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

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

DUI & Boating Under the Influence (BUI)

Source: Gasparilla DUI Lawyer / Gasparilla BUI Lawyer

Digital Privacy & Evidence

Source: Cell Phone Searches History

Property & Misdemeanor Crimes

Violent Crimes & Obstruction

Domestic Violence & Florida Criminal Defense Procedures

Source: Domestic Violence Tampa

Probation & Statutes

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

Strategic Florida Criminal Defense: The 10 Essential Q&A

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

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:

1. Can police seize a vehicle based on an unverified tip?
2. Can officers rely on the automobile exception without probable cause?
3. 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)

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:

1. A crime occurred
2. 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.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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.) *

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

📈 Chart: Warrant Requirements for Cell Phone Data Types

✉️ 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

• Riley v. California (2014) – Justia
• Carpenter v. United States (2018) – Justia
• Smallwood v. State (Florida 2013) – Justia
• Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

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

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

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.”

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

❓Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

📉 What are the defenses to fleeing and eluding?

Top 5 defenses include:

• 🚫 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?

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

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

📺 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

• Florida Statute § 316.1935 – Justia.com
• Florida Uniform Traffic Citation Manual (FDLE)
• Hillsborough County Clerk of Court
• Florida Sentencing Guidelines – Chapter 775

✅ 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/

Related Posts

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

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 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

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

Top 5 Legal Defenses to ASSA5005

• 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

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

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

“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.

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:

1. Drug-related charges
2. Traffic violations
3. 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.

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

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

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

Additional Table: Top 5 Consequences of a Florida Arrest

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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.

Top Five Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

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

“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.

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)

🔹 Sentencing Reference: Florida Criminal Punishment Code

Top 5 Key Facts About BATT5000 Charges

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\

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.

✅ 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

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

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.

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

Original Post from 2010

“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

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):

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.”
5. 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 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)

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

“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.

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:

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:

Theft Charges Q&A:

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.

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;

or

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.

If you’ve been arrested in Hillsborough County for what’s known as BATT1001 – battery on someone 65 years of age or older – you are facing a significantly serious legal situation. Florida law, under Florida Statute § 784.08(2)(c), treats these cases with a heightened level of severity. A conviction for Felony Battery on a Person 65 or Older in Tampa or anywhere in Hillsborough County can result in years of imprisonment, substantial financial penalties, and the lasting burden of a felony criminal record.

Navigating these complex legal waters requires the immediate attention of an experienced and dedicated criminal defense attorney who understands the intricacies of Florida law and is committed to protecting your rights.

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, has a long and successful history of defending clients facing serious criminal charges in the Tampa Bay area. With decades of experience and a deep understanding of the local legal landscape, Casey Ebsary is prepared to provide the aggressive and knowledgeable defense you need. He is committed to thoroughly investigating the circumstances of your arrest, exploring every available legal option, and building a robust defense strategy tailored to your specific situation.

If you are facing a BATT1001 charge, do not delay. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today for a confidential consultation at (813) 222-2220.

Understand the Charge: Battery on a Person Over 65

Under Florida Statute § 784.08(2)(c), if you commit a battery against an individual aged 65 or older, the charge is automatically elevated to a third-degree felony. This enhancement applies even if the underlying battery, if committed against a younger person, would have been classified as a misdemeanor.

What the State Must Prove

To secure a conviction for felony battery on a person over 65, the prosecution in Hillsborough County must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Victim’s Age: The alleged victim was 65 years of age or older at the time the incident occurred.
2. Intentional Battery: You intentionally touched or struck the alleged victim against their will, or intentionally caused bodily harm to them. This aligns with the general definition of battery in Florida law.
3. Knowledge of Age (or Should Have Known): You knew or should have known that the alleged victim was 65 years of age or older. This “should have known” standard means the prosecution can argue that a reasonable person in the same situation would have been aware of the victim’s age.

The Serious Penalties of a BATT1001 Conviction

A conviction for this third-degree felony carries significant and life-altering penalties under Florida law:

• Imprisonment: Up to five (5) years in state prison.
• Probation: Up to five (5) years of probation, which may follow a prison sentence.
• Substantial Fines: Up to $5,000 in monetary fines.
• Restitution: The court may order you to pay restitution to the alleged victim for any damages or losses they incurred.
• Permanent Felony Record: A felony conviction will result in a permanent criminal record, which can severely impact your future opportunities.
• Sentencing Guidelines: This offense is classified as a Level 4 offense under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code sentencing guidelines, which plays a significant role in determining the potential sentence.

Top 10 Things You Need to Know If Charged

1. Age Matters Significantly: The victim’s age (65+) automatically elevates the charge to a felony.
2. Intent is Crucial: The prosecution must prove you acted intentionally. Accidents are generally not battery.
3. Self-Defense is a Right: You have the right to defend yourself if attacked, and this can be a valid defense.
4. Prior Record Can Hurt: Previous convictions can increase the severity of any potential sentence.
5. Act Fast, Get a Lawyer: The sooner you consult an attorney, the better your defense options.
6. “Should Have Known” Standard: You can be charged even if you didn’t know the exact age, if it was reasonably apparent.
7. No Serious Injury Needed for Felony: The felony charge is based on the victim’s age, not the severity of the injury.
8. Felony Conviction Has Long-Term Impacts: It can affect your ability to vote, own firearms, get a job, and more.
9. Thorough Investigation is Key: A good attorney will investigate the facts and gather evidence for your defense.
10. Negotiation is Possible: Your attorney may be able to negotiate for reduced charges or a favorable plea agreement.

