authorization.”

Even so, section 815.06(7)(b) exempts a person acting “within the scope of his or her lawful employment.” Purpose is therefore the battleground. Prosecutors prove it with case numbers, reason codes, and timing, such as Gwynne’s 207 off-duty searches. Our Tampa internet crimes attorney page explains how we defend computer crimes charges.

Why official misconduct is harder to prove

Official misconduct requires two things beyond a bad search. The state must prove the officer falsified, concealed, or altered an official record, and the statute limits “official record” to public records. The state must also prove the officer acted to obtain a “benefit,” which section 838.014 defines as any gain or advantage, including anything the person regards as one.

The benefit element is where these cases are won and lost. In Jones v. State, No. 6D2023-0311 (Fla. 6th DCA June 23, 2023), a Polk County detective falsified investigative reports for two years. The Sixth District ordered acquittal on all 18 official misconduct counts because the state never proved he falsified the reports to obtain a benefit. Trial courts in Pinellas and Hillsborough follow Jones unless the Second District rules otherwise.

The pension consequence few people discuss

A conviction for a chapter 838 felony forfeits a public employee’s retirement benefits under section 112.3173, and a no contest plea counts as a conviction. The exact count matters. In Houston v. City of Tampa Firefighters & Police Officers’ Pension Fund Board of Trustees, 303 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), a Tampa police sergeant accused of using the DAVID driver’s license database in a tax refund scheme pleaded guilty only to receiving stolen federal property. The Second District reversed the forfeiture of her pension and ordered it restored with interest, because her plea did not establish a specified offense. For an officer, what the plea says matters as much as whether there is one.

How Common Is Flock and ALPR Misuse by Police?

Documented cases now number in the dozens. In August 2026, The Washington Post reported that at least 46 officers nationwide had been accused of using license plate cameras for unauthorized tracking, according to Al Jazeera. Our firm tracks these prosecutions because the sentences are rising.

In 2023, the Kansas lieutenant received probation. By September 30, 2026, the Texas officer was headed to prison for five years.

Who Catches Officers Who Misuse License Plate Readers?

Outsiders catch most of them. Where the public record shows how a case began, the first alarm usually came from a victim, a victim’s friend, or a reporter reading public search logs. Agencies then acted quickly. Our attorneys look first at how a case surfaced, because it shapes both the proof and the defense.

Sources: Creative Loafing Tampa, Dexerto, The Washington Post, CNN, and Tech Times.

The Washington Post put it bluntly in an August 2026 headline: “Police departments weren’t looking for officers abusing Flock. We did it for them.” Its review of search logs led to discipline in two departments.

Where the thin blue line holds, and where it breaks

Detection is the weak point. Once misuse is exposed, agencies have acted fast. Pinellas arrested its own deputies, Lufkin called in the Texas Rangers, and Haines City arrested its officer within a day of learning of the searches. In the cases reviewed here, no agency shielded an officer once the facts were public. Four gaps explain why detection lags:

1. No audit requirement. Florida’s ALPR statutes, section 316.0777 and section 316.0778, govern placement, retention, and public records. Neither requires an agency to review who searched what.
2. Empty reason codes. “Investigation” was the most common reason Wisconsin agencies entered for Flock searches in early 2025, the Wisconsin Examiner found.
3. Shared logins. Pinellas runs searches through a shared “service account” across three vendors, so its public log cannot show which deputy searched, TCPalm reported.
4. Shrinking outside visibility. Flock now redacts officer names and plates from public audit logs, which narrows the channel that has caught the most officers.

Who decides the charges

The arresting agency does not make the final charging decision in Florida. The State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, which covers Pinellas and Pasco, decides whether and how to charge each deputy, and its first two decisions show the gap between an arrest and a prosecution: Stanton’s charges were changed, and Gwynne’s were dropped. In Hillsborough, that decision belongs to the Thirteenth Circuit State Attorney. For an accused officer, the investigation’s path shapes the defense. A shared service account forces the state to prove who ran each search, while an officer’s own admission to a supervisor, as in the Gwynne and Haines City cases, leaves far less room.

What Did Governor DeSantis Order on License Plate Readers?

Governor Ron DeSantis directed the Florida Department of Transportation to revoke permits for ALPRs on state highway rights-of-way, effective September 30, 2026. The FDOT memorandum cited reports of misuse and data privacy concerns. DeSantis said, “I don’t want to have this become a surveillance state,” Axios reported.

Section 316.0777 supplies the authority: ALPRs sit on state highway rights-of-way only at FDOT’s discretion, and must come down within 30 days of notice. The order does not reach city streets, county roads, or private property. Our attorneys tell Tampa Bay drivers the same thing: the cameras moved off state roads, and local networks remain.

Sources: Axios Tampa Bay and ABC Action News.

Where Do Florida Candidates Stand on Flock Cameras?

Neither major-party nominee for governor has promised a full ban, but both support the DeSantis order. Democrat David Jolly wants a judicial warrant before police use the data, and Republican Byron Donalds wants harsher penalties for officers who abuse it, the Tampa Bay Times reported. Donalds called for a pause on Flock contracts in July. Jolly also wants a special legislative session and a ban on use for immigration enforcement.

Locally, former Governor Charlie Crist proposes a moratorium on expanding St. Petersburg’s Flock system, while Mayor Ken Welch defends it, ahead of their November 3 runoff, per Bay News 9. Nationally, more than 150 local governments have deactivated or canceled ALPR contracts, according to the advocacy group DeFlock, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott blocked state agencies from spending on Flock’s networks, Claims Journal reported. Any rewrite the Legislature passes next session will change what ALPR evidence looks like in Tampa Bay courtrooms, and our firm will update this guide when it does.

What Is Law Enforcement’s Case for Keeping License Plate Readers?

Sheriffs and chiefs argue the cameras solve violent crimes and find missing people, and that the answer to misuse is punishment. “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Gualtieri said on September 30, crediting the cameras with solving homicides and rapes. According to the Tampa Police Department, its ALPR system has assisted in 622 arrests, 485 vehicle recoveries, 68 firearm recoveries, and 14 missing-person cases since 2021, per Florida Politics.

The strongest evidence involves abducted children. In 2024, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children partnered with Flock to push AMBER Alert vehicles into the camera network. In August 2026, Lake City police used Flock to find a woman’s SUV that her boyfriend allegedly drove off with while her two children were inside, WFLA reported.

Controlled research is more modest on deterrence. In a randomized experiment across 30 crime hot spots in Northern Virginia, George Mason University researchers found no statistically significant drop in crime from license plate reader patrols during a 30-day follow-up (Lum et al., Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2011), as summarized by the Justice Department’s CrimeSolutions program. That study tested patrols, not investigations. Both claims can hold: the cameras may prevent little crime, yet still find a specific car carrying a specific child. Our attorneys see the same tension in court, where an ALPR hit can be strong evidence of location and weak evidence of anything else.

Does the Fourth Amendment Limit Police Searches of Flock Data?

The law is unsettled, and 2026 moved it toward privacy. In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), the FBI obtained months of a robbery suspect’s cell-site location records without a warrant, and the Supreme Court held that acquiring them was a search. In Chatrie v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 2193 (2026), police used a geofence warrant to obtain Google location data near a Virginia bank robbery. By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that obtaining location history this way is a search, even for a short period. Justice Kagan wrote for five justices, and Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, as the Congressional Research Service explains. Chatrie never mentions license plate readers, but it repeats Carpenter’s point that society has not expected police to “secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.”

The Tampa license plate reader ruling

In United States v. Floyd, No. 8:23-cr-00305 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2025), detectives tied a robbery suspect’s Mazda to a string of Tampa Bay store robberies through Vigilant hits and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office “Eye on Crime” ALPR system. U.S. District Judge Tom Barber denied suppression, holding that the readers captured discrete snapshots on public roads and that querying the databases was not a search. Floyd predates Chatrie, so our attorneys treat the question as open again for any client whose case rests on a long trail of ALPR hits.

Elsewhere, Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:24-cv-621 (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2026), upheld Norfolk, Virginia’s network of about 176 Flock cameras. The appeal, No. 26-1227, is tentatively set for Fourth Circuit argument in December 2026. Losing a motion to suppress does not end the issue. At trial, the defense can still challenge whether the camera read the plate correctly and whether the alert was current.

What Should You Do If You Think an Officer Tracked You?

Act within days, write everything down, and demand that the agency preserve its audit logs. Our attorneys take these steps for clients who believe they were tracked:

1. Document the red flags. Write down dates, places, and anything an officer knew about you without a reason to know it. In the Stanton case, the claimed “ALPR hit” was the tell.
2. Request your own ALPR data. Section 316.0777(4)(b) allows an agency to release plate data to the person the plate is registered to, unless it is active criminal intelligence or investigative information.
3. File an internal affairs complaint in writing. Ask the agency to preserve the audit log for your plate, name, and driver’s license number.
4. Ask about protective options. A stalking injunction or a referral to an outside agency, such as FDLE, may fit when the officer’s own department is slow to act.

If you are an officer under investigation

Say nothing about your searches until you have counsel. Under Fla. Stat. 112.532(1)(i), an officer has the right to counsel during an interrogation about fitness for duty. In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), the Supreme Court held that statements compelled under threat of job loss cannot be used in a criminal prosecution. Voluntary statements, texts, and audit logs remain fair game. See our law enforcement officer representation articles.

Why Does Timing Matter in a License Plate Reader Case?

Images disappear fast. In August 2026, Flock cut its recommended default retention from 30 days to 7, and Florida caps retention under the schedule set by section 316.0778. A preservation letter sent in the first week can decide a case, whether our firm represents the person tracked or the officer accused. The same is true of messages and phone records, as we explain in our guide to social media evidence in Tampa criminal cases.

Frequently Asked Questions About Flock Camera Misuse

Is it a crime for a Florida officer to look up someone’s license plate for personal reasons?

Yes. Using a police database for a reason outside the job can violate section 815.06, which punishes access that exceeds authorization as a third-degree felony. A false reason code can add official misconduct under section 838.022. In our experience, the audit log is the most important evidence on either side.

Did the Pinellas deputy use Flock cameras to track the 17-year-old girl?

No, according to Sheriff Gualtieri. Stanton allegedly used FCIC, driver’s license, and agency records systems, then falsely told the girl he had received a license plate reader alert. The other deputy, Karl Gwynne, is accused of about 300 ALPR searches on a different woman.

Why were charges dropped against the Pinellas deputy who ran 381 license plate searches?

Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bruce Bartlett filed a no information on October 29, 2026, writing that current Florida statutes do not address the conduct reported against former deputy Karl Gwynne. Sheriff Gualtieri described it as a disagreement over the statute’s elements, and a no information does not prevent refiling. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm follow these charging decisions closely, and an officer under investigation should consider representation before charges are filed.

Do police departments audit officers’ Flock searches?

Rarely on a routine basis, based on the public record. Florida law does not require ALPR audits, and in many documented cases a victim or reporter first exposed the misuse. Our attorneys request the full audit log in every case where license plate reader searches are at issue.

Can I find out whether police searched my license plate?

Possibly. Section 316.0777 permits an agency to disclose ALPR data about a plate registered to you, unless it is part of an active criminal investigation. Because retention is short, The Brancato Law Firm recommends a written request and a preservation demand as soon as you suspect misuse.

Are Flock cameras still operating in Tampa and Hillsborough County?

Yes. The Tampa Police Department and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office removed cameras from state rights-of-way by September 30, 2026, but both still operate license plate readers on city and county roads. Pasco County is the local exception, having ended its Flock contract.

Can an officer lose a pension over a Flock misuse conviction?

Yes, if the conviction is for a “specified offense” such as official misconduct. Under section 112.3173, a conviction or no contest plea to a chapter 838 felony forfeits public retirement benefits except the officer’s contributions. Our attorneys weigh this in every plea discussion in an officer’s case.

What should I do if I am an officer accused of misusing Flock or FCIC?

Call a lawyer before you answer questions about your searches. Florida’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights gives you the right to counsel during an interrogation, and the criminal case often moves on a separate track from internal affairs. The Brancato Law Firm represents officers in both proceedings at (813) 727-7159.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Internet Crimes Attorney page.

If an officer tracked you, or you are an officer facing a database misuse investigation, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159. ALPR images may be deleted in as little as 7 days, so contact us before the evidence is gone. 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.

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. Before private practice I taught at the police academy and served as chief operating officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, and I have watched the law of DUI blood draws move steadily in one direction for more than a decade: toward the warrant. Marlin is the clearest Florida statement yet of where that road ends, and our attorneys are already using it.

What Does the Fourth Amendment Require Before Police Draw Your Blood?

A warrant, unless a recognized exception applies — and the United States Supreme Court has spent the last thirteen years narrowing those exceptions for blood. Drawing blood is a search. In Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), the Court rejected the argument that because alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream over time, every drunk-driving investigation is automatically an emergency that excuses the warrant; exigency has to be shown case by case, on the totality of the circumstances. (Read the opinion.) Three years later, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016), the Court drew the line that governs every roadside today: police may administer a breath test as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest, but not a blood test — and a state cannot deem drivers to have “consented” to a blood test by criminalizing refusal. (Read the opinion.)

The practical takeaway is simple: when officers want breath, the arrest itself is usually enough; when they want blood, they need your actual agreement, a judge’s signature, or a genuine emergency they can prove later.

What Did the Fourth DCA Decide in State v. Marlin?

That prosecutors had been reading one of the court’s own opinions too generously, and that the warrant requirement means what it says. In State v. Marlin, No. 4D2025-1448 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 2, 2026), a driver drifted onto the shoulder of the Turnpike and struck four motorcycles, killing one rider and injuring two others. He was charged with two counts of DUI manslaughter, two counts of DUI with serious bodily injury, and additional injury and property-damage counts. Officers asked him to consent to a blood draw. He refused. Roughly two hours after the crash, law enforcement called a prosecutor, who told them to apply for a search warrant; about thirty minutes later the same prosecutor called back and said they could proceed without one because “exigent circumstances existed due to the elapsed time.” First responders then drew his blood by force.

The trial court initially denied suppression, openly “struggling” with a sentence in the Fourth District’s 2023 decision in State v. Acevedo that said an officer with probable cause could “coerce” a blood draw. On rehearing the judge reversed course and suppressed the results. The State appealed, and the Fourth District affirmed, holding:

1. No per se exigency. The natural metabolization of alcohol does not, by itself, justify a warrantless blood draw. Exigency must be decided on the totality of the circumstances in the particular case.
2. Warrant required regardless of implied consent. In the court’s words, “Unless a motorist gives actual consent or a court determines under the totality of the circumstances that exigent circumstances exist, a warrant must be obtained for a blood draw to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. This is true regardless of a state’s implied consent laws.”
3. The crash statute is a directive to get a warrant, not a substitute for one. Section 316.1933, which tells officers to obtain blood in crashes causing death or serious injury, “must assume the blood draw will be obtained with a warrant, absent consent or proof of exigent circumstances.”
4. Acevedo’s “probable cause” language is withdrawn. The court called that sentence “unnecessary to our decision and thus non-binding dicta,” noted that “the State has taken Acevedo’s language and run with it as a new exception to the Birchfield warrant requirement,” and receded from it: “We simply do not have the authority to create an exception contrary to United States Supreme Court authority.”

For defense lawyers who have been hearing “Acevedo says probable cause is enough” in suppression hearings for three years, that fourth holding is the one that matters most.

Does Florida’s Implied Consent Law Let Police Take Blood Anyway?

No — and this is the argument the State lost in Marlin. Florida has two statutes that talk about blood. Section 316.1932(1)(c), Florida Statutes, deems a driver who appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or “other medical facility” to have consented to a blood test when a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible, and expressly defines “other medical facility” to include an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. Section 316.1933, Florida Statutes, provides that when an officer has probable cause to believe an impaired driver caused death or serious bodily injury, the officer “shall require” a blood test and “may use reasonable force if necessary.”

Read in isolation, those statutes sound like authority to take blood on probable cause alone. Read against McNeely and Birchfield, they cannot be. A statute cannot supply the “consent” the Fourth Amendment requires — Birchfield said so directly — and the Fourth District followed the Fifth District’s decision in State v. Liles, 191 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), which had already rejected the argument that statutory implied consent satisfies the Constitution when a driver actually refuses. Marlin therefore reads section 316.1933 as a set of marching orders to officers — go get the blood in serious crashes — with an unstated constitutional condition: get a warrant, unless the driver agrees or a real emergency exists.

Judge Shepherd’s concurrence adds two clarifications that will matter in Tampa hospital cases. First, actual consent and statutory implied consent are different things: if a driver voluntarily agrees to a blood draw, officers do not have to recite the implied consent warnings, and the technical requirements of the implied consent statute do not apply. Second, the location of the draw is not what decides the question. An ambulance is a “medical facility” under the statute, but a nonconsensual blood draw in a hospital “must still satisfy either the warrant requirement or the impractical/impossible prong” of the implied consent law. Being in an emergency room does not waive your Fourth Amendment rights.

When Is a Warrantless Blood Draw Still Lawful in Florida?

Two doors remain open, and the State has to walk through one of them:

The consent door is where most Tampa Bay cases are actually litigated. A driver in a hospital bed, in pain, surrounded by uniforms, who says “okay” after being told that officers will “just get a warrant” if he does not, has not given the kind of free and voluntary consent the Constitution requires — that is the fact pattern Acevedo itself arose from, where the trial court found the driver had been “misadvised that if he did not agree, law enforcement would get a warrant and take a blood sample against his will.” Our attorneys take the recording, the timeline, and the exact words used in every one of these cases, because the difference between consent and acquiescence is usually a single sentence.

What Counts as Exigent Circumstances — and What Does Not?

The test is the totality of the circumstances, and Marlin is a textbook example of the State failing it. Alcohol dissipating in the blood is a factor; it is never enough by itself. Delay that officers could have avoided does not count in the State’s favor. In Marlin, law enforcement had two and a half hours after the crash, a prosecutor on the phone who initially told them to get a warrant, and no explanation for why a warrant could not have been sought during that window. Calling the passage of time an “emergency” when the passage of time was the officers’ own choice is exactly what McNeely forbids.

Genuine exigency looks different: a mass-casualty scene that occupies every available officer, a driver being airlifted to a distant trauma center, a medical procedure that will contaminate the sample, or — under the Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) — an unconscious driver who cannot take a breath test and requires immediate medical care. Even there, the analysis is fact-specific, and the State bears the burden.

What Happens to a DUI Case When the Blood Draw Is Suppressed?

The “unlawful blood alcohol level” theory of the case usually collapses, but the impairment theory often survives — which is why suppression is the beginning of the fight, not the end. Florida charges DUI on two alternative theories: a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 or more, or impairment of normal faculties. Without the blood result, the State cannot prove the number. It can still call the officers, play the body-camera footage, and argue driving pattern, odor, speech, and field exercises. In a crash case it will also argue causation and the mechanics of the collision, which have nothing to do with the blood.

So the real value of Marlin is leverage and structure. A DUI manslaughter case with a suppressed blood result is a very different negotiation than one with a 0.18 on the lab report, and it is a very different trial. Our full treatment of that landscape is in what DUI manslaughter is in Florida and how DUI manslaughter cases are defended. And where the State cannot get the blood it drew, it will often try to subpoena the blood the hospital drew for treatment — a separate battle covered in can the State get your medical records in a Florida DUI case.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our DUI defense page.

Does Marlin Apply in Hillsborough County?

Yes. Under Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992), “in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.” Marlin was decided by the Fourth District, which sits in West Palm Beach, but no other district court has adopted the probable-cause reading of Acevedo — Acevedo was the Fourth District’s own case, and the Fifth District’s Liles already pointed the same direction Marlin does. Until the Second District or the Florida Supreme Court says otherwise, a Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco circuit judge is bound to follow it. Our attorneys are citing it in pending motions now.

What Should You Do If Police Took Your Blood After a Crash?

Write down everything you can remember about how it happened, before the details fade, and get counsel before you talk to anyone else:

1. Whether you were asked, and what you said. “Yes,” “no,” “I guess,” and silence are four different legal events.
2. What you were told would happen if you refused. A threat to “get a warrant anyway” or to charge you with refusal is the heart of a voluntariness challenge.
3. The timeline. When the crash happened, when officers arrived, when the draw occurred, and whether anyone mentioned a warrant. In Marlin the timeline was the case.
4. Where the draw happened and who did it. Roadside, ambulance, or hospital; paramedic, nurse, or technician. Section 316.1933 limits who may draw blood and how.
5. Whether the hospital also drew blood for treatment. That sample is governed by different rules, and the State will come for it.

Do not assume the blood result is unassailable because it has a number on it. In Florida today, the number is only as good as the way it was obtained.

Your blood is only part of what happens at a crash scene. Our guide to whether the Florida accident report privilege requires you to talk to police after a traffic crash covers what you must tell the officer, what you can decline, and when your words can be used against you.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our stage-by-stage guide to the Florida criminal case process.

Frequently Asked Questions About Warrantless Blood Draws in Florida

Can I refuse a blood test in Florida?

You can decline to consent, and after Birchfield and Marlin the State cannot use your refusal as permission to draw blood without a warrant. Refusal of a lawfully requested blood test is admissible in evidence, and Florida’s refusal statute is written broadly, but whether refusing a warrantless blood draw can be punished criminally is constitutionally contested after Birchfield. If you refused and were charged, that is a defense issue, not a foregone conclusion.

Police got a warrant for my blood. Is that the end of it?

No. A warrant moves the fight from “was there a warrant” to “was the warrant good.” The affidavit must establish probable cause on its face, the officer’s sworn statements must be accurate, and the execution must comply with the statute’s limits on who may draw blood. Warrant-based draws are challenged less often than they should be.

I was in the hospital when they drew my blood. Doesn’t implied consent cover that?

Only if you did not refuse and a breath or urine test was genuinely impractical or impossible — and even then, Marlin and Judge Shepherd’s concurrence make clear that being in a hospital or ambulance does not lower the constitutional bar. If you refused, the State needs a warrant or real exigency, wherever you were.

What if I was unconscious?

The Supreme Court’s plurality in Mitchell v. Wisconsin said that an unconscious driver who cannot take a breath test will “almost always” present exigent circumstances, because the driver needs medical care and the evidence is disappearing. That is a strong argument for the State, but it is still a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, and the State still bears the burden of proving it.

Does Marlin help me if I was charged before September 2026?

Potentially, yes. If your case is pending, a motion to suppress can be filed or renewed now. If you already pleaded or were convicted, the analysis is more complicated and time-sensitive; talk to an attorney about your options immediately rather than assuming the window has closed.

The officer said section 316.1933 required him to take my blood. Was he wrong?

He was reading the statute the way the State read it in Marlin. The Fourth District has now said the statute is a directive to obtain blood in serious crashes with a warrant, absent consent or true exigency. The word “shall” in the statute does not override the Fourth Amendment.

If you or a family member is facing a DUI, DUI with serious bodily injury, or DUI manslaughter charge anywhere in Tampa Bay and blood was drawn without your agreement, the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — want to see the timeline before anyone talks about a plea. Call (813) 727-7159. The law changed on September 2, 2026, and it changed in your favor.

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

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

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As a former police academy legal instructor, I taught officers exactly when the law allows them through a front door — and I served as Chief Operating Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where home-search suppression motions were daily work. Our attorneys litigate these entries in Tampa Bay courtrooms, and 2026 has redrawn several of the lines.

When Can Police Legally Enter Your Home in Florida?

Police can enter your home only with a warrant, with valid consent, or under a recognized exception — because under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, a warrantless home search is “per se unreasonable.” The home is the most protected place in constitutional law, and the State always bears the burden of proving an exception applied.

Everything below is about how those boxes get tested in real cases — because the difference between “welfare check” and “warrantless search,” or between “we had a warrant” and “here is the warrant,” decided three major Florida decisions within weeks of each other this year.

Can Police Enter Your Home for a Welfare Check?

Only if the facts would make a reasonable officer believe someone inside is seriously hurt or about to be — and a Tampa Bay-area appellate court just held officers to that standard. In State v. Ford, No. 2D2025-0324 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2026), detectives entered a man’s home without a warrant, claiming they feared a medical emergency, and found evidence they hoped to use against him. The trial court suppressed it, finding the officers’ fear was built on “a hunch or a guess or a speculation” — and the Second District, whose decisions bind courts across Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, affirmed.

The U.S. Supreme Court set the national test for these emergency entries in January 2026. Our guide to Case v. Montana and police welfare checks explains that decision and what officers may search once inside.

What sank the State was the officers’ own behavior. They did not call 911. They did not kick the door or break a window to render immediate aid. They called dispatch for a backup officer — “not with lights and sirens, just regular” — waited, and then went looking for an open window to climb through. None of them looked through the windows to confirm anyone inside actually needed help, and the court found they had plenty of time to get a warrant. The lesson our attorneys use in suppression hearings: exigency is measured by the totality of the circumstances, and officers who act like there is no emergency cannot later justify an entry by claiming one. The emergency-aid exception is real — police genuinely rescuing someone need no warrant — but Ford confirms it is “not a shortcut by which police may circumvent the requirement of a search warrant.”

Do Police Have to Knock and Announce Before a Raid?

Yes — Florida law still requires it — but as of June 2026, breaking that rule no longer gets the evidence thrown out. Florida’s knock-and-announce statute, Fla. Stat. § 933.09, lets officers executing a search warrant break open a door or window only after giving “due notice” of their authority and purpose and being refused admittance. For sixteen years, Florida courts suppressed evidence when officers violated it, under the Florida Supreme Court’s Cable decision.

That ended with State v. Times, No. SC2024-0647 (Fla. June 25, 2026). Officers executing a valid search warrant announced it but did not give the occupants enough time to answer the door before going in; the trial court suppressed the evidence under Cable, and the First District affirmed. On a certified question, the Florida Supreme Court held 6-1 that suppression is not an available remedy for a statutory knock-and-announce violation, receding from Cable. The court reasoned that § 933.09 contains no exclusionary rule of its own, and the Legislature chose a different remedy: under Fla. Stat. § 933.17, an officer who willfully exceeds his authority executing a search warrant — or exercises it “with unnecessary severity” — commits a second-degree misdemeanor. The court noted the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same conclusion for federal constitutional purposes in Hudson v. Michigan back in 2006.

Read carefully, Times is narrower than the headlines suggest. It applies to searches conducted under a valid warrant — the underlying warrant must still survive scrutiny — and the court answered only the § 933.09 question, leaving other doors open. For anyone whose home was raided, the defense analysis simply shifts one step earlier: from how the officers entered to whether the paperwork authorizing entry holds up at all. Which brings us to the third 2026 decision.

What If the State Can’t Produce the Search Warrant?

Then the search is treated as warrantless — and everything found, plus everything you said afterward, can be suppressed. In Cabrera v. State, No. 3D2024-1324 (Fla. 3d DCA May 13, 2026), a detective and federal agents entered a fenced Miami-Dade residential property based on a federal search warrant that was under seal — and when the defense moved to suppress, the State never produced the warrant or its supporting affidavit. The trial court denied suppression anyway, admitting it was “just skipping over” whether the warrant was valid.

The Third District reversed with instructions to grant suppression. A court reviewing a warrant is confined to the four corners of the probable cause affidavit; with no warrant and no affidavit in the record, there was no way to find probable cause — and no way to apply the good-faith exception, because the detective who entered had never even seen the warrant he claimed to rely on. The court went further: because the search was illegal, Cabrera’s post-search statements were “fruit of the poisonous tree” and had to be suppressed too. For defendants, Cabrera is a reminder that “we had a warrant” is a claim the State must prove with paper, not testimony — and that a successful challenge takes down not just the physical evidence but the statements that followed it.

What Evidence Gets Thrown Out After These Decisions?

The 2026 decisions sort home-search defenses into clear lanes — some stronger than ever, one now closed.

One practical note about consent, because it decides more home searches than any doctrine: you are allowed to say no. Officers at your door without a warrant may ask to “take a look around,” and declining is not evidence of guilt. Step outside, close the door behind you if you speak with them, and say clearly that you do not consent to a search. If they enter anyway, do not resist — the remedy is a suppression motion, not a confrontation, and our attorneys would rather litigate a clean record of non-consent than untangle a disputed one.

Can Police Search Your Yard, Porch, or Fenced Property?

The Fourth Amendment’s protection extends beyond your walls to the “curtilage” — the area immediately surrounding the home, like a porch, carport, or fenced yard, where the intimate activity of home life happens. That mattered in Cabrera, where the property agents entered without a producible warrant was a fenced residential lot. The controlling principle comes from a Florida-grown U.S. Supreme Court case: in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), officers walked a drug dog onto a Miami front porch, and the Court held that bringing an investigative tool into the curtilage to gather evidence is itself a search requiring a warrant.

The practical rules for Tampa Bay homeowners follow from that. Officers, like anyone else, may walk up to your front door, knock, and ask questions — the “knock and talk” — because that is what any visitor may do. What they may not do without a warrant is exceed that implied invitation: linger to peer into windows, walk the back yard, open a gate into a fenced area, or deploy a dog at the threshold. Evidence gathered from inside the curtilage without a warrant, consent, or true exigency is suppressible on the same footing as evidence from inside the house — and in our experience, entries “just to check the back door” are among the most commonly overlooked suppression issues in home-search cases.

What Should You Do If Police Searched Your Home?

Write down everything while it is fresh, and get the paperwork audited by a defense lawyer before the State’s charging decision. The questions that decided Ford, Times, and Cabrera are the questions we ask in every Tampa Bay home-search case: Was there a warrant, and can the State actually produce it and its affidavit? Does the affidavit establish probable cause within its four corners? If there was no warrant, what exception is the State claiming — and did the officers’ actual conduct match the emergency they now describe? Were your statements taken after the entry, so that they fall if the entry falls? In Hillsborough County, felony cases move from arrest to the State Attorney’s filing decision in a matter of weeks, and a suppression problem raised early can shape or stop the filing. These issues also connect to the rest of your digital and physical privacy — see our guides on whether police can track your phone without a warrant, stop and frisk on the street, and what to do after being arrested in Tampa.

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

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our guide to each stage of a Florida criminal case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can police enter my house if I don’t answer the door?

Not without a warrant, consent, or a genuine emergency. Simply not answering is not an emergency — and in State v. Ford, the Second District affirmed suppression where officers responded to an unanswered door by climbing through a window on nothing more than speculation. If officers have a valid search warrant, however, § 933.09 allows forced entry after they announce and are refused.

Can police come in for a welfare check?

Only when the facts give them an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside is seriously injured or in imminent danger. A true emergency justifies entry without a warrant; a hunch does not, and officers who wait around and search for an open window undercut their own claim of urgency. Our attorneys examine officers’ actual conduct minute by minute in these cases.

If police broke down my door without knocking, will my case be thrown out?

Not automatically — after State v. Times (Fla. 2026), evidence is no longer suppressed for a knock-and-announce violation when officers had a valid search warrant. But the warrant itself must still be valid, and other defects in the entry or the affidavit still support suppression. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. audits the entire warrant package in every home-search case, because Times moved the fight — it didn’t end it.

Do police have to show me the search warrant?

You are entitled to know they have one, and the State must be able to produce it in court — Cabrera v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) suppressed a search where the warrant was sealed and never produced, along with the statements that followed. At your door, don’t physically interfere; note the time, the agency, and what officers say, and call a lawyer immediately.

Can police search my home if my roommate lets them in?

A person with authority over the home can consent to entry of shared areas, but not to spaces exclusively yours, like your private bedroom — and if you are present and object, your refusal generally controls as to you. Consent questions are fact-heavy, and we litigate them regularly in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

Does an arrest warrant let police enter my home?

An arrest warrant lets officers enter the suspect’s own residence when they reasonably believe the person is home — it is not a search warrant for the whole house, and it does not authorize entering someone else’s home without more. Evidence found beyond those limits can be challenged, and The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. handles exactly these motions.

Home-entry law moved three times in 2026 — Cabrera in May, Times in June, Ford in July — and the difference between a suppressed search and an admitted one now turns on details most people never think to write down. If officers entered or searched your home anywhere in Tampa Bay, 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 makes its filing decision. The suppression motion that ends a case is built in its first weeks.

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

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

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As a former police academy legal instructor, I taught officers what a lawful traffic stop looks like minute by minute — and our attorneys now put stopwatches to those same stops in suppression hearings. Most drug, gun, and DUI cases in Tampa Bay begin on the side of a road, which makes the length and legality of the stop the first battleground in the case.

What Is the “Mission” of a Traffic Stop?

