Video: Facing assault or battery or stalking charges in Tampa? Police reports don’t decide cases—juries do. Call Board-Certified expert Casey Ebsary.

Facing criminal charges in Florida can be terrifying, but you do not have to fight the system alone. I am W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr., a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer in Tampa. Whether you are dealing with allegations of assault, battery, or stalking, I prepare every single case with the final jury instructions in mind.

Accidental contact is not a battery; the state must prove intent. Even sending a text threat as a joke can be prosecuted as a serious felony in Florida. Every legal element matters in your defense, and police reports do not decide cases—juries do.

If you need an expert defense attorney who understands the courtroom, contact me at 813-222-2220 or visit my contact page today.

Facing a weapons or firearms charge in Tampa? Board Certified Expert W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. explains why jury instructions decide your trial.

As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer in Tampa, I understand that facing a Florida weapons charge can completely disrupt your life. However, it is vital to remember that police reports do not decide cases—juries do. In the courtroom, every single element of a firearms allegation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is why I meticulously analyze your case using the exact jury instructions the judge will read at trial. By building a strategic defense around these strict legal standards, we fight to safeguard your constitutional rights and secure your freedom. Do not leave your future to guesswork. If you are facing criminal charges, visit my firm homepage or watch our videos connect via my contact page to establish your defense.

📞 Call: 813-222-2220

🌐 Website: https://www.centrallaw.com/

📍 Defending clients in Tampa, Seminole, and across Hillsborough & Pinellas Counties.

#TampaWeaponsDefense #FloridaLawyer #FirearmsLaw #GunRights #TampaBay #CriminalTrialLawyer #LegalAdvice #CentralLaw #CaseyTheLawyer

Watch the video below to learn how smart home devices, cloud storage, and digital privacy can become important issues in Florida criminal investigations.

Video Embed

Embed your YouTube or Vimeo video here.

Your Smart Home May Hold More Data Than You Realize

Can Florida Police Search Your Ring Camera or Alexa Data Video? Understanding Smart Home Privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and the Third-Party Doctrine

Smart home technology has transformed the way many Floridians live. Video doorbells, voice assistants, connected thermostats, smart locks, lighting systems, and security cameras generate enormous amounts of digital information every day.

When a criminal investigation involves one of these devices, questions often arise about what information exists, who controls it, and what legal process investigators may use to seek access. Those questions are rarely answered with a simple yes or no.

As a Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, former prosecutor, and attorney with extensive experience handling digital evidence, I regularly evaluate these issues when defending clients facing technology-driven criminal investigations.

Learn more about my experience: https://www.centrallaw.com/lawyers/w-f-casey-ebsary-jr/

What You’ll Learn in This Video

In this presentation I discuss:

• How Ring cameras, Alexa devices, and other smart home products may become sources of digital evidence.
• Why the Fourth Amendment remains central to digital privacy discussions.
• The role of the Third-Party Doctrine when information is stored by technology companies.
• The difference between agreeing to a company’s Terms of Service and waiving constitutional rights.
• Why every investigation involving digital evidence depends on its own unique facts.

The Constitutional Question

The Fourth Amendment has traditionally provided the strongest protection against unreasonable government intrusion into the home.

Modern technology presents new challenges because much of the information generated inside a home is transmitted to cloud-based services operated by private companies.

That has created ongoing legal debates regarding:

• Reasonable expectations of privacy
• Cloud-stored information
• Digital evidence
• Search warrants
• Subpoenas
• Emergency requests
• Electronic records

Because these issues continue to evolve, the outcome often depends on the specific facts of each investigation.

Common Smart Devices That May Generate Evidence

Different devices collect different types of information, and different legal issues may arise depending upon how investigators seek access to those records.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can police obtain Ring camera footage?

Depending on the facts, investigators may seek access through legal process, voluntary production, or other lawful means. Whether that process was appropriate depends on the circumstances of each case.

Can Alexa recordings become evidence?

Potentially, yes, depending on what information exists, where it is stored, how it was obtained, and whether it is admissible under applicable law.

Does clicking “I Agree” mean I gave police permission?

A company’s Terms of Service generally govern your relationship with that company. Whether law enforcement may obtain information involves separate constitutional and legal questions that depend on the facts.

Does every smart device collect personal information?

Many connected devices generate logs, timestamps, or other digital records, although the type and amount of information varies by device and user settings.

Why Digital Evidence Requires Careful Review

Digital evidence is often viewed as objective, but every digital record has a history.

Questions may include:

• Who created the record?
• Was it altered?
• Are timestamps accurate?
• Was information synchronized correctly?
• Was the chain of custody preserved?
• Was the collection process legally authorized?

Those questions frequently become important during criminal litigation.

When Digital Privacy Becomes Part of Your Defense

Technology continues to evolve faster than many legal doctrines.

Whether an investigation involves cloud data, smart home devices, mobile phones, GPS information, computer records, or digital communications, each case deserves an individualized legal analysis based on its specific facts.

If digital evidence plays a role in your Florida criminal case, it is important to have that evidence carefully reviewed before reaching conclusions about its significance or admissibility.

Learn more about my background as a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer:

https://www.centrallaw.com/lawyers/w-f-casey-ebsary-jr

Contact my office for a confidential consultation:

https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us

Related Resources

• Smart Home Privacy and Florida Criminal Investigations
• The Fourth Amendment and Digital Evidence
• Search Warrants for Electronic Devices
• Computer and Digital Forensics
• Criminal Defense in Tampa and Throughout Florida

Disclaimer

This video and article are provided for general educational purposes only and are not legal advice. Every criminal investigation is different. Whether digital evidence may be obtained or used depends on the specific facts, applicable law, and procedural history of each case.

Title

Can Florida Police Search Your Ring or Alexa Data? Smart Home Privacy & Fourth Amendment Explained

Description

Watch Florida Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Casey Ebsary explain smart home privacy, Ring cameras, Alexa data, and digital evidence issues.

More Frequently Asked Questions About Smart Home Privacy and Florida Criminal Investigations

1. Can Florida police obtain my Ring camera footage without my permission?

Sometimes. Whether law enforcement may obtain Ring footage depends on the specific circumstances and the legal process used. Factors may include whether the footage is stored locally or in the cloud, whether the owner voluntarily provides it, whether a court has issued a search warrant, or whether another lawful process applies. Every investigation should be evaluated on its own facts.

2. What is the Third-Party Doctrine, and why does it matter?

The Third-Party Doctrine is a legal principle that has been used in some situations involving information voluntarily shared with third parties. Because many smart home devices transmit information to cloud service providers, this doctrine is frequently discussed in digital privacy cases. However, how it applies to modern technology continues to evolve, and courts have recognized that some forms of digital data present unique constitutional questions.

3. Does agreeing to a smart device’s Terms of Service mean I gave police permission to access my data?

Not necessarily. A contract between you and a technology company is generally separate from the constitutional limits that govern government searches. The company’s privacy policies and terms of service may explain when it may disclose information, but whether law enforcement may lawfully obtain that information depends on the facts and the applicable legal process.

4. Can recordings from Amazon Alexa or another voice assistant be used in a Florida criminal case?

Potentially. Whether a recording exists, how it was created, how it was preserved, and how investigators obtained it are all important questions. If digital audio becomes evidence, its admissibility depends on the specific circumstances and applicable rules of evidence.

5. Can smart thermostats, smart locks, or other connected devices become evidence?

They may. Many connected devices generate time-stamped records or activity logs that could become relevant during an investigation. Whether those records are available, reliable, or legally admissible depends on the technology involved and the facts of the particular case.

6. Can police obtain smart home data without a warrant if they claim there was an emergency?

Emergency situations may present different legal issues than routine investigations. Whether an emergency justified obtaining information without a warrant depends on the facts and may later be reviewed by a court. If emergency access is challenged, courts generally examine whether the claimed emergency actually existed.

7. Should I delete recordings or reset my smart devices if I learn I am being investigated?

I generally advise people not to destroy, alter, or delete potential evidence once they know an investigation may exist. Anyone facing that situation should consult an attorney before making changes to electronic devices or stored data.

8. What should I do if officers ask for my smart home data?

Remain polite and respectful. You have constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and, in many situations, the right to decline voluntary consent to a search. If officers present a search warrant, do not interfere with its execution, but you may state that you do not consent to any search beyond the authority of the warrant and contact an attorney as soon as possible.

9. How can a criminal defense attorney challenge smart home evidence?

Every case is different. Depending on the circumstances, a defense attorney may examine whether investigators followed constitutional requirements, whether the legal process was valid, whether the evidence was properly authenticated, whether the chain of custody was maintained, and whether the digital records are accurate and reliable. Technical issues involving metadata, timestamps, cloud synchronization, and device operation may also require careful review.

10. Does Florida’s two-party consent law protect conversations recorded by my own smart home devices?

It can raise important legal questions, but there is no universal answer. Florida’s wiretapping statute generally protects certain oral communications when there is a justifiable expectation of privacy. Whether that statute applies to recordings involving smart speakers or other connected devices depends on the facts, including where the conversation occurred, how the recording was made, the operation of the device, and the surrounding circumstances. Because these issues involve rapidly developing technology and evolving case law, they require careful legal analysis on a case-by-case basis.

Can Florida Police Get Your Digital Data? The core legal friction in emerging tech disputes stems from a historic structural tension between classical Fourth Amendment protections and what the courts refer to as the Third-Party Doctrine.

Under traditional constitutional jurisprudence, your home enjoys the highest level of protection against government intrusion. However, when you voluntarily transmit information to a third party (such as Amazon, Google, or your utility provider), you may inadvertently lose your reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. The law in this area remains highly fluid. While some historical precedents suggest that data shared with a utility or an external server loses protection, modern courts are beginning to realize that the sheer volume of deeply intimate data generated by smart homes requires a more nuanced approach.

The Myth of Digital Implied Consent

A common and highly dangerous misconception is that by clicking “I Agree” on a standard manufacturer terms-of-service agreement, you have granted general “implied consent” for law enforcement to access your records. This is inaccurate. A contract with a private technology provider is fundamentally distinct from a constitutional waiver granted to a state or federal agent.

Nevertheless, major technology companies routinely navigate an immense volume of government data requests. Law enforcement frequently relies on alternative administrative pathways to bypass standard judicial oversight.

• Subpoenas: Often used to compel basic subscriber information or historical transaction logs without requiring a formal judicial finding of probable cause.
• Exigent Circumstances: Emergency requests where platforms may voluntarily surrender data if there is an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury.
• Warrants: The gold standard of criminal procedure, requiring a neutral magistrate to review a sworn affidavit establishing probable cause that evidence of a specific crime will be found within the targeted digital accounts.

Defending Your Digital Frontier

As a defense attorney deeply versed in computer forensics and high-tech litigation, my approach to defending these cases focuses heavily on auditing the precise digital chain of custody and aggressively testing the validity of the state’s extraction methods. If law enforcement obtained data from your smart home network without satisfying strict statutory requirements, we look for every available constitutional avenue to file a motion to suppress that evidence.

Important Strategic Note: The data stored on an external cloud server is only as reliable as the software and algorithms tracking it. Metadata can be corrupted, timestamps can be misaligned across time zones, and network interruptions can create glaring gaps in coverage that prosecutors often misinterpret as deliberate manipulation.

If your private data has been seized or if you believe your digital privacy rights have been violated during a criminal investigation, immediate intervention is critical. Visit my contact page right away to schedule a comprehensive, confidential evaluation of your case.

Disclaimer

This video is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every investigation is different, and the legality of obtaining or using digital evidence depends on the specific facts and applicable law.

10 More Questions and Answers Regarding Smart Home Privacy and Florida Law

Q1: Can Florida police legally access my Ring camera footage without my permission?

A1: Yes, under specific legal conditions, law enforcement can access your footage without your explicit consent. If officers obtain a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause, Amazon or local authorities can legally compel the production of the data. Furthermore, while Amazon previously allowed a feature for police to request footage directly from users, they have restricted public law enforcement request portals, meaning officers must generally rely on formal legal processes or prove an immediate emergency exists.

Q2: What exactly is the “Third-Party Doctrine,” and how does it apply to my smart home data?

A2: The Third-Party Doctrine is a legal framework establishing that an individual has a reduced expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily surrender to third parties, such as internet service providers or tech corporations. Because your smart home appliances continuously upload telemetry, audio logs, and video data to remote corporate servers, prosecutors frequently argue that this data is no longer fully private. I closely track how modern courts are beginning to limit this doctrine when dealing with the highly intimate, continuous tracking data generated inside a private home.

Q3: Does clicking “I Agree” on a smart device’s terms of service mean I gave police permission to spy on me?

A3: No, agreeing to a manufacturer’s terms of service does not translate into a blanket waiver of your Fourth Amendment constitutional rights against government intrusion. Those digital agreements govern your civil relationship with the technology provider, not your legal relationship with state or federal law enforcement agencies. However, those terms often outline the specific conditions under which the corporation will cooperate with government data requests, meaning the company may turn over data if handed a lawful subpoena or warrant.

Q4: Can conversations picked up by my Amazon Alexa or Google Home be used as evidence in a Florida court?

A4: Yes, if the state successfully recovers audio recordings from the device manufacturer’s cloud servers through a valid search warrant, that audio can potentially be introduced as evidence. The prosecution must still establish a proper legal chain of custody and prove the audio is authentic and relevant to the case. As a specialized defense attorney, I meticulously audit these extractions to determine if the device recorded information outside its normal activation parameters, which may provide grounds to challenge its admissibility.

Q5: How can a smart thermostat or smart refrigerator be used against someone in a criminal investigation?

A5: Smart appliances generate precise, time-stamped logs detailing energy consumption, water usage, and physical interaction. Prosecutors can use this digital footprint to reconstruct an individual’s physical presence or challenge an alibi by showing a home was active when a suspect claimed to be asleep or away. These ambient data points are increasingly used by state analysts to construct granular circumstantial timelines in complex criminal matters.

Q6: Can police look through my smart home data without a warrant if they claim there is an emergency?

A6: Yes, under the legal exception known as “exigent circumstances,” law enforcement can request immediate access to device data without waiting for a judge to sign a warrant. Tech companies maintain specialized internal legal portals where officers can submit emergency requests if they believe there is an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm. If the defense can later prove that no genuine emergency existed at the time of the request, we can litigate to have that illegally obtained data suppressed.

Q7: If I delete my smart camera footage or reset my smart devices, can I be charged with destruction of evidence?

A7: Yes, if you intentionally delete recordings, wipe device logs, or perform factory resets while knowing that a criminal investigation is active or imminent, you could face severe criminal charges for tampering with physical evidence. Under Florida law, tampering with evidence is a third-degree felony that carries independent penalties separate from any underlying allegations. If you are concerned about data management or how to handle device logs lawfully, you should consult with an experienced attorney before modifying any device parameters.

Q8: What should I do if a law enforcement officer knocks on my door and asks for my smart home data?

A8: You have a constitutional right to remain silent and to decline voluntary consent to a search of your home or your digital devices. You should politely ask the officer if they possess a valid search warrant signed by a judge, and if they do, you must comply with the execution of that warrant while explicitly stating that you do not consent. Immediately following the encounter, you should reach out to a certified legal specialist to ensure your rights are protected and that the scope of the warrant was not exceeded.

Q9: How can an expert criminal defense lawyer challenge smart home evidence brought by a prosecutor?

A9: I challenge digital evidence by conducting an exhaustive forensic audit of how the data was identified, preserved, and extracted by law enforcement. I analyze the underlying metadata for time-sync errors, software glitches, or cross-device corruption that could undermine the reliability of the state’s timeline. If the police gathered the files via an overbroad warrant or without satisfying strict constitutional requirements, I will aggressively litigate to exclude the evidence entirely.

Q10: Does Florida’s two-party consent wiretapping law protect me from my own smart home devices?

A10: Florida’s Chapter 934 generally requires the consent of all parties to record an oral conversation, but this law specifically applies to situations where individuals have a justifiable, objective expectation of privacy. Because smart devices are explicitly designed to listen for wake words and transmit information over public networks, the law in this area is highly complex and heavily contested. I evaluate the exact physical placement of the device and the nature of the communication to determine if a viable statutory challenge under Florida’s wiretapping laws can be deployed defensively.

Deep Dive: Does Florida’s Two-Party Consent Wiretapping Law Protect Me from My Own Smart Home Devices?

Florida’s wiretapping statute, found in Chapter 934 of the Florida Statutes, generally prohibits the intentional interception of certain oral communications without the consent required by law. Whether the statute applies in a particular situation often turns on an important threshold question: Did the people involved have a justifiable, objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation was private?

That question becomes much more complicated when smart home technology is involved. Devices such as Amazon Alexa, Google Nest speakers, Apple HomePod, Ring cameras, and other internet-connected products are intentionally designed to detect voice commands, record certain interactions, and communicate with cloud-based services. Depending on the device’s settings, where it is located, and how it functions, conversations may be stored, transmitted, or otherwise preserved in ways that were never contemplated when Florida’s wiretapping laws were originally enacted.

The existence of a smart device does not automatically eliminate privacy protections, nor does it automatically mean that a recording was lawfully obtained or may be admitted into evidence. Instead, courts typically examine the specific facts surrounding the communication. Relevant considerations may include where the conversation occurred, who was present, whether participants knew a recording device was operating, whether the device was intentionally activated, the capabilities of the technology involved, and how any recording was ultimately acquired by investigators.

If digital audio recordings become evidence in a criminal case, I examine every step of the process. That includes identifying the device that captured the information, determining who controlled the recording, reviewing how investigators obtained access to it, and evaluating whether constitutional issues, statutory protections, evidentiary rules, or other legal challenges may apply. In appropriate cases, I also consider whether Florida’s wiretapping laws provide a basis to challenge the collection or use of the evidence.

Because technology continues to evolve faster than the law, questions involving smart speakers, connected home devices, cloud storage, and digital surveillance are among the most rapidly developing areas of criminal defense. Every case depends on its own facts, and seemingly small differences in how a device was used or where it was located can significantly affect the legal analysis. If smart home technology plays a role in a Florida criminal investigation, it is important to have the digital evidence carefully reviewed before drawing conclusions about its admissibility or legal significance.

Secure Your Constitutional Defense

The digital terrain is shifting rapidly, and standard defense strategies are simply insufficient against complex, algorithmically driven prosecutions. Protecting your home and your digital autonomy requires an attorney who truly understands high-tech litigation, digital forensics, and constitutional law. For more information regarding my background, credentials, and trial history, you can review my full biography page. If your digital privacy is under attack, act immediately to secure your defense by visiting my firm’s contact page or calling us directly at (813) 222-2220 to schedule your confidential case evaluation.

What Is Constructive Possession of a Weapon?

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

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

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

Another Case on Constructive Possession

Free Download of the Constructive Possession Opinion from Florida

The Court’s Ruling on Constructive Possession

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

Excerpts of Opinion of the Florida Court on Constructive Possession

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

Complete Opinion of the Court on Constructive Possession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Chase terminated . . . call the Coroner.”

After an alleged rampage in our Tampa Palms neighborhood, great pursuit driving by a Tampa Police Officer, pulled a Pit maneuver, the car skidded into a ditch, and the gunfire starts in this aerial video from the helicopter. Chase terminated, call the ambulance, and call the Coroner.

Tampa Criminal Lawyer Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney – A Tampa Criminal Attorney narrates a one minute video on how to choose a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Florida . Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney, William F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a lawyer and specialist who practices in the area of criminal defense of all criminal charges in State and Federal Court. Casey is a former Assistant State Attorney and was a Criminal Prosecutor. Casey is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. Less than one-half of one percent of Florida’s attorneys have qualified for this distinction.

Here are more Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer videos: youtube.com/centrallaw

Board Certified Specialist

W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. , knows that hundreds of people are arrested, questioned, and indicted in both Florida State and Federal Courts every day. That’s where a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist, comes in. Board Certified Specialist, W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary practices extensively in the Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida.

Mr. Ebsary is also AV rated by the Martindale Hubbell Directory and Lawyers.com. An AV rating is the highest rating issued by this nationally recognized lawyer rating service. An AV Rating shows that a criminal defense attorney has reached the height of professional excellence. AV Trial rated Criminal lawyers have practiced Defense law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

How to Select a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney – Checklist for Hiring an Attorney.

Is the Lawyer Board Certified?
Is the Lawyer Experienced?
Will you receive Personal Attention?
Is the Lawyer a Former Prosecutor?

In this video a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney discusses how to choose a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Florida . Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer, William F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is an Attorney who practices in the area of criminal defense of all criminal charges in State and Federal Court. Casey is a former Criminal Prosecutor. Mr. Ebsary is AV rated by the Martindale Hubbell Directory and Lawyers.com. An AV rating is the highest rating issued by this nationally recognized lawyer rating service. An AV Rating shows that a criminal defense attorney has reached the height of professional excellence. AV Trial rated Criminal lawyers have practiced Defense law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

Google Places – Review and Compare

Our Tampa Criminal Defense Law Office in Tampa, Florida recently redesigned our Google Places / Google Maps pages. We have added Photos and videos. You can a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney here:

plus.google.com

Here are more Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer videos:

youtube.com/centrallaw

Transcript:

[Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day, you may be one of them. I spend most of my time in court fighting state and federal criminal charges. I have arrived at my destination. One of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Have you got criminal charges in State or Federal Court? Let me help. Call me at (813) 222-2220. [End of Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Narrates]

Other Areas of Practice

DUI
Drug crimes
Hit and run or Leaving the Scene of an Accident
Driving while license is suspended
Robbery and Burglary

What Can a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer Do for You or a Loved One?

Contacting the State Attorney’s Office to negotiate on pending charges and possible penalties.
Providing emotional support in a challenging situation.
Planning what to do after the case is closed.
Discussing options including a plea bargain and reduced sentence.
Reviewing Florida law and possible defenses.
Planning your defenses.
Presenting your defenses to a Jury.

Pasco Oxycodone Defense Attorney has a FREE fully searchable Pasco Drug Crimes Oxycodone defense database on Oxycontin and drug charges in Florida. Drug Crimes Data Base Click Here. This video discusses and Compares How to use probable cause in criminal cases and the possibility of drug charges being dropped or dismissed when police improperly search for and then seize contraband. Casey reviews the Minimum Mandatory sentences that may apply to some Drug Trafficking cases. W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, a specialist who defends drug crimes in Pasco County, Florida.

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

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney narrates a one minute video on how and where to find a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Florida 33602. Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney, William F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. is a Lawyer who practices in criminal defense of all criminal charges in State and Federal Court. Casey is a former Assistant State Attorney / Criminal Prosecutor. Mr. Ebsary is AV rated by the Martindale Hubbell Directory and Lawyers.com. An AV rating is the highest rating issued by this nationally recognized lawyer rating service. An AV Rating shows that a criminal defense lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. AV Trial rated Criminal attorneys have usually practiced Defense law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

How to Find a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Visit or call a Board Certified Specialist (813) 222-2220 Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer – W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. , knows that hundreds of people are arrested, questioned, and indicted in both Florida State and Federal Courts every day. That’s where a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist, comes in. Board Certified Specialist, W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary practices extensively in the Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida. Our Tampa Criminal Defense Office in Tampa, Florida recently redesigned our Google Places / Google Maps pages. We have added Photos and videos.

You Can Visit Casey here. Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr.

“We Can Help in Federal Court, we can provide solutions. Tell me your story.” 

Here Are More Defense Videos: 

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Video

Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer Video

Criminal Defense Tampa Video

Video Transcript: [Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer Narrates] Hundreds of people are arrested every day, you may be one of them. I spend most of my time in court fighting state and federal criminal charges. I have arrived at my destination. One of the many courthouses in Tampa Bay where I help people. Let me help you. Have you got criminal charges in State or Federal Court? Let me help. Call me at (813) 222-2220. Let me drive to court to help you. [End of Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Narrates]