Criminal Defense - Law Offices of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr.

Hillsborough Cannabis Defense Lawyer (813) 222-2220 – Video on Vimeo

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:30:40 GMT

Our drug crimes website has a fully searchable Cannabis Marijuana defense database on marijuana and drug charges inHillsborough County, Florida. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause and the possibility of drug charges being dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband. Casey reviews Minimum Mandatory sentences may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases.

Here is a Direct Link to the Cannabis Defense Lawyer Video.

Hillsborough Cannabis Defense Lawyer (813) 222-2220 from W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. on Vimeo.

Transcript: Hundreds of people are arrested every day. You may be one of them. I spend most of my time defending cases in State and Federal Courts. Many times drug crimes arise from searches of motor vehicles. Sometimes police will stop a car and then search it. Sometimes we are able to attack these searches when police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the motor vehicle. In the event we can suppress the evidence, we may be able to have the drug charges dismissed, since there is no longer any evidence to be admitted against you in a criminal prosecution and evidence becomes unavailable for admission in a trial. I have arrived at my destination – one of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Criminal charges in State or federal Court? Let me help. Call me at (813) 222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you.

Other Topics covered at: vimeo.com/centrallaw/hillsboroughcannabislawyer

Marijuana, Cannabis, Drug Crimes, Hillsborough Marijuana Charges, Trafficking

Florida Court Reverses Constructive Possession Conviction

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:24:50 GMT

Constructive Possession conviction reversed where “the State presented no evidence to rebut evidence that other individuals either drove or occupied the car.

What Is Constructive Possession of a Weapon?

“None of the testifying officers could recall how the car keys were obtained, when the men in the residence had arrived there, or who drove the rental car to the residence that day, who had been driving it during the rental period, or . . . who owned the various items in the back seat area of the car.”

What is Constructive Possession of a Weapon? In this sample case, the guy was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. “Florida law requires this court to apply a “special” standard of review in circumstantial evidence cases, such that, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, this court must determine whether the evidence viewed in this light excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989). If such evidence has been introduced at trial which contradicts any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the jury’s verdict of guilt must be affirmed, as it is solely the prerogative of the factfinder to accept or reject . . . contradictory evidence.”

“In addition to the circumstantial evidence rule, we apply the rule of law on constructive possession. When the “premises where contraband is found is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of a defendant, however, knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof.” Julian v. State, 545 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Here, there is no dispute that no one was in or near the rental car when police arrived at the residence (i.e., no one had possession of the car), the car was rented by Appellant, the console was closed when police searched the car, and both a handgun and a receipt for payment of a 9 cellular phone bill in Appellant’s name were found in the center console of that car. The issue is whether this evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant’s knowledge of the handgun in the console; in other words, to rebut Appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence that, as the trial court summarized, “somebody else drove the vehicle at some point in time, and it is their gun as opposed to [Appellant’s].”

Another Case on Constructive Possession

Free Download of the Constructive Possession Opinion from Florida

The Court’s Ruling on Constructive Possession

“Here, the learned trial court’s denial of Appellant’s JOA motion focused primarily on the presence in the console of the handgun and the T-Mobile receipt bearing Appellant’s name and dated two days before the search. The court found that this two-day period was sufficiently close in time to infer Appellant’s knowledge of the gun’s presence, and was bolstered by the fact that the girlfriend to whom Mr. Byrd testified he turned over the rental car was not at the residence when police arrived, but the car was. But the State presented no evidence to rebut Appellant’s evidence that other individuals either drove or occupied the car in the intervening two days between the date on the receipt and the search. Also, police could not testify from whom or where they obtained the keys to the car, and could not say who drove the rental car to the residence on the day of the search. Furthermore, as in Evans, although the presence of the T-Mobile receipt bearing Appellant’s name suggests Appellant may have placed the receipt there, “[s]uch an inference, however, provides no time frame with regard to when the [gun] came to reside” in the console, “nor any help as to appellant’s present dominion over the [gun].” 32 So. 3d at 191. Thus, we hold that the evidence here was insufficient to support a prima facie case that Appellant was in constructive 12 possession of the firearm, and thus we must reverse Appellant’s conviction. REVERSED”

Excerpts of Opinion of the Florida Court on Constructive Possession

Constructive Possession conviction reversed where “the State presented no evidence to rebut Appellant’s evidence that other individuals either drove or occupied the car in the intervening two days between the date on the receipt and the search. Also, police could not testify from whom or where they obtained the keys to the car, and could not say who drove the rental car to the residence on the day of the search.”

Complete Opinion of the Court on Constructive Possession

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOE LEE KEMP, IV,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
CASE NO. 1D14-2738
Opinion filed June 15, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. James H. Daniel, Judge. Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufrano, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jessica DaSilva, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. THOMAS, J. Appellant appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

We address only the first issue, whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for judgment of acquittal (JOA), as we reverse on this ground and order Appellant’s discharge from the conviction. 2 Facts While in the course of executing a search warrant, police arrived at the residence in question; inside were Appellant and four other males. Adjacent to the residence was a fenced-in area where a newer-model Chrysler was located, with other cars. Detective Hanson was the first officer to search the Chrysler. In the glove compartment he found a rental car agreement in Appellant’s name with what appeared to be Appellant’s signature.

According to the agreement, the rental period began on August 29, 2013, and was due to end at 6:00 p.m. on September 5, 2013, the day of the search. In the front-seat center console, which was closed, the detective found a handgun and a receipt for payment of a T-Mobile cell phone bill. Appellant’s name was on the receipt, which reflected that the bill had been paid in cash two days before the search. Another officer noted a number of items in the back seat area, including a student handbook. No DNA or fingerprint testing was done on the firearm or any other items, and no one in the residence claimed ownership of the gun. Detective Hanson was unable to recall with certainty whether the car was locked. None of the testifying officers could recall how the car keys were obtained, when the men in the residence had arrived there, or who drove the rental car to the residence that day, who had been driving it during the rental period, or 3 who owned the various items in the back seat area of the car.

Appellant moved for JOA at the close of the State’s evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove a prima facie case of possession of a firearm. Acknowledging that the firearm was found in the closed center console of a vehicle that contained items that purportedly were Appellant’s, Appellant argued that the car was located within a residence that contained several people; no one identified Appellant as the sole driver of the Chrysler; no DNA or fingerprint evidence linked Appellant to the firearm; and the keys to the vehicle were not obtained from Appellant.

The State argued that the element of knowledge was established by the location of the T-Mobile receipt dated September 3, 2013, found in the same console as the firearm. In denying the motion, the court acknowledged that the fact that the car was rented in Appellant’s name was insufficient to prove possession of the gun, but found that, at that point in the trial, there was no evidence that anyone other than Appellant had been in the car. The court also acknowledged, however, that “nobody is really sure exactly where the keys came from either. But in the end you’ve got this phone bill sitting there in the container which is holding the gun, and I think that is enough to require the Court to deny” the motion.

Appellant then called one witness, Mr. Byrd, who testified that he drove the rental car all day on August 31, 2013, and that others were in the car with him, but 4 he had not driven it since that day. When he was finished driving the car, the witness turned it over to Appellant’s girlfriend. He also testified that, in addition to the girlfriend, two of the men who were at the residence when police arrived had also driven the car during the week before the search. Mr. Byrd testified that on the day of the search he drove to the residence in a car belonging to Appellant’s girlfriend. Mr. Byrd did not observe the rental car when he arrived, and Appellant was alone at the residence. Mr. Byrd testified that he did not know how either Appellant or the other men got to the residence, or who drove the rental car that day. Mr. Byrd testified that, although he owned a handgun, the firearm found in the rental car was not his.1 Appellant rested his case and renewed his motion for JOA, adding to his previous argument that he had presented evidence that other persons had been in the rental car during the week prior to the search.

The trial court acknowledged the circumstantial nature of the State’s case and that this required the State to present evidence rebutting Appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence: However, I think the state has done that again with the phone bill being there; also the fact that [Byrd] said he gave the car to [Appellant’s] wife or girlfriend. The girlfriend was not there. His girlfriend didn’t drive it, okay. [Byrd] had no idea who drove it over there on the day in question. And, again, you’ve got the phone bill in 1 Over Appellant’s objection, the court allowed the State to elicit testimony from Mr. Byrd that his firearm was found in Appellant’s girlfriend’s vehicle and he did not have a concealed weapons permit, forming the basis of Appellant’s second assertion of error. 5 there from a very close . . . date to when the vehicle was searched and the gun was found and I think that the phone bill . . . identifies [Appellant] and the container . . . there is something that identifies [Appellant] in the container that is holding the gun . . . I think the state . . . has some evidence to rebut that reasonable hypothesis of innocence . . . . The trial court found that this was not undermined by Mr. Byrd’s testimony, and pointed out that the gun did not belong to Mr. Byrd.

The court also found that it “clearly” wasn’t the girlfriend to whom Byrd handed over custody of the vehicle. Analysis A trial court’s denial of a motion for JOA is reviewed de novo to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. Jones v. State, 790 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). An appellate court must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974). Here, the State’s case was based on a theory of constructive possession of the handgun. Florida law requires this court to apply a “special” standard of review in circumstantial evidence cases, such that, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, this court must determine whether the evidence viewed in this light excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989). If such evidence has been introduced at trial which contradicts any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the jury’s verdict of guilt must be affirmed, as it is solely the prerogative of the factfinder to accept or reject 6 contradictory evidence. Id. at 188.

This “special standard” applicable in circumstantial evidence cases has been questioned in Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 151 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 2014), in which the Fifth District noted that the “special standard” is inconsistent with Florida’s Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, federal law, and the majority of jurisdictions. Under the United States Constitution, no such “special standard” is required. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.307, 326 (1979) (citing Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954)). Under federal law, the “rational trier of fact” test is the rule of law. Id. And of course, in Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981), our Supreme Court prohibited appellate courts from reweighing the evidence when reviewing an order denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal. In Westbrooks v. State, the Second District affirmed the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, stating: Generally, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied “[i]f after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). However, in cases in which the evidence is “wholly circumstantial,” a special standard of review applies: “the evidence must also exclude the defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id; see also Mosley v. State, 46 So. 3d 510, 526 (Fla. 2009) (“If the state presents both direct and circumstantial evidence, courts do not apply the special standard of review applicable to circumstantial evidence cases.” (citing Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 803)).

“Under the circumstantial evidence standard, when there is an inconsistency between the defendant’s theory of innocence and the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the 7 question is one for the finder of fact to resolve and the motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied.” Durousseau v. State, 55 So. 3d 543, 557 (Fla. 2010). “‘The state is not required to ‘rebut conclusively every possible variation’ of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the [d]efendant’s theory of events.’” Id. (quoting State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989)). The state is not required to rebut a hypothesis of innocence that is unreasonable. See Henderson v. State, 679 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(“While we must agree with [appellant] that the State was required to provide evidence inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we emphasize that the State was not required to exclude any unreasonable hypothesis.”). 145 So. 3d 874, 877-78 (Fla 2d DCA 2014) (emphasis in original). In a concurring opinion, two judges of the panel decision expressed their concern with Florida law which requires courts to apply a special rule in circumstantial criminal cases, noting the Fifth District’s analysis in Knight v. State, and the statement there that “Florida should join the federal courts and the vast majority of states that have abandoned use of a special circumstantial evidence standard of review.” Id. at 881 (Morris and Black, JJ., concurring) (quoting Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)). The concurring opinion quoted the court in Knight, stating the special standard improperly disregards the jury’s role and requires the appellate court to “‘ignore[] the correlation between the ‘strength’ of circumstantial evidence and ‘reasonableness’ of various hypotheses of innocence.’” Id. Finally, the concurring opinion noted that the court in Knight stated that clarification in the law as to when the special rule on circumstantial 8 evidence must apply would be beneficial. Id.

Here, as did the trial court, we apply the special standard of review of cases involving circumstantial evidence, even assuming that Appellant’s stipulation of his status as a felon, an element of the crime here, constitutes direct evidence, because there was no direct evidence that Appellant possessed the handgun, and his status as felon alone does not constitute proof of guilt. Westbrook, 145 So. 3d at 878 (although the State presented evidence that defendant had been told in advance of robbery plan, “there was no direct evidence that Westbrooks participated in the robberies. . . . Therefore, this court must apply the special standard applicable to wholly circumstantial evidence cases. See Kocaker v. State, 119 So. 3d 1214, 1225 (Fla. 2013).”).

In addition to the circumstantial evidence rule, we apply the rule of law on constructive possession. When the “premises where contraband is found is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of a defendant, however, knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof.” Julian v. State, 545 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Here, there is no dispute that no one was in or near the rental car when police arrived at the residence (i.e., no one had possession of the car), the car was rented by Appellant, the console was closed when police searched the car, and both a handgun and a receipt for payment of a 9 cellular phone bill in Appellant’s name were found in the center console of that car. The issue is whether this evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant’s knowledge of the handgun in the console; in other words, to rebut Appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence that, as the trial court summarized, “somebody else drove the vehicle at some point in time, and it is their gun as opposed to [Appellant’s].”

Factually, this case bears sufficient resemblance to Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), to warrant reversal.2 In Evans, police searched a bedroom identified by an informant as the appellant’s, which was in a jointly possessed home. Police found on the bed in that room a duffel bag containing the appellant’s passport and other items, including a toiletry kit containing illicit drugs. Id. at 189. In part of its discussion as to why reversal was necessary, the court explained: “Because the premises where the officers found the contraband were in joint, rather than exclusive, possession, one cannot infer either the ‘knowledge’ or ‘ability to maintain dominion and control’ element from mere ownership of the 2 The State relies solely on Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a reliance that is misplaced for two reasons: First, Wale involved a motion to dismiss, not a JOA motion; and second, the contraband at issue in Wale was found inside a box that was labeled with the appellant’s name and address, and was found inside Appellant’s bedroom closet. It was in this context that the court in Wale held: “Guilty knowledge can be presumed from the facts and evidence, and once it is shown that the contraband is found in the defendant’s home, in his own closet, in a box bearing his name and address, a jury question is created as to whether he had knowledge of the contraband’s presence.” Id. at 740. 10 residence or proximity to the contraband. The State must establish both elements by independent proof.” Id. at 190.

In Evans, this court addressed S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), where the Second District concluded that the State failed to prove that S.B. constructively possessed marijuana found in a grocery bag in the trunk of a car carrying him and several other passengers, even though S.B. admitted owning the bag, because the officer never asked if S.B. owned the container in which the marijuana was found, never inventoried the contents of the bag, and never obtained fingerprints from the container. Evans, 32 So. 3d at 189. The Evans court also addressed N.K.W., Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), explaining that “the evidence failed to show N.K.W. constructively possessed LSD found inside a baggy in his wallet, as the wallet was located in plain view on a bedroom closet shelf to which many people attending a party had access.” Id. The court noted that “N.K.W. did not admit owning the LSD, officers obtained no fingerprints from the baggy, and no direct evidence established his knowledge of the presence of the contraband.” Id. In Evans, this court explained: The presence of appellant’s passport in the duffel bag suggests he could have placed the passport there. Such an inference, however, provides no time frame with regard to when the contraband came to reside in the bag, nor any help as to appellant’s present dominion over the contraband. Without more, the mere presence of the passport is no better proof of appellant’s knowledge of, and dominion over, the 11 contraband than S.B.’s acknowledgment of ownership of the grocery bag or N.K.W.’s admission of ownership of the wallet where officers found the drugs. 32 So. 3d at 191.

Here, the learned trial court’s denial of Appellant’s JOA motion focused primarily on the presence in the console of the handgun and the T-Mobile receipt bearing Appellant’s name and dated two days before the search. The court found that this two-day period was sufficiently close in time to infer Appellant’s knowledge of the gun’s presence, and was bolstered by the fact that the girlfriend to whom Mr. Byrd testified he turned over the rental car was not at the residence when police arrived, but the car was. But the State presented no evidence to rebut Appellant’s evidence that other individuals either drove or occupied the car in the intervening two days between the date on the receipt and the search. Also, police could not testify from whom or where they obtained the keys to the car, and could not say who drove the rental car to the residence on the day of the search. Furthermore, as in Evans, although the presence of the T-Mobile receipt bearing Appellant’s name suggests Appellant may have placed the receipt there, “[s]uch an inference, however, provides no time frame with regard to when the [gun] came to reside” in the console, “nor any help as to appellant’s present dominion over the [gun].” 32 So. 3d at 191. Thus, we hold that the evidence here was insufficient to support a prima facie case that Appellant was in constructive 12 possession of the firearm, and thus we must reverse Appellant’s conviction. REVERSED with directions to discharge Appellant. MARSTILLER and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR27.950575-82.4571776

Is Cannabis Use Legal at the Gasparilla Pirate Fest?

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:19:29 GMT

Is Cannabis use legal at the Gasparilla pirate fest?

The use of cannabis, also known as marijuana, is currently illegal in the state of Florida. This includes the use of medical marijuana, which is only legal for certain qualified patients under state law. Therefore, cannabis use is not legal at the Gasparilla Pirate Fest or any other public event in Florida.

Possession of Cannabis in Tampa, Florida

In 2016, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment (Amendment 2) to allow the use of medical marijuana for certain qualified patients. However, the possession, use, and sale of marijuana for recreational use remains illegal under state law. Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, Chapter 893, prohibits the possession, use, or sale of marijuana, and provides penalties for violation of these laws. Possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana is a first-degree misdemeanor, which can result in up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Possession of greater amounts can result in more severe penalties, including prison time.

Cannabis Remains Illegal Under State and Federal Laws

It’s important to note that although marijuana is legal for medicinal use in some states and for recreational use in some states and countries, it remains illegal under federal law. The use of marijuana is a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. This means that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana.

Law Enforcement Presence

During the Gasparilla Pirate Fest, local law enforcement agencies such as the Tampa Police Department, Hillsborough County Sheriffs, and Florida Highway Patrol will be present to enforce the laws and regulations of the state of Florida. This includes enforcing the laws related to marijuana possession and use. Therefore, it’s illegal to use or possess marijuana during the Gasparilla Pirate Fest and can lead to arrest and penalties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of cannabis, also known as marijuana, is currently illegal in the state of Florida, including the use of medical marijuana. It’s illegal to use or possess marijuana during the Gasparilla Pirate Fest and can lead to arrest and penalties. The possession, use, and sale of marijuana for recreational use is prohibited by Florida Statutes and is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Local law enforcement agencies will be present during the event to enforce the laws and regulations of the state of Florida.

This information was generated using assistive intelligence technology AI.

Pasco Marijuana Defense Attorney (813) 222-2220 – Drug Crimes – Cannabis

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:10:48 GMT

Drug2Go and Pasco Marijuana Defense Attorney have a fully searchable Pasco Drug Crimes Cannabis Marijuana defense database on marijuana and drug charges in Florida. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause in criminal cases and the possibility of drug charges being dropped or dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband. Casey reviews the Minimum Mandatory sentences that may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, a specialist who defends drug crimes in Pasco County, Florida.Pasco Marijuana Defense Attorney (813) 222-2220 – Drug Crimes – Cannabis from W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. on Vimeo.

Transcript: [Pasco Marijuana Defense Attorney Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day. You may be one of them. I spend most of my time defending cases in State and Federal Courts. Many times drug crimes arise from searches of motor vehicles. Sometimes police will stop a car and then search it. Sometimes we are able to attack these searches when police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the motor vehicle. In the event we can suppress the evidence, we may be able to have the drug charges dismissed, since there is no longer any evidence to be admitted against you in a criminal prosecution and evidence becomes unavailable for admission in a trial. I have arrived at my destination – one of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Criminal charges in State or federal Court? Let me help. Call me at (813) 222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you.[End of Pasco Marijuana Defense Attorney Narration]

Polk Marijuana Defense Attorney (813) 222-2220 – Drug Crimes – Cannabis

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:07:08 GMT

Polk County Marijuana Law

Drug2Go.com and Polk Marijuana Defense Attorney now have a FREE fully searchable Polk Drug Crimes Cannabis Marijuana defense database on marijuana and drug charges in Florida. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause in criminal cases and the possibility of drug charges being dropped or dismissed when police illegally improperly search for and then seize contraband without a Search Warrant. Casey reviews the Minimum Mandatory sentences that may apply to some Marijuana and Cannabis Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, a specialist who defends drug crimes in Polk County, Florida.

Transcript: [Polk Marijuana Defense Attorney Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day. You may be one of them. I spend most of my time defending cases in State and Federal Courts. Many times drug crimes arise from searches of motor vehicles. Sometimes police will stop a car and then search it. Sometimes we are able to attack these searches when police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the motor vehicle. In the event we can suppress the evidence, we may be able to have the drug charges dismissed, since there is no longer any evidence to be admitted against you in a criminal prosecution and evidence becomes unavailable for admission in a trial. I have arrived at my destination – one of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Criminal charges in State or federal Court? Let me help. Call me at (813) 222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you.[End of Polk Cannabis Defense Lawyer Narration]

⚖️ Viral “Supreme Court Gun Ruling” Video Is Fake: Don’t Risk Arrest by Believing Internet Myths

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 18:11:25 GMT

🚨 Introduction: When “Breaking News” Isn’t Real Law

If you’ve recently seen a viral YouTube or social media video claiming that the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous 9–0 ruling dramatically expanding gun rights, you are not alone. These clips are spreading rapidly across platforms like YouTube Shorts, TikTok, and Facebook, often framed as urgent legal updates that supposedly change what you can legally do with a firearm overnight.

Here’s the problem: this video is fake or, at best, dangerously misleading.

As a Florida Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I can tell you plainly—relying on viral legal advice like this can get you arrested, charged, and convicted. Let’s break down what the video claims, why it’s wrong, and what the real law actually says.

🎥 The Viral Claim: “Supreme Court Rules 9–0…”

The video suggests:

A unanimous (9–0) Supreme Court ruling
A sweeping change to gun rights
A simplified takeaway like: “You can now legally carry a gun without restriction”

These claims are presented with urgency and authority—but they do not reflect any real, recent Supreme Court decision.

❌ Why This Video Is Fake or Misleading

1. No Such 9–0 Ruling Exists

There has been no recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that creates a broad, unrestricted right to carry firearms in public.

In reality, major Second Amendment cases are often deeply divided and carefully limited in scope.

2. Real Gun Cases Are Complex, Not One-Line Rules

Consider two of the most important firearm decisions:

District of Columbia v. Heller
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

Neither case says you can carry a firearm “anywhere” or without restriction. Instead:

Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense—but allowed reasonable regulation
Bruen struck down certain licensing schemes—but still acknowledged “sensitive places” restrictions

👉 These are nuanced rulings—not viral soundbites.

3. Viral Videos Thrive on Oversimplification

These clips are engineered to spread quickly:

“Breaking news” framing
Appeals to constitutional rights
Simplified, absolute statements
No citations to actual case law

That combination makes them compelling—but legally unreliable.

⚖️ What the Law Actually Looks Like in Florida

Even after Heller and Bruen, Florida law still imposes real, enforceable restrictions.

Key Legal Realities:

Firearms are prohibited in certain locations (schools, courthouses, government buildings)
Possession by certain individuals (e.g., convicted felons) is still illegal
Improper display or use can lead to charges like:

Florida’s statutes remain enforceable unless specifically struck down—and no viral video overrides state law.

📊 Myth vs. Reality

Fake Supreme Court Ruling

Viral Claim	Legal Reality
“Supreme Court ruled 9–0 you can carry anywhere”	No such ruling exists
“Gun laws are basically gone”	Regulations still apply
“Police can’t stop you anymore”	Law enforcement still enforces firearm laws
“You don’t need to worry about where you carry”	Many locations remain illegal

⚠️ Real Consequences of Believing Fake Legal Advice

Relying on misinformation can lead to:

Arrest at the scene
Seizure of your firearm
Criminal charges (misdemeanor or felony)
Permanent criminal record
Loss of firearm rights

I have seen cases where individuals genuinely believed something they saw online—only to face serious legal consequences.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ

Is there any truth to the viral video?

No. There is no verified legal authority supporting the claim of a sweeping 9–0 Supreme Court ruling allowing unrestricted gun carry.

Can I carry a firearm anywhere in Florida?

No. Even with evolving Second Amendment law, restricted locations and conduct rules still apply.

What should I do if I’m unsure about gun laws?

Do not rely on social media. Consult a qualified criminal defense attorney who understands both state and federal firearm law.

Can I use a viral video as a defense in court?

No. Courts rely on statutes and case law—not internet content. Believing misinformation is not a legal defense.

🧠 Final Takeaway: The Internet Is Not Your Lawyer

The rise of viral legal content has created a dangerous environment where fiction is often mistaken for law. When a video claims:

“The Supreme Court just ruled…”
“You can now legally…”
“Police can’t arrest you for…”

👉 You should assume it needs verification—not blind trust.

📞 Call to Action: Protect Yourself With Real Legal Advice

If you are facing a firearm-related charge—or want to understand your rights before a problem arises—get accurate, professional guidance.

Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr.
🌐 https://www.centrallaw.com/
📞 (813) 222-2220

I defend individuals across Florida and provide clear, reality-based legal advice—not viral myths.

Don’t Risk Arrest by Believing Internet Myths

🚨 When “Breaking News” Isn’t Real Law

Here’s the reality: this video is fake—or at best, dangerously misleading.

As a Florida Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I can tell you plainly—relying on viral legal advice like this can get you arrested. Below, I break down not only why the legal claim is wrong, but also how the video itself shows signs of AI generation or manipulation.

🎥 The Viral Video

❌ The Legal Claim Is False

There has been no recent 9–0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States allowing unrestricted firearm carry.

Real Second Amendment cases are far more nuanced:

District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right—but preserved regulation
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen expanded carry rights—but still allowed restrictions like “sensitive places”

👉 There is no Supreme Court case that says you can carry a firearm “anywhere” without consequence.

📊 Last 10 Unanimous (9–0) Supreme Court Decisions (With Justia Links)

Case	Year	Citation	Justia Link
Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools	2023	598 U.S. 142	Read on Justia
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley	2023	598 U.S. 69	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-908/
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC	2023	598 U.S. 175	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-86/
Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani	2023	598 U.S. 759	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/22-200/
Smith v. United States	2023	599 U.S. 236	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/599/21-1576/
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer	2023	601 U.S. ___	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/601/22-429/
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine	2024	602 U.S. ___	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-235/
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.	2024	601 U.S. ___	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/601/22-1165/
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.	2024	602 U.S. ___	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/22-529/
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC	2021	593 U.S. 67	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/19-508/

⚠️ Important Notes

These are verifiable unanimous decisions, suitable for citation
The Justia links go directly to official opinion summaries and full text
Many involve:
- Standing
- Statutory interpretation
- Procedural issues

👉 None create sweeping constitutional rules like the viral gun video claims

🔍 Frame-by-Frame Breakdown: Signs This Video Is AI or Manipulated

As a trial lawyer experienced in technology and digital evidence, I reviewed this video closely. Here’s what stands out:

⏱️ 0:00 – 0:02 (Engineered Hook)

The video begins mid-sentence with bold “breaking news” framing. There’s no natural introduction, pause, or human lead-in.

👉 This is typical of AI-generated or engagement-optimized clips designed to grab attention instantly.

⏱️ 0:02 – 0:06 (Overconfident Legal Claim)

The speaker confidently asserts a “9–0 Supreme Court ruling” with no hesitation and no citation.

👉 Real lawyers reference cases, limitations, and context—not absolute statements.

⏱️ 0:06 – 0:12 (Facial & Lip Sync Irregularities)

Watch closely:

Slight mismatch between lip movement and speech
Minimal blinking
Stiff facial expressions

👉 These are classic signs of AI avatars or deepfake-style rendering.

⏱️ 0:12 – 0:18 (Repetitive Gestures)

The speaker’s hand movements appear:

Repetitive
Slightly unnatural
Occasionally blurred

👉 AI-generated figures often struggle with natural hand motion and variation.

⏱️ 0:18 – 0:25 (Audio Perfection)

The audio is:

Extremely clean
Lacking breath sounds
Uniform in tone

👉 Human speech has imperfections. AI voices are often too perfect.

⏱️ 0:25 – 0:35 (Oversimplified Law)

The speaker makes sweeping claims like:

“This changes everything”
“You can now carry…”

👉 That’s not how constitutional law works—especially not from the Supreme Court of the United States.

⏱️ 0:35+ (Emotional Manipulation)

The close of the video leans into urgency and empowerment.

👉 This is designed to trigger reaction—not convey accurate legal analysis.

🧠 Technical Conclusion

Based on the visual and audio indicators:

The speaker is likely AI-generated or heavily manipulated
The script appears AI-written or clickbait-driven
The content lacks any legitimate legal sourcing

⚖️ Florida Law Still Applies—Regardless of Viral Videos

Even after major rulings like Heller and Bruen, Florida law still imposes restrictions:

Firearms are prohibited in certain locations
Improper display or use can result in criminal charges
Possession by prohibited persons remains illegal

👉 No viral video overrides Florida statutes.

📊 Myth vs. Reality

Viral Claim	Legal Reality
“9–0 ruling allows guns everywhere”	No such ruling exists
“Gun laws are gone”	Regulations still apply
“Police can’t stop you”	Law enforcement still enforces firearm laws
“You can carry anywhere”	Many places remain restricted

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Is the person in the video real?

Possibly not. The speaker shows multiple signs of AI generation or manipulation, including unnatural facial movement and audio patterns.

Even if it’s real, can I rely on it?

No. Courts rely on statutes and case law—not viral videos.

Can misinformation be used as a defense?

No. Believing a false legal claim is not a valid defense in a criminal case.

What should I do if I have questions about firearm laws?

Consult a qualified attorney who understands both Florida law and federal constitutional law.

🚨 Final Takeaway

This viral video is a perfect example of how AI, social media, and misinformation intersect to create legal risk.

If you rely on this kind of content, you are gambling with your freedom.

📞 Call to Action

If you are facing a firearm-related charge—or want to avoid one—get real legal advice.

Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr.
🌐 https://www.centrallaw.com/
📞 (813) 222-2220

I provide fact-based legal defense, not internet myths.

Florida Criminal Defense Expert Guide | Board Certified Casey Ebsary Jr.

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 31 Jan 2026 09:44:20 GMT

Urgent: Need Legal Help Now?

Florida Criminal Defense – If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges in Florida, time is your greatest enemy. As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialist, I am ready to build your Florida Criminal Defense today.

Contact the Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. Now | Call 813-222-2220

The Gold Standard of Florida Criminal Defense

When you are standing in a Florida courtroom, the prosecutor on the other side is a professional. To level the playing field, you need more than just a lawyer; you need a Board Certified Expert. I am W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., and I have dedicated my career to mastering the complexities of the Florida and Federal legal systems.

Board Certification is a distinction held by less than 1% of Florida attorneys. It means I have been vetted by judges and peers, passed rigorous examinations, and demonstrated extensive trial experience. Whether you are facing a misdemeanor in Hillsborough County or a complex federal indictment, my expertise is your shield.

Comprehensive Florida Criminal Defense FAQ: 50 Key Insights

FAQ

Below is a consolidated list of critical legal questions with direct links to the detailed Florida Criminal Defense resources on my Florida Criminal defense site.

Federal & Complex Crimes

Source: Federal Criminal Attorney Tampa

What is a federal target letter?

It is a formal warning that you are likely to be indicted.

Can I be investigated without knowing?

Yes, federal agencies often spend months building a case before an arrest.

What if I get a federal subpoena?

You must produce the requested items; legal counsel is mandatory to avoid self-incrimination.

Should I talk to federal agents?

Never. Anything you say can be used to charge you with “making false statements.”

How does federal court differ?

Sentences are governed by strict guidelines with no parole.

Can I prevent an indictment?

Yes, pre-indictment negotiations can sometimes stall or stop a case.

Why do I need a specialist for federal court?

Federal rules of evidence, criminal procedure, and possible sentencing are significantly more rigid than state court.

What are “white-collar” crimes?

Non-violent crimes involving fraud or money laundering.

DUI & Boating Under the Influence (BUI)

Source: Gasparilla DUI Lawyer / Gasparilla BUI Lawyer

Can I be arrested for DUI in a parked car?

Yes, if you have Actual Physical Control of the vehicle.

What is the BUI limit?

Just like driving, it is .08 BAC.

Can my boat be searched without a warrant?

Yes, for safety inspections, but criminal searches have higher standards.

Are “sea legs” a defense?

Yes, environmental factors like wind and waves can mimic signs of impairment.

Is a marine safety checkpoint legal?

Yes, provided the stop follows a specific protocol.

Do passengers get charged with BUI?

No, only the person in physical control.

Will a BUI automatically take my driver’s license?

No, a conviction for Boating Under the Influence (BUI) under Florida Statute § 327.35 does not result in an automatic suspension of your Florida driver’s license. Under Florida’s Implied Consent laws, if you have a prior DUI or BUI conviction on your record or have previously refused a breath, urine, or blood test, a second refusal—even on a boat—will result in an 18-month suspension of your driver’s license. While a first-time BUI refusal typically only carries a $500 civil fine, “Trenton’s Law,” which took effect in late 2025, has made the refusal of a lawful breath or urine test a separate criminal offense (misdemeanor), further complicating your legal standing.

What is a Notice to Appear (NTA)?

A citation that acts as a formal arrest without the jail cell.

What if I miss an NTA court date?

A judge will immediately issue a bench warrant.

Digital Privacy & Evidence

Source: Cell Phone Searches History

Can police search my phone at a stop?

Not without a warrant or explicit consent.

What is Riley v. California?

The landmark case protecting digital privacy.

Can they track my cell tower data?

Generally, police need a warrant for historical location data.

Is tower data 100% accurate?

No, it only shows the general sector of the tower.

Can cloud data be used against me?

Yes, but it requires a specific warrant for the provider.

Is “Plain Smell” enough to search?

Since hemp is legal, odor alone is often insufficient.

Can deleted texts be recovered?

Often, yes, through digital forensics.

Property & Misdemeanor Crimes

What is Criminal Mischief?

The willful and malicious destruction of property.

What if damage is under $200?

It’s a 2nd-degree misdemeanor (CRMS1000).

What if I broke something by accident?

Accidents lack the “malicious” intent required.

Is graffiti criminal mischief?

Yes, and the cleaning cost determines the severity.

Does paying for damage drop the charges?

Not automatically, but it helps in negotiation.

What is Petit Theft?

Theft of property valued at less than $750.

Violent Crimes & Obstruction

What is Obstruction Without Violence?

Resisting an officer’s lawful duty (COPS1000).

Can words be obstruction?

Usually no, unless they interfere with a physical act. Frequently involves giving a false name or resisting handcuffing by law enforcement.

What makes Battery “Aggravated”?

Using a weapon (BATT5000) or causing permanent injury.

Can a shoe be a deadly weapon?

Yes, if used in a way to cause great harm.

Does “Stand Your Ground” apply?

Yes, if you aren’t committing a crime and have a right to be there.

What is the penalty for Aggravated Battery?

It is a second-degree felony.

Domestic Violence & Florida Criminal Defense Procedures

Source: Domestic Violence Tampa

What is a No Contact Order?

A total ban on communication with the alleged victim.

Can the victim “drop” the charges?

No. Only the State Attorney has that power.

Is domestic violence only for spouses?

No, it includes co-parents and romantic partners.

What is an injunction?

A civil restraining order often paired with criminal charges.

Probation & Statutes

What is a VOP?

A Violation of Probation—where you have no right to a jury.

What is a “Technical” violation?

What is a “Technical” violation? Missing a meeting or a payment. Getting new criminal charges is not a technical violation, it is a substantive violation.

Can I travel on felony probation?

Not without written permission.

What is a Worthless Check charge?

Passing a check knowing funds are insufficient (WOCK2000).

What is the Statute of Limitations for a felony?

Usually 3 to 4 years.

What is the Statute of Limitations for a misdemeanor?

1 to 2 years.

Can a conviction be expunged?

Only if the case was dismissed or adjudicated withheld.

What is “Withholding Adjudication”?

A sentence without a formal “conviction” on your record.

Can my university expel me for an arrest?

Yes, through independent codes of conduct.

How do I start my criminal defense?

By calling an expert immediately to preserve evidence.

Don’t Leave Your Future to Chance

The legal system is designed to move against you. You need a Board Certified expert who knows the local courts and Florida Criminal Defense.

Visit my Bio to see my Trial History

Understanding Florida Penalties

Knowing the stakes is the first step. Florida law strictly defines max penalties.

Florida Sentencing Guidelines Table

Offense Level	Max Jail/Prison Time	Max Fine
2nd Degree Misdemeanor	60 Days	$500
1st Degree Misdemeanor	1 Year	$1,000
3rd Degree Felony	5 Years	$5,000
2nd Degree Felony	15 Years	$10,000
1st Degree Felony	30 Years	$10,000

Strategic Florida Criminal Defense: The 10 Essential Q&A

Why is Board Certification critical for my case?

Board Certification is the “Gold Standard” from the Florida Bar, identifying me as an expert in Florida Criminal Defense and Criminal Trial law. It means I have been evaluated by peers and judges for my trial skills and ethical standards. When your freedom is on the line, you deserve an Florida Criminal Defense attorney who has reached the pinnacle of professional recognition.

I was arrested for DUI; what is the first thing I should do?

You must act within 10 days to challenge your administrative license suspension with the DHSMV. My office specializes in Gasparilla DUI defense and can help you secure a temporary permit. Waiting even 11 days can leave you without the legal right to drive for months.

Can the police search my car if they smell marijuana?

The “plain smell” doctrine is under intense scrutiny since the legalization of hemp, which smells identical to marijuana. In many cases, I have successfully argued that smell alone is not enough for a warrantless search. We fight to suppress any evidence found during these unconstitutional stops.

What is Actual Physical Control in a DUI?

You can be charged with DUI even if the engine is off and the car is parked. If you are in the driver’s seat with the keys within reach, the law considers you in control. We defend these cases by proving the vehicle was inoperable or you were not “operating” it in a legal sense.

Can a Notice to Appear be ignored?

Never. An NTA is a formal criminal charge that requires your appearance in a Hillsborough County court. If you miss the date, a judge will issue a bench warrant, leading to a mandatory arrest during your next police interaction.

How does a “Withhold of Adjudication” help my record?

This outcome means the judge is not formally convicting you, which is vital for your future employment. It allows you to honestly state you haven’t been convicted of the crime on most applications. It is often the first step toward having your record sealed or expunged.

What are the consequences of Obstruction Without Violence?

Often called COPS1000, this charge can lead to a year in jail for simply being uncooperative. However, we may find that the officer was not acting “lawfully” at the time of the stop. If the initial detention was illegal, the obstruction charge cannot stand.

What makes a Battery “Aggravated”?

A battery becomes “aggravated” if a deadly weapon is used or if the victim suffers permanent disfigurement. This elevates the charge from a misdemeanor to a second-degree felony (BATT5000). I analyze the Florida Criminal Defense rules, laws, medical evidence and weapon definitions to fight for a reduction or dismissal.

Can a Worthless Check charge be defended?

Yes, because the state must prove you knew the funds were insufficient at the moment you wrote the check. If the check was post-dated or for a past-due debt, the case may be legally insufficient. We focus on the “intent” to prove your innocence.

Is Criminal Mischief a serious charge?

Even damage under $200 (CRMS1000) creates a criminal record that labels you as someone who maliciously destroys property. A conviction can bar you from certain housing and jobs. My goal is always to negotiate restitution in exchange for a dismissal.

Taking the Next Step in Your Florida Criminal Defense

Your reputation, your career, and your freedom are on the line. As a Board Certified Florida Criminal Defense expert, I provide the aggressive, knowledgeable representation you need.

Click Here to Schedule Your Confidential Florida Criminal Defense Consultation

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. | 813-222-2220 | Tampa, FL

Home » Florida Criminal Defense Expert Guide | Board Certified Casey Ebsary Jr.

Florida Automobile Exception Search and Seizure Lawyer Explains Illegal Vehicle & Cell Phone Searches

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 03:40:36 GMT

Florida Automobile Exception Search and Seizure Lawyer Explains Cabrera Leon and Illegal Vehicle & Cell Phone Searches

The Automobile Exception – If you’ve been told that police can search your car without a warrant, that statement is only partially true—and dangerously oversimplified. As a Florida Bar Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I regularly litigate vehicle searches, cellphone seizures, and warrant challenges. One of the most important Florida trial-court decisions exposing how far law enforcement sometimes overreaches is State v. Cabrera Leon, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 370a.

This case is a masterclass in what probable cause is not, why uncorroborated tips are not enough, and how the automobile exception does not excuse constitutional shortcuts. More importantly, it shows how illegally seized vehicles and cellphones poison everything that comes afterward—including search warrants.

If your car was seized, your phone searched, or evidence was collected without a warrant, this is the kind of case I use to suppress evidence and dismantle prosecutions.

👉 If you are facing charges after a vehicle or cellphone search, contact me immediately:
https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/

Why the Cabrera Leon Case Matters

The Cabrera Leon opinion is unusually candid. The court didn’t merely suppress evidence—it condemned the investigative mindset that allowed officers to act on rumor, speculation, and hope rather than constitutionally required facts.

Three Critical Questions

At its core, the case answers three critical questions:

Can police seize a vehicle based on an unverified tip?
Can officers rely on the automobile exception without probable cause?
Can an illegal vehicle search be “fixed” later with a warrant?

The answer to all three, emphatically, is no.

Key Facts of the Case (Simplified)

Event	What Police Did	Legal Problem
Vehicle Stop	Stopped defendant late at night	Based on uncorroborated tip
Vehicle Seizure	Towed and impounded car	No probable cause
Cell Phone Seizure	Took multiple phones	Based on “training and experience”
Search Warrant	Applied weeks later	Relied on illegal search
Warrant Language	“Any and all items of evidentiary value”	Overbroad, unconstitutional

The Automobile Exception: What Police Often Get Wrong

The automobile exception allows officers to search a vehicle without a warrant only when they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is inside the vehicle at that moment.

What Cabrera Leon teaches—forcefully—is this:

Suspicion, speculation, and possibility are not probable cause.

In this case, officers suspected the defendant might help a murder suspect flee. There was no evidence the car contained a weapon, blood, DNA, contraband, or anything tied to the homicide.

As the court bluntly observed, police acted on “nothing more than naked suspicion.”

Why the Stop Itself Didn’t Save the Search

Police attempted to justify the stop as a traffic infraction. The court dismantled that argument quickly.

Even if a traffic violation occurred, there is no search-incident-to-citation exception. A traffic stop does not authorize a full vehicle seizure or evidentiary fishing expedition.

As I often explain to clients:

“A lawful stop does not automatically justify an unlawful search.“

The Informant Problem: Why “Citizen Tips” Still Require Scrutiny

Law enforcement relied heavily on statements from the murder suspect’s estranged spouse. The court treated her exactly as defense lawyers argue such witnesses should be treated—with skepticism.

She was:

Personally involved
Emotionally motivated
Unverified
Uncorroborated

This mirrors long-standing Florida law: not every citizen is a “citizen informant.” Reliability still matters.

The Fatal Nexus Failure

Probable cause requires two elements:

A crime occurred
Evidence of that crime is likely in the place searched

The Cabrera Leon affidavit failed the second element completely.

There was no reason to believe:

The murder weapon was in the car
The victim’s DNA was in the car
Any physical evidence of homicide was in the car

Without that nexus, the automobile exception collapses.

Why the Later Search Warrant Didn’t Cure the Violation

This is one of the most important lessons in the opinion.

Police often argue: “Even if the initial seizure was bad, we got a warrant later.”

That argument fails when:

The warrant relies on illegally obtained observations
The new information still lacks a nexus
The warrant is overbroad

The court called this exactly what it was: fruit of the poisonous tree.

Overbroad Warrants and “Any and All Items of Evidentiary Value”

The warrant in Cabrera Leon authorized seizure of:

“Any and all items of evidentiary value.”

That phrase alone is enough to kill a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment does not permit general warrants. Officers cannot be allowed to decide for themselves what might be evidence.

As a trial lawyer, this language is something I look for immediately—it is often the weakest link in the prosecution’s case.

Cell Phone Searches: Double Constitutional Violations

The cell phones seized in this case were unknown to police until after the illegal stop. That fact alone doomed the phone warrants.

Even worse:

No evidence showed the phones were used in the crime
The alleged flight never happened
The phones were seized based on “training and experience”

Modern courts recognize cell phones as digital containers of our lives. Without a clear nexus, warrants to search them fail.

Why the Good Faith Exception Didn’t Apply

Police attempted to rely on United States v. Leon. The court rejected that argument.

The good-faith exception does not apply when:

The affidavit is facially deficient
Probable cause is obviously lacking
The warrant is clearly overbroad

An objectively reasonable officer should have known better.

How I Use This in Real Cases

When I litigate suppression motions, I can use this case to show:

How automobile exception claims fail
Why post-seizure warrants don’t sanitize violations
Why cellphone searches require strict scrutiny
How courts view overbroad warrant language

This is not academic law—it is trial-level, suppression-winning authority.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

👉 If police searched your vehicle or phone, don’t assume it was legal.
https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ

Can police seize my car without a warrant in Florida?

Police may only seize a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. Mere suspicion or unverified tips are not enough. Cabrera Leon makes clear that officers must articulate a specific evidentiary nexus.

Does a traffic stop allow police to search my car?

No. A traffic stop alone does not authorize a search or seizure of your vehicle. There is no “search incident to citation” exception under Florida or federal law.

Can police take my phone just because a crime involves communication?

No. Courts reject the idea that phones are automatically evidence simply because crimes often involve communication. There must be probable cause tying the phone to the specific crime.

What if police get a warrant later?

A later warrant does not fix an illegal seizure if it relies on information obtained unlawfully. Evidence gathered after an illegal stop may still be suppressed.

What makes a warrant overbroad?

Warrants that authorize seizure of “any and all evidence” or leave discretion to officers violate the Fourth Amendment. Particularity is mandatory.

Does the good faith exception always save bad warrants?

No. If the affidavit is obviously insufficient, the good faith exception does not apply. Cabrera Leon is a textbook example.

Are trial court opinions useful in suppression motions?

Yes. Especially when they are well-reasoned and cite controlling appellate authority. Judges read and respect opinions like this.

Can an informant’s tip justify a vehicle search?

Only if it is reliable and corroborated. Emotionally involved or biased informants require verification.

What if police say they acted on another agency’s request?

The “fellow officer rule” does not excuse lack of probable cause. The requesting agency must have lawful grounds.

Should I challenge a vehicle or phone search?

Absolutely. Many serious felony cases collapse once illegal evidence is suppressed.

Final Thought

The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. It is a constitutional boundary. Cabrera Leon is a reminder that courts still enforce it—and that skilled defense litigation matters.

If your case involves a vehicle search, phone seizure, or warrant issue, this is the kind of analysis I bring to court.

👉 Speak with me directly about your case:
https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/

Full Text of the Cell Phone Search Opinion

33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 370a Online Reference: FLWSUPP 3309LEON

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. MANUEL CABRERA LEON, Defendant. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Criminal Division. Case No. F23-6326B. November 19, 2025. Milton Hirsch, Judge.

ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant Manuel Cabrera Leon was stopped by deputies of the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office. The car in which he was driving was searched, and the car and its contents seized. Mr. Cabrera Leon moves to suppress the fruits of that search. A hearing was had on his motion on October 9. Transcript references herein are to that hearing. I. The stop, search, and seizure of the car Everton Morgan is a deputy in the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office. Tr. 8. On March 25, 2023, he was contacted by the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office. That office was investigating a homicide, and suspected that Cabrera Leon was somehow involved. Tr. 7, 9. The Miami-Dade officers were able to provide Deputy Morgan with a description of a car they believed belonged to Mr. Cabrera Leon, and with the location of a particular barbershop at which Cabrera Leon worked. Tr. 11. Armed with that information, Morgan and police colleagues went to the area of the barbershop. Tr. 12. When, quite late at night, Cabrera Leon left his place of work and drove off, the officers followed. Tr. 19. It was the testimony of Deputy Morgan that although the hour was late and the night dark, Mr. Cabrera Leon had his car’s lights turned off. Id. Shortly thereafter, the police officers pulled Cabrera Leon over. Tr. 20. There was much pointless fencing between defense counsel and Deputy Morgan about whether Mr. Cabrera Leon actually committed a traffic infraction (i.e., failure to have his lights on, see Fla. Stat. § 316.217) or not; and if so, whether the traffic infraction was the reason Cabrera Leon was pulled over. See, e.g., Tr. 24. Of course nothing could matter less. As I discuss infra, if the police had probable cause to believe that Mr. Cabrera Leon was involved in a homicide and that evidence of the homicide was to be found in the car, they were almost certainly empowered to stop and search the car pursuant to the “automobile exception” or “Carroll exception”1 to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. There was no need for Deputy Morgan to pretend that he and other detectives were genuinely interested in giving Cabrera Leon a ticket for a traffic infraction. Cf. Tr. 32 (prosecution stipulates that, “every stage where [the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office] participated in this stop and investigation was solely for the purpose of supporting the Miami investigation”). In truth if they had actually stopped Mr. Cabrera Leon to issue a traffic ticket — something that Deputy Morgan and I both know wasn’t the case — they could have done no more than ticket him and send him on his way. There is no “search incident to a valid traffic ticket” exception to the warrant requirement. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998). The car itself and its contents were seized.2 The reason for the seizure was not disputed. “[T]he purpose of having his car towed was to hand it over to Miami Homicide.” Tr. 28. A number of cellular phones found within the car were also taken by the police, in the hope — and nothing more than the hope — that they might prove to be of evidentiary value. Tr. 29. In Deputy Morgan’s words, the phones were seized because, “Based on my training and experience with a homicide typical[ly] communication is used, in today’s society, on a cell phone, a mobile device.” Tr. 35. With all due respect to Deputy Morgan’s training and experience, that is not a description of probable cause. The only witness to testify at the hearing other than Deputy Morgan was Pedro Camacho, a homicide sergeant in the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office. Tr. 47. On the evening of March 24, 2023, he and his colleagues in the Homicide Bureau learned of a shooting death in Hialeah Gardens. Tr. 48. Early on in their investigation they were contacted by a Yamila Rodriguez, who led them to believe that the murder was perpetrated by her estranged husband, Roberto Aveille Rodriguez. Tr. 50. According to Yamila, Roberto was planning to flee the country. Id. Again according to Yamila, Roberto would be aided in his efforts to escape by a friend with whom he had gotten as far as Collier County. Tr. 51. Having somehow identified the car that this friend would be driving, the Miami Homicide detectives contacted the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office, instructing deputies there “[t]o seize the vehicle and immediately contact us.” Tr. 52, 55. As described supra, the car and its contents were seized and, in due course, transported to Miami, where the car was held at a police storage facility. Some two-and-a-half weeks later, on April 11, Homicide Bureau detectives sought a search warrant for the car and its contents. Although Sgt. Camacho was not the affiant on the warrant application, the narrative of that document comports with the testimony that Camacho gave at the hearing on the motion to suppress. See gen’ly Tr. 48 et. seq. According to the affidavit, Yamila Rodriguez notified the police that Roberto Rodriguez had telephoned her, informing her that he had committed the murder in Hialeah Gardens and was planning to flee. Someone whom Yamila identified only as “Manolito” would help Roberto in his flight from justice. Somehow — the affidavit doesn’t say how — the police determined that “Manolito” was Manuel Cabrera Leon. They were able to identify his car and, by use of license-plate readers,3 to determine that his car was in Collier County. They instructed the Hendry County officers to stop and seize the car, and those officers did so. Although the car and its contents were impounded, Mr. Cabrera Leon was released. The Miami-Dade police officers gathered additional information to support their warrant application in the days after the seizure of the car, but the foregoing is the information of which they were possessed when they instructed their colleagues in Hendry County to stop Mr. Cabrera Leon and seize his car. In summary, then: police, bedecked with the accouterments of office but without a thread of judicial authority, acting on uncorroborated gossip, stopped a man along the side of a public roadway in the dark of night, took from him his car and all its contents, and left him to fend for himself. Such police conduct has been described by at least one Florida court as, “evok[ing] images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled his nation’s roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who held temporary power in the Government. The spectre of American citizens being asked,” — or in this case, forced — “by badge-wielding police, [to produce] identification, [and] travel papers [and to surrender their car and personal property]. . . is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of human liberties.” State v. Kerwick, 512 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (emphasis in original). By their actions, warrantless and unwarranted, the police deprived a man of his car, of his means of transportation, of his valuable personal property; but it is not the mere deprivation of property, “[i]t is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence [against the Constitution]; . . . it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security [and] personal liberty . . . , it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of” the violation of the Fourth Amendment. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886).4 The Supreme Court has “had frequent occasion to point out that a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up. In law it is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success.” United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948) (Jackson, J.) (citing Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)). See also Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 298 U.S. 1, 27 (1936) (a search that “is unlawful at its inception . . . cannot be made lawful by what it may bring, or by what it actually succeeds in bringing, to light”). If at the time police stopped, searched, and seized Miguel Cabrera Leon’s car they had legal justification to do so, then the fruits of their search and seizure, including their observations in connection with that search and seizure, are admissible in court. In addition, those fruits, including those observations, when coupled with after-acquired information, could lawfully support the police applications for warrants later obtained. If, on the other hand, the initial stop, search, and seizure of Cabrera Leon’s car was without legal justification, then the fruits of that search and seizure cannot be used for any purpose. The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. From the foregoing language, a general principle has been culled which is at this date too well-settled to invite citation to authority: that searches conducted pursuant to warrant are presumed to be reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes,5 but that the reasonableness of searches conducted in the absence of warrant must be established. As noted supra at 2, one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement is sometimes termed the “automobile exception.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) was a Prohibition-era case. Federal agents stopped a car that they had reason to believe was transporting liquor illegally imported from Canada. Applicable federal statutory law clearly manifested “[t]he intent of Congress to make a distinction between the necessity for a search warrant in the searching of private dwellings and in that of automobiles and other road vehicles in the enforcement of the Prohibition Act.” Carroll, 267 U.S. 147. The Court stated a broad general rule: [T]he Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Id. at 153. Whether the facts and law justified so broad a rule as the Carroll court pronounced is a nice question. The federal agents in Carroll acted pursuant to probable cause, but also pursuant to legislative authority. And that being the case, “the Carroll decision falls short of establishing a doctrine that, without such legislation, automobiles nonetheless are subject to search without warrant.” United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. at 585. That, however, is how Carroll has consistently been understood, in Florida and elsewhere. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 325 So. 3d 101, 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) [45 Fla. L. Weekly D201b] (“Pursuant to the automobile exception, law enforcement may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle based upon probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity”) (citing Carroll). At the time the Hendry County deputy sheriffs, acting at the instruction of the Miami-Dade Homicide Bureau detectives, stopped, seized, and searched Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car, they had no warrant. Did they have probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of crime?6 So far as appears, at the time the Miami-Dade officers contacted their Hendry counterparts, they knew that a homicide had been committed. Early on in their investigation, “it was learned that Yamila Rodriguez . . . had contacted law enforcement because she had information about the” homicide. Affidavit for Search Warrant p. 5. The affiant’s use of the passive voice leaves questions unanswered. How did the police come in contact with Yamila? Did they bother to learn anything about her? Is she a model citizen or an oft-convicted felon? Apparently she claims that her estranged husband telephoned her to confess to the murder under investigation. Id. Is there any way to corroborate this conversation, as for example by phone records; or is it the uncorroborated and perhaps vengeful tattle-taling of a woman scorned — like whom Hell, William Congreve tells us, hath no fury?7 A so-called “citizen informant” — one who provides information not for money, nor in order to go unwhipped of justice, but out of a sense of civic duty — is the darling of the law. See, e.g., State v. Maynard, 783 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly S182b]; State v. Manuel, 796 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2214b]; State v. Ramos, 755 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1108a]; Grant v. State, 718 So. 2d 238, 239-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1969a]. But not everyone possessed of citizenship qualifies as a “citizen informant,” as to whom reliability is presumed. The informant in Dial v. State, 798 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2645a] was the 13-year-old daughter or stepdaughter of the defendant. She presented herself at the local police station alleging that she had been abused, although the police officers saw no signs of physical abuse and no abuse charges had ever been filed. Dial v. State, 798 So. 2d at 881. She then alleged that Dial was counterfeiting money. Id. In the course of her narrative she acknowledged that Dial had recently scolded and grounded her for misbehavior at school. Id. The warrant affidavit subsequently presented to a judge made no mention of the familial relationship between Dial and the “citizen informant,” nor of the strain that had been placed on that relationship by Dial’s attempt to discipline the child. Id. at 882. Although the police obtained a warrant, and their search did turn up counterfeit currency, the court of appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. The daughter had never before been used by the . . . [police] as a confidential informant . . . . She had not previously furnished reliable information to the . . . police. [The police] had no other information concerning illegal activity at [Dial’s] home. The officers did not run a juvenile records check on the girl or take any steps to ascertain the owner of the property or confirm that she and [Dial] actually lived there. Id. Thus the facts “did not indicate that the informant was simply an honest, disinterested citizen reporting a crime and lacking a motive to make false allegations against the suspect. The informant . . . did not qualify as a citizen informant. . . . [H]er reliability needed to be verified or corroborated by facts contained in the affidavit. Here, the affidavit failed to furnish such facts and was thus deficient.” Id. at 883 (internal quotation marks omitted). Surely the same is true of Yamila. The police knew nothing about her. She had never before provided information to the police. She was, by her own admission, something much less than disinterested. But there was no verification or corroboration of her or of her story, none at all, at least so far as appears in the warrant affidavit or Sgt. Camacho’s testimony. Yamila, according to the affidavit, “further stated that a male who [sic; whom] she identified as ‘Manolito,’ was going to transport [Yamila’s estranged husband, the murder suspect] to an unknown location. Detectives identified ‘Manolito’ as Manuel Cabrera Leon . . . who owns” a particular car. Affidavit for Search Warrant p. 5. How did Yamila know Manolito? How did she know that he was planning to drive her estranged husband to “an unknown location”? Of all the unnumbered men in South Florida who sometimes use the nickname “Manolito,” how is it that the detectives identified this Manolito as Manuel Cabrera Leon? Neither the affidavit, nor Sgt. Camacho’s testimony at the hearing, supplies answers to these questions. Perhaps most importantly: Probable cause requires reason to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime is to be found in the place to be searched or thing to be seized. What evidence of homicide was to be found in Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car? What reason did the police have to believe it would be found there? When the car was stopped and searched, cellphones were found; but the police knew nothing of those phones before the car was stopped and searched. Although the car and the phones were impounded, Cabrera Leon was released; and as for Roberto Aveille Rodriguez, he was nowhere to be seen. Again, what evidence of homicide (or any other felony) did the police reasonably believe was to be found in the car? The police had no intelligence that, for example, the murder weapon was to be found in the car; nor the blood or other genetic or biological material of the murder victim; nor any distinctive property associated with the victim. Such evidentiary artifacts, if there was a reasonable basis to believe they could be found in Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car, would have provided probable cause for the stop and search of the car. But so far as the affidavit relates, and so far as Sgt. Camacho’s testimony goes, the police had no reason to believe that any such evidence was in the car. If the narrative of this case ended with the seizure of the car allegedly driven by Mr. Cabrera Leon, this would be an easy case. At the time of the stop and seizure the police had nothing more than naked suspicion that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence, of any crime, much less of the crime under investigation, were to be found in the car. Deputy Morgan all but admitted as much: “I was on the phone with Miami-Dade during the traffic stop and the information that I receive is this vehicle possibly had some evidence, that it could be possible to have evidence pending [sic; tending?] toward aiding in the homicide” investigation. Tr. 33 (emphasis added). II. The warrant for the search of the car But the narrative of this case does not end with the seizure of the car. The car was brought to Miami and held in police custody. Several weeks later, on April 12, 2023, the police sought and obtained a warrant for the search of the car. The warrant application includes the information that was known to the police at the time the Hendry County officers stopped and seized the car — information insufficient to justify that stop and seizure — as well as information learned after the fact. It includes, for example, information that Roberto Aveille Rodriguez had, on March 26, provided a plenary confession to the murder; and information regarding follow-up investigation that offered some corroboration of that confession. That said, the warrant was certainly inadequate. To begin with, it relied chiefly on the observations made by officers as a consequence of the constitutionally-offensive stop and search of Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car. Those observations were fruit of the poisonous tree, and they could not be rendered nutritious and delicious by marinating them in a warrant and topping them with a judicial signature. After-acquired information helped support the warrant, but it didn’t help enough. Mr. Aveille Rodriguez’s confession, so far as appears from the warrant affidavit, did not suggest that evidence of his crime was to be found in Cabrera Leon’s car. The police obtained a store video from Walmart that appeared to show Mr. Cabrera Leon purchasing cell phones, perhaps the cell phones found in his car. But it is not a crime, nor evidence of a crime, to purchase, possess, or transport cell phones. When we say that a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, To establish the requisite probable cause for the search warrant, the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant must set forth facts establishing two elements: (1) the commission element — that a particular person has committed a crime; and (2) the nexus element — that evidence relevant to the probable criminality is likely to be located in the place searched. State v. Hart, 308 So. 3d 232, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) [45 Fla. L. Weekly D2607d] (citing State v. McGill, 125 So. 3d 343, 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D2340b]). See also State v. Acevedo, 366 So. 3d 1096, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) [48 Fla. L. Weekly D1138a] (“To issue a search warrant, the issuing judge must find proof of two elements: (1) the commission element, that a particular person committed a crime; and (2) the nexus element, that relevant evidence of probable criminality is likely to be found in the place searched”); Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170, 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1179b] (“[T]he affidavit in the warrant application must satisfy two elements: first, that a particular person has committed a crime — the commission element, and, second, that evidence relevant to the probable criminality is likely located at the place to be searched — the nexus element”). Here, the nexus element fails. There is nothing in the warrant application that supports a reasonable belief that evidence of the demised homicide is to be found in the car — particularly because the cellphones had already been removed from the car. Apart from the requirement of probable cause, there is the requirement of particularity. A valid warrant must “particularly describ[e] . . . the things to be seized.” U.S. Const. Amend. IV. The purpose of the particularity requirement is to “stand[ ] as a bar to exploratory searches by officers armed with a general warrant . . . [and to] limit[ ] the searching officer’s discretion in the execution of a search warrant, thus safeguarding the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions of governmental officials.” Carlton v. State, 449 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1984). The requirement of particularity is not met if the warrant purports to vest the officers executing it with discretion to determine what to search or what to seize. On the contrary: American courts have long been adamant that, “As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927). Compliance with the particularity requirement, “is accomplished by removing from the officer executing the warrant all discretion as to what is to be seized.” United States v. Torch, 609 F. 2d 1088, 1089 (4th Cir. 1979). See also Pezzella v. State, 390 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“if a warrant fails to adequately specify the material to be seized, thereby leaving the scope of the seizure to the discretion of the executing officer, it is constitutionally overbroad”). The warrant at bar purports to authorize the officers to search the car for any and all forms of firearms and weapons. (What evidence was there of a firearm or weapon in the car?) It authorizes a search for “clothing, wallets, documents, receipts,” and for “computer equipment,” (again, what evidence was there of such things in the car?) and — crowning it all — for “Any and all items of evidentiary value.” If a warrant can authorize the search of any and all items which strike the searching officers as perhaps possessing “evidentiary value,” the particularity requirement is read out of the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment out of the Constitution. I recognize that I owe a duty of deference to the on-duty judge who signed the warrant for the search of the car. State v. Carreno, 35 So. 3d 125, 128-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1125a]. See also State v. Oliveras, 65 So. 3d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1573a] (“When reviewing a prior determination of probable cause and the issuance of a search warrant, the reviewing circuit judge must accord deference to the issuing judge’s determination, presume it to be correct, and not disturb that determination unless there is clear showing that the issuing judge abused his or her discretion”); State v. Abbey, 28 So. 3d 208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D471a]. See gen’ly Willacy v. State, 967 So. 2d 131, 147 (Fla. 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly S377a]. That said, I note in passing that there is something incongruous about this duty of deference. Ours is the adversary system of justice. It is premised on the notion that due process will likely be provided, and the truth will likely come to light, when each side is afforded the opportunity to present its own evidence and to probe the opponent’s evidence. It must follow that due process is less likely to be provided, and the truth is less likely to come to light, in ex parte, non-evidentiary proceedings. The work of a warrant-duty judge is, with very rare exceptions, nothing but a series of ex parte, non-evidentiary proceedings. That judge is presented with an affidavit. That judge takes no testimony. There is neither direct nor cross-examination. There is no opportunity to consider the demeanor, the facial expressions, the tone of voice of the affiant. There is no chance for the target of the warrant to be heard. By contrast, a hearing on a pretrial motion to suppress, such as I conducted in this case, is an adversary proceeding. A judge takes testimony, subject to direct and cross-examination. The judge carefully observes the demeanor of each witness. Both sides pose questions and make argument. Yet the law provides that the judge who has had the benefit of an adversarial, evidentiary proceeding as I did in this case; the judge who has observed the witnesses and drawn his own conclusions about their credibility as I did in this case; the judge who has had the benefit of hearing from both sides as I did in this case; must afford deference to the decision made by the judge who was awakened to sign an ex parte submission in his or her pyjamas. However incongruous this rule of law, it is a rule of law. I owe a duty of deference to the decision made by my colleague who signed the warrant. That said, I owe a greater duty of deference to the Constitution. The police, with show of force, stopped Mr. Cabrera and searched his car; seized the car and its contents; and after some bullyragging,8 told Cabrera to be on his way. These things they did without a warrant, and without anything resembling probable cause. Their observations thus unconstitutionally obtained formed much of the basis of their warrant application. Those observations were supplemented by additional investigative work that did unearth new information, but not information that pointed to Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car as being a repository of physical evidence of the homicide under investigation. A warrant, thus based on evidence that was either unconstitutionally procured or lacking in probative value, was issued in derogation of the probable cause and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. (Even ignoring all the warrant’s other shortcomings, the purported authorization to search for and seize “any and all items of evidentiary value” renders the warrant fatally overbroad.) I cannot close my eyes to these constitutional infirmities in the name of collegial deference, or in the name of anything else. I recognize, too, that the fruits of an invalid warrant may nonetheless be admissible pursuant to the so-called “good faith exception” to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary principle. The “good-faith exception” has its genesis in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and proceeds from the Leon Court’s premise that, “when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith [in obtaining and relying on a warrant] . . . the magnitude of the benefit conferred on . . . guilty defendants [by operation of the exclusionary rule] offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 908. When police officers present a warrant application to an on-duty judge, obtain a warrant based on that application from that judge, and then act on that warrant to search or seize, the officers — so the “good-faith exception” teaches — have done all that is required of them. An after-the-fact determination that the warrant was defective should not invalidate the search based upon it, or render inadmissible the fruits of that search; permitting those fruits to be received in evidence at trial provides police with an incentive to seek warrants rather than to proceed in their absence. And that — again, so the “good-faith exception” teaches — is what the exclusionary rule, and the Fourth Amendment itself, are intended to achieve. Id., passim, esp. at 913-14.9 Whatever the merits or demerits of Leon’s good-faith doctrine, it is the law. But so, too, is an exception to that doctrine. For the good-faith exception to be applicable, the police must have “acted in an objectively reasonable manner, in objective good faith, and as a reasonably well-trained officer would act.” Pilieci v. State, 991 So. 2d 883, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D966b] (Altenbernd, J.). The exception cannot be applied in “circumstances in which an objectively reasonable officer would have known the affidavit . . . w[as] insufficient to establish probable cause for the search.” Pilieci, 991 So. 2d at 896. See also Garcia v. State, 872 So. 2d 326, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D892b]. Those circumstances are present here. As detailed hereinabove, the warrant was based upon facts obtained in gross violation of the Fourth Amendment, and was cast in language not conforming to the probable-cause and particularity requirements of that Amendment. The test is an objective one. A reasonable police officer, possessed of that training and discretion required of police officers, is obliged to know better than to act upon such a warrant. Of course all this may be much ado about nothing. Recall that when the Hendry County officers stopped and searched Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car on that dark stretch of road, the only items that struck them as perhaps being of evidentiary value were half-a-dozen cellphones. They removed the phones from the car and provided them to the Miami-Dade Homicide Bureau. As to those phones, the Miami-Dade officers then sought a warrant, separate and apart from the warrant for the search of the car. Whether there was anything found in the car, other than the phones, that the prosecution will want to use in evidence at trial was never made entirely clear at the hearing on the motion to suppress.10 III. The warrant for the search of the cellphones The warrant application identifies six cellular phones removed from Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car, and seeks authorization to conduct a forensic examination of their contents. Generally, the factual recitation in the application is the same as appears in the application for the warrant to search the car. Apropos the phones themselves, the affidavit relates that Cabrera Leon purchased four Nokia TracFones, keeping one for himself, giving one to Aveille Rodriguez, giving another to a Yanier Hernandez, and intending at some point in the future to give one to Aveille Rodriguez’s girlfriend (not — decidedly not — Yamila Rodriguez). The police obtained video from a local Walmart showing Mr. Cabrera Leon purchasing four phones.11 Aveille Rodriguez confessed to the murder for which he was sought; in that confession he alleged that he told Cabrera Leon what he had done, and alleged that he stayed for an unspecified period of time at Cabrera Leon’s home. So far as appears, Mr. Aveille Rodriguez had these conversations with Mr. Cabrera Leon in person, not via cellphone. The warrant application suggests that the phones were to be used by Aveille Rodriguez’s friends, including Cabrera Leon, to stay in touch with him after he fled the country. But he did not flee the country — he stayed, and confessed his crime to the police. Is there any reason to believe that the phones were ever used? Is there any reason to believe that they were used in such a manner as to contain evidence of the homicide under investigation? No such reasons are offered in the warrant application. But apart from that, this warrant for the forensic search of the phones founders on the same rocks as did the warrant for the search of the car. At the time that the police, acting on nothing more than unalloyed suspicion, stopped, seized, and searched Mr. Cabrera Leon’s car, they were blithely unaware of the existence of these cellphones. When they saw the phones in the car they seized them. (Recall that the basis for the seizure was Deputy Morgan’s belief that “with a homicide typical[ly] communication is used, in today’s society, on a cell phone,” see supra at 3.) True, between the time of that unconstitutional seizure and the police application for a warrant to examine the phones, the police had the benefit of Mr. Aveille Rodriguez’s confession. But so far as appears in the warrant application, Aveille Rodriguez was never asked if he and his friends had used those phones to perpetrate or cover up the murder he committed; and he never volunteered any information on that score. There was no independent investigation that ineluctably led, or would have led, to the cellphones.12 The infirmities that afflict the warrant for the search of the car afflict the warrant for the search of the cellphones. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis and the authorities that detail those infirmities. As to Mr. Cabrera Leon, the phones and their content are inadmissible. IV. Conclusion As noted supra, this may be much ado about nothing. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, nothing of great probative value was identified as being among the fruits of the various searches here. Granting or denying suppression may have little or no effect on the outcome of this litigation. The police already have that most powerful of weapons in the prosecutorial arsenal, the confession of a murderer. But that is not the point. In 1949, Justice Robert Jackson had recently returned to the Court from his duties as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. He had traveled extensively in post-war Germany. He had seen the sequelae of Naziism and war, and he had learned from what he had seen. In his dissenting opinion in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 180-81 (1949), he shared what he had learned with the American people: When this Court recently has promulgated a philosophy that some rights derived from the Constitution are entitled to “a preferred position,” . . . I have not agreed. We cannot give some constitutional rights a preferred position without relegating others to a deferred position; we can establish no firsts without thereby establishing seconds. Indications are not wanting that Fourth Amendment freedoms are tacitly marked as secondary rights, to be relegated to a deferred position. . . . These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police. But the right to be secure against searches and seizures is one of the most difficult to protect. Since the officers are themselves the chief invaders, there is no enforcement outside of court. Enforcement of this indispensable constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure — enforcement of the simple command that the privacy and sanctity of the home, the integrity and autonomy of the self, “shall not be violated,” U.S. Const., Amend. IV — is consigned to the courts, and to the lawyers who come before those courts. Justice Jackson states no more than the obvious when he acknowledges that, because law enforcement officers are themselves the chief invaders of those rights, there can be no enforcement elsewhere than in the courts. Enforcement comes by application of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary principle. That principle, see supra n. 9, is readily and regularly castigated. See, e.g., Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 237 (2011) [22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S1144a] (a “bitter pill,” a “last resort”). In a case entirely unrelated to this one, a very fine young prosecutor, in argument before me, referred to “the cold and unforgiving hand” of the exclusionary rule. As discussed supra at 16 et. seq. in connection with the Leon doctrine, the hand of the exclusionary rule is far from unforgiving. But if the hand of the exclusionary rule is cold, it has grown cold — and worn, and tired too — ceaselessly sheltering the homes, the hearths, and the freedoms of Americans. Better that cold and unforgiving hand than the mailed fist of tyranny. Defendant’s motion to suppress is respectfully GRANTED. ______ 1See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). See also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970). See discussion infra at 7 et. seq. 2I find that Mr. Cabrera Leon did not consent to the search of his car or the seizure of his property. I mention this only because the warrants — written by Miami-Dade officers who were at the opposite side of the state when the search and seizure was conducted — allege that he did consent. Deputy Morgan, who had an very imperfect recollection of the evening’s events, could say no more than that, “I really don’t recall, but I want to say that he possibly gave his consent or it was during the inventory.” Tr. 29. I believe Deputy Morgan when he says he really doesn’t recall. I don’t believe that Cabrera Leon gave a knowing and voluntary consent to anything. 3See gen’ly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recognition. See Fla. Stat. § 316.0777. 4It is, of course, no answer to say that this sort of thing occurs from time to time in our present-day society, and that we ought by now to be inured to it. Facilis descensus averno. It is the duty of courts charged with upholding the rights of liberty and the usages of democracy to refuse to become inured to it. As Alexander Pope reminds us in his “Essay on Man:” Vice is a monster of so frightful mien As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet see too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. 5Although the Florida Constitution has, at Art. I § 12, a guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, that guarantee is rendered inert by a “conformity clause,” i.e., a provision that the right set forth in the Florida constitution must be interpreted no differently than the Fourth Amendment is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Because the Florida constitutional language does not afford us any protection as Floridians that we do not already enjoy as Americans, I refer in this order to the Fourth Amendment, and not to the Fourth Amendment and Art. I § 12. 6If the question is posed literally, the answer must be “no.” The Hendry County officers knew nothing more than that their Miami-Dade County colleagues had told them to stop and seize a car. They had no cause for that stop and seizure, probable or otherwise. Pursuant to the “fellow officer rule,” however, if facts constituting probable cause to seize and search were in the possession of the Miami-Dade officers, knowledge of those facts will be imputed to, and justify the conduct of, the Hendry officers. See Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (1971); Crawford v. State, 334 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). 7The actual quote from Congreve’s The Mourning Bride is, “Heaven has no rage, like love to hatred turned, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned.” 8Deputy Morgan admitted that he and his colleagues harangued Mr. Cabrera Leon for the whereabouts of Aveille Rodriguez, even threatening Cabrera Leon that he would go to jail if he didn’t tell them. Tr. 31. When that didn’t work, they abandoned him by the side of the road. 9Of course a very forcible argument could be made to the contrary. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court had occasion for the first time to explain that although the common law had provided a right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure, it had provided no remedy for breach of that right. The Weeks Court further explained that the Fourth Amendment was enacted expressly to provide that remedy by excluding evidence unlawfully obtained. “The case . . . involves the right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the purposes of evidence the [property] of the accused, seized . . . [without] warrant . . . for the search. . . . If [evidence] can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment . . . is of no value.” Weeks, 232 U.S. at 393 (emphasis added). See also Samuel Dash, The Intruders: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures from King John to John Ashcroft 62-63 (2004). What the Fourth Amendment purports to secure is not the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted in bad faith, but the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — period. And it secures that right by the exclusion of evidence, so that officers of the judicial branch do not repeat — indeed aggravate — the sins of the officers of the executive branch. The “benefits [of the Fourth Amendment] are illusory indeed if they are denied to persons who may have been convicted by the very means which the Amendment forbids.” Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 142 (1942) (Murphy, J., dissenting) 10According to the motion at bar, the defense seeks to suppress, “Walmart receipts, several cellphones, cellphone boxes, phone activation cards, and any evidence derived therefrom.” 11Both the warrant application and the warrant refer to six phones. Three are identified as Nokias, two as Samsungs, and one as a Motorola. The probable-cause narrative in the application, however, refers to four Nokia phones. I do not know how this discrepancy is to be reconciled. Which phones were the police asking to search? Which phones was the warrant-duty judge authorizing the police to search? Can police reasonably rely on a warrant hobbled with this discrepancy? 12I mention this because at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the prosecution made reference to the “inevitable discovery” doctrine. Tr. 68. The inevitable discovery doctrine is applicable when a lawfully-conducted police investigation is in train, which investigation inevitably would have led by lawful means to the discovery of the same fruits actually obtained by lawless means. That the police could have gotten a warrant and retrieved evidence is not enough; they must be able to say that, at or before the time of the constitutionally-impermissible conduct, they would have gotten a warrant and obtained that evidence. See Shingles v. State, 872 So. 2d 434, 439 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D1149a]. See also Rowell v. State, 83 So. 3d 990, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D745a]: [C]ontrary to the state’s argument, the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply merely because the police may have had probable cause to obtain a search warrant [at the time of the primary illegality]. In this case . . . the prosecution made absolutely no showing that efforts to obtain a warrant were being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the illegal conduct. Operation of the “inevitable discovery” rule under the circumstances of this case would effectively nullify the requirement of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. (Emphasis added.) *

Cell Phone Searches History Updated 2025

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:22:58 GMT

Cell Phone Searches and Your Rights: Florida Law and Supreme Court Precedents

Introduction: Understanding Cell Phone Searches in Criminal Cases

Cell phones are more than communication devices—they hold a detailed record of our lives. In Florida and across the United States, courts have recognized the sensitivity and depth of this information. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we stay at the forefront of privacy law developments, especially those concerning cell phone searches in criminal investigations.

🎥 Featured Video: Expert Defense When Police Search Your Phone

Click the video above to watch a breakdown of why to choose an expert to protect your rights during a phone search.

If your phone has been searched, it may have been done unlawfully. This landing page explores the legal landscape of cell phone searches, Florida and federal rulings, constitutional protections, and what defenses may be available to you. To speak directly with Attorney Casey Ebsary, visit our contact page or view his biography to learn more.

🔎 Frequently Asked Questions About Cell Phone Searches

FAQ

Can police search my phone without a warrant in Florida?

No. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, police generally need a warrant to search a cell phone, even if it was seized during an arrest. Florida courts also support this principle, recognizing that mobile devices carry vast amounts of personal data. A search without a warrant may be subject to a motion to suppress. View Riley on Justia.

What did the Supreme Court say in Riley v. California about phones?

The Court ruled that cell phones differ from other objects due to the volume and sensitivity of data stored on them. It held that the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to digital content on cell phones. The opinion emphasized the need for a warrant before conducting a phone search. Read the full opinion on Justia.

What types of evidence can be found on phones?

Phones may contain photos, messages, location data, voicemails, emails, browsing history, and cloud-stored content. Courts now recognize this content as private and subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Evidence obtained without a proper warrant may be excluded from trial.

Does Florida law allow warrantless cell phone searches?