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), a traffic stop is a limited seizure whose length is measured by its “mission” — addressing the traffic violation and attending to related safety concerns — and police may not prolong the stop beyond that mission, even briefly, without independent reasonable suspicion of another crime. Florida courts apply the same rule: absent articulable suspicion of criminal activity, the stop should last no longer than necessary to run the required checks and write the citation.

Florida statute law makes the same promise. The Florida Stop and Frisk Law, Fla. Stat. § 901.151, authorizes only temporary detention — no longer than reasonably necessary to determine the person’s identity and the circumstances that justified the stop — and it carries its own statutory exclusionary rule for violations.

The key word is prolong. A dog sniff of a car’s exterior is not itself a “search” — officers can run one during a lawful stop. What they cannot do is make the stop longer to fit the dog in. Once the traffic tasks are done (or should have been done), every extra minute is an unconstitutional seizure unless the State can point to specific facts creating suspicion of a crime.

Can Police Make You Wait for a Drug Dog in Florida?

Not beyond the time the traffic stop itself requires — and a July 2026 decision shows Florida courts enforcing that limit almost to the second. In Hudson v. State, No. 5D2025-1286 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2026), an officer radioed for a K-9 team about four minutes into a stop, and the sniff finally began ten minutes and twenty seconds after the stop started. The officer never issued a ticket and could not even recall whether he gave a written warning — and the State offered no evidence explaining what the officers were doing during the delay. The Fifth District held the stop was “improperly and unnecessarily prolonged,” reversed the denial of suppression, and took the contraband out of the case. Notably, Hudson was a passenger, not the driver — passengers seized by an overlong stop can challenge it too.

Two features of Hudson matter in every Tampa Bay case our attorneys handle. First, the burden: when there is no warrant, the State must prove the seizure stayed lawful — silence in the record about what officers were doing cuts against the State, not the defense. Second, the math: the court did not announce a magic number of minutes; it compared the elapsed time to the tasks actually performed. A twenty-minute stop can be lawful if the officer is diligently working the ticket; a ten-minute stop is unlawful if the officer is just waiting for the dog. That is why we obtain the bodycam, dashcam, dispatch logs, and computer-aided dispatch timestamps in every prolonged-stop case — the timeline is the defense.

Was the Traffic Stop Even Legal to Begin With?

Before asking how long the stop lasted, ask whether it should have happened at all — and on Florida’s most common justification, drifting out of a lane, Tampa Bay drivers currently have the strongest rule in the state. Florida’s lane statute, Fla. Stat. § 316.089, requires driving “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.” The districts are split on what a violation requires:

In Peterson, a deputy stopped a driver who twice crossed a lane line on a one-way street with no oncoming traffic, bicyclists, or pedestrians anywhere near — and the Second District reversed, holding a § 316.089 stop requires evidence that the driving “created a reasonable safety concern.” In Ramos Perez, the Sixth District went the other way on similar facts, upheld the stop, and certified direct conflict with Peterson. Until the Florida Supreme Court resolves it, Peterson remains the controlling rule in the Second District — which means that in Tampa Bay, a stop based on harmless lane drift is still challengeable, and preserving the issue protects you whichever way the conflict is ultimately decided.

Which Traffic Stops Turn Into Criminal Cases?

Most of the criminal cases our attorneys defend from Tampa Bay’s roads start as one of a handful of stop types, and the prolonged-stop rules apply to every one of them. A stop for speeding or reckless driving becomes a drug or gun case when a sniff or search follows; a lane-drift stop at 2 a.m. becomes a DUI investigation the moment the officer claims to smell alcohol; and an equipment stop becomes a felony when a records check comes back with a warrant. The legal sequence matters in each: the officer needs a valid basis for the stop, then separate, articulable facts to expand it into a criminal investigation. Each expansion point — ordering occupants out, starting field sobriety exercises, calling the dog, asking for consent — has its own legal standard, and the State must justify each one.

That layered structure is why a stopwatch-and-transcript review wins these cases. An officer who lawfully stopped a car for speeding but had the ticket done at minute six cannot use minutes seven through twelve to build a hunch into a search. And under Rodriguez, it is no answer that the delay was “only a few minutes” — the Supreme Court rejected any de minimis grace period. If any link in the chain fails, everything downstream of it is suppressible.

What Should You Do During a Traffic Stop?

Be polite, hand over your documents, and volunteer nothing — the stop’s legality will be decided later by a judge, not by argument at the window. Three rules protect you most. First, you do not have to consent to a search of your car; “do you mind if I take a look?” is a request, and “I don’t consent to searches” is a complete answer that cannot be held against you. Second, you are not required to answer investigative questions — where you’re coming from, whether there’s “anything in the car” — and short, calm non-answers do not create suspicion by themselves. Third, note the time. The moment of the stop, the moment the officer returned to his car, the moment the dog arrived — those timestamps decide cases like Hudson, and your memory of them helps your lawyer subpoena the right recordings. If the stop turns into a search based on the smell of cannabis, that doctrine has its own limits in our district — see our analysis of whether police can search your car for smelling weed — and if officers order you out and pat you down, the rules in our guide to stop and frisk in Florida take over.

How Do You Challenge an Unlawful Traffic Stop in Florida?

By motion to suppress — and the earlier it is built, the more of the case it takes down. Everything that flows from an unlawful stop or an unlawfully prolonged detention is tainted: the dog alert, the search, the contraband, and usually your statements. When our attorneys take on a stop case in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County, the checklist runs: Was the initial basis valid under the Second District’s rules (including Peterson for lane stops)? What was the stop’s mission, and when was each task actually completed? When did the K-9 arrive relative to the ticket? Can the State carry its burden of justifying every minute? Those questions are answered with bodycam footage, CAD logs, and cross-examination — not guesswork — and they need to be raised before trial. The State Attorney’s filing decision comes within weeks of arrest, and a stop that collapses under Rodriguez and Hudson can change what gets filed at all. If your case began with flashing lights on I-275 or a Pasco County back road, our guide to what to do after being arrested in Tampa covers the first steps.

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

For how The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. defends these cases, see our Tampa criminal traffic defense practice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a time limit on traffic stops in Florida?

There is no fixed number of minutes — the limit is functional: the stop may last only as long as its mission requires (license, registration, warrants, and the ticket). In Hudson v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026), ten minutes and twenty seconds was too long because the State could not explain what officers were doing. Our attorneys reconstruct that timeline in every prolonged-stop case.

Is a drug dog sniff of my car a search?

An exterior sniff during a lawful stop is not a Fourth Amendment search, so no warrant is needed for the sniff itself. The constitutional violation happens when police extend the stop to make the sniff possible — that added time is an unlawful seizure under Rodriguez v. United States, and it suppresses whatever the dog finds.

Can a passenger challenge a traffic stop?

Yes. A traffic stop seizes everyone in the car, so a passenger can move to suppress evidence flowing from an unlawful or unlawfully prolonged stop — the defendant in Hudson was a passenger. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. regularly represents passengers charged after someone else’s driving triggered the stop.

Can police stop me just for touching the lane line?

In the Tampa Bay area, generally no — under Peterson v. State, a lane-departure stop under Fla. Stat. § 316.089 requires that the movement created a reasonable safety concern. Other districts disagree, and the Florida Supreme Court has been asked to resolve the conflict, so preserving this issue now is essential. We raise Peterson in Second District courtrooms and preserve the record for whatever comes next.

Do I have to answer questions during a traffic stop?

You must provide your license, registration, and proof of insurance, but you are not required to answer investigative questions about where you are going or what is in the car. Decline politely and remain calm. Questions unrelated to the stop’s mission cannot lawfully add time to your detention.

The officer never gave me a ticket — does that help my case?

It can. In Hudson, the officer’s failure to issue a ticket (and inability to recall a warning) helped show the stop’s “mission” was never the point — the delay was for the dog. If your stop ended in an arrest but no traffic citation, tell your lawyer; The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. treats that as a red flag worth litigating.

Traffic-stop law shifted twice on a single day — July 24, 2026 — when Hudson tightened the clock and Ramos Perez sent the lane-stop split to the Florida Supreme Court. If your arrest anywhere in Tampa Bay started with a traffic stop, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 now, while the bodycam and dispatch records that prove the timeline still exist and the suppression motion can shape the State’s filing decision.