Common Legal Defenses

An experienced attorney like Casey Ebsary will explore all potential defenses based on the specific details of your case. These can include:

• Self-Defense: Arguing your actions were justified to protect yourself from harm.
• Lack of Intent: Demonstrating that any contact was accidental or unintentional.
• False Accusations: Presenting evidence that the allegations are fabricated.
• Mistaken Identity: Showing you were not the person who committed the alleged battery.
• Insufficient Evidence: Challenging the prosecution’s case if they lack sufficient proof.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why Choose W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.?

Facing a felony battery charge involving an elderly person demands a skilled and experienced defense attorney. Here’s why clients in Tampa and Hillsborough County trust Casey Ebsary:

• Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law: A distinction held by a small percentage of Florida attorneys, signifying recognized expertise.
• Former Prosecutor: Understanding how the State builds its case provides a significant strategic advantage.
• Decades of Experience: A proven track record of handling numerous trials and helping thousands of clients.
• Technology-Savvy Defense: Expertise in navigating digital evidence, which is often crucial in modern cases.
• Personalized Legal Strategy: Tailoring a defense plan specifically to the unique circumstances of your case.

Arrested? Don’t Wait. Call Now.

Protect your future. You need a dedicated attorney who will:

• Fight for dismissal or reduction of charges
• Work to avoid jail or prison time
• Keep you informed throughout the legal process
• Safeguard your record, reputation, and future

Call W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. now at (813) 222-2220 for a free and confidential case review.

You can also find more information and contact us through our website: https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/. We respond quickly and confidentially.

Time is critical. Contact us today to start building your defense.

Serving Hillsborough County and Beyond

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. proudly represents clients in:

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

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

Battery on Elderly Victim Defense – At a Glance

Common Defenses: Lack of intent, self-defense, mistaken identity, false accusation, no evidence of physical harm.

Don’t Gamble With Your Future. Contact Us Today.

A felony battery charge involving an elderly person carries life-altering consequences. Effective legal representation can provide hope and a strong defense.

Call W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. now at (813) 222-2220.

Visit https://www.centrallaw.com for more information.

Use our secure online form to schedule your FREE consultation.

Original Article from 2010

If you have been charged with BATT1001 BATTERY (VICTIM OVER 65) you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney for FREE at (813) 222-2220  and tell me your story.

Form Code: BATT1001

Florida Statute: 784.03.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: BATTERY (VICTIM OVER 65)

BATT1001 BATTERY (VICTIM OVER 65) is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.03 Battery; felony battery.

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

If you or someone you know has been arrested and charged with BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense in Hillsborough County, Florida, it is critical to understand that you are facing a felony charge. As your website wisely advises, if you were not represented properly the first time, do not repeat that mistake. A second or subsequent battery offense carries significant penalties, and experienced legal representation is paramount.

If you were not represented the first time, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.Don’t Make the Same Mistake Twice – Call Us Now.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., located in Tampa and serving all of Hillsborough County, we are dedicated to providing aggressive and effective defense against felony battery charges under Florida Statute § 784.03(2). With years of experience navigating the complexities of the Florida legal system, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands the serious nature of repeat battery offenses and is committed to fighting tirelessly to protect your rights and your future. If you have been charged with BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense, do not delay – call us NOW FOR FREE at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Understanding BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) is the foundation for comprehending the escalation to a felony for repeat offenses. BATT1000, a common misdemeanor charge in Hillsborough County under Florida Statute § 784.03(1)(a), involves intentionally touching or striking another person against their will. While a misdemeanor with its own potential consequences, a prior conviction for BATT1000, or even aggravated or felony battery, can transform a subsequent simple battery charge into the felony offense of BATT1006. This elevation underscores the critical importance of strong legal representation from the outset of any battery allegation, as prior history can dramatically increase the stakes. If you are facing a BATT1000 charge or, more seriously, a BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense charge in Tampa or Hillsborough County, contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. immediately at (813) 222-2220 for crucial legal assistance.

Understanding BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense in Florida

BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense is governed by Florida Statute § 784.03(2) ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0784.03 – Please note that the specific year of the statute may vary slightly; always refer to the most current version in 2025). This statute clearly states:

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

Key aspects of this charge include:

• Prior Conviction: The prosecution must prove that you have a prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery. This includes situations where you pleaded guilty or no contest, or were found guilty after a trial, even if the court withheld formal adjudication of guilt.
• Second or Subsequent Battery: You are now accused of committing another battery offense. This subsequent offense, even if it might otherwise be considered a misdemeanor “touch or strike” battery (BATT1000) if it were a first offense, is elevated to a felony due to the prior conviction.

Why a BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense Charge Carries Severe Consequences

As a third-degree felony in Florida, a conviction for BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense carries significant potential penalties under Florida Statutes §§ 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter0775/All – Please verify the most current statutory information):

Given these serious potential penalties, it is absolutely crucial to have experienced and aggressive legal representation if you are facing a BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense charge in Hillsborough County. The Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands the complexities of these cases and is committed to providing you with the strongest possible defense. Call us NOW FOR FREE at (813) 222-2220.