No. Florida courts have rejected warrantless cell phone searches under both federal and state constitutions. For example, in Smallwood v. State, the Florida Supreme Court found a search invalid where no warrant was obtained. View Smallwood v. State on Justia.

What is a motion to suppress, and how can it help?

A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of your rights. Under Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense attorneys may challenge warrantless phone searches. This can result in key evidence being thrown out, possibly weakening or dismissing the prosecution’s case. Read Rule 3.190(h).

Can police access data stored in the cloud?

Generally, police must obtain separate warrants for cloud-stored data. This includes data synced through apps like iCloud or Google Drive. Courts distinguish between data on the device and remotely stored content.

What if I gave consent to search my phone?

If consent is given freely and knowingly, the search may be valid. However, officers sometimes pressure or trick individuals into consenting. A skilled attorney can challenge the validity of the consent.

Can location data from my phone be used against me?

Yes, but only if properly obtained. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that accessing historical cell-site location information (CSLI) requires a warrant. Read Carpenter on Justia.

What should I do if my phone was searched without a warrant?

Contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. You may have grounds to suppress the evidence or seek dismissal of charges. Attorney Casey Ebsary can file motions to suppress based on unlawful phone searches. Schedule a consultation.

Are inventory searches of phones legal?

No. Courts have ruled that inventory searches do not extend to the digital contents of a cell phone. Law enforcement must obtain a warrant even if the phone is part of an impounded vehicle or personal property.

📈 Chart: Warrant Requirements for Cell Phone Data Types

Data Type	Warrant Required?	Key Court Case
Text Messages	Yes	Riley v. California (2014)
Photos/Videos	Yes	Riley v. California (2014)
App Usage Data	Yes	Riley v. California (2014)
Cloud-Backed Content	Yes	Carpenter v. United States
Location (Historical CSLI)	Yes	Carpenter v. United States
Inventory Search of Phone	No	Florida v. Smallwood

✉️ Call to Action: Protect Your Digital Privacy Now

Have your digital rights been violated by law enforcement? Was your phone searched without a warrant? You may be able to fight the charges and suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. Let W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Florida Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, evaluate your case. Contact us now or learn more about Casey here.

🌐 Legal Resources and Statutes

Meta Description : Florida attorney explains cell phone search laws, warrant rules, and digital privacy rights after Riley v. California and Carpenter.

Learn More About Cell Phone Searches

Cell Phone Tracking(Opens in a new browser tab)

Defense Attorney on Cell Phone Search | Evidence Suppressed(Opens in a new browser tab)

Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest(Opens in a new browser tab)

Search Warrant | Cell Phone Update(Opens in a new browser tab)

Cell Phone Searches – Supreme Court to Rule on Warrant Requirement(Opens in a new browser tab)

Original Post From 2014

Cell Phone Search Warrant, Cell Phone Search, Search and Seizure

Cell Phone Search Warrant

Up until quite recently, there were exceptions to the general requirement that police get a Search Warrant for a cell phone. Cell phones have been a window into suspects’ activities, as police used these exceptions to get their hands on information found inside mobile devices. Obtaining a Search Warrant for a cell phone is not that hard to do. You can review a Search Warrant for a Cell Phone here: Here is an actual iPhone Search Warrant. GPS or Global Positioning Satellite information found in mobile phones has also been used by police.

Up until around 2014, police could and did search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who was arrested. Defense Attorneys would frequently challenge such searches. These searches were frequently based upon “helping” arrested citizens by making sure their property was properly inventoried by the arresting officers for safekeeping by jail personnel or by the evidence unit at the arresting agency’s office. This rationale remains a frequent flier in broad invasive “inventory” searches of automobiles during traffic stops.

Phone Search, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant

Phone Search Warrant

Florida had outlawed warrantless phone searches before the US Supreme Court. That ruling is discussed here. Now prohibited will be mobile device and cell phone searches without a warrant. Before the 2014 United States Supreme Court ruling here was another Court’s Ruling on a Phone Search. Searches Incident to a lawful arrest were previously justified by cops using issues of police officer safety and prevention of destruction of evidence.

Now under Florida law, a Motion to Suppress Evidence can be filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Illegal Search and seizure now applies to phones and the Courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence including, photographs, video, text messages, directory and location data, voice mails, and emails.

Case Summary: The US Supreme Court’s ruling is that a properly obtained and issued search warrant is generally required before search of a phone. Here is some language from the Court’s ruling.

“Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person. The term “cell phone” is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras,video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”

“The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeledwith dates, locations, and descriptions; the same cannot besaid of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet.”

“To further complicate the scope of the privacy interests at stake, the data a user views on many modern cell phones may not in fact be stored on the device itself. Treating a cell phone as a container whose contents may be searched incident to an arrest is a bit strained as an initial matter.”

“[T]he search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones . . . .”

Some Excerpts from Florida Cell Search Cases:

“However, we express great concern in permitting the officer to search appellant’s cell phone here where there was no indication the officer had reason to believe the cell phone contained evidence.”

“We are equally concerned that giving officers unbridled discretion to rummage through at will the entire contents of one’s cell phone, even where there is no basis for believing evidence of the crime of arrest will be found on the phone, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”

TRAF3039 Fleeing and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Thu, 22 May 2025 09:12:09 GMT

Fleeing and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer – TRAF3039

If you have been charged with TRAF3039 Fleeing and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, call Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 or contact us online.

🔍 What is Fleeing and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer (TRAF3039)?

TRAF3039 refers to charges filed under Florida Statute 316.1935(1), which makes it a third-degree felony to intentionally flee or attempt to elude a law enforcement officer after being ordered to stop.

“It is unlawful… to willfully refuse or fail to stop… or… to flee in an attempt to elude…” — Florida Statute § 316.1935(1)

📌 Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Form Code	TRAF3039
Statute	316.1935(1), Florida Statutes
Offense	Fleeing and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer
Degree	Third-Degree Felony
Punishment	Up to 5 years in prison
County	Common in Hillsborough County, FL

❓Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

⚖️ What are the penalties for Fleeing and Attempting to Elude in Florida?

A third-degree felony under § 316.1935(1) is punishable by:

Up to 5 years in prison
Up to 5 years probation
Up to $5,000 in fines
Felony conviction on your record
Possible driver’s license suspension

§ 775.082, § 775.083, § 775.084 – Florida Statutes provide the legal framework for felony sentencing.

🛑 What does “willfully flee” mean under the law?

“Willfully” means intentional and knowing refusal to stop after being ordered by police. You may be charged even if:

You drove away slowly but deliberately
You stopped, then sped off
You ignored lights and sirens

Intent matters. A mistake, fear, or panic could be raised as a defense.

🚔 How does the prosecution prove this charge?

To convict under § 316.1935(1), the State must prove:
You were driving a vehicle
A law enforcement officer gave a lawful stop order
You knew about the order
You willfully refused to stop or fled
Dashcam footage, police testimony, and GPS data often serve as evidence.

⚠️ Are there harsher penalties for aggravated fleeing?

Yes. If during the act of fleeing you:

Drive at high speed or recklessly → Felony of the second degree
Cause injury or death → Felony of the first degree

See § 316.1935(3) and (4) for aggravated fleeing penalties.

📍 Is this charge common in Hillsborough County?

Yes. Tampa and Hillsborough County law enforcement aggressively prosecute fleeing and eluding. TRAF3039 charges frequently appear in:

High-speed chases
DUI stops
Traffic checkpoints
Suspected stolen vehicle stops

If you’ve been charged, speak to a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney right away.
📞 Call now: (813) 222-2220
💼 Schedule a free consultation

📉 What are the defenses to fleeing and eluding?

Top 5 defenses include:

Top 5

🚫 Lack of knowledge (did not know it was police)
❌ No lawful stop order was given
❗ Medical or mental emergency
🛑 Mistaken identity or driver
😱 Fear for safety (e.g., isolated road, unmarked vehicle)

A defense attorney can investigate dashcam footage, radio logs, and witness statements.

🧑‍⚖️ What are my options if charged?

Depending on the facts:

Motion to Dismiss (lack of evidence)
Pretrial Diversion
Plea to lesser offense
Trial
Withhold of adjudication (no felony conviction)

Contact Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary to discuss tailored strategies to avoid prison and preserve your record.

🔗 Meet Your Attorney – W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr.

📽️ What should I do immediately after being charged?

Do not speak to police without legal counsel
Collect all documents: citations, bond, notice to appear
Request discovery to review video/audio evidence
Hire a criminal defense attorney

📊 Penalty Chart for § 316.1935(1) Fleeing and Eluding

Offense	Degree	Prison	Fine	License Suspension
Fleeing w/o injury	3rd Degree	Up to 5 yrs	Up to $5,000	Up to 1 year
Reckless fleeing	2nd Degree	Up to 15 yrs	Up to $10,000	1-5 years
Injury or death	1st Degree	Up to 30 yrs	Up to $10,000	Mandatory 5 yrs

📺 Video: Understanding Florida’s Fleeing and Eluding Law

“Fleeing from Police in Florida – What You Need to Know”]
✅ Hosted by Attorney Casey Ebsary – Subscribe for legal insights

🧭 Resources & Legal References

✅ Why Hire Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

📍 Based in Tampa, FL
⚖️ Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
🧠 Tech-savvy and experienced in digital evidence
📝 Decades of experience in State and Federal courtrooms

📅 Schedule a Free Case Review
👨‍💼 Read Attorney Bio

📞 Call Today

Don’t face a felony charge alone. If you’ve been accused of Fleeing and Eluding in Florida under TRAF3039, Attorney Casey Ebsary is ready to help.

📞 (813) 222-2220
💼 https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/

Navigating Flee to Elude Charges in Florida: A Comprehensive Guide with Casey the Lawyer(Opens in a new browser tab)

Street Racing History in Tampa Florida(Opens in a new browser tab)

Drug Crime Stories(Opens in a new browser tab)

Cops Gone Wild(Opens in a new browser tab)

COPS2000 Obstructing or Opposing an Officer with Violence Defense | Tampa Lawyer(Opens in a new browser tab)

Original Post Updated to 2025 See Above TRAF3039 Fleeing and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer

FLEEING AND ATTEMPTING TO ELUDE

If you have been charged with TRAF3039 FLEEING AND ATTEMPTING TO ELUDE A POLICE OFFICER you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: TRAF3039
Florida Statute: 316.1935.1
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd

Description: FLEEING AND ATTEMPTING TO ELUDE A POLICE OFFICER

TRAF3039 FLEEING AND ATTEMPTING TO ELUDE A POLICE OFFICER is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES

Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.1935 Fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer; aggravated fleeing or eluding.

(1) It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle, having knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop such vehicle by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully to refuse or fail to stop the vehicle in compliance with such order or, having stopped in knowing compliance with such order, willfully to flee in an attempt to elude the officer, and a person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

ASSA5005 Aggravated Assault With Deadly Weapon

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 10 May 2025 04:08:08 GMT

Florida Statute §784.021(1)(a) | Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

ASSA5005 Defense Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.
📅 Updated: May 10, 2025
📍 Serving Tampa, Hillsborough County, and surrounding areas
📞 Call: (813) 222-2220 | 🌐 Contact Us Now

What Is ASSA5005 – Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon?

ASSA5005 is the Florida Uniform Crime Code for Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon, charged under Florida Statute §784.021(1)(a). This offense occurs when a person commits an assault while brandishing or using a deadly weapon — without intent to kill. It is classified as a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, 5 years of probation, and a $5,000 fine.

Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a frequently charged violent offense in Hillsborough County, and prosecutors pursue these cases aggressively. If you’ve been arrested or accused of this offense, you need an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney to protect your rights.

Legal Breakdown: Florida Statute §784.021

Element	Explanation
Charge Code	ASSA5005
Offense Title	Aggravated Assault With Deadly Weapon
Statute Cited	Florida Statute §784.021(1)(a)
Offense Level	Felony
Felony Degree	3rd Degree
Maximum Penalty	5 years in prison, $5,000 fine, 5 years probation
Weapon Involved?	Yes, deadly weapon used without intent to kill

Q&A: Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon (ASSA5005)

FAQ

❓ Is ASSA5005 a felony in Florida?

Yes, ASSA5005 is a third-degree felony in the state of Florida. A conviction carries serious consequences, including prison time, probation, fines, and a permanent criminal record. Even if no one was physically harmed, the presence or display of a deadly weapon can elevate a simple assault to aggravated assault. This felony charge can also affect your rights, such as firearm ownership and employment opportunities.

❓ What is considered a “deadly weapon” under Florida law?

Florida courts define a deadly weapon as any object that is likely to produce death or great bodily harm when used in its intended or threatened manner. This includes firearms, knives, and blunt objects, but also vehicles, tools, or even bottles depending on how they are used. Even an unloaded gun can qualify if it was used to threaten someone. The interpretation is often fact-specific and can be challenged by a skilled defense attorney.

❓ Do I need to actually harm someone to be charged?

No, you do not need to cause physical harm to be charged with ASSA5005. The crime focuses on the threat of violence, not the result. If the victim reasonably believed they were about to be attacked and you had the apparent ability to carry out that threat with a deadly weapon, prosecutors may file this charge. The law prioritizes prevention of harm and punishes threatening behavior involving dangerous weapons.

❓ What are the penalties for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?

A conviction for ASSA5005 carries a maximum of 5 years in Florida State Prison, 5 years of probation, and a $5,000 fine. It also results in a permanent felony record, which can impact future employment, housing, and civil rights like voting and gun ownership. In some cases, judges may impose mandatory minimum sentences, especially if firearms are involved.

❓ Can the charges be reduced or dropped?

Yes, charges can sometimes be reduced to a lesser offense, like misdemeanor assault or improper exhibition of a weapon, or even dismissed entirely. Factors such as lack of credible evidence, self-defense, or inconsistent witness statements can work in your favor. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can negotiate with the State Attorney or file motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence.

Top 5 Legal Defenses to ASSA5005

Top 5

Self-Defense: You acted to protect yourself or another person from imminent harm.
No Deadly Weapon: The item involved does not legally qualify as a deadly weapon.
Lack of Intent: There was no actual intent to threaten or commit a violent act.
False Accusation: The alleged victim fabricated the incident or misidentified you.
No Imminent Threat: Your actions did not create a legitimate fear of immediate violence.

Florida Penalty Chart: ASSA5005

Penalty Type	Maximum Consequence
Prison Sentence	Up to 5 years in Florida State Prison
Probation Term	Up to 5 years of supervised probation
Monetary Fine	Up to $5,000
Criminal Record	Permanent felony record
Firearm Rights	Revoked upon felony conviction

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor with decades of experience defending clients against violent felony charges like aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. As a recognized authority on Florida criminal law, Casey is known for aggressive defense strategies, attention to detail, and courtroom expertise. He has successfully handled thousands of felony cases in Tampa and Hillsborough County.

Take Action Now – Protect Your Freedom

Facing an aggravated assault charge is life-changing. Time is critical, and your next steps can impact your entire future. Do not speak to police or prosecutors without legal counsel. Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. offers free case evaluations and is ready to build your defense.

📞 Call Today: (813) 222-2220
📨 Schedule a Free Consultation Online

Call a Florida Attorney

Related Florida Statutes and Resources

🔹 Florida Statute §784.021 – Aggravated Assault
🔹 Florida Statute §775.082 – Felony Sentencing
🔹 Florida Statute §775.083 – Criminal Fines
🔹 Florida Statute §775.084 – Habitual Offender Penalties

2010 Post Updated to 2025

Aggravated Assault Deadly Weapon

“Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree”

If you have been charged with ASSA5005 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPON you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Form Code: ASSA5005
Florida Statute: 784.021.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPON

ASSA5005 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPON one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.021 Aggravated assault.

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:

(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Top 50 Ways Into Hillsborough County Jail | Tampa

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:08:42 GMT

Arrested in Florida? Know the Top 50 Ways You Can Go to Jail

Every year, thousands of Floridians find themselves behind bars for offenses ranging from the mundane to the extreme. Understanding the most common reasons people go to jail in Florida is more than curiosity—it’s a practical way to stay informed, stay safe, and stay out of trouble. From DUI and petit theft to resisting arrest and drug possession, the State of Florida has laws on the books that can quickly turn a routine encounter with law enforcement into a criminal case. This guide explores the Top 50 Ways to Go to Jail in Florida, drawing from real charges and classifications under Florida criminal law. There are also 100 Ways to go directly to Jail for Fraud.

Whether you’re a Florida resident, tourist, or someone dealing with a recent arrest, this list can help you identify serious pitfalls before they cost you your freedom. This information is based on Florida criminal statutes and arrest data sourced from reliable government websites like the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).

If you or a loved one has been arrested for any of the offenses listed below, call W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 or visit our secure contact form at centrallaw.com/contact-us. Don’t guess—get answers.Here are some statistics from Tampa’s Hillsborough County Jail. We have collected the top 50 ways to end up in Tampa, Florida’s jail and have shared them below.

Understanding Arrest Statistics in Tampa, Florida

Here are some statistics from Tampa’s Hillsborough County Jail regarding various arrest reasons:

Top Reasons for Arrest:

Drug-related charges
Traffic violations
Theft-related charges

Exploring Arrest Records:

We have reviewed a number of arrest records, and it appears there are numerous different ways that can lead to arrests for various criminal charges within this major metropolitan jail.

Top 50 Ways to End up Inside the Hillsborough County Jail

It’s important to note that engaging in illegal activities can have serious consequences, and we encourage everyone to follow the law and make responsible choices.

Drug and traffic charges dominate the Top Ten. Theft charges seem to take the second group of ten. We have reviewed a number of other arrest records and it appears there are 1656 different ways to end up arrested for criminal charges and inside of this major metropolitan jail. Lets take a look at the Top Ten.

Table: Top 10 Most Common Ways to Go to Jail in Florida

Top 10 List How to Go To Jail in Florida

Rank	Offense	Statute Reference	Jail Time
1	DUI	F.S. 316.193	Up to 6–12 months
2	Petit Theft (Under $750)	F.S. 812.014	Up to 1 year
3	Resisting Officer Without Violence	F.S. 843.02	Up to 1 year
4	Possession of Marijuana (<20 grams)	F.S. 893.13	Up to 1 year
5	Driving with a Suspended License	F.S. 322.34	Up to 60 days – 5 years
6	Battery	F.S. 784.03	Up to 1 year (misdemeanor)
7	Domestic Violence	F.S. 741.28	Up to 1 year or more
8	Trespass After Warning	F.S. 810.09	Up to 1 year
9	Disorderly Conduct	F.S. 877.03	Up to 60 days
10	Failure to Appear	F.S. 843.15	Up to 5 years (felony)

Call to Action

Call Us at 813-222-2220

If you’re facing criminal charges in Florida, don’t face the system alone. As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and former prosecutor, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is prepared to fight for you. Whether it’s a DUI, resisting an officer, or another misdemeanor or felony, you need immediate, experienced legal help.

📞 Call (813) 222-2220 now
💻 Or visit: https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/

About Our Contact Page

At Central Law, we believe that contacting an attorney should be fast, secure, and confidential. On our contact page at https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/, you’ll find everything you need to get in touch with W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. Whether you prefer to call or fill out a quick online form, help is just a few clicks or a phone call away. We take your privacy seriously and respond promptly to all inquiries.

THE LIST: Top 50 Ways Into the Hillsborough County Jail

Ranking	Charge Description	Form Code	Statute	Level	Degree
1.	Driving W/License Canc Susp Or Revoked	TRAF6075	322.34.2A	Misd	2nd
2.	Possession Of Cocaine	DRUG1101	893.13.6A	Fel	3rd
3.	Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia	DRUG8100	893.147.	Misd	1st
4.	Grand Theft 3rd ($300 – $5,000)	THEF2001	812.014.2C1	Fel	3rd
5.	Possession Of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams	DRUG2103	893.13.6B	Misd	1st
6.	Battery (Domestic Violence)	BATT1002	784.03.1AB	Misd	1st
7.	Driving Under The Influence	TRAF1012	316.193.1	Misd	2nd
8.	Obstructing Or Opposing An Officer Without Vio	COPS1000	843.02.	Misd	1st
9.	Driving While License Revoked-Habitual Offender	TRAF6078	322.34.5	Fel	3rd
10.	Petit Theft ($100 Or Less)	THEF1011	812.014.3A	Misd	2nd
11.	Possession Of Controlled Substance	DRUG9101	893.13.6A	Fel	3rd
12.	Dealing In Stolen Property	THEF5000	812.019.1	Fel	2nd
13.	Uttering A Forged Instrument	FORG2000	831.02.	Fel	3rd
14.	Battery (Touch Or Strike)	BATT1000	784.03.1AB	Misd	1st
15.	Trespass On Prop Other Than Structure Or Conveyance	TRES4001	810.09.1A2A	Misd	1st
16.	Grand Theft Motor Vehicle	THEF2201	812.014.2C6	Fel	3rd
17.	Contempt Of Court	ADMIN007	901.11.	Infractions
18.	Obtain.Prop. For Worthless Ck.(Less Than $150)	WOCK2000	832.05.4	Misd	1st
19.	False Name To Law Enforcement Officer	COPS2060	901.36.1	Misd	1st
20.	Delivery Of Cocaine	DRUG1200	893.13.1A	Fel	2nd
21.	Possession Of Open Container	TPOR0064	003.40.B	Municipal/Local
22.	Manufacture Dist Dispense Posses Con Sub- Fed	USCA0003	021.841.
23.	Operating Unregistered Vehicle	TRAF5015	320.02.1	Misd	2nd
24.	Petit Theft 1st	THEF1010	812.014.2E	Misd	1st
25.	No Valid Drivers License	TRAF5099	322.03.1	Misd	2nd
26.	Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell Or Deliver	DRUG1300	893.13.1A	Fel	2nd
27.	Possession Of Cannabis	DRUG2102	893.13.6A	Fel	3rd
28.	Aggravated Assault With Deadly Weapon	ASSA5005	784.021.1A	Fel	3rd
29.	Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer	BATT1010	784.03.1A	Fel	3rd
30.	Driving Under The Influence Unlawful Breath A	TRAF1015	316.193.1C	Misd	2nd
31.	Attaching Tag Not Assigned	TRAF5040	320.261.	Misd	2nd
32.	Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell Or Deliver	DRUG2300	893.13.1A	Fel	3rd
33.	Aggravated Battery Deadly Weapon	BATT5000	784.045.1A2	Fel	2nd
34.	Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon)	BATT5000	784.045.1A2	Fel	2nd
35.	False Info On Pawnbroker Form (Under $300)	PAWN8010	539.001.8	Fel	3rd
36.	Criminal Mischief Less Than $200	CRMS1000	806.13.1B1	Misd	2nd
37.	Obstructing Or Opposing An Officer With Violence	COPS2000	843.01.	Fel	3rd
38.	Burglary Of An Unoccupied Conveyance	BURG0022	810.02.1B4B	Fel	3rd
39.	Reckless Driving	TRAF3030	316.192.	Misd	2nd
40.	Felon In Possession Firearm Firearm Possess	GUNS0420	790.23.1	Fel	2nd
41.	Obtain.Prop. For Worthless Ck (More Than $150)	WOCK3000	832.05.4	Fel	3rd
42.	Disorderly Conduct	MISC0124	877.03.	Misd	2nd
43.	Fraudulent Use Of Credit Card Over $100	FRAU3000	817.61.	Fel	3rd
44.	Robbery (Less Than $300)	ROBB3000	812.13.12C	Fel	2nd
45.	Aggravated Battery Great Bodily Harm	BATT5050	784.045.1A1	Fel	2nd
46.	Criminal Mischief $200 To $1000	CRMS2000	806.13.1B2	Misd	1st
47.	Worthless Check	WOCK1000	832.05.2	Misd	1st
48.	Forgery	FORG1000	831.01.	Fel	3rd
49.	Criminal Mischief $1000 Or More	CRMS3000	806.13.1B3	Fel	3rd
50.	Carrying Concealed Firearm	WEAP1000	790.01.2	Fel	3rd

🔍 Top 10 Questions About the Top 50 Ways to Go to Jail in Florida (With Statute Links)

FAQ

What are the most common ways to get arrested in Florida?

The most frequent arrests in Florida include DUI, petty theft, domestic battery, driving with a suspended license, and resisting an officer without violence. These charges range from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on prior convictions and aggravating circumstances. Even seemingly minor offenses like shoplifting or non-violent resistance can carry jail time. Legal representation can mean the difference between a conviction and a second chance.

Can you go to jail for resisting arrest without violence in Florida?

Yes. Under Florida Statute § 843.02 (Justia), resisting an officer without violence is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. You can be arrested simply for verbally refusing a lawful order or passively pulling away. These charges are often subjective and depend on the officer’s account, so having a defense lawyer is critical.

Is DUI always a jail offense in Florida?

Not necessarily, but it can be. A first-time DUI under § 316.193 (Justia) may result in probation, fines, and license suspension. However, aggravating factors—such as a high BAC, minors in the vehicle, or property damage—can escalate the penalties, including mandatory jail time. Repeat offenders face even harsher consequences.

What happens after you’re arrested in Florida?

You’ll be taken to jail, booked, and held for a first appearance, usually within 24 hours. During this appearance, a judge sets bail or conditions for release. If you qualify, you may be released on your own recognizance (ROR), though more serious charges may require a bond or no bond at all. The earlier you retain a defense attorney, the better your chances of release and defense preparation.

Can you go to jail for driving with a suspended license?

Yes. Driving with a suspended license can result in jail time, especially if you’re a repeat offender or a Habitual Traffic Offender (HTO). Under § 322.34 (Justia), even a first offense can carry up to 60 days in jail, while third offenses may be charged as third-degree felonies with up to 5 years in prison. Don’t risk it—get legal help right away.

What’s the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony in Florida?

Misdemeanors are crimes punishable by up to one year in county jail, while felonies can result in over a year in state prison. Misdemeanors include minor theft, battery, and resisting without violence. Felonies include burglary, grand theft, and aggravated battery. The consequences of a felony—like loss of civil rights—are much more severe and long-lasting.

Are mugshots and arrest records public in Florida?

Yes. Florida’s Sunshine Laws make mugshots and arrest records publicly available, even if the charges are dropped or dismissed. These records are often posted on county jail websites and picked up by mugshot publishing platforms. You may need to file for expungement or sealing of your record to remove them, and an attorney can guide you through the process.

How do I know if I have an outstanding warrant in Florida?

You can check for active warrants by visiting your county sheriff’s website or using the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Wanted Persons Search. Some warrants may not appear online, especially sealed or federal ones. If you suspect a warrant exists, consult with a criminal defense attorney before attempting to resolve it on your own.

Can unpaid traffic tickets really land me in jail?

Yes, particularly if they result in a suspended license and you’re later caught driving. Failure to appear in traffic court can also lead to a bench warrant. If you accumulate unpaid fines, points, or miss court appearances, you could face arrest and jail time. A defense attorney can help you restore your license and handle unresolved tickets before they become criminal issues.

When should I call a criminal defense attorney in Florida?

The best time to contact a criminal defense attorney is immediately after an arrest, a police encounter, or even if you suspect you are under investigation. Early legal intervention can prevent formal charges, help negotiate release conditions, and ensure your rights are protected during questioning. A skilled lawyer may also secure diversion programs, plea deals, or even get charges dismissed before they reach court. At Central Law, we provide aggressive, board-certified defense the moment you need it—don’t wait until it’s too late.

Additional Table: Top 5 Consequences of a Florida Arrest

Top 5

Consequence	Description
Criminal Record	Even a misdemeanor creates a permanent record.
Driver’s License Suspension	Common for DUI, drug crimes, and unpaid fines.
Immigration Consequences	Arrests can result in visa revocation or deportation.
Loss of Employment	Many employers terminate employees upon learning of an arrest.
Mandatory Court Appearances	Missing court can lead to a bench warrant and even harsher penalties.

More About Top 10 Ways to Get Arrested in Hillsborough County

1. Driving with License Canceled, Suspended, or Revoked (TRAF6075)

Statute: 322.34.2A

Level: Misdemeanor (2nd-degree)

Driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license is a 2nd-degree misdemeanor. Violating this law can lead to arrest if caught operating a vehicle without a valid driver’s license.

2. Possession of Cocaine (DRUG1101)

Statute: 893.13.6A

Level: Felony (3rd-degree)

Possession of cocaine is a 3rd-degree felony in Florida. Being found with this controlled substance can result in arrest and severe legal consequences.

3. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (DRUG8100)

Statute: 893.147

Level: Misdemeanor (1st-degree)

Possessing drug paraphernalia, such as items for drug use, is a 1st-degree misdemeanor. Arrests can occur when individuals are found with these items.

4. Grand Theft 3rd Degree ($300 – $5,000) (THEF2001)

Statute: 812.014.2C1

Level: Felony (3rd-degree)

Grand theft of property valued between $300 and $5,000 is a 3rd-degree felony. Arrests are made for this crime, involving unlawful property taking.

5. Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 Grams (DRUG2103)

Statute: 893.13.6B

Level: Misdemeanor (1st-degree)

Possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis is a 1st-degree misdemeanor. Arrests can occur when individuals are found with this amount of marijuana.

6. Battery (Domestic Violence) (BATT1002)

Statute: 784.03.1AB

Level: Misdemeanor (1st-degree)

Battery within a domestic violence context is a 1st-degree misdemeanor. Arrests are made for unlawful physical contact or harm against family or household members.

7. Driving Under the Influence (TRAF1012)

Statute: 316.193.1

Level: Misdemeanor (2nd-degree)

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a 2nd-degree misdemeanor, leading to arrests and legal consequences.

8. Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence (COPS1000)

Statute: 843.02

Level: Misdemeanor (1st-degree)

Obstructing or opposing an officer without violence is a 1st-degree misdemeanor. Arrests can result when individuals interfere with law enforcement without using force.

9. Driving While License Revoked – Habitual Offender (TRAF6078)

Statute: 322.34.5

Level: Felony (3rd-degree)

Driving with a revoked license as a habitual offender is a 3rd-degree felony. It reflects repeated violations of traffic laws, leading to arrests.

10. Petit Theft ($100 or Less) (THEF1011)

Statute: 812.014.3A

Level: Misdemeanor (2nd-degree)

Petit theft of property valued at $100 or less is a 2nd-degree misdemeanor, resulting in arrests for unlawful property taking.

If you have been charged or Arrested you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at (813) 222-2220 to Fight for You.

WOCK2000 Tampa Lawyer for Worthless Check Less Than $150

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:30:48 GMT

Charged with Obtaining Property or Services with a Worthless Check?

If you have been charged with WOCK2000 – Obtaining Property or Services in Return for Worthless Checks (under Florida Statute § 832.05.4), you need a skilled criminal defense lawyer on your side. While this offense is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor, a conviction can still result in severe penalties, including jail time and a permanent criminal record.

Attorney W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. of the Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. is committed to defending clients facing charges related to worthless checks. Whether you’re accused of writing a check or using a debit card without sufficient funds, we will fight to protect your rights and help you avoid unnecessary penalties.

Florida Statute for WOCK2000: § 832.05.4 – Obtaining Property or Services in Return for Worthless Checks

Under Florida Statute § 832.05.4, it is illegal for an individual to obtain property, services, or any other valuable items by issuing a check, draft, or debit card knowing they do not have sufficient funds or credit to cover the payment.

Key Points of the Statute:

Knowledge of Insufficient Funds: The law makes it unlawful to use a check, draft, or debit card to obtain goods or services if the individual knows at the time that they do not have sufficient funds or credit available to pay.
Threshold of $150: If the check, draft, or debit card order is for less than $150, the charge is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor. If the value is $150 or more, the offense escalates to a felony.
Penalties for a Misdemeanor: A conviction for WOCK2000 (first-degree misdemeanor) can result in:
- Up to 1 year in jail
- Up to 1 year of probation
- Fines up to $1,000
Potential Defenses: There are several defenses available, including proving lack of intent to defraud, showing lack of knowledge about insufficient funds, or demonstrating that the recipient of the check was aware of the situation.

What to Do If You Are Facing WOCK2000 Charges?

If you are facing charges for WOCK2000 (Obtaining Property for Worthless Check), it’s essential to act quickly. Even though this charge may seem minor, it can result in serious penalties. Our firm will help you understand your options, evaluate your case, and formulate a defense strategy to reduce or dismiss the charges.

Possible Defenses to WOCK2000 Charges

Lack of Knowledge: If you were unaware that there were insufficient funds in your account at the time of writing the check or using the debit card, this could serve as a valid defense.
No Intent to Defraud: The prosecution must prove that you had the intent to defraud when writing the check or using the card. If intent cannot be established, the charges may be reduced or dismissed.
Recipient’s Knowledge: If the person or business you issued the check to knew that you had insufficient funds, they may not be able to claim the offense was fraudulent.

An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help you identify the best defense and protect your future.

Contact a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

If you’ve been charged with WOCK2000: Obtaining Property for Worthless Check (Less Than $150), it’s crucial to act fast. The consequences of a conviction are serious, and having an experienced lawyer on your side can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.

Call the Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. today at (813) 222-2220 or schedule a free consultation here. We are here to provide you with expert legal advice and defense, and we will work tirelessly to protect your rights and secure your future.

Original Post from 2010 Updated to 2025

Obtaining Property or Services in Return for Worthless Checks, 832.05.4

“knowing at the time of the making, drawing, uttering, issuing, or delivering of such check or draft that the maker thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit”

Worthless Check

If you have been charged with WOCK2000 OBTAIN.PROP. FOR WORTHLESS CK.(LESS THAN $150) (Obtaining Property or Services in Return for Worthless Checks, Drafts, or Debit Card Orders) you can call a Tampa Worthless Check Defense Lawyer at (813) 222-2220.

Form Code: WOCK2000
Florida Statute: 832.05.4
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st

Description: OBTAIN.PROP. FOR WORTHLESS CK.(LESS THAN $150) (Obtaining Property or Services in Return for Worthless Checks, Drafts, or Debit Card Orders)

Need some help avoiding a conviction?

WOCK2000 OBTAIN.PROP. FOR WORTHLESS CK.(LESS THAN $150) (Obtaining Property or Services in Return for Worthless Checks, Drafts, or Debit Card Orders) one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES

Chapter 832 VIOLATIONS INVOLVING CHECKS AND DRAFTS
832.05 Giving worthless checks, drafts, and debit card orders; penalty; duty of drawee; evidence; costs; complaint form.

(4) OBTAINING PROPERTY OR SERVICES IN RETURN FOR WORTHLESS CHECKS, DRAFTS, OR DEBIT CARD ORDERS; PENALTY.—

(a) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to obtain any services, goods, wares, or other things of value by means of a check, draft, or other written order upon any bank, person, firm, or corporation, knowing at the time of the making, drawing, uttering, issuing, or delivering of such check or draft that the maker thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank or depository with which to pay the same upon presentation. However, no crime may be charged in respect to the giving of any such check or draft or other written order when the payee knows, has been expressly notified, or has reason to believe that the drawer did not have on deposit or to the drawer’s credit with the drawee sufficient funds to ensure payment thereof. A payee does not have reason to believe a payor does not have sufficient funds to ensure payment of a check solely because the payor has previously issued a worthless check to him or her.

(b) It is unlawful for any person to use a debit card to obtain money, goods, services, or anything else of value knowing at the time of such use that he or she does not have sufficient funds on deposit with which to pay for the same or that the value thereof exceeds the amount of credit which is available to him or her through an overdraft financing agreement or prearranged line of credit which is accessible by the use of the card.

(c) A violation of the provisions of this subsection, if the check, draft, other written order, or debit card order is for an amount less than $150 or its equivalent, constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A violation of the provisions of this subsection, if the check, draft, other written order, or debit card order is in the amount of $150, or its equivalent, or more, constitutes a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

BATT5000 Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon)

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:35:08 GMT

Arrested for BATT5000 Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) in Hillsborough County?

Facing a charge of Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) under Florida Statute § 784.045(1)(a)(2) is a life-changing event. In Tampa and throughout Hillsborough County, prosecutors treat these cases extremely seriously. A conviction can lead to years in prison, steep fines, and a permanent felony record.

Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, stands ready to defend your rights and fight for your future.

If you’ve been arrested or are under investigation for BATT5000 Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon), call (813) 222-2220 now for a free confidential consultation.

What Is Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) in Florida?

Under Florida Statute § 784.045(1)(a)(2), you can be charged with aggravated battery if you commit a battery and use a deadly weapon during the offense.

🔹 Statutory Source: Florida Statute § 784.045

Key Elements the State Must Prove:

The defendant intentionally touched or struck the victim against their will; and
The defendant used a deadly weapon during the commission of the battery.

Alternatively, aggravated battery also occurs if great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement is inflicted, even without a weapon.

Deadly Weapon Definition:
A “deadly weapon” is any object that could cause death or serious injury when used as a weapon. Even objects not normally considered weapons can qualify if used dangerously.

Penalties for BATT5000 (Second-Degree Felony)

Penalty	Details
Prison	Up to 15 years
Probation	Up to 15 years
Fine	Up to $10,000
Level on Sentencing Guidelines	Level 7 offense under Florida Criminal Punishment Code
Additional Consequences	Permanent felony record, loss of civil rights (firearms, voting)

🔹 Sentencing Reference: Florida Criminal Punishment Code

Top 5 Key Facts About BATT5000 Charges

Top 5

#	Consideration	Importance
1	Weapon Use	Alleged use of a deadly weapon escalates battery to a felony.
2	Severity of Injury	Great bodily harm also triggers aggravated battery charges.
3	Self-Defense	A complete legal defense if properly asserted.
4	Victim’s Status	Pregnancy of the victim, if known, can also elevate charges.
5	Early Legal Intervention	The sooner you consult a lawyer, the better your defense options are.

Common Defenses to BATT5000 Aggravated Battery Charges

Experienced criminal defense attorney Casey Ebsary will evaluate the facts to craft a strong defense. Possible defenses include:

Self-Defense: Use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others.
Defense of Others: Protecting another person from imminent harm.
Lack of Intent: No intention to cause harm or use a deadly weapon.
False Allegations: Victim’s account may be exaggerated or false.
Misidentification: Eyewitness mistakes are common in violent incidents.
Object Not a Deadly Weapon: Challenging the classification of the alleged weapon.

Each defense must be custom-tailored to the case facts to maximize success.

Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) BATT5000 – Top 10 FAQs\

FAQ

If you or a loved one are facing a BATT5000 Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) charge, understanding the legal landscape is critical. Below are the top 10 most frequently asked questions to help you better understand what you’re up against—and how the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. can help.

What makes a battery “aggravated” under Florida law?

A battery becomes “aggravated” under Florida Statute § 784.045 when a deadly weapon is used or when the battery causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement. Simple physical contact is considered battery, but severe injury or the use of a weapon upgrades it. Prosecutors aggressively pursue these cases because of the severe penalties involved.

What qualifies as a “deadly weapon”?

A deadly weapon is any object capable of causing death or serious injury. Firearms and knives are typical examples, but many ordinary objects—like bottles, rocks, or vehicles—can also be considered deadly weapons if used dangerously. In court, the way the object was used is often more important than what the object actually was.

Is intent to injure necessary for an aggravated battery charge?

Yes, intent is a key element for aggravated battery. The State must prove that you intended to strike or touch the alleged victim against their will, and that serious injury was caused or a deadly weapon was used. If the prosecution can’t prove intent, you may have a strong defense to fight the charge.

Can I claim self-defense if charged with BATT5000?

Yes, self-defense is a recognized defense under Florida law, including under the “Stand Your Ground” statute. If you reasonably believed you were at risk of serious harm and used proportional force, you could be acquitted. A strong self-defense argument can even lead to dismissal before trial.

What if the “weapon” was an everyday object?

Objects like chairs, tools, or even a cell phone can be classified as deadly weapons depending on how they were used. For example, hitting someone in the head with a heavy glass could meet the standard for a deadly weapon. The context of how the item was used will play a major role in your defense.

How serious is a second-degree felony conviction?

A second-degree felony in Florida carries harsh consequences: up to 15 years in prison, 15 years of probation, and a $10,000 fine (Florida Statutes § 775.082 and § 775.083). Beyond prison time, a felony conviction can haunt you for life, impacting employment, housing, and civil rights. That’s why mounting a serious defense is absolutely critical.

What happens if the victim was pregnant?

Under Florida Statute § 784.045(1)(b), if the victim was pregnant and the defendant knew or should have known about the pregnancy, aggravated battery charges apply even without serious injury or use of a weapon. These cases are handled with increased sensitivity and harsher penalties. Prosecutors often seek maximum sentences in cases involving pregnant victims.

How can an attorney help me fight this charge?

A defense lawyer can challenge the evidence, argue legal defenses like self-defense or mistaken identity, and negotiate with prosecutors for reduced charges or dismissal. Your attorney can also file motions to suppress evidence if your rights were violated. Early, aggressive legal action can significantly improve the odds in your favor.

Will I automatically go to prison if convicted?

Not always. Judges have discretion, and factors like a clean prior record, mitigating circumstances, or plea negotiations can result in probation instead of prison. With an experienced defense attorney fighting for you, alternative sentencing options like diversion or plea reductions may be possible.

What should I do immediately if arrested?

Stay silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Anything you say to police could be used against you later. Contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer like W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. right away to begin protecting your rights and building your defense.

✅ Need help now?
Call (813) 222-2220 today for a free consultation or visit CentralLaw.com Contact Page.

Why Hire Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

✅ Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney – A distinction earned by few in Florida.
✅ Former Prosecutor – Insight into how the State builds cases.
✅ Proven Trial Lawyer – Hundreds of trials and successful outcomes.
✅ Digital Evidence Expertise – Handling critical video, phone, and forensic evidence.
✅ Aggressive and Personalized Defense – Tailored strategies for the best outcomes.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

About Our Contact Page

Ready to fight back against aggravated battery charges?
Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today!

📞 Call: (813) 222-2220
🌐 Visit: CentralLaw.com Contact Page
📨 Secure Online Form: Quick, confidential replies to your questions.

Don’t wait — early intervention makes all the difference in criminal defense.

Quick Summary: Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) – BATT5000

Charge	Statute	Degree	Maximum Penalty
Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon)	§ 784.045(1)(a)(2)	Second-Degree Felony	15 Years Prison / $10,000 Fine

Common Defenses
Self-Defense
Lack of Intent
False Allegation
Misidentification
Non-Deadly Object Defense

Serving Clients Throughout Hillsborough County

Attorney Casey Ebsary represents clients arrested for Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) across:

Tampa
Brandon
Riverview
Plant City
Temple Terrace
Carrollwood
All of Hillsborough County

Whether your arrest involved the Tampa Police Department, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, or another law enforcement agency, we are here to help.

Act Now — Protect Your Rights and Your Future

BATT5000 charges are serious — you deserve serious defense.

📲 Call (813) 222-2220 Now for Your Free Confidential Case Review
🌐 Learn more at https://www.centrallaw.com

Original 2010 Post Updated to 2025

Aggravated Battery Deadly Weapon, 784.045.1A2

If you have been charged with BATT5000 AGGRAVATED BATTERY (DEADLY WEAPON) you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: BATT5000

Florida Statute: 784.045.1A2
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 2nd
Description: AGGRAVATED BATTERY (DEADLY WEAPON)

BATT5000 AGGRAVATED BATTERY (DEADLY WEAPON) is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.045 Aggravated battery.

(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:

1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or

2. Uses a deadly weapon.

(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the
time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.

(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Cell Phone Tower Data Admissible

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 04:49:16 GMT

Cell Phone Tower Location Data

As of 2025, historical cell phone records of the tower sites used by a defendant are still admissible in court. Florida courts have consistently ruled that a user of a cell phone has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of the towers their phone connects to during calls. In recent decisions, including those involving search warrants, courts have reaffirmed that these records, showing the location of the defendant at the time of the alleged crime, are valid for use as evidence.

An affidavit from law enforcement can state that the cell site location data will reveal the defendant’s approximate location during specific times of the alleged incident, typically within a half-hour window. Efforts to suppress such evidence continue to face challenges, as the courts find that the law does not offer protection against the collection of this type of data.

This remains a critical issue in criminal defense, particularly when the prosecution seeks to use tower data to establish the defendant’s presence at or near a crime scene.

Cell Phone Evidence in Question?

Tell Me Your Story Toll-Free: (813) 222-2220

Source: 35 Fla. L. Weekly D63a

Posted in: Cell Phone Tower, Criminal Defense, and Search Warrant
Tagged: Cell Phone

Top 5 FAQ for Towers Used by Law Enforcement

FAQ

What is Cell Phone Tower Data?

Cell phone tower data refers to records showing which cell towers a phone connects to during calls or when the phone is actively searching for service. These records can be used to track a phone’s approximate location at specific times. Law enforcement can obtain this data through a search warrant, and it can be crucial in criminal investigations to place a defendant at or near the scene of a crime.

Can Law Enforcement Access My Cell Phone Tower Data Without My Consent?

Yes, law enforcement can access your cell phone tower data without your consent if they obtain a valid search warrant. The warrant must demonstrate probable cause, showing that the data is likely to help in investigating a crime. The courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in cell tower records, so law enforcement can legally obtain these records for investigative purposes.

How Accurate is Cell Phone Tower Data for Determining My Location?

Cell phone tower data can provide a general location of a phone, but it may not be entirely precise. Typically, the data shows which tower your phone connected to, and depending on the distance between towers, the location accuracy can range from a few hundred yards to several miles. In urban areas with a dense network of towers, the data may be more accurate, while in rural areas, the location may be less precise.

Can I Challenge the Use of Cell Phone Tower Data in My Criminal Case?

It can be difficult to challenge the use of cell phone tower data in Florida courts, as the courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in this data. However, there may be other legal avenues to explore, such as challenging the validity of the search warrant or the method used to obtain the data. A skilled criminal defense attorney can review the circumstances of your case and determine if there are any grounds to suppress the data or weaken its impact in court.

What Happens If My Cell Phone Tower Data Places Me Near the Crime Scene?

If your cell phone tower data places you near the crime scene at the time of the alleged crime, it could potentially be used as evidence to suggest your presence there. However, this alone may not be enough to prove guilt. The prosecution would need to establish other evidence linking you to the crime, and your defense attorney can challenge the interpretation of the data or provide evidence that suggests an alternative explanation. It’s important to have legal representation to help defend against these charges.

Original Post from 2010

Search Warrant, Cell Phone,

“user of cell phone has no expectation of privacy in cell phone records of the cell towers”

Cell Phone Tower Location Data

Historical phone records of the tower sites used by a defendant were deemed admissible and efforts to suppress the records were for naught. The Florida Court found that the user of phone has no expectation of privacy in cell phone records of the cell towers used during phone calls. An affidavit by law enforcement stated that the cell site location would show where the defendant was located at the time he was using the phone within a half hour of the alleged crime.

Cell Phone Evidence in Question? Tell Me Your Story Toll Free (813) 222-2220.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

Source: 35 Fla. L. Weekly D63a

Criminal Mischief Less Than $200 | CRMS1000 Criminal Defense in Tampa, FL

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 04:25:10 GMT

If you’ve been charged with CRMS1000 Criminal Mischief Less Than $200 in Florida, you are facing a second-degree misdemeanor. Even though the damage may seem minimal, a conviction can still result in criminal penalties and a permanent criminal record. Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is dedicated to helping clients in Hillsborough County and throughout Florida fight criminal mischief charges. Call (813) 222-2220 today for a confidential consultation and to learn more about how we can help.

What Is Criminal Mischief Less Than $200?

CRMS1000 refers to the crime of willfully and maliciously damaging or injuring property valued at $200 or less. This includes actions such as vandalizing cars, breaking windows, or other minor acts of destruction. Under Florida Statute 806.13, if the property damage falls within this amount, the offense is considered a second-degree misdemeanor, which can still carry serious consequences.

Example of CRMS1000 Criminal Mischief (Malicious Damage under $200) would be:

Imagine someone scratches the paint on a neighbor’s car out of spite after an argument. The damage costs around $150 to repair. The act was done intentionally and with malice, meaning it was done with the intent to harm the neighbor’s property. In this case, the person could be charged with CRMS1000, as the malicious act resulted in damage to someone else’s property, and the damage was less than $200, making it a second-degree misdemeanor under Florida law.

Potential defenses to CRMS1000 Criminal Mischief (Malicious Damage under $200):

Lack of Intent: One of the key elements of criminal mischief is the intentional act of damaging property. If you can prove that the damage was accidental or not done with malice or intent, this could be a defense. For example, if the damage occurred during a moment of clumsiness or was caused by a mechanical failure, this could potentially negate the charge.
Consent: If the property owner had given consent for you to alter, modify, or damage their property (for example, you were repairing the property or making a modification that they agreed upon), this could be used as a defense. Without consent, any damage to their property can be classified as criminal mischief.
Mistaken Identity: If you were mistakenly identified as the person who caused the damage, a defense strategy could involve showing that you were not the person who committed the act. Evidence, such as an alibi or lack of surveillance footage, could help prove your innocence.
No Malicious Intent: Florida law requires the act to be done “willfully and maliciously.” If you can show that you did not act out of spite or with a malicious intent, it could potentially reduce the charge or result in a dismissal. For example, if the damage was caused unintentionally or as a result of a misunderstanding, you might not meet the criteria for “malicious.”
Insufficient Evidence: The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage was committed by you and that it meets the criteria of criminal mischief. If there is a lack of concrete evidence, such as witness testimony, video footage, or forensic evidence linking you to the crime, this could be a defense to challenge the charges.

Frequently Asked Questions About Criminal Mischief Less Than $200

FAQ

What is considered “criminal mischief” under Florida law?

Criminal mischief involves willfully and maliciously damaging or injuring property that belongs to someone else. It includes acts such as vandalism, graffiti, or other forms of intentional damage. Even minor damage can lead to criminal charges, especially if the damage exceeds $200.

What are the penalties for a Criminal Mischief Less Than $200 conviction?

For a conviction of CRMS1000, you could face up to 60 days in jail, six months of probation, and a fine of up to $500. Additionally, you may be ordered to pay restitution to the victim for repairs or replacement of the damaged property. A conviction can also affect your employment prospects and future opportunities.

What does “willfully and maliciously” mean?

“Willfully” means that the damage was done on purpose, not by accident. “Maliciously” means that the act was done with ill will or spite, intending to harm or hurt someone. These two elements are essential in proving criminal mischief charges, and defenses can often be based on showing that the damage was not intentional or malicious.

Can graffiti be charged as criminal mischief?

Yes, graffiti is a common form of criminal mischief under Florida law. If someone sprays graffiti on a wall, vehicle, or other property without the owner’s permission, it can lead to criminal mischief charges. The severity of the charge will depend on the value of the damage caused.

What happens if the damage is under $200?

If the damage caused by the criminal mischief is valued at less than $200, the charge is a second-degree misdemeanor, classified as CRMS1000. This is a less severe charge than if the damage exceeds $200 but still carries penalties such as jail time, fines, and restitution.

Can I be charged for criminal mischief even if the property was abandoned?

Yes, you can still be charged with criminal mischief even if the property is abandoned, as long as it belongs to someone and the owner can be identified. Property ownership is a key factor in criminal mischief cases, and damage to abandoned property may still result in charges if someone claims ownership.

Can I get a diversion program for criminal mischief?

In some cases, first-time offenders may be eligible for a diversion program. This program allows individuals to avoid a criminal conviction if they complete certain requirements, such as community service or paying restitution. A skilled criminal defense attorney can help determine if this is an option for you.

How is the damage amount determined in a criminal mischief case?

The damage amount is usually determined through repair estimates, receipts, or expert testimony. If the property owner can prove that the damage caused by the defendant is worth $200 or more, the charges could increase to a higher degree of offense. It’s essential to understand how the damage is calculated to build a strong defense.

What if I offer to pay for the damages?

Offering to pay for the damages can be a confession, but show that you are willing to make things right, but it does not automatically prevent criminal prosecution. However, paying restitution may be used in negotiations BY YOUR ATTORNEY. It’s important to consult with a lawyer before making such an offer.

Do I need a lawyer for a criminal mischief charge?

Even though CRMS1000 is a misdemeanor, it can have serious consequences. A conviction can remain on your record, which may affect your future job prospects and travel plans. Hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer like W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. can help you explore possible defenses, negotiate plea deals, or get the charges dropped entirely.

Contact a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Today

Call Us at 813-222-2220

If you have been charged with CRMS1000 Criminal Mischief Less Than $200, it’s crucial to get legal advice right away. Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has years of experience defending clients in Hillsborough County and can help you navigate the complexities of the legal system. Contact our office today at (813) 222-2220 or visit our Contact Page to schedule a free consultation.

CRMS2000 Criminal Mischief $200 to $1000

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 03:15:20 GMT

Criminal Mischief $200 to $1000 | Criminal Defense in Tampa, FL

If you’ve been charged with CRMS2000 Criminal Mischief $200 to $1000 in Florida, you are facing a serious criminal charge that can result in significant penalties. Under Florida Statute 806.13, this offense applies when someone intentionally damages property valued between $200 and $1000. The damage could be anything from breaking windows to defacing property. Even though the damage amount is lower compared to more severe charges, a conviction could still result in jail time, probation, fines, and a permanent criminal record.

Contact a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you’ve been charged with CRMS2000 Criminal Mischief $200 to $1000, don’t wait to seek legal help. A conviction for criminal mischief can have lasting consequences on your future. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a criminal defense attorney with extensive experience defending clients in Hillsborough County, Florida. Call (813) 222-2220 or visit our Contact Page to schedule your free consultation and discuss your case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Criminal Mischief $200 to $1000

FAQ

What does “criminal mischief $200 to $1000” mean in Florida?

CRMS2000 refers to the crime of willfully and maliciously damaging property valued between $200 and $1000. This can include acts like breaking windows, slashing tires, or graffiti on property. It’s classified as a first-degree misdemeanor under Florida law, which carries significant penalties, including jail time and fines.

What are the penalties for a conviction of CRMS2000?

If convicted of CRMS2000, you face up to one year in jail or 12 months of probation. Additionally, you may face a fine of up to $1,000. A conviction could also include restitution to the property owner, meaning you would have to pay for the repairs or replacement of the damaged property.

How is the damage value determined in a criminal mischief case?

The damage amount is determined by repair costs or replacement values. For example, if a window is broken, the cost to repair the window will be used to determine the damage value. If the total cost of repairs or replacement exceeds $200 but is less than $1000, you may be charged with CRMS2000.

What is the difference between criminal mischief under $200 and $200 to $1000?

The primary difference is the severity of the charge. CRMS1000 applies to damage valued under $200 and is classified as a second-degree misdemeanor. CRMS2000, on the other hand, applies to damage between $200 and $1000, making it a first-degree misdemeanor, which is more severe and carries higher penalties.

Can I be charged with criminal mischief if the property is abandoned?

Yes, you can still be charged with criminal mischief even if the property is abandoned. As long as the property is owned by someone and that ownership can be proven, damage to the property can lead to criminal mischief charges, including CRMS2000.

Can the property owner drop the charges against me?

While the property owner may want to resolve the situation, only the state has the authority to drop criminal charges. However, your lawyer may be able to negotiate with the prosecution for a reduced sentence or a plea deal. It’s always best to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to explore your options.

What defenses can be used in a criminal mischief case?

Common defenses to CRMS2000 charges include lack of intent, mistaken identity, or proving that the damage was accidental. If you can show that you did not willfully and maliciously cause the damage, it may be possible to have the charges reduced or dismissed. Your attorney will evaluate the facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy.

What should I do if I am accused of criminal mischief?

If you are accused of CRMS2000, it is important to avoid speaking to law enforcement without a lawyer present. Do not admit guilt, as it could hurt your case. Contact a criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights and begin building your defense.

Can I get a diversion program for criminal mischief?

In some cases, first-time offenders may be eligible for a diversion program. This program allows you to avoid a criminal conviction by completing certain conditions, such as community service, counseling, or restitution. Your attorney can help determine whether you are eligible for this option.

Do I need an attorney for criminal mischief charges?

Yes, having an experienced criminal defense attorney is crucial when facing CRMS2000 charges. A lawyer can help ensure your rights are protected, negotiate a plea deal if necessary, and develop a defense strategy to minimize the penalties you face. Contact Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for a consultation to discuss your case.

If you have been charged with CRMS2000 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $200 TO $1000, you can call a Defense Attorney in Tampa at (813) 222-2220 and tell your story.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

Charge Information:

Form Code: CRMS2000
Florida Statute: 806.13.1B2
Level: Misdemeanor (Misd)
Degree: 1st Degree
Description: CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $200 TO $1000

Statutory Law:

Title XLVI — Crimes
Chapter 806 — Arson and Criminal Mischief

806.13 Criminal mischief; penalties; penalty for minor.

(1)(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including but not limited to placement of graffiti or acts of vandalism.

(1)(b)2. If the damage is greater than $200 but less than $1,000, it is a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

What Does “Willfully and Maliciously” Mean?

Willfully means the act was done intentionally, not by accident.
Maliciously means the person acted with ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent toward the owner or property.

Examples:

Spray painting graffiti on a business storefront late at night.
Kicking and damaging someone’s car door during an argument.
Breaking a neighbor’s window with a rock after a dispute.

Even minor property damage can lead to an arrest when authorities believe the act was done on purpose and with bad intent.

Penalties for CRMS2000 Criminal Mischief $200 to $1000

Up to 1 year in jail
Up to 12 months probation
Up to $1,000 fine
Restitution to the victim for the cost of repairs
Potential community service hours
Possible impact on future employment and criminal record

Defense Strategies

An experienced attorney can investigate defenses such as:

Lack of intent (the act was accidental)
Lack of maliciousness (no ill will)
Mistaken identity
Property was abandoned or had no real value
Damage amount is less than $200 (which could reduce the charge)

Call Today for a Free Case Evaluation

Facing a criminal mischief charge can be overwhelming. Prosecutors often aggressively pursue these cases even when the damage is minor.

Call Tampa Defense Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 today.
Protect your record, your freedom, and your future.

Original 2010 Post Updated to 2025

CRMS2000, Criminal Mischief Damage $200 to $1000, 806.13.1B2, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $200 TO $1000

If you have been charged with CRMS2000 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $200 TO $1000 you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: CRMS2000

Florida Statute: 806.13.1B2
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st

Description: CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $200 TO $1000

CRMS2000 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $200 TO $1000 is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 806 ARSON AND CRIMINAL MISCHIEF

806.13 Criminal mischief; penalties; penalty for minor.

(1) (a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto.

(b)1. If the damage to such property is $200 or less, it is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

2. If the damage to such property is greater than $200 but less than $1,000, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

CRMS3000 Criminal Mischief $1000 or More

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sun, 27 Apr 2025 01:12:35 GMT

CRMS3000 – Criminal Mischief $1000 or More – Tampa Felony Defense

If you are facing a charge under CRMS3000 Criminal Mischief $1000 or More in Tampa or Hillsborough County, Florida, it is critical to understand the seriousness of the allegations against you.

Under Florida law, criminal mischief involving $1,000 or more in damages is classified as a third-degree felony, carrying harsh penalties — including prison time, high fines, and a permanent criminal record.

Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has decades of experience defending people accused of criminal mischief and property crimes.

📞 Call (813) 222-2220 today to schedule a free consultation and protect your future.

Overview of CRMS3000 Criminal Mischief Charges

Category	Details
Form Code	CRMS3000
Statute	Florida Statute § 806.13(1)(b)(3)
Offense	Criminal Mischief ($1,000 or More in Damage)
Classification	Felony – 3rd Degree
Penalties	Up to 5 years in prison, $5,000 fine, probation, restitution

Criminal mischief involves willfully and maliciously damaging the property of another person. When the amount of damage reaches $1,000 or more, or when the cost to restore a public service interrupted by the conduct exceeds $1,000, the offense becomes a felony.

What Is Criminal Mischief Under Florida Law?

Florida law defines criminal mischief broadly. A person commits criminal mischief if they:

Willfully and maliciously injure or damage real or personal property belonging to someone else,
Vandalize property, including placing graffiti,
Cause interruption or impairment of a public service such as electricity, communication, water, or gas.

When the monetary damage or the repair costs meet or exceed $1,000, the charge becomes a third-degree felony.

Examples include:

Smashing windows or damaging vehicles
Graffiti on commercial or government buildings
Destroying irrigation systems
Cutting or damaging power lines

What Exactly Does “Willfully and Maliciously” Mean in a Criminal Mischief Case?

In a criminal mischief case under Florida law, the words “willfully” and “maliciously” are critical elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Willfully means that the act was intentional — not accidental, careless, or reckless. The person acted on purpose, knowing the likely outcome of their actions.
Maliciously means the act was done with ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent — not by mistake or for a legitimate purpose.

Simply put:
It’s not enough that property was damaged. The prosecution must show that the accused deliberately caused the damage with a wrongful or hostile motive.

Examples of “Willfully and Maliciously” Actions

🔹 Keying someone’s car after an argument — intentionally scratching paint out of anger.

🔹 Throwing a rock through a neighbor’s window because of a property dispute.

🔹 Spray-painting graffiti on a business’s storefront without permission as an act of defiance.

🔹 Breaking surveillance cameras at a store to retaliate for being accused of shoplifting.

🔹 Slashing tires after a romantic breakup to “get back” at the other person.

Examples of Actions That Are NOT “Willful and Malicious”

❌ Accidentally knocking over and breaking a sign while backing up a car.

❌ Damaging someone’s property during a medical emergency or while trying to render aid.

❌ Hitting a mailbox because of icy road conditions — no intent or bad motive.

In these cases, although property was damaged, the act would not be considered willful and malicious under the law. These distinctions can mean the difference between felony criminal charges and no criminal charges at all.

Bottom line:
If the prosecution cannot prove both intent and malice, a charge of Criminal Mischief $1000 or More should fail.

📞 If you’re facing these allegations, call Casey Ebsary at (813) 222-2220 for a strong defense.

Top 5 Legal Defenses to CRMS3000 Criminal Mischief Charges

✔️ Lack of Intent: The damage must be willful and malicious — accidents or negligence do not meet the standard.

✔️ Incorrect Damage Valuation: The prosecution must prove that damages actually exceed $1,000.

✔️ Mistaken Identity: You were not the person who committed the act.

✔️ Consent or Ownership: If you owned the property or had permission, criminal mischief may not apply.

✔️ Violation of Constitutional Rights: If your rights were violated during search, seizure, or arrest, key evidence may be suppressed.

Every case is different. Early case evaluation is crucial to building a strong defense.

FAQs About Criminal Mischief Over $1000 in Florida

FAQ

What exactly does “willfully and maliciously” mean in a criminal mischief case?

“Willfully” means that the person acted intentionally, rather than by accident or mistake. “Maliciously” means with wrongful intent — doing harm on purpose, motivated by ill will, hatred, or spite.
For the prosecutor to win a conviction, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you deliberately caused the damage with a malicious motive.

How is the amount of damage determined in a CRMS3000 case?

The value of the damage is critical. Courts look at either:

The fair market value of the damaged property before and after the incident, or the reasonable repair or replacement costs. The prosecution must present evidence — such as repair estimates, invoices, or expert testimony — to establish that the damage meets the $1,000 threshold. Disputing these valuations can often lead to a reduction or dismissal of charges.

What happens if the damage was less than $1,000?

If the property damage is proven to be between $201 and $999, it is a first-degree misdemeanor. If the damage is $200 or less, it is a second-degree misdemeanor. This distinction is critical because it dramatically lowers potential penalties — from up to 5 years in prison (felony) to at most 1 year (misdemeanor).

Can I be charged if I damaged public property or utilities?

Yes. Damage to public services such as roads, transportation systems, water lines, or communication infrastructure is still considered criminal mischief. If the costs to repair the disruption exceed $1,000, a felony charge applies even if no physical structure was destroyed. Courts treat damage to public resources very seriously.

Will I have to pay restitution if convicted?

Almost always, yes. Restitution is a mandatory part of sentencing for criminal mischief cases in Florida.
This means you may be ordered by the court to reimburse the victim (or a business or government entity) for the full cost of repairs, lost income, or service restoration costs. Failure to pay restitution can lead to probation violations and further penalties.

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. as Your Criminal Mischief Defense Attorney?

✅ Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
✅ Former Prosecutor — Knows how the State builds its cases
✅ Decades of Local Experience in Hillsborough County Courts
✅ Proven Record of reducing or dismissing property crime charges

Attorney Casey Ebsary is ready to investigate your case, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and fight for your rights.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

📞 Call (813) 222-2220 today for a free consultation.
Or visit https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/ to send a confidential message.

Conclusion

Facing a CRMS3000 Criminal Mischief $1000 or More charge in Tampa can feel overwhelming — but you do not have to face it alone.

⚡ Immediate action can protect your freedom, finances, and future opportunities.
💬 Speak directly with an experienced defense lawyer today.
📞 Call (813) 222-2220 or contact Casey Ebsary online now.

Original 2010 Post Updated to 2025

Criminal Mischief Damage Over $1000 CRMS3000

If you have been charged with CRMS3000 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $1000 OR MORE you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: CRMS3000

Florida Statute: 806.13.1B3
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd

Description: CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $1000 OR MORE

CRMS3000 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF $1000 OR MORE is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 806 ARSON AND CRIMINAL MISCHIEF

806.13 Criminal mischief; penalties; penalty for minor.

(1)(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto.

(b)1. If the damage to such property is $200 or less, it is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

3. If the damage is $1,000 or greater, or if there is interruption or impairment of a business operation or public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service which costs $1,000 or more in labor and supplies to restore, it is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

COPS1000 – Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence in Hillsborough County, FL

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 17:32:21 GMT

Charged with COPS1000 in Hillsborough County? Get Expert Legal Help from W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

If you’ve been charged with COPS1000 (Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence) in Hillsborough County, Florida, you need a seasoned criminal defense attorney on your side. Under Florida Statute 843.02, this charge involves resisting, obstructing, or opposing law enforcement officers or other authorized officials during the lawful performance of their duties—without violence. Although it may seem less severe than other criminal offenses, a COPS1000 conviction can still have significant consequences, including jail time, fines, and a criminal record.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we specialize in defending clients charged with COPS1000 and other criminal offenses in Tampa and the surrounding areas. With extensive experience in criminal defense, Attorney Ebsary understands the complexities of Florida’s criminal laws and is committed to securing the best possible outcome for your case. Whether you’re facing a misdemeanor charge or a more serious allegation, we are here to provide aggressive and effective representation.

If you’re facing charges for COPS1000, time is crucial. Contact our office today at (813) 222-2220 for a free consultation. We will review your case, explain your legal rights, and fight tirelessly to protect your future. Don’t face these charges alone—let W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. guide you through every step of the legal process.

Facing a COPS1000 Charge? Call (813) 222-2220 Today

If you’ve been charged with Obstruction Without Violence under Florida Statute § 843.02, you need experienced legal help fast. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer based in Tampa, Florida, is ready to fight for your rights.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

What Is COPS1000?

COPS1000 is the charge code used in Hillsborough County for Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence. According to Florida Statute § 843.02, this occurs when someone resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer or government official during lawful duty—without using violence.

Examples May Include:

Refusing to comply with lawful commands
Providing false information to officers
Verbally interfering with an investigation
Walking away from officers during a lawful stop
Interfering with an arrest (not physically)

Penalties for Obstruction Without Violence

This charge is a first-degree misdemeanor and can result in:

Up to 1 year in jail
Up to 12 months probation
Fines up to $1,000
Permanent criminal record

Top 5 Things to Know Before Hiring a Lawyer for COPS1000

Top Five	Thing to Know	Why It Matters
1	Board Certification	Choose a lawyer certified by the Florida Bar in criminal trial law for proven expertise.
2	Local Experience	Attorneys familiar with Hillsborough courts know the prosecutors and judges that matter.
3	Track Record	Look for successful defenses in similar COPS1000 cases—dismissals or reduced charges.
4	Communication	Your lawyer should be responsive and clearly explain strategy, options, and risks.
5	Free Consultation	Don’t pay to learn your rights—get a no-obligation review of your case today.

Top 5 Defenses for COPS1000 Charges

No Intent: The accused did not knowingly resist or obstruct.
Officer Not Performing Lawful Duty: The officer may not have been acting within the scope of legal duty.
First Amendment Protections: Lawful speech cannot be criminalized.
Unlawful Arrest: Resistance to an illegal arrest may be defensible.
Misidentification: The accused may not have been the one involved.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ

What is a COPS1000 Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence charge in Florida?

COPS1000 refers to the charge of Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence, as defined in Florida Statute § 843.02. It involves resisting a law enforcement officer or other authorized official during the performance of their legal duties—without using violence.

Is Obstruction Without Violence a misdemeanor?

Yes. In Florida, Obstruction Without Violence is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, one year of probation, and a $1,000 fine.

What are some defenses to a COPS1000 charge?

Common defenses include lack of intent, no lawful duty being performed by the officer, First Amendment protections, misidentification, or an unlawful arrest.

Why should I hire a local attorney for a COPS1000 charge in Hillsborough County?

A local attorney understands the court system, judges, and prosecutors in Hillsborough County, increasing the chance for a successful outcome through familiarity with local procedures and tendencies.

How can I contact Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

You can contact us at (813) 222-2220 for a free consultation or visit www.CentralLaw.com to submit your case securely online.

Contact Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Don’t face a COPS1000 charge alone. Let an experienced Hillsborough County criminal defense lawyer fight for you.

Call (813) 222-2220 or visit www.CentralLaw.com for a free consultation.

Original Page from 2010

Obstructing or Opposing an Officer without Violence 843.02, COPS1000

“resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer. . . in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor”

Obstructing or Opposing an Officer Without Violence

If you have been charged with COPS1000 OBSTRUCTING OR OPPOSING AN OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE (Obstructing or Opposing an Officer without Violence) You can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at (813) 222-2220.

Form Code: COPS1000
Florida Statute: 843.02
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st

Description: OBSTRUCTING OR OPPOSING AN OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 843 OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

THEF1010 Petit Theft 1st – Misdemeanor Defense in Tampa

W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr. — Sat, 12 Apr 2025 13:36:15 GMT

THEF1010 Theft Misdemeanor Defense in Tampa W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

Understanding THEF1010: Navigating First-Degree Petit Theft Charges in Tampa

Facing a THEF1010 charge for Petit Theft 1st can be a distressing experience. This code, under Florida Statute 812.014.2E, signifies a first-degree misdemeanor, carrying potential consequences that shouldn’t be underestimated. In Hillsborough County, this offense is frequently charged, making it vital to understand your rights and seek experienced legal counsel. As a dedicated Tampa Defense Attorney, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., I am here to provide robust defense and guide you through this challenging time.

THEF1010, classified under Florida’s Title XLVI Crimes, Chapter 812, involves the unlawful acquisition or use of another’s property valued between $100 and $300. With proper legal representation, especially for first-time offenders, a conviction can often be avoided, and records can be sealed to protect your future. If you’ve been charged with THEF1010, contact my office at (813) 222-2220 to discuss your case.

What is THEF1010 Petit Theft 1st?

THEF1010, as defined by Florida Statute 812.014.2E, pertains to “obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another” when the value of that property is between $100 and $750. This is considered a first-degree misdemeanor. The broader context of theft is outlined in Florida Statute 812.014, which details various theft classifications and their corresponding penalties. For a detailed understanding, refer to Florida Statute 812.014.

Key Elements of THEF1010:

Property Value: The stolen property must be valued between $100 and $750.
Intent: The prosecution must prove you knowingly intended to deprive the owner of their property.
Act of Taking: The act of “obtaining or using” can involve various forms of unlawful acquisition.

Penalties for THEF1010 Petit Theft 1st:

Understanding the potential penalties is crucial. Here’s a breakdown:

Penalty Type	Description
Classification	First-Degree Misdemeanor
Jail Time	Up to 1 year in jail
Fines	Up to $1,000
Probation	Up to 1 year
Restitution	Required to repay the value of the stolen property
Criminal Record	A permanent criminal record

Additional Consequences:

Background checks can reveal a petit theft conviction, impacting employment and housing.
Professional licenses may be affected.
Reputational damage.

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Defense?

As a seasoned Tampa Defense Attorney, I understand the nuances of THEF1010 cases. My approach is tailored to each client, focusing on:

Thorough Case Analysis: Meticulously reviewing all evidence.
Strategic Defense Planning: Developing a robust defense strategy.
Aggressive Representation: Advocating for your rights in court.
Personalized Attention: Providing clear communication and support.

Common Defenses for THEF1010:

Lack of Intent: Arguing the act was unintentional.
Mistaken Identity: Proving you were wrongly identified.
Property Ownership Dispute: Demonstrating a legitimate claim to the property.
Insufficient Evidence: Challenging the prosecution’s evidence.

Navigating the Legal System in Hillsborough County:

Local legal expertise is vital. My experience in Hillsborough County courts provides a significant advantage.

Links to Helpful Resources:

Florida State Courts
Hillsborough County Clerk of Court
Florida Statutes

Table of Helpful Theft Defense Information:

Information	Details
Common Locations for Charges	Retail stores, supermarkets, public places
Typical Evidence	Surveillance footage, witness statements, store security reports
First Appearance	Initial court hearing to address charges
Pre-Trial Negotiations	Opportunities for reduced charges or alternative resolutions
Trial Process	If negotiations fail, the case proceeds to trial

Theft Charges Q&A:

What is THEF1010 in Florida?

THEF1010 is the form code for Petit Theft 1st, a first-degree misdemeanor under Florida Statute 812.014.2E. It involves the theft of property valued between $100 and $750. This offense is commonly charged in Hillsborough County.

What are the penalties for a THEF1010 conviction?

A conviction can result in up to 1 year in jail, fines up to $1,000, and a permanent criminal record. These penalties can significantly impact your future opportunities, including employment and housing.

Where can I find the Florida Statute for Petit Theft?

The Florida Statute for Petit Theft, including THEF1010, is found under Florida Statute 812.014. You can access it through the Justia website. Understanding this statute is crucial for building a solid defense.

Is THEF1010 a felony or misdemeanor?

THEF1010 is a first-degree misdemeanor. Felonies involve more severe crimes with harsher penalties, while misdemeanors are less severe.

How can a lawyer help with a THEF1010 charge?

A lawyer can analyze your case, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, negotiate with prosecutors, and represent you in court. Their expertise is vital for achieving the best possible outcome.

What are common defenses for THEF1010?

Common defenses include lack of intent, mistaken identity, property ownership disputes, and insufficient evidence. A skilled attorney can effectively present these defenses.

Where is THEF1010 commonly charged?

THEF1010 is commonly charged in Hillsborough County, Florida, particularly in retail settings and public places. Local legal knowledge is essential for navigating these cases effectively.

What is the value threshold for THEF1010?

The value threshold for THEF1010 is between $100 and $750. Property valued above this range may result in grand theft charges.

Can a THEF1010 conviction be sealed?

Yes, especially for first-time offenders, a Motion to Seal can prevent this mistake from permanently affecting your life. An attorney can help you through this process.

How do I contact a Tampa Defense Attorney for THEF1010?

Call W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 or visit https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/ for immediate assistance.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

Contact Us for Immediate Assistance:

If you’re facing a THEF1010 charge, contact my office immediately at (813) 222-2220 for a consultation.

Petit Theft is one of the most commonly charged offenses in Florida. If someone has no prior record, a conviction can be avoided and a Motion to Seal the records can keep this mistake from permanently hurting lives.

Misdemeanor Petit Theft

If you have been charged with THEF1010 PETIT THEFT 1st you can call a Defense Attorney in Tampa to Fight for You or a friend.

Form Code: THEF1010

Florida Statute: 812.014.2E
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st
Description: PETIT THEFT 1st

THEF1010 PETIT THEFT 1st is one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

“obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another”

Chapter 812 THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES812.014 Theft.(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

It is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree

. . . if the property stolen is . . . Valued at $300 or more, but less than $5,000

(2)(a) 1. If the property stolen is valued at $100,000 or more or is a semitrailer that was deployed by a law enforcement officer; or

2. If the property stolen is cargo valued at $50,000 or more that has entered the stream of interstate or intrastate commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock;

3. If the offender commits any grand theft and:a. In the course of committing the offense the offender uses a motor vehicle as an instrumentality, other than merely as a getaway vehicle, to assist in committing the offense and thereby damages the real property of another; orb. In the course of committing the offense the offender causes damage to the real or personal property of another in excess of $1,000, the offender commits grand theft in the first degree, punishable as a felony of the first degree, as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.(b) 1. If the property stolen is valued at $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000;2. The property stolen is cargo valued at less than $50,000 that has entered the stream of interstate or intrastate commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock;3. The property stolen is emergency medical equipment, valued at $300 or more, that is taken from a facility licensed under chapter 395 or from an aircraft or vehicle permitted under chapter 401; or4. The property stolen is law enforcement equipment, valued at $300 or more, that is taken from an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in s. 316.003, the offender commits grand theft in the second degree, punishable as a felony of the second degree, as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Emergency medical equipment means mechanical or electronic apparatus used to provide emergency services and care as defined in s. 395.002(9) or to treat medical emergencies. Law enforcement equipment means any property, device, or apparatus used by any law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10 in the officer’s official business.

However, if the property is stolen within a county that is subject to a state of emergency declared by the Governor under chapter 252, the theft is committed after the declaration of emergency is made, and the perpetration of the theft is facilitated by conditions arising from the emergency, the theft is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this paragraph, the term “conditions arising from the emergency” means civil unrest, power outages, curfews, voluntary or mandatory evacuations, or a reduction in the presence of or response time for first responders or homeland security personnel.

For purposes of sentencing under chapter 921, a felony offense that is reclassified under this paragraph is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the offense committed.(c) It is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property stolen is:1. Valued at $300 or more, but less than $5,000.2. Valued at $5,000 or more, but less than $10,000.3. Valued at $10,000 or more, but less than $20,000.

4. A will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument.5. A firearm.6. A motor vehicle, except as provided in paragraph (a).7. Any commercially farmed animal, including any animal of the equine, bovine, or swine class, or other grazing animal, and including aquaculture species raised at a certified aquaculture facility. If the property stolen is aquaculture species raised at a certified aquaculture facility, then a $10,000 fine shall be imposed.8. Any fire extinguisher.9. Any amount of citrus fruit consisting of 2,000 or more individual pieces of fruit.10. Taken from a designated construction site identified by the posting of a sign as provided for in s. 810.09(2)(d).11. Any stop sign.12. Anhydrous ammonia.However, if the property is stolen within a county that is subject to a state of emergency declared by the Governor under chapter 252, the property is stolen after the declaration of emergency is made, and the perpetration of the theft is facilitated by conditions arising from the emergency, the offender commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property is valued at $5,000 or more, but less than $10,000, as provided under subparagraph 2., or if the property is valued at $10,000 or more, but less than $20,000, as provided under subparagraph 3. As used in this paragraph, the term “conditions arising from the emergency” means civil unrest, power outages, curfews, voluntary or mandatory evacuations, or a reduction in the presence of or the response time for first responders or homeland security personnel. For purposes of sentencing under chapter 921, a felony offense that is reclassified under this paragraph is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the offense committed.(d) It is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property stolen is valued at $100 or more, but less than $300, and is taken from a dwelling as defined in s. 810.011(2) or from the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling pursuant to s. 810.09(1).(e) Except as provided in paragraph (d), if the property stolen is valued at $100 or more, but less than $300, the offender commits petit theft of the first degree, punishable as a misdemeanor of the first degree, as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.