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

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

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. I taught search and seizure to police officers at the police academy — the same rules discussed on this page — and today our attorneys use that insider’s understanding of how stops and frisks are supposed to work to challenge the ones that don’t.

What Is Florida’s Stop and Frisk Law?

Florida’s Stop and Frisk Law, section 901.151, Florida Statutes, is the state’s codified version of the rule from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that first allowed officers to briefly detain and pat down a suspect on less than probable cause. The Florida statute authorizes an officer to temporarily detain any person “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit” a crime, for the limited purpose of identifying the person and learning the circumstances that aroused the officer’s suspicion.

The statute then draws boundaries that many street encounters blow straight through. The detention may last no longer than reasonably necessary to accomplish that limited purpose, and it may not extend beyond the place where it began or its immediate vicinity. If probable cause to arrest develops, the officer must arrest; if it does not, the officer must let the person go. Every one of those requirements is a potential defense issue, because the statute’s final subsection is a weapon our attorneys use regularly: no evidence seized in a search under the statute is admissible in any Florida court unless the stop and the search complied with the statute’s own rules.

What Does the State Need to Stop You? (Less Than You Think)

The legal standard for the stop itself is reasonable suspicion — specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity, judged by the totality of the circumstances. It is far less than probable cause, and far less than proof. But it must be more than a hunch, a feeling, or your mere presence in the “wrong” neighborhood.

Here is a quirk of the statute that surprises even lawyers: section 901.151 uses the words “probable cause” in its frisk provision, but Florida courts have held that in this statute the term actually means reasonable belief or suspicion — the point was repeated just weeks ago in State v. Lyles, No. 3D24-1602 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2026), a decision we discuss in detail below.

Florida courts judging reasonable suspicion look at the whole picture. In Cook v. State, No. 4D2025-1960 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 5, 2026), decided the same day as Lyles, the Fourth District repeated the factors courts weigh: the time; the day of the week; the location; the physical appearance of the suspect; the behavior of the suspect; the appearance and manner of operation of any vehicle involved; and anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in light of the officer’s experience.

When Can Police Frisk You? The Stop Is Not Enough

A lawful stop does not automatically authorize a frisk — this is the single most misunderstood point in Florida stop-and-frisk law. Under section 901.151(5), the officer must separately have a reasonable belief that you are armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore pose a threat to the officer or someone else, and even then may search “only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing,” the weapon.

Florida courts distill this into three conditions, each of which the State must satisfy: the detention itself must be lawful; the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed; and the pat-down must be strictly limited to finding the weapon. The suspicion that you are armed must rest on some objective basis — courts point to things like aggressive behavior, furtive movements, or a visible bulge in the clothing — and not simply on whatever justified the stop in the first place. A frisk that fails any of the three conditions is unlawful, and what it turns up is subject to suppression under the statute’s exclusionary rule.

What Does the Lyles Decision Mean for Gun Cases?

In State v. Lyles, No. 3D24-1602 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2026), officers responding to a shots-fired report had a fairly detailed BOLO — a “be on the lookout” description — of the suspect. A detective spotted Lyles, who matched the description, and when they made eye contact the detective saw a bulge at Lyles’s waistband and watched him move his hand to adjust it. The detective stopped him and lifted his shirt, revealing a firearm. The trial court suppressed the gun, reasoning in part that the stop and the search happened simultaneously and that the detective never articulated safety concerns.

The Third District reversed. The court held that the totality of the circumstances — a BOLO for a shooting suspect, the matching description, the bulge, and the hand movement toward it — gave the detective reasonable suspicion that Lyles was armed and dangerous, and that nothing in the law forbids the stop and the protective search from happening at the same moment.

The evergreen lessons cut both ways, and our attorneys use each of them. For the State, Lyles confirms that a bulge plus a furtive adjustment, in the context of a shots-fired BOLO, will usually justify a frisk. For the defense, the decision reaffirms the framework that decides these cases: the frisk requires its own objective justification, distinct from the stop. When there is no bulge, no furtive movement, no report of a weapon — just an officer’s routine habit of patting down everyone he stops — the framework Lyles applied is the roadmap to suppression. In the permitless-carry era, when carrying a firearm is often perfectly legal, these stop-and-frisk boundaries have become the central battleground in Tampa Bay gun prosecutions — we cover the substantive gun charges in our guide to Florida’s gun crime laws.

Is Running From the Police a Crime in Florida?

It can be — and the answer traces to one of the most consequential Florida Supreme Court decisions of the modern era. In C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 2009), a teenager standing in the common area of an apartment complex in a high-crime area took off running the moment officers approached, then kept running after they ordered him to stop. The Florida Supreme Court held that unprovoked, headlong flight from police in a high-crime area itself creates the reasonable suspicion that justifies a stop — and that once the officers’ command to stop was therefore lawful, the continued flight in defiance of it constituted the crime of resisting an officer without violence under section 843.02, Florida Statutes.

The rule has hard edges worth knowing. Mere presence in a high-crime area is not reasonable suspicion, and as a general rule flight alone, without more, does not support a resisting charge — it is the combination of unprovoked flight plus the high-crime setting that changes the analysis. Whether the area actually qualifies as “high-crime,” whether the flight was truly unprovoked, and whether the officer’s command came before or after the legal justification arose are all litigable questions, and they decide real cases. We break down the resisting charge itself in our guide to resisting an officer without violence in Florida.

What Are Your Rights During a Stop and Frisk?

You have more rights during a street stop than most people exercise — and fewer than internet folklore suggests. You are not required to answer questions beyond basic identification during a lawful stop, and you never have to consent to a search: a frisk imposed over your objection must stand on the officer’s own reasonable suspicion that you are armed, or its fruits are suppressible. What you cannot lawfully do is physically resist, run from a lawful command to stop, or give a false name — each of those converts a bad stop into a real charge.

The most valuable thing you can do during a questionable stop is preserve the record rather than win the argument. Note the time and place, what the officer said, what you were doing, and who saw it. The legality of the stop will be decided later, in a courtroom, on a motion to suppress — not on the sidewalk. And because section 901.151(6) makes compliance with the statute a condition of admissibility, the details you remember often become the suppression motion our attorneys file.

How Do We Challenge an Unlawful Stop or Frisk?

We attack the stop and the frisk as separate events, because the law treats them separately. First, the stop: what specific facts did the officer possess before the detention began? Reasonable suspicion is measured only by what the officer knew at that moment — facts learned afterward cannot rescue a bad stop. Second, the frisk: what objective basis suggested you were armed — and if the honest answer is “nothing beyond the stop itself,” the three-condition framework applied in Lyles points toward suppression. Third, the scope: a pat-down that wanders beyond a search for weapons into pockets, bags, or containers has left its legal authority behind.

I taught officers exactly where these lines sit, and our attorneys read every report and every second of body-worn camera footage against that training. In Lyles itself, the body camera showed no visible bulge — the case turned on what the detective testified he saw. Those disputes are where suppression motions are won and lost, and they are why the earliest weeks of a case, while video and witnesses are still available, matter most.

What Should You Do If a Stop and Frisk Led to Charges?

Say nothing about what was found — not whose it is, not why it was there — because possession cases are built on statements far more often than on fingerprints. Then get the stop reviewed quickly. Body-worn camera footage, surveillance video from nearby businesses, dispatch and BOLO records, and CAD logs establishing exactly what the officer knew and when are the raw material of a suppression motion, and they are freshest — and sometimes only preserved — in the first weeks after an arrest. Under the statute’s exclusionary rule, a stop or frisk that violated section 901.151 means the evidence it produced cannot be used against you, and in a possession case that is usually the whole prosecution.

Frequently Asked Questions About Stop and Frisk in Florida

Can police stop me for no reason in Florida?

No. An investigatory detention requires reasonable suspicion — specific facts reasonably indicating you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime, under section 901.151, Florida Statutes. Officers may always attempt a consensual encounter and ask questions, but unless the encounter ripens into a lawful stop, you are free to decline and walk away. Our attorneys review body camera and dispatch records in every case to pin down which kind of encounter it really was.

Do I have to answer police questions during a stop?

Beyond identifying yourself during a lawful stop, you are not required to answer investigative questions, and declining to answer is not a crime. Anything you volunteer, however, can supply the probable cause that turns a detention into an arrest. The safer course is polite silence and an early call to a defense lawyer.

Can police search my pockets during a frisk?

Not as a general search. Section 901.151(5) limits the frisk to what is necessary to find a dangerous weapon — an outer-clothing pat-down, extended only as needed to disclose the weapon. A frisk that becomes a hunt through your pockets for drugs or other evidence exceeds the statute, and what it finds is subject to suppression under section 901.151(6).

Is it illegal to run from the police in Florida?

It can be. Under C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 2009), unprovoked flight from officers in a high-crime area creates reasonable suspicion for a stop, and continuing to flee after a lawful command to stop is resisting an officer without violence — a first-degree misdemeanor. Whether the area was truly “high-crime” and whether the command was lawful are contested questions our attorneys litigate.

I was carrying my gun legally — can police still frisk me?

The sight of a firearm is no longer automatic evidence of a crime in Florida’s permitless-carry era, which is precisely why the frisk rules matter more than ever. The officer still needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for the stop and a reasonable belief you pose a danger for the frisk. If a lawful carry led to charges anyway, The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. examines both the stop and the charging decision — start with our guide to Florida’s gun crime laws.

Can evidence from an illegal stop and frisk be thrown out?

Yes — Florida’s Stop and Frisk Law contains its own exclusionary rule. Section 901.151(6) makes evidence from a search inadmissible unless both the detention and the search complied with the statute. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. builds suppression motions on exactly that provision; call (813) 727-7159 for a free review of how your stop actually happened.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County Criminal Defense Attorney page.

Related reading: What Are the Gun Crime Laws in Florida? · What Is Resisting an Officer Without Violence in Florida? · Florida’s Second DCA Limits the “Plain Smell” Cannabis Search Doctrine · What to Do After Being Arrested in Tampa, Florida

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our step-by-step guide to what happens in a Florida criminal case.

The Stop Decided Your Case Before You Ever Saw a Courtroom

If a street stop, a pat-down, or a “routine” detention in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County produced the evidence against you, the lawfulness of those first ninety seconds may decide everything that follows. Call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, who taught these rules at the police academy — at (813) 727-7159 before the body camera footage and dispatch records that can prove your stop was unlawful disappear into routine retention purges.

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.

Most odor-based car searches in Tampa Bay are won or lost on the first ninety seconds of body-camera video. As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy instructor who taught criminal procedure, I know how officers are trained to build a search from a smell, and I have spent more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms. Our attorneys review the recording of every odor-based stop for the moment that training shows.

Can Police Search Your Car Just Because It Smells Like Marijuana?

Not in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County — the odor of cannabis, standing alone, no longer establishes probable cause here. In Williams v. State, 421 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (en banc), the Second District Court of Appeal — the appellate court covering Tampa Bay — sitting en banc, held that “the smell of cannabis standing alone is insufficient to establish probable cause,” receding from its own prior precedent.

The reason is simple chemistry meeting new law: since Florida legalized medical marijuana and hemp, a trained officer cannot tell by smell whether the odor comes from something illegal or something perfectly lawful. The smell no longer makes contraband “immediately apparent” — so it can no longer do the work of probable cause by itself. Odor remains a relevant factor, but it must be combined with something more. Our attorneys have been filing suppression motions built on Williams since the week it came down, and our Tampa drug crimes attorney page explains how those motions fit into a full drug defense.

What Happened in Williams — and Why the Evidence Still Came In

Williams began the way these cases usually do: a 2023 traffic stop in Hillsborough County where officers said they smelled cannabis and searched on the odor alone — no admission of use, no indication whether the smell was hemp, medical marijuana, or illegal cannabis, and no evidence of recent smoking in the vehicle. The en banc court used the case to recede from Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), its 2021 decision holding that the legalization amendments didn’t change the Fourth Amendment analysis.

But there is a catch every reader should understand: the defendant in Williams still lost. Because the officers searched at a time when the old rule (Owens) was still binding precedent, the court applied the good-faith exception — evidence is not suppressed when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on the appellate law in force at the time of the search. The practical translation: the new rule protects people searched after October 1, 2025, far more than those searched before. And because the change is so consequential, the court certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance: does the plain smell doctrine continue to apply based only on the odor of cannabis? As of November 2026, the Florida Supreme Court has not answered that question, and this page will be updated when it does.

When Can Odor Still Justify a Search? The Cherfils Lesson

When the smell comes with other facts — and in Cherfils v. State, No. 2D2023-1932 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 31, 2025), the same court showed exactly how that happens. Joshua Cherfils was stopped in a high-crime area for an improperly illuminated license tag. The officer smelled burnt marijuana. Cherfils became argumentative and nervous, then produced his medical marijuana card and admitted smoking earlier in the day — but the officer testified the odor was “a lot more than just if someone smoked earlier.” The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer could reasonably conclude Cherfils had been illegally smoking marijuana in the vehicle — and upheld the search.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Tampa search and seizure defense — (813) 727-7159

Read Williams and Cherfils together and the rule for our district is clear: smell alone loses; smell plus your own words and behavior can win — for the State.

Why Showing Your Medical Marijuana Card Can Backfire

Because the card converts a legally ambiguous smell into evidence of a crime. Hemp, which section 581.217, Florida Statutes, defines as cannabis with a total delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis, is legal to possess and use almost anywhere. Medical marijuana is legal to possess, but section 381.986(12)(c), Florida Statutes, makes it a first-degree misdemeanor for a patient to use it in a vehicle. When Cherfils volunteered his card and his earlier smoking, he eliminated the innocent explanation (hemp) and handed the officer reason to believe the smell came from marijuana smoked in the car.

This is the counseling moment our attorneys wish more drivers got in advance: the Second District’s new rule is powerful, but nearly every case that loses under it loses because of what the driver said in the first ninety seconds of the stop.

The card question reaches a large share of Florida drivers. As of October 30, 2026, 943,844 qualified patients held active medical marijuana ID cards in Florida, according to the Florida Department of Health’s Office of Medical Marijuana Use weekly update. Each of those cardholders can hand an officer the same extra fact Cherfils did, which is why our attorneys treat the card as something to explain through counsel, after the stop.

August 2026 Update: Other Districts Keep Upholding Odor-Based Searches

Outside the Second District, Florida’s appellate courts are continuing to uphold vehicle searches built on the smell of marijuana, most recently in Ptomy v. State, No. 1D2025-1029 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 2026). In that Escambia County appeal, the First District affirmed without a written opinion, citing decisions that judge odor-based vehicle searches under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach.

The decisions Ptomy cited show where the rest of the state stands: Aldama v. State, 394 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), which found probable cause where the driver denied having a medical marijuana card or medical marijuana in the car — answers that ruled out any lawful source for the smell — and Hoehaver v. State, 389 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), which held that the odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside a vehicle supplied probable cause. Notably, the Fifth District has also held en banc — in Baxter v. State, 389 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) — that because the plain smell of cannabis is no longer clearly indicative of criminal activity, the odor alone cannot even supply reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. So even outside Tampa Bay the direction of travel is the same: the smell needs company.

Here is the statewide picture as of August 2026:

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — (813) 727-7159

The practical lesson hasn’t changed — it has sharpened. In every district, what you say during the stop is what converts a smell into a search. Until the Florida Supreme Court answers the certified question from Williams, the rule genuinely depends on where you were stopped — and our attorneys apply the right district’s law to every suppression motion we file.

What Do Officers Have to Show Now?

Facts beyond the smell — articulated specifically, not recited from training. Since Williams, an officer in our district who writes “I detected the odor of marijuana” and nothing more has written a suppression motion for the defense. What the case law now separates:

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Tampa drug and search defense — (813) 727-7159

When our firm litigates these motions, the body camera is the battleground: the report’s neat “totality of circumstances” often turns out, on video, to be an odor and nothing else. That is a winnable case in the Second District today.

What Should You Do If Your Car Was Searched Based on Smell?

Get the search reviewed now, because the timing of your stop controls which rule applies. Searches conducted after October 1, 2025, in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County are governed by Williams — odor alone is not probable cause, and a motion to suppress may take the State’s evidence off the table entirely. Earlier searches face the good-faith exception, but may have other defects: an unlawful stop, an overlong detention, or “additional factors” that exist only in the report. Bring the paperwork and any recording to counsel before your arraignment; suppression issues are won by lawyers who get to the video early.

If the search led to a possession charge, our guide on how to fight a marijuana possession charge in Florida explains the 20-gram line, hemp lab testing, and diversion.

Frequently Asked Questions: Cannabis Odor and Car Searches in Florida

Can police search my car for smelling marijuana in Florida?

Not based on the smell alone in the Tampa Bay area — Williams v. State ended that in October 2025. But odor combined with other factors, especially your own statements, can still justify a search, and other Florida districts continue to uphold odor-based searches. Our attorneys evaluate exactly which rule applied to your stop.

What is the plain smell doctrine?

It was the rule that the smell of cannabis, by itself, gave officers probable cause to search — treating the odor as automatically incriminating. The Second District receded from it in Williams because legal hemp and medical marijuana are indistinguishable from illegal cannabis by smell. Odor is now just one factor in the totality of the circumstances.

Should I show my medical marijuana card during a traffic stop?

Be very careful — in Cherfils, producing the card helped establish probable cause, because it signaled the smell came from medical marijuana, which is illegal to smoke in a vehicle. You are not required to explain a smell. In our cases, the card is best presented by counsel, in context, after the stop.

Does this ruling make marijuana legal in Florida?

No. Possession remains illegal except for medical marijuana obtained through a licensed dispensary and hemp within legal THC limits. Williams changed what justifies a warrantless search — not what is legal to possess.

Does the Williams rule apply everywhere in Florida?

No. Williams and Cherfils bind the Second District — Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco among its counties — while the First, Third, and Fifth Districts have all recently upheld odor-based searches where the smell was burnt or the driver’s answers ruled out a legal explanation (Ptomy, Aldama, Hoehaver). Until the Florida Supreme Court answers the certified question, the rule depends on where you were stopped — and our attorneys brief the right district’s law in every motion.

What if my car was searched based on odor before October 2025?

The good-faith exception likely protects that search from suppression on odor grounds alone, because officers were relying on the law in force at the time — that is exactly what happened in Williams itself. But earlier searches often have other problems worth reviewing: the lawfulness of the stop, the length of the detention, and whether the claimed “additional factors” hold up on video.

Can a drug charge be dropped if the search was illegal?

Often, yes — when a suppression motion removes the drugs from evidence, the State frequently cannot proceed. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. has litigated suppression in Tampa Bay courtrooms for decades, and post-Williams odor searches are among the most suppressible cases we see. Call (813) 727-7159 for a free case review.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Drug Crimes Attorney page.

Related reading: Florida Medical Marijuana and Paraphernalia Transportation Laws · What to Do After Being Arrested in Tampa, Florida · How Does a Bond Hearing Work in Tampa? · The Criminal Court Process in Hillsborough County

Searched Over a Smell? The Law Just Moved in Your Favor

If your vehicle was searched based on the odor of cannabis in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County, the rules that applied a year ago no longer do — and the recording of your stop may hold a suppression motion. Call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 before your arraignment. The video that decides these motions does not preserve itself. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish-speaking criminal defense clients in Tampa.

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.

Constitutional Violations Create Powerful Defense Opportunities

When you face criminal charges in Tampa, every piece of evidence counts. However, how police obtain that evidence matters just as much as the evidence itself. Police officers are human—they make mistakes. When their errors violate your constitutional rights, a judge can throw out critical evidence.

At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., we bring over 25 years of experience to identifying and exposing police errors that can completely change your case’s outcome. Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, has built his career on holding law enforcement accountable and protecting the rights of the accused.

Five Police Mistakes That Can Get Your Case Dismissed

1. Illegal Traffic Stops

Police often make their first mistake during a traffic stop—before an arrest even occurs. The Fourth Amendment requires police to have “reasonable suspicion” that you committed a crime or traffic violation before pulling your vehicle over. They cannot stop you on a hunch or because of your appearance.

What Happens When a Stop Is Illegal

If an officer stops you unlawfully, your attorney can file a motion to suppress any evidence gathered after that illegal stop. This includes confessions, contraband, and DUI breath test results. Consequently, without this crucial evidence, the State may have no choice but to dismiss your charges.

The Brancato Law Firm routinely challenges illegal stops in drug, DUI, and firearm cases throughout Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

2. Unlawful Searches and Seizures

To search your person, vehicle, or home, police generally need one of three things: a warrant, your valid consent, or a recognized legal exception. When officers conduct searches without meeting these requirements, the evidence they find becomes vulnerable to suppression.

Common Examples of Unlawful Searches

• Searching a car without probable cause or consent
• Searching a home without a warrant or valid permission
• Conducting pat-downs without reasonable suspicion that you are armed
• Exceeding the scope of consent (searching places you did not agree to)

The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine

If a search was illegal, a judge excludes any evidence found as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” This legal doctrine means that evidence obtained through constitutional violations is tainted and cannot be used against you. Often, once the court throws out this illegally obtained evidence, the prosecution cannot proceed with the case.

3. Miranda Rights Violations

Police must properly advise you of your Miranda rights if you are in custody and they interrogate you. If they fail to do so, a court can suppress any statements you make during that interrogation.

Common Miranda Mistakes by Police

• Failing to read you your full Miranda rights before questioning
• Continuing to question you after you clearly ask for a lawyer
• Using threats or false promises to coerce a confession
• Questioning you after you invoke your right to remain silent

Suppressed statements can significantly weaken the State’s case. This is especially true when a confession is a central piece of their evidence against you.

4. Mishandling of Evidence

The “chain of custody”—the documented trail of how police handle evidence from seizure to trial—is vital in criminal cases. Any breaks or inconsistencies in this chain can lead a judge to question the evidence’s reliability.

Examples of Evidence Mishandling

• Losing or misplacing crucial evidence
• Contaminating biological samples (DNA, blood)
• Failing to properly document evidence transfers
• Storing evidence improperly (wrong temperature, exposed to elements)

When police mishandle evidence, a skilled defense attorney can challenge its reliability. As a result, this often leads to suppression of the evidence or even case dismissal.

5. Witness Intimidation and Police Misconduct

Florida law prohibits police officers from coercing witnesses or altering their statements. When officers cross ethical or legal lines during investigations, their actions can undermine the entire prosecution.

How We Challenge Police Misconduct

Documented police misconduct can support your attorney in filing motions to dismiss your case, suppress evidence, or exclude tainted witness testimony. At The Brancato Law Firm, we aggressively investigate every case for signs of law enforcement misconduct. We know that exposing even one significant error can change the entire outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a motion to suppress?

A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence that was obtained illegally. If the judge grants the motion, the prosecution cannot use that evidence against you at trial. Without key evidence, the State may be forced to dismiss charges.

What is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine?

This doctrine holds that evidence obtained as a result of a constitutional violation is “tainted” and inadmissible. For example, if police conduct an illegal search and find drugs, those drugs—and any evidence that flows from finding them—cannot be used against you.

When do police have to read me my Miranda rights?

Police must read you Miranda rights when two conditions are met: (1) you are in custody (not free to leave), and (2) they are interrogating you (asking questions designed to elicit incriminating responses). If both conditions are met and they fail to give Miranda warnings, your statements may be suppressed.

Can police search my car without a warrant?

In some circumstances, yes. The “automobile exception” allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. However, they cannot search without any legal basis. If the search was unlawful, the evidence can be suppressed.

What is chain of custody?

Chain of custody is the documented record of who handled evidence, when they handled it, and how it was stored. Any gaps or inconsistencies in this documentation can undermine the evidence’s reliability and create grounds for suppression.

How do I know if police made mistakes in my case?

An experienced defense attorney reviews police reports, body camera footage, witness statements, and all documentation to identify constitutional violations. Many police mistakes are not obvious to defendants but become clear upon careful legal analysis.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our guide to each stage of a Florida criminal case.

We Turn Police Mistakes Into Case Dismissals

Police errors are not rare—they happen. What truly matters is whether your defense attorney knows how to find these mistakes, expose them effectively, and use them to your advantage.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. combines over 25 years of courtroom experience with a deep understanding of constitutional law. We know how to challenge illegal stops, unlawful searches, Miranda violations, and investigative misconduct. We are prepared to fight vigorously to have your charges dismissed whenever police errors allow.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Case Evaluation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Related: Tampa DUI Lawyer | Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer | Tampa Criminal Forensic Science Attorney