Potential Defenses to BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense Charges

While the existence of a prior battery conviction adds a significant layer of complexity, there are still potential defenses that a skilled criminal defense attorney can explore. These may include:

• Challenging the Prior Conviction: In some limited circumstances, there might be grounds to challenge the validity of the prior battery conviction.
• Lack of Proof of the Subsequent Battery: The prosecution must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the new battery offense. Defenses applicable to any battery charge, such as self-defense, defense of others, accidental contact, lack of intent, or false allegations, may still apply to the current charge.
• Constitutional Violations: If your rights were violated during the investigation or arrest for the current charge, such as through an illegal search and seizure or a failure to properly advise you of your Miranda rights, evidence obtained in violation of your rights may be suppressed.
• Disputing the Identification: If there is a question of whether you were the person who committed the subsequent battery, this can be a crucial area of defense.

It is essential to discuss the specific details of your case with an experienced attorney to determine the most appropriate and effective defense strategy. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 for a thorough evaluation of your situation.

Why Choose the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Repeat Battery Defense?

When facing a felony charge like BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense, you need a legal advocate who:

• Understands the Stakes: We recognize the serious consequences of a felony conviction, especially when it involves a repeat offense.
• Has Extensive Experience: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has a long history of defending clients against battery charges, including those involving prior convictions.
• Will Fight Aggressively: We are committed to providing a vigorous defense, thoroughly investigating the facts, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and protecting your rights.
• Provides Personalized Attention: We understand that every case is unique and will tailor our defense strategy to your specific circumstances.
• Offers a Free Consultation: We encourage you to call us NOW FOR FREE at (813) 222-2220 to discuss your case and learn how we can help.

Don’t make the mistake of facing this serious charge without experienced legal representation. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today.

Legal Process for a Second or Subsequent Battery Charge in Hillsborough County

The criminal justice process for a felony charge in Florida can be complex and requires careful navigation, especially when a prior conviction is involved. The typical stages include:

1. Arrest and Booking: You will be processed at the Hillsborough County Jail.
2. First Appearance: You will appear before a judge who will advise you of the charges, your rights, and set a bond.
3. Preliminary Hearing (or Grand Jury Indictment): The prosecution must establish probable cause to proceed with felony charges.
4. Arraignment: You will enter a plea to the felony charge.
5. Discovery: The prosecution and defense will exchange evidence.
6. Pre-Trial Motions: Your attorney may file motions to challenge evidence or raise legal defenses.
7. Plea Negotiations: Your attorney will explore potential plea agreements with the prosecution.
8. Trial: If no agreement is reached, your case will proceed to trial, where the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. Sentencing: If convicted, the judge will impose a sentence within the felony guidelines.

Having experienced legal counsel throughout this process is critical to protecting your rights and working towards the best possible outcome. Call the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. NOW FOR FREE at (813) 222-2220.

Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. Today for a FREE and Confidential Consultation

If you are facing a BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense charge in Hillsborough County, Florida, your future is at serious risk. Don’t make the mistake of going it alone. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today for a FREE and confidential consultation at (813) 222-2220. We are here to listen to your story, understand your situation, and provide you with the aggressive and effective legal defense you need.

Our office is conveniently located in Tampa and serves clients throughout Hillsborough County. We are committed to providing you with the personalized attention and dedicated advocacy you deserve.

Learn More About Our Criminal Defense Services

Visit our website at https://www.centrallaw.com/ to learn more about our criminal defense practice and the types of cases we handle. You can also find specific information about battery cases on our dedicated page: https://www.centrallaw.com/criminal-defense/battery-cases/.

Reach Out to Us Today – It’s FREE!

For immediate assistance and to discuss your BATT1006 felony battery charge, please visit our contact page at https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/ or call us directly NOW FOR FREE at (813) 222-2220. We are ready to start fighting for you today.

Frequently Asked Questions About BATT1006 Battery Second or Subsequent Offense in Hillsborough County, FL

2010 Original Post Updated to 2025

If you were not represented the first time, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.

If you have been charged with BATT1006 BATTERY SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer NOW FOR FREE at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: BATT1006

Florida Statute: 784.03.2
Level: Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd

Description: BATTERY SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE

BATT1006 BATTERY SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.03 Battery; felony battery.

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

In Tampa and throughout Hillsborough County, charges related to aggravated battery require immediate and experienced legal intervention. The Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. specializes in defending individuals accused of BATT5050 Aggravated Battery. We understand the complexities of Florida Statute § 784.045 and the serious implications of a conviction. Our focus is on providing a robust defense, protecting your rights, and exploring all possible legal strategies.

If you are searching for a dedicated Tampa criminal defense lawyer to fight a BATT5050 Aggravated Battery Great Bodily Harm charge, contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation. Don’t face these serious felony allegations alone. We are here to provide the experienced and aggressive representation you need to navigate the complexities of the Hillsborough County legal system and work towards the best possible outcome in your BATT5050 case. Call us today to discuss your defense.

Facing a BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) Charge in Hillsborough County, Florida? You Need Experienced Legal Help Now.

If you or someone you know has been arrested and charged with BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) in Hillsborough County, Florida, it is crucial to understand the severity of these allegations and seek experienced legal representation immediately. Aggravated battery is a serious felony that can result in significant prison time and other life-altering consequences.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., located in Tampa and serving all of Hillsborough County, we are dedicated to providing aggressive and effective defense against charges of Aggravated Battery under Florida Statute § 784.045. With years of experience navigating the complexities of the Florida legal system, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands the nuances of these serious charges and is committed to fighting tirelessly to protect your rights and your future. If you have been charged with BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm), do not delay – call us today at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Understanding BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) is essential to understanding how battery charges can escalate. BATT1000, a common misdemeanor charge in Hillsborough County under Florida Statute § 784.03(1)(a), involves intentionally touching or striking another person against their will. While a misdemeanor, a conviction for BATT1000 can still lead to jail time, fines, and a criminal record. The distinction between simple battery and the felony of Aggravated Battery (like BATT5050) centers on the severity of the harm inflicted. When a battery results in “great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement,” as defined in Florida Statute § 784.045, the charge escalates. This highlights the importance of strong legal representation, even in seemingly minor battery cases, as the potential consequences can be severe. If you’re facing either a BATT1000 or a more serious battery charge, contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 for immediate assistance.

Understanding BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) in Florida

BATT5050 Aggravated Battery is governed by Florida Statute § 784.045 (https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0784.045 – Please note that the specific year of the statute may vary slightly; always refer to the most current version in 2025). Specifically, the relevant section for BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) is 784.045(1)(a)1. This statute states that a person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:

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

It is crucial to understand the elements the prosecution must prove to obtain a conviction for BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm):

• Battery: The prosecution must first prove that a battery occurred. This means they must show that the accused intentionally touched or struck another person against that person’s will, or intentionally caused bodily harm to that person.
• Intentional or Knowing Causation: The prosecution must also prove that the accused intentionally or knowingly caused the alleged harm. This means they must show that the accused either meant to cause the specific type of harm or knew that such harm was likely to result from their actions.
• Great Bodily Harm, Permanent Disability, or Permanent Disfigurement: Finally, the prosecution must prove that the alleged victim suffered “great bodily harm,” “permanent disability,” or “permanent disfigurement.” These terms are critical and often subject to legal interpretation.
  • Great Bodily Harm: This generally refers to a serious injury that is more severe than simple bodily harm. Examples may include broken bones, significant loss of blood, or injuries requiring extensive medical treatment.
  • Permanent Disability: This refers to an injury that results in a long-term or irreversible impairment of a person’s physical or mental functioning.
  • Permanent Disfigurement: This refers to an injury that causes a serious and lasting alteration of a person’s appearance.

Penalties and Consequences – Why a BATT5050 Aggravated Battery Charge Demands Aggressive and Experienced Legal Representation

Aggravated battery is classified as a second-degree felony in Florida. This classification carries severe potential penalties, as outlined in Florida Statutes §§ 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter0775/All – Please verify the most current statutory information):

Given these severe penalties, it is crucial to have a skilled and dedicated Tampa criminal defense attorney like W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. on your side if you are facing a BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) charge. We can thoroughly investigate the allegations, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and build a strong defense to protect your rights and your future. Contact us immediately at (813) 222-2220.

Potential Defenses to BATT5050 Aggravated Battery Charges

Felony Battery

BATT5050

A knowledgeable criminal defense attorney will explore all possible legal defenses to an aggravated battery charge. Some common defenses include:

Why Choose the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Aggravated Battery Defense?

When facing a serious charge like BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm), you need a legal advocate who is:

• Experienced: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has a proven track record of defending clients against serious felony charges, including aggravated battery.
• Knowledgeable: We possess a deep understanding of Florida criminal law and the intricacies of aggravated battery cases in Hillsborough County.
• Aggressive: We are committed to providing a vigorous defense, thoroughly investigating the facts, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and protecting your rights at every stage of the legal process.
• Compassionate: We understand the stress and anxiety you are experiencing and will provide you with personalized attention, clear communication, and unwavering support.
• Dedicated: We are dedicated to achieving the best possible outcome for your case.

If you have been charged with BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) in Tampa or anywhere in Hillsborough County, contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. immediately at (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

The Legal Process for Aggravated Battery in Hillsborough County

The criminal justice process for a felony charge in Florida can be complex. It generally involves the following stages:

1. Arrest and Booking: You will be taken into custody and processed at the Hillsborough County Jail.
2. First Appearance: You will appear before a judge within 24 hours of your arrest. The judge will inform you of the charges, your rights, and set a bond.
3. Preliminary Hearing (or Grand Jury Indictment): The prosecution must establish probable cause to proceed with felony charges. This may occur at a preliminary hearing or through a grand jury indictment.
4. Arraignment: You will formally enter a plea to the charges.
5. Discovery: The prosecution and defense will exchange information and evidence.
6. Pre-Trial Motions: Your attorney may file motions to suppress evidence, challenge the charges, or raise legal defenses.
7. Plea Negotiations: Your attorney may negotiate with the prosecution to seek a favorable resolution, such as reduced charges or a plea agreement.
8. Trial: If a plea agreement cannot be reached, your case will proceed to trial, where the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. Sentencing: If you are convicted, the judge will impose a sentence within the guidelines of Florida law.

Having an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side throughout this process is crucial to protect your rights and ensure the best possible outcome. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220.

Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. Today for a Confidential Consultation

If you are facing a BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) charge in Hillsborough County, Florida, your freedom and future are at risk. Do not hesitate to seek experienced legal representation. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today at (813) 222-2220 to schedule a confidential consultation. We are here to listen to your story, understand your situation, and provide you with the aggressive and effective legal defense you need.

Our office is conveniently located in Tampa and serves clients throughout Hillsborough County. We are committed to providing you with the personalized attention and dedicated advocacy you deserve.

Learn More About Our Criminal Defense Services

Visit our website at https://www.centrallaw.com/ to learn more about our criminal defense practice and the types of cases we handle. You can also find specific information about battery cases on our dedicated page: https://www.centrallaw.com/criminal-defense/battery-cases/.

Reach Out to Us Today

For immediate assistance and to discuss your BATT5050 aggravated battery charge, please visit our contact page at https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/ or call us directly at (813) 222-2220. Your initial consultation is confidential, and we are ready to start fighting for you today.

Frequently Asked Questions About BATT5050 Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) in Hillsborough County, FL

2010 Content

If you have been charged with a Felony BATT5050 AGGRAVATED BATTERY GREAT BODILY HARM you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: BATT5050

Florida Statute: 784.045.1A1
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 2nd

Description: AGGRAVATED BATTERY GREAT BODILY HARM

BATT5050 AGGRAVATED BATTERY GREAT BODILY HARM 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.

• Florida “Super Speeder” Law (§ 316.1922) — What You Need to Know
• Cell Phone Tower Defense Lawyer Attacks Evidence in Criminal Cases – How it Really Works 
• USF Arrest Attorney University Police Department ( UTPD USF PD)
• Plain Smell – ‘Totality of the Circumstances’ is Your Best Defense Against Unlawful Search and Seizure
• 316.1935 Cracks Down on Fleeing and Eluding

If you or someone you know has been arrested and charged with BATT7015 Felony Battery in Hillsborough County, Florida, it is critical to understand the severity of these allegations and seek experienced legal representation immediately. Unlike misdemeanor battery, felony battery carries significant penalties that can have life-altering consequences.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., located in Tampa and serving all of Hillsborough County, we are dedicated to providing aggressive and effective defense against felony battery charges under Florida Statute § 784.041. With years of experience navigating the complexities of the Florida legal system, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands the nuances of these serious charges and is committed to fighting tirelessly to protect your rights and your future. If you have been charged with BATT7015 Felony Battery, do not delay – call us today at (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation and tell me your story.

BATT7015 Felony Battery

Understanding BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) is foundational to grasping the escalation to felony battery. BATT1000, a common misdemeanor charge in Hillsborough County under Florida Statute § 784.03(1)(a), involves intentionally touching or striking another person against their will. While a misdemeanor, a conviction for BATT1000 can still lead to jail time, fines, and a criminal record.

The distinction with BATT7015 Felony Battery lies in the severity of the harm caused. If an individual accused of battery under circumstances that would typically be a BATT1000 charge inflicts great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, the charge escalates to the felony offense of BATT7015. This elevation underscores the importance of experienced legal counsel even for seemingly minor battery allegations, as the potential for severe consequences is always present. If you are facing either a BATT1000 or a BATT7015 charge in Tampa or Hillsborough County, contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 for immediate assistance.

Understanding BATT7015 Felony Battery in Florida

BATT7015 Felony Battery is governed by Florida Statute § 784.041 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0784.041 – Please note that the specific year of the statute may vary slightly, always refer to the most current version in 2025). According to this statute, a person commits felony battery if he or she:

(a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and

(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

The key difference between misdemeanor battery (which can have the form code BATT1000) and felony battery (BATT7015) lies in the result of the intentional touching or striking. For a felony battery charge to be warranted, the alleged victim must have suffered one of the following:

• Great Bodily Harm: This term is not precisely defined in the statute but generally refers to a substantial injury that is more than minor or moderate harm. It often involves injuries requiring significant medical treatment, such as broken bones, loss of consciousness, or serious lacerations.
• Permanent Disability: This refers to a physical or mental impairment that is likely to be long-lasting or irreversible, significantly affecting the injured person’s ability to function.
• Permanent Disfigurement: This involves a lasting and significant alteration of the person’s appearance, such as severe scarring.

Why a BATT7015 Felony Battery Charge Demands Immediate and Experienced Legal Representation

A charge of BATT7015 Felony Battery is a third-degree felony in Florida. This classification carries severe potential penalties under Florida Statutes §§ 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter0775/All – Please verify the most current statutory information):

Given these significant potential penalties, it is absolutely crucial to have a skilled and experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney like W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. on your side if you are facing a BATT7015 Felony Battery charge in Hillsborough County. We can thoroughly investigate the allegations, scrutinize the evidence, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and develop a defense strategy tailored to your specific situation. Call us immediately at (813) 222-2220 to begin protecting your rights.  

Potential Defenses to BATT7015 Felony Battery Charges

A knowledgeable criminal defense attorney will explore all possible legal defenses to a felony battery charge. Some common defenses include:

• Lack of Intent: The prosecution must prove that you intentionally touched or struck the alleged victim and that you intended to cause great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement. If the harm was unintentional, this element of the crime may not be met.
• Self-Defense or Defense of Others: If your actions were taken to protect yourself or another person from imminent harm, your actions may be legally justified. Florida law regarding self-defense (Florida Statute § 776.012 – https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0776.012) provides important protections.
• Accidental Injury: If the great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement resulted from an accident and not from an intentional act of battery, this could be a valid defense.
• False Allegations: Unfortunately, individuals can sometimes make false accusations. A thorough investigation can uncover inconsistencies and evidence to support your innocence.
• Challenging the Severity of the Injury: Your attorney may argue that the alleged injuries do not meet the legal threshold of “great bodily harm,” “permanent disability,” or “permanent disfigurement” as defined by Florida law and case precedent.
• Constitutional Violations: If your rights were violated during the investigation or arrest, such as through an illegal search and seizure or a failure to properly advise you of your Miranda rights, evidence obtained in violation of your rights may be suppressed.

Why Choose the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your Felony Battery Defense?

When facing a serious felony battery charge in Hillsborough County, you need a legal advocate with:

• Extensive Experience: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has a long and successful track record of defending clients against serious felony charges, including felony battery under Florida Statute § 784.041.
• In-Depth Knowledge: We possess a thorough understanding of Florida criminal law and the specific nuances of felony battery cases in Hillsborough County.
• Aggressive Representation: We are committed to a vigorous defense, meticulously investigating the facts, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and fighting to protect your rights at every stage of the legal process.
• Personalized Attention: We understand the stress and uncertainty you are facing and will provide you with individualized attention, clear communication, and unwavering support.
• Proven Results: Our dedication to our clients has resulted in favorable outcomes in numerous complex criminal cases.

If you have been charged with BATT7015 Felony Battery in Tampa or anywhere in Hillsborough County, contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. immediately at (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation. Let us hear your story and begin building your defense today.

Navigating the Legal Process for Felony Battery in Hillsborough County

The criminal justice process for a felony charge in Florida is more complex than for a misdemeanor. It typically involves the following stages:

1. Arrest and Booking: Following your arrest, you will be processed at the Hillsborough County Jail.
2. First Appearance Hearing: You will appear before a judge within 24 hours of your arrest. The judge will advise you of the charges, your right to counsel, and will set a bond.
3. Preliminary Hearing (or Grand Jury Indictment): In felony cases, the prosecution must establish probable cause to proceed. This can occur through a preliminary hearing before a judge or through a grand jury indictment.
4. Arraignment: Once charges are formally filed, you will appear for an arraignment to enter a plea.
5. Discovery: The prosecution and defense will exchange evidence and information related to the case.
6. Pre-Trial Motions: Your attorney may file various pre-trial motions to challenge the evidence, suppress illegally obtained information, or raise legal defenses.
7. Plea Negotiations: Your attorney will explore potential plea agreements with the prosecution.
8. Trial: If a plea agreement cannot be reached, your case will proceed to trial, where the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. Sentencing: If you are convicted, the judge will impose a sentence within the parameters of the law.

Having an experienced attorney by your side throughout this complex process is essential to protect your rights and ensure the best possible outcome. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. at (813) 222-2220 for guidance and representation.

Call Us at 813-222-2220

Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. Today for a Confidential Consultation

If you are facing a BATT7015 Felony Battery charge in Hillsborough County, Florida, your future is at stake. Do not delay in seeking experienced legal representation. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today at (813) 222-2220 to schedule a confidential consultation. We are here to listen to your story, understand your situation, and provide you with the aggressive and effective legal defense you need.

Our office is conveniently located in Tampa and serves clients throughout Hillsborough County. We are committed to providing you with the personalized attention and dedicated advocacy you deserve.

Learn More About Our Criminal Defense Services

Visit our website at https://www.centrallaw.com/ to learn more about our criminal defense practice and the types of cases we handle. You can also find specific information about battery cases on our dedicated page: https://www.centrallaw.com/criminal-defense/battery-cases/.

Reach Out to Us Today

For immediate assistance and to discuss your BATT7015 felony battery charge, please visit our contact page at https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/ or call us directly at (813) 222-2220. Your initial consultation is confidential, and we are ready to start fighting for you today.

Frequently Asked Questions About BATT7015 Felony Battery in Hillsborough County, FL

2010 Original Content

If you have been charged with BATT7015 FELONY BATTERY you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: BATT7015

Florida Statute: 784.041
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: FELONY BATTERY

BATT7015 FELONY BATTERY is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.041 Felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation.

(1) A person commits felony battery if he or she:

(a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and

(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

If you or someone you know has been arrested and charged with BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) in Hillsborough County, Florida, it is crucial to understand the nature of this charge and seek experienced legal representation immediately. While classified as a misdemeanor, a conviction for BATT1000 can still lead to significant penalties and have lasting consequences on your life.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., located in Tampa and serving all of Hillsborough County, we are dedicated to providing aggressive and effective defense against BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) charges. With years of experience navigating the complexities of the Florida legal system, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. understands the nuances of Florida Statute § 784.03, the law governing battery offenses, and is committed to fighting tirelessly to protect your rights and your future. If you’ve been arrested under form code BATT1000, don’t delay – call us today at (813) 222-2220 for a confidential consultation.

Understanding the Misdemeanor Battery Charge (BATT1000) in Florida

We begin by accurately describing the basics of BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike). This charge, as defined under Florida Statute § 784.03(1)(a) ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0784.03 – Please note that the specific year of the statute may vary slightly, always refer to the most current version), occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.  

In Hillsborough County, as our review of top criminal charges leading to arrest indicates, battery offenses, including BATT1000, are unfortunately prevalent. While a misdemeanor, it is essential to recognize that a conviction can still result in significant penalties and a criminal record. If the alleged battery involves a domestic relationship, the charge can be designated as Domestic Violence Battery, which carries its own set of enhanced legal and social ramifications. Moreover, a conviction for BATT1000 can serve as a prior offense, potentially leading to felony charges for any subsequent battery allegations under Florida Statute § 784.03(2).

Why a BATT1000 Battery Charge Requires Experienced Legal Counsel

Even though BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) is a misdemeanor, it is crucial to take the charges seriously and seek experienced legal representation for several reasons:

• Potential Jail Time: A first-degree misdemeanor in Florida is punishable by up to one year in county jail, as outlined in Florida Statute § 775.082.
• Significant Fines: You could face fines of up to $1,000, as specified in Florida Statute § 775.083.
• Probation: The court may impose a period of probation with various conditions, such as reporting requirements, community service, and restrictions on your activities.
• Criminal Record: A conviction will result in a criminal record that can impact your future opportunities for employment, housing, and education.
• Domestic Violence Implications: If the charge is related to domestic violence, it can lead to no-contact orders, mandatory intervention programs, and negative consequences in family court proceedings.
• Risk of Felony Escalation: As previously mentioned, a conviction for BATT1000 can elevate future battery charges to a felony.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we understand the serious implications of a BATT1000 charge. We will thoroughly investigate the allegations against you, analyze the evidence, identify potential legal defenses, and work diligently to achieve the best possible outcome in your case, whether that involves negotiating for reduced charges, seeking a dismissal, or vigorously defending you at trial.

Understanding Florida Statute § 784.03: The Legal Basis for BATT1000 Charges

To effectively defend against a BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) charge, it’s essential to understand the specific legal requirements outlined in Florida Statute § 784.03 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0784.03 – Please note that the specific year of the statute may vary slightly, always refer to the most current version). As mentioned earlier, this statute defines the offense as either:

1. Actually and intentionally touching or striking another person against their will. This means the contact must be volitional and without the other person’s consent. Even seemingly minor physical contact can form the basis of a BATT1000 charge if it meets these criteria.
2. Intentionally causing bodily harm to another person. This prong of the statute focuses on the result of the action – bodily harm – and requires proof that the harm was intentionally caused.

For a BATT1000 conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you acted intentionally and that the touching or striking was against the alleged victim’s will, or that you intentionally caused them bodily harm.

The Significance of Domestic Violence in BATT1000 Cases

When a BATT1000 offense occurs between family or household members (as defined under Florida Statute § 741.28 – https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0741.28 – Always refer to the most current version), it can be designated as Domestic Violence (DV) Battery. This designation carries significant implications:

• Mandatory Arrests: As noted in your initial information, Florida law often mandates arrests in domestic violence situations, even if the alleged victim does not want the accused to be arrested.
• No-Contact Orders: The court will likely issue a no-contact order at the first appearance hearing, preventing you from communicating with or being near the alleged victim. Violating a no-contact order is a separate and serious criminal offense under Florida Statute § 741.31 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/0741.31 – Verify the current statute).
• Mandatory Batterer Intervention Programs: If convicted of or even placed on probation for domestic violence battery, you will likely be required to complete a lengthy and often costly batterer intervention program.
• Restrictions on Firearm Possession: A conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence battery can have significant consequences regarding your right to possess firearms under federal and state law.
• Impact on Family Law Cases: A domestic violence battery charge or conviction can have a significant negative impact on child custody and visitation proceedings in family court.

If you are facing a BATT1000 charge with a domestic violence designation in Hillsborough County, it is absolutely essential to have legal representation that understands the specific laws, procedures, and potential consequences associated with these cases.

Potential Defenses to BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) Charges

A skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney at the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. will thoroughly examine the details of your case and explore all available legal defenses. Some common defenses in BATT1000 cases include:

• Self-Defense: You have the right to use reasonable force to protect yourself if you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of unlawful harm.
• Defense of Others: You can use necessary force to protect another person from harm.
• Accidental Contact: If the physical contact was unintentional and not the result of recklessness, it may not constitute battery.
• Lack of Intent: The prosecution must prove that you acted intentionally. If the touching or striking was accidental or negligent, this element of the crime may not be met.
• Consent: If the alleged victim consented to the physical contact, it may not be considered battery. This can be a complex defense and depends heavily on the specific facts of the case.
• False Allegations: Unfortunately, false accusations of battery can occur. A thorough investigation can uncover inconsistencies and evidence to support your innocence.
• Constitutional Violations: If your rights were violated during the arrest or investigation (e.g., illegal search and seizure, failure to provide Miranda warnings when required), evidence obtained may be challenged and potentially suppressed.

Why Choose the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. for Your BATT1000 Defense?

When facing a BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) charge in Hillsborough County, you need a legal advocate who is:

• Experienced: W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. has a long-standing record of successfully defending clients against various criminal charges, including misdemeanor battery.
• Knowledgeable: We possess a comprehensive understanding of Florida criminal law, specifically Florida Statute § 784.03, and the procedures of the Hillsborough County courts.
• Aggressive: We are committed to thoroughly investigating your case, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and fighting vigorously to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome.
• Compassionate: We understand the stress and anxiety that come with facing criminal charges and will provide you with personalized attention, clear communication, and unwavering support throughout the legal process.
• Accessible: You can easily reach us at (813) 222-2220 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Understanding the Penalties for BATT1000 Battery in Florida

A conviction for BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike), a first-degree misdemeanor in Florida, carries the following potential penalties, as outlined in Florida Statutes §§ 775.082 and 775.083 ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/Chapter0775/All -:

Additional Consequences in Domestic Violence BATT1000 Cases:

If your BATT1000 charge is designated as domestic violence, you may also face:

• Mandatory Batterer Intervention Programs: Completion of a certified batterer intervention program is often required.
• No-Contact Orders: Strict orders preventing communication with the alleged victim.
• Limitations on Firearm Possession: Federal and state laws may restrict your right to possess firearms.

Legal Process for a BATT1000 Charge in Hillsborough County

Facing a BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike) charge can be overwhelming. Understanding the basic steps of the criminal justice process in Hillsborough County can provide clarity:

1. Arrest and Booking: Following your arrest, you will be processed at the Hillsborough County Jail.
2. First Appearance Hearing: You will appear before a judge, who will inform you of the charges, your rights, and set a bond. In domestic violence cases, a no-contact order will likely be issued.
3. Arraignment: You will enter a plea to the charge.
4. Discovery: The prosecution and defense will exchange information and evidence.
5. Pre-Trial Negotiations: Your attorney will negotiate with the prosecutor to explore potential resolutions, such as reduced charges or dismissal.
6. Pre-Trial Motions: Your attorney may file motions to challenge evidence or raise legal defenses.
7. Trial: If no agreement is reached, your case may proceed to trial, where the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. Sentencing: If convicted, the judge will impose a sentence within the legal guidelines.

The Importance of Early Legal Intervention for a Battery Charge

Contacting a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible after an arrest for BATT1000 is crucial. Early intervention allows your attorney to:

• Advise you on your rights and ensure they are protected.
• Conduct an independent investigation while evidence is fresh.
• Potentially negotiate with law enforcement or prosecutors before formal charges are filed.
• Begin building a strong defense strategy tailored to your specific circumstances.

Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. Today for a Confidential Consultation

Call Us at 813-222-2220

If you have been arrested and charged with BATT1000 Battery (Touch or Strike), especially if it involves domestic violence, in Hillsborough County, Florida, do not delay in seeking legal representation. Contact the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today at (813) 222-2220 to schedule a confidential consultation. We are dedicated to providing you with the experienced and effective legal defense you need.

Our office is conveniently located in Tampa and serves clients throughout Hillsborough County. We are committed to understanding your situation and fighting to protect your rights and your future.

Learn More About Our Criminal Defense Services

Visit our website at https://www.centrallaw.com/ to learn more about our criminal defense practice areas and how we can assist you. You can also find specific information about battery cases on our dedicated page: .

Reach Out to Us Today

For immediate assistance and to discuss your BATT1000 battery charge, please visit our contact page at or call us directly at (813) 222-2220. Your initial consultation is confidential, and we are ready to begin working on your defense today.

Frequently Asked Questions About Battery (Touch or Strike) in Hillsborough County, FL

FAQ on Battery Charges

2025 Update

Original February 2015 Content Begins Here

“Actually and intentionally touches or another person against the will of the other”

Battery Misdemeanor

Battery is Number 14 on our list of criminal charges that are used to justify an arrest in Tampa’s Hillsborough County, Florida. We reviewed the top criminal charges included in the Hillsborough County Jail records. We narrowed the list down to the top 50 ways to end up in jail and have shared them here.

If the charge involves domestic relationships, then you can be charged with Domestic Violence Battery. That is the 6th most popular way to get arrested on the west coast of Florida.

If you have been charged with BATT1000 BATTERY (TOUCH OR STRIKE) you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney at (813) 222-2220 to Fight for You.

Form Code: BATT1000

Florida Statute: 784.03.1AB
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st
Description: BATTERY (TOUCH OR STRIKE)

BATT1000 BATTERY (TOUCH OR STRIKE) one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

“conviction means a determination of guilt . . . regardless of whether adjudication is withheld”

784.03 Battery; felony battery.

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

“second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree”

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

If you have been charged with BATT1007 – Battery (Second or Subsequent Offense) Domestic Violence in Hillsborough County, Florida, you are facing serious felony charges. Under Florida Statute 784.03(2), BATT1007 is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison, 5 years of probation, and a $5,000 fine.

The statute defines this offense as occurring when a person “intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other” or “intentionally causes bodily harm” and has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery. Even if the prior conviction resulted in withheld adjudication or a plea of nolo contendere, it counts toward this enhancement.

For Hillsborough County residents, domestic violence cases are aggressively prosecuted. A second or subsequent battery charge is not just another misdemeanor but a felony with severe, lifelong consequences.

Why You Need an Experienced Battery Defense Attorney in Tampa

Being charged with BATT1007 requires immediate legal help. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer experienced in defending domestic violence cases in Tampa. Call today for a free consultation: (813) 222-2220 or Contact us here.

Understanding the Gravity of BATT1007

Florida Statute 784.03 defines battery as intentionally touching or striking another person against their will, or intentionally causing bodily harm. When this act is repeated, particularly in a domestic setting, it escalates to a third-degree felony, designated as BATT1007. The state takes repeat offenses, especially those involving domestic violence, very seriously.  

784.03 Battery; felony battery.—

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

---

Florida Statute 784.03.2 specifically addresses battery offenses with prior convictions, emphasizing Florida’s commitment to protecting individuals from repeat offenders. The severity of BATT1007 is highlighted by its felony classification, which carries substantial penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and a criminal record that can significantly impact your future.

For detailed information, refer to the official Florida Legislature website: Florida Statute 784.03.

“intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other . . .  person who has one prior conviction for battery”

Felony Battery Domestic Violence

If you have been charged with BATT1007 BATTERY (SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE) DV you can call a Battery Defense Attorney in Tampa for FREE at (813) 222-2220.

Form Code: BATT1007
Florida Statute: 784.03.2
Level: Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd

Description: BATTERY (SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE) DV

BATT1007 BATTERY (SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE) DV is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.03 Battery; felony battery.

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.