De Santus v. State, No. 4D2023-2235 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025)

When Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a murder conviction in De Santus v. State, it exposed a painful truth: even a serious homicide case can collapse when the defense lawyer isn’t prepared. The judges ruled that the attorney’s mistakes made the entire trial fundamentally unfair.

This ruling should make anyone accused of murder stop and ask: how do I choose a homicide attorney in Florida? How do I know my lawyer is truly a homicide attorney—and not just claiming to be one?

What the Defense Attorney Failed to Do

A Case Built on Words, Not Evidence

The Broward County shooting had no DNA, fingerprints, or video evidence. The State relied entirely on one witness. Before trial, that witness admitted to lying—she told a defense investigator that another man, “Gangsta Baby,” had the gun.

Yet the defense attorney never used that prior statement to challenge her credibility. The jury never learned she had recanted. They also never heard that she allegedly tried to extort money from the defendant’s family. Both details could have changed the outcome.

Later, a new witness came forward and testified that the shooter was a light-skinned man in a red jacket—not De Santus. The appellate court concluded the trial had been irreparably tainted by counsel’s failures.

Anyone Can Call Themselves a “Homicide Attorney”

Questions to Ask Before Hiring

Before you trust your future to anyone claiming to be a homicide attorney, ask these questions directly:

1. How many homicide trials have you personally handled from start to verdict?
2. Have you ever obtained a not-guilty verdict in a homicide case?
3. Who will actually stand beside me in court—you, or an associate?
4. What is your record when the State’s evidence seems overwhelming?
5. Are you certified under Florida Supreme Court standards to handle death penalty cases?

If your lawyer hesitates on any of these questions, keep searching.

Homicide Results That Demonstrate Preparation

At The Brancato Law Firm, I don’t just claim experience—I prove it in court:

Roommate Homicide — Not Guilty

A man charged with killing his roommate was acquitted after my direct examination showed the shooting was in self-defense. The jury returned a swift not-guilty verdict.

Grandmother Homicide — Charge Reduced

A grandmother initially charged with murder and aggravated child abuse avoided a life sentence after evidence showed the child’s injuries resulted from CPR efforts. The charge was reduced to child neglect with probation.

Second-Degree Murder — Reduced to Manslaughter

A jury found that my client’s shooting of his friend, while not exactly self-defense, was not “depraved mind” second-degree murder—resulting in a significantly reduced sentence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the De Santus conviction reversed?

The Fourth DCA found that defense counsel’s combined errors—failing to use key impeachment evidence and failing to advise the client about testifying—violated the right to a fair trial. The court concluded these weren’t minor mistakes but fundamental failures that tainted the entire proceeding.

What is impeachment evidence?

Impeachment evidence challenges a witness’s credibility. In De Santus, the key witness had previously told a defense investigator that someone else—”Gangsta Baby”—had the gun. That prior inconsistent statement could have undermined her entire testimony, but the attorney never used it.

How do I verify an attorney’s homicide experience?

Ask directly: how many homicide trials have you handled to verdict? Request specific case outcomes. Check whether they’re death-penalty qualified under Florida Rule 3.112. If they hesitate or deflect, that tells you something.

Will the attorney I hire actually handle my case?

Ask before hiring. Some firms advertise experienced partners but assign cases to junior associates. At The Brancato Law Firm, every homicide case is handled personally—not by junior staff.

Facing Homicide Charges in Tampa Bay?

The De Santus case demonstrates what happens when preparation fails. A homicide trial demands experience, judgment, and attention to every detail. Anything less risks a lifetime behind bars.

I’m Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato. For more than 25 years, I have defended serious felony and homicide cases throughout Tampa Bay. As a former member of major-crimes and sex-crimes units in Tampa’s largest criminal defense office, I have the perspective that only decades in the courtroom can bring. Check out our Tampa Homicide Attorney Page.

I keep my caseload low so every client receives the preparation their case demands. If I’m too busy or it’s not the right fit, I’ll tell you—I won’t take a case I can’t handle properly.

Don’t assume every “homicide attorney” has the experience your life demands. Look behind the veil—before it’s too late.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Oquendo v. State, SC2023-0807 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2025)

In Oquendo v. State, the Florida Supreme Court clarified an important question for anyone claiming self-defense—especially military veterans or trauma survivors. The ruling opens the door to PTSD evidence but also establishes clear requirements for how that evidence must be presented.

Florida’s Two-Part Self-Defense Test

The distinction matters because PTSD evidence alone won’t justify self-defense. The attorney must tie it directly to both parts of the legal test. Once the defense makes a sufficient showing, the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why PTSD Matters in Self-Defense Cases

PTSD can cause someone to experience heightened fear, hypervigilance, or automatic fight-or-flight responses. For veterans or others who have survived violence, these reactions are genuine and immediate.

The Court recognized that these factors can be relevant to whether the defendant actually believed their life was in danger—the subjective component of self-defense. However, the jury must also find that the belief was objectively reasonable.

That’s where a skilled trial lawyer becomes essential. It takes strategy, preparation, and experience to present PTSD evidence in a way that satisfies both components of Florida’s law.

What Skilled Defense Counsel Must Do

An attorney’s strategy must go beyond simply introducing a PTSD diagnosis. Success depends on helping jurors understand the defendant’s perception of danger—without violating the “golden rule,” which prohibits asking jurors to imagine themselves in the defendant’s position.

Through careful questioning, visual evidence, and expert testimony, a strong defense can:

1. Show why the defendant genuinely believed deadly force was necessary
2. Highlight the reasonableness of that belief under the circumstances
3. Address psychological effects of trauma without suggesting diminished capacity (which Florida law does not allow)

This approach allows jurors to feel the urgency of the moment—legally, persuasively, and within the rules of evidence.

What This Means for Veterans and Trauma Survivors

For veterans of war, first responders, and others living with PTSD, the Oquendo decision offers a meaningful step toward fairness. It recognizes that not all fear responses are the same—and that a person’s lived experience can shape how they perceive and respond to threats.

Yet the ruling also underscores the need for experienced representation. Without the right legal framing, PTSD evidence can easily be misunderstood or excluded. A seasoned defense attorney must connect the dots between the defendant’s internal belief and what the law considers reasonable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can PTSD be used as a defense in Florida?

PTSD itself isn’t a standalone defense, but after Oquendo, it can be relevant evidence in a self-defense case. It helps explain why the defendant believed they were in danger—but must be connected to the objective reasonableness standard as well.

What’s the difference between subjective and objective self-defense?

Subjective self-defense asks what the defendant actually believed. Objective self-defense asks whether a reasonably cautious person would have responded the same way. Florida requires both: genuine belief AND reasonable response.

Does this decision help veterans facing criminal charges?

Yes—but only with proper legal strategy. The Court opened the door to PTSD evidence, but without skilled framing, that evidence can be excluded or misunderstood. Veterans need attorneys who understand both combat trauma and Florida’s evidentiary rules.

What is the “golden rule” in Florida trials?

The golden rule prohibits asking jurors to imagine themselves in the defendant’s position. This creates a challenge for PTSD cases—the attorney must help jurors understand the defendant’s perception without explicitly asking them to “put yourself in his shoes.”

Facing Self-Defense Charges in Tampa Bay?

If you or a loved one faces charges involving self-defense—especially a shooting, homicide, or violent confrontation—it’s critical to act quickly. These cases turn on evidence, perception, and presentation.

I’m Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have defended clients across Tampa Bay in cases involving self-defense, homicide, and violent crimes. I understand how to present PTSD and trauma evidence within Florida’s evidentiary framework—and how to connect that evidence to both components of the self-defense test.

When your freedom is at stake, experience matters.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Updated January 2026 with Cherfils v. State

A Turning Point in Florida Search and Seizure Law

On October 1, 2025, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an en banc opinion in Williams v. State, No. 2D2023-2200 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 1, 2025), that marks a turning point in Florida search and seizure law. The court held that the odor of cannabis, by itself, is no longer enough to establish probable cause for a search.

This ruling aligns Florida law with modern statutory changes surrounding cannabis—including medical marijuana legalization and hemp decriminalization—and underscores the need for defense attorneys to challenge searches based solely on smell.

However, on December 31, 2025, the Second DCA issued Cherfils v. State, No. 2D2023-1932, which provides critical guidance on what additional factors—combined with odor—will still justify a vehicle search. Understanding both cases is essential for anyone facing cannabis-related charges in Florida.

The Cherfils Case: When Odor Plus Other Factors Equals Probable Cause

Just three months after Williams, the Second DCA issued Cherfils v. State, which affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress despite the court’s new limitations on plain smell searches. Understanding why the search was upheld in Cherfils is critical for anyone stopped by police who claims to smell cannabis.

What Happened in Cherfils

Joshua Cherfils was stopped at night for an improperly illuminated license tag in a high-crime area. As the officer approached, he smelled burnt marijuana. When asked for his license, Cherfils became argumentative and appeared nervous. After the officer mentioned the marijuana odor, Cherfils produced his medical marijuana card and stated he had smoked marijuana earlier in the day. The officer testified that the smell was “a lot more than just if someone smoked earlier.”

The officer searched the vehicle and found cocaine in a cigarette box, fresh marijuana in a clear bag on the center console, and several burnt marijuana cigarettes in an ashtray.

Why the Court Upheld the Search

The Second DCA acknowledged that under Williams, “plain smell no longer establishes probable cause.” However, the court found that the totality of the circumstances supported probable cause. The officer was not relying on smell alone—multiple additional factors supported a reasonable belief that criminal activity was occurring.

Factors That Supported Probable Cause in Cherfils

Background: The Williams Case That Changed the Law

Darrielle Ortiz Williams was on probation after serving a lengthy prison term. During a 2023 traffic stop in Hillsborough County, officers claimed they smelled cannabis when approaching the vehicle. Relying solely on this odor, they searched the car and found substances that led to his arrest.

Williams moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the plain smell doctrine should no longer apply given Florida’s medical marijuana laws and hemp legalization. The trial court denied his motion, citing older precedent that allowed searches based on marijuana odor alone.

On appeal, the Second DCA took the opportunity to revisit the doctrine—sitting en banc to reconsider its own prior ruling in Owens v. State (2021). Importantly, in Williams there were no additional facts suggesting criminal activity: no admission of use, no indication the cannabis was medical marijuana versus hemp, no evidence of recent smoking in the vehicle, and conflicting officer testimony about whether the cannabis was fresh or burnt.

Why the Evidence Was Still Admitted in Williams

Although the Second DCA receded from its earlier ruling in Owens v. State (2021), it ultimately affirmed Williams’ probation revocation. The reason: at the time of the search, Owens was binding precedent.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. United States, evidence is not excluded when officers reasonably rely on then-controlling appellate precedent. Because the officers acted in good faith based on the law as it existed at the time, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

Certified Question to the Florida Supreme Court

Recognizing the sweeping impact of its holding, the Second DCA certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court:

This certified question sets the stage for the Florida Supreme Court to provide definitive statewide guidance on the issue. Until then, the Williams ruling is binding in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction—which includes Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, and DeSoto Counties. The Brancato Law Firm serves clients in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, where these rulings directly apply.

Before and After Williams: What Changed

Practical Impact for Florida Drivers

For years, drivers across Florida have been searched, arrested, and prosecuted after an officer claimed to smell marijuana. Williams and Cherfils together provide a new framework:

Odor alone is no longer enough. Officers must point to other facts beyond smell to justify a search—such as visible contraband, erratic driving, statements by the driver, or other indicators of criminal activity.

But your statements can provide those additional facts. In Cherfils, the driver’s production of a medical marijuana card and admission of smoking earlier gave the officer the additional factors needed for probable cause.

Medical marijuana patients face unique risks. Because it is illegal to smoke medical marijuana in a vehicle, identifying yourself as a cardholder when an officer smells cannabis can establish probable cause where none existed before.

Suppression motions challenging odor-based searches should now be filed in cases arising after October 1, 2025—but attorneys must carefully analyze whether Cherfils-type factors apply.

What Officers Must Now Show for Probable Cause

Frequently Asked Questions: Plain Smell Doctrine in Florida

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

Related:

• Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer – Defense for drug possession and trafficking
• Marijuana DUI Charges in Florida – What You Need to Know
• Florida Medical Marijuana Transportation Laws
• Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney – Full-service criminal defense

Case Background: Probation After Reduced Charges

The defendant faced charges of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious conduct. However, through a plea deal, those charges were reduced to aggravated child abuse and child abuse. He was sentenced to prison followed by probation.

The judge required him to:

• Complete a sex offender treatment program,
• Avoid victims and minors, and
• Follow specific conditions agreed to in court.

Importantly, the court did not impose full sex offender probation, which would have carried far stricter rules.

Florida Probation Conflict Between Written and Oral Sentence

After release, the probation officer attempted to enforce broad restrictions from the written sentencing order. Specifically, the order directed him to “follow all sex offender rules.”

Because of this, the appellate court found a Florida probation conflict. Florida law requires written orders to match oral pronouncements. Otherwise, a defendant faces restrictions that were never part of the official sentence.

Court’s Decision on the Probation Conflict

The Fourth DCA reversed and ordered the trial court to remove the “follow all sex offender rules” condition. The court emphasized:

• Probation must follow what is said in court.
• Written documents cannot expand restrictions.
• Defendants are protected from unlawful probation conflicts.

Why Florida Probation Conflicts Matter

When probation conditions go beyond the oral pronouncement, defendants face unnecessary risks:

• Harsher supervision,
• Greater chance of violation,
• Unfair restrictions not part of their plea.

An experienced attorney can spot and challenge these conflicts quickly.

Protecting Your Future in Florida Courts

Probation conditions should never be harsher than what the judge actually ordered in court. When that happens, defendants and their families face unfair restrictions that were never part of the sentence. In these situations, you deserve immediate help from an attorney who knows how to challenge unlawful probation terms.

That is why at The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., attorney Rocky Brancato draws on more than 25 years of criminal defense experience, including years in an elite sex crimes unit, to protect clients and fight for fair outcomes.

Contact us today at (813) 727-7159 for a confidential consultation.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently granted Stand Your Ground immunity to a Palm Beach defendant charged with second-degree murder. In Spencer v. State (4D2025-0023), the court ruled that prosecutors failed to disprove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.

This case demonstrates why Stand Your Ground immunity matters for anyone facing violent crime charges in Florida. Moreover, it illustrates how the burden of proof works in self-defense cases—and why experienced legal representation is essential. I am Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have provide top level criminal defense services to the citizens of Tampa Bay. My firm, the Brancato Law Firm, P.A., can help change the narrative if you used self defense and stood your ground!

Case Background: Palm Beach Stand Your Ground Claim

Ivin Spencer was charged with second-degree murder after a deadly confrontation in a Palm Beach parking lot. Although Spencer admitted to the shooting, he argued that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law applied to his case.

The Victim’s History

The evidence showed that the victim, Brandon Bell, had a history of making threats and was known to carry a gun. Consequently, Spencer had reason to believe that any confrontation with Bell could turn deadly.

The Confrontation

On the day of the shooting, Bell aggressively advanced toward Spencer while yelling threats. Spencer, who had health limitations that put him at a physical disadvantage, feared for his safety. As a result, he fired a single shot.

After the Shooting

Immediately after the incident, Spencer called 911 and cooperated fully with police. This behavior is consistent with someone acting in self-defense rather than with criminal intent.

Why the Court Granted Stand Your Ground Immunity

The appellate court ruled that prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof. Specifically, the State could not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Spencer’s use of force was unjustified.

Together, these facts supported the conclusion that a reasonable person in Spencer’s position would believe deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Lessons from This Florida Self-Defense Ruling

Stand Your Ground Can Dismiss Charges Before Trial

Unlike an acquittal at trial, Stand Your Ground immunity dismisses charges entirely. As a result, the defendant avoids the risk, expense, and uncertainty of a jury trial. This makes pursuing immunity a critical strategy in appropriate cases.

The State Carries a Heavy Burden

Once a defendant raises Stand Your Ground, prosecutors must disprove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. This is a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence, though lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, it places significant pressure on the State.

Context Shapes Legal Outcomes

Prior threats, the victim’s reputation, physical disparities, and circumstances at the scene all matter. Therefore, thorough investigation and presentation of context is essential to a successful Stand Your Ground claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Stand Your Ground immunity in Florida?

Stand Your Ground immunity allows a defendant to have criminal charges dismissed before trial if they can show they used force in lawful self-defense. Under Florida law, a person has no duty to retreat if they are in a place where they have a right to be.

Who has the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground hearing?

Once the defendant raises Stand Your Ground, the burden shifts to the prosecution. The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use of force was not justified. If prosecutors cannot meet this burden, the court must grant immunity.

Can Stand Your Ground apply to murder charges?

Yes, absolutely. Stand Your Ground immunity can apply to any charge where self-defense is raised, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. The Spencer case demonstrates that even second-degree murder charges can be dismissed through Stand Your Ground.

What evidence helps a Stand Your Ground claim?

Helpful evidence includes prior threats from the victim, the victim’s violent reputation, physical disparity between the parties, witness testimony about the confrontation, and the defendant’s post-incident conduct such as calling 911 and cooperating with police.

Is Stand Your Ground the same as self-defense?

Stand Your Ground is a specific type of self-defense claim under Florida law. The key difference is that Stand Your Ground eliminates the duty to retreat. In other words, you do not have to try to escape before using force if you are lawfully present at the location.

How do I pursue Stand Your Ground immunity?

Your attorney files a motion for Stand Your Ground immunity, and the court holds a hearing. At that hearing, the prosecution must prove that your use of force was not justified. If they fail, the charges are dismissed. This process requires experienced legal representation.

More on Self-Defense

• Tampa Attorney for Self-Defense
• Tampa PTSD and Self-Defense
• Tampa Criminal Mental Health Attorney
• Tampa Gun Crime Attorney
• Tampa Violent Crime Attorney
• Tampa Murder Attorney

Protect Your Rights with a Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you face violent crime charges where self-defense may apply, you need an attorney who understands how to argue for Stand Your Ground immunity in Florida. At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., attorney Rocky Brancato has more than 25 years of experience defending homicide, sex crimes, and major felonies throughout Tampa Bay.

Moreover, Attorney Brancato proactively pursues Stand Your Ground immunity hearings for eligible cases. Do not wait until trial to raise self-defense—the right strategy can dismiss charges entirely.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Background of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo

In early June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security launched “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles. Armed and masked agents carried out raids at bus stops, car washes, farms, and day-labor sites. According to court filings, many people were detained before agents asked a single question25a169_5h25.

The lawsuit argued that individuals were being stopped based only on:

• Apparent race or ethnicity
• Speaking Spanish or accented English
• Being in certain locations such as tow yards or parks
• Performing low-wage jobs such as landscaping or car washing

The district court ruled that these factors, even when combined, did not amount to reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. It issued a temporary restraining order halting the raids while the case continued.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The government appealed, and the Supreme Court stepped in. By granting a stay, the Court allowed immigration officers to continue the challenged tactics for now.

Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence

Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that immigration officers may briefly detain individuals if they have reasonable suspicion of illegal presence. He argued that in areas with high numbers of undocumented immigrants, factors such as language, job type, and presence at day-labor sites can be relevant. He also questioned whether the plaintiffs had legal standing to seek broad injunctive relief.

Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, strongly disagreed. She described evidence of U.S. citizens being violently detained. She emphasized that using race, language, and occupation sweeps in millions of innocent people, which the Fourth Amendment forbids. In her view, the Court’s stay unfairly sanctioned discriminatory seizures.

Why the Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Immigration Case Matters

The Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Supreme Court immigration case affects more than legal theory—it changes daily life for many.

• For immigrants: The ruling gives agents more freedom to conduct raids in cities far from the border.
• For U.S. citizens and legal residents: Latino workers and Spanish speakers risk detention unless they can quickly prove their status.
• For the courts: The decision highlights the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on emergency rulings, often called the “shadow docket.”

These developments raise serious concerns about constitutional protections, equal treatment, and the balance of power between courts and the executive branch.

What Comes Next?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will continue hearing the case, with arguments scheduled later this month. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the district court’s injunction, the Supreme Court may take the case on full review. Until then, the stay remains in place, allowing federal agents to conduct raids based on the disputed factors.

Key Takeaway

The Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Supreme Court immigration case underscores how immigration policy intersects with constitutional rights. The Court’s stay tips the balance toward enforcement, at least for now. But the final outcome will depend on future rulings. Communities across Los Angeles—and the country—will be watching closely.

How The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. Can Help

If you or a loved one believe you were unlawfully stopped based only on appearance, language, or location, the Constitution may still provide important protections. Even in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, evidence obtained through a stop based on a mere hunch—rather than clear, articulable suspicion—may be challenged in court.

At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., we have over 25 years of experience fighting unlawful searches and seizures. Our firm can review whether a motion to suppress may be filed in your case, potentially excluding evidence obtained in violation of your rights.

Call us today at (813) 727-7159 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Florida’s gun laws have changed. On September 10, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal in McDaniels v. State, 1D2023-0533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), struck down Florida’s decades-old ban on openly carrying firearms. The Attorney General has declined to appeal, which means the ruling stands: open carry is now legal in Florida.

However, this does not mean you can carry a firearm everywhere. Significant restrictions remain under Florida Statute 790.06(12) and federal law. Understanding where you can and cannot carry is essential to avoiding arrest.

At The Brancato Law Firm, our goal is not to take sides on whether this change is good or bad. Our focus is on making sure you understand the law as it now stands—and to remind you that if you are arrested under Florida’s gun laws, your rights deserve a strong defense. We are your Tampa Gun Crimes Law Firm.

What the Court Decided in McDaniels v. State

The First District Court of Appeal struck down Florida’s open carry ban, finding it violated the Second Amendment. The court’s reasoning:

• The Constitution protects both open and concealed carry
• History shows open carry was the traditional and accepted way of bearing arms
• Florida’s blanket ban went too far by prohibiting it altogether

This decision was guided by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

What Was the Old Florida Open Carry Law?

Since 1987, Florida law made it a crime to openly carry a firearm in public. Violations could result in up to 60 days in jail and fines. The only exceptions were narrow—such as while hunting, fishing, or camping, or while traveling to and from those activities.

That law is now unconstitutional. Floridians may openly carry firearms in public, subject to the location restrictions that still apply.

Where You Still Cannot Carry a Firearm

Open carry is now legal, but location restrictions remain in full effect. Under Florida Statute 790.06(12) and federal law, carrying a firearm in any of the following locations can still lead to arrest:

Private Property Rules

Private business owners can set their own rules regarding firearms. If a business posts “No Firearms” signs or asks you to leave, you must comply. Refusing to leave after being asked can result in trespass charges—even if you are otherwise carrying legally.

Who Still Cannot Carry a Firearm

The McDaniels ruling changed how you can carry, not who can carry. The following individuals remain prohibited from possessing firearms under Florida and federal law:

• Convicted felons (F.S. 790.23)
• Individuals under 21 years of age
• Chronic or unlawful users of controlled substances
• Individuals subject to domestic violence injunctions (F.S. 790.233)
• Individuals adjudicated mentally defective or Baker Act committed
• Individuals subject to active Risk Protection Orders (F.S. 790.401)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is open carry now legal in Florida?

Yes. Following the McDaniels v. State ruling and the Attorney General’s decision not to appeal, open carry is now legal in Florida. However, location restrictions under F.S. 790.06(12) still apply.

Can I carry in a bar or nightclub?

No. Firearms remain prohibited in any portion of a business licensed to serve alcohol for on-site consumption.

Can I carry at schools or school events?

No. You cannot carry at elementary, middle, or high schools, their administration buildings, or school sporting events. Colleges and universities are also off-limits.

Can I carry at a courthouse or government meeting?

No. Courthouses, courtrooms, polling places, and government board meetings remain prohibited locations.

What about airports?

You cannot carry inside passenger terminals beyond TSA security checkpoints. Firearms must be properly checked if you are flying.

What if I accidentally walk into a prohibited location?

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. You could still face arrest. Always know where you can and cannot carry before doing so.

What if a private business does not allow firearms?

Private business owners can prohibit firearms on their property. If asked to leave, you must comply or risk trespass charges.

Arrested for a Gun Offense in Tampa?

If you or someone you care about has been arrested under Florida’s gun laws—whether for open carry, concealed carry, or another firearm-related offense—you have rights worth fighting for.

At The Brancato Law Firm, attorney Rocky Brancato brings over 25 years of trial experience to every case. We do not take a position on whether gun laws are “right” or “wrong.” Our job is to stand with you in court and fight back if your constitutional rights have been violated.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

On September 5, 2025, the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a decision in Thomas Andrew Vana, Jr. v. State of Florida that directly addresses enhanced penalties under drug laws. This Florida drug conviction reversed park ownership ruling shows how missing evidence on park ownership can undo serious enhancements tied to drug cases.

Background of the Florida Drug Conviction Reversed Park Ownership Case

Thomas Vana was charged with eighteen offenses tied to four separate drug transactions in 2018. Among these charges were six counts of selling controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a municipal park, which carried far harsher penalties under section 893.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2018).

At trial, the State presented testimony from confidential informants and law enforcement officers who said Vana’s home was near Lake Kennedy Community Park. A property broker for the City of Cape Coral testified that the City owned the park, but her testimony did not establish when that ownership began. Despite this gap, the trial court denied Vana’s motion for judgment of acquittal and allowed the jury to convict on the enhanced charges.

The Appellate Court’s Analysis

On appeal, the Sixth DCA reviewed the denial of Vana’s motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. The panel emphasized that while circumstantial evidence can support a conviction, the State must prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, the enhanced charges depended on proving that the sales occurred within 1,000 feet of a state, county, or municipal park. The testimony failed to show that Lake Kennedy Community Park was municipally owned in 2018, when the offenses occurred. Testimony about ownership in later years did not satisfy the State’s burden.

The court cited similar rulings, including Cox v. State, 764 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Lemaster v. State, 162 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), which held that proof of a location’s status at the time of trial cannot substitute for proof of its status at the time of the alleged offense.

Outcome

The court affirmed Vana’s remaining convictions but reversed the six enhanced counts tied to park proximity. It remanded the case for entry of judgment on the lesser-included offenses of simple sale of a controlled substance and for resentencing.

Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling highlights the precision required in proving sentencing enhancements under Florida drug laws. A conviction for selling drugs near a park, school, or church can double or even triple the penalties. But the State must meet its burden with evidence tied to the actual date of the offense, not assumptions or later testimony.

Final Note

This update is provided by The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. Our firm represents individuals facing serious drug charges and other criminal cases in Tampa, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. For a free, confidential strategy session, please call (813) 727-7159.

Why Breath Test Machine Maintenance Matters

When police arrest someone for DUI in Florida, prosecutors typically rely on the Intoxilyzer 8000 to prove impairment. Indeed, this breath testing machine serves as the gold standard for measuring blood alcohol content. However, its results depend entirely on the maintenance and calibration procedures that keep it accurate.

If technicians fail to properly maintain the Intoxilyzer, courts can exclude its results from evidence. As a result, this exclusion can mean the difference between a conviction and a dismissal.

The Case: State v. Kilburn, Marano, and Depauw

In this consolidated appeal, three DUI defendants challenged their breath test results on identical grounds: specifically, the Intoxilyzer 8000 used to test them had undergone an unauthorized repair.

The critical fact proved simple: FDLE inspectors replaced the breath tube on the Intoxilyzer 8000. However, under Florida’s rules, only the manufacturer or an approved repair facility may perform such repairs. Because the repair violated Florida’s administrative rules, the court concluded that technicians had not properly maintained the machine. Therefore, the presumption of accuracy that normally applies to breath test results disappeared.

Common Grounds to Challenge Intoxilyzer Results

The Kilburn case focused on unauthorized repairs. However, defense attorneys can challenge Intoxilyzer 8000 results on many other grounds in Florida DUI cases:

How an Experienced DUI Attorney Investigates Breath Test Evidence

At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., we examine every detail of DUI cases. Specifically, we investigate the complete maintenance and inspection history of the Intoxilyzer 8000 used to test you. Furthermore, this investigation includes:

• First, requesting all maintenance logs and repair records for the specific machine
• Second, reviewing FDLE inspection reports for compliance with Florida Administrative Code
• Third, verifying the breath test operator held valid certification at the time of testing
• Additionally, examining video evidence to confirm officers followed the 20-minute observation period
• Moreover, identifying any unauthorized repairs or gaps in the maintenance chain
• Finally, deposing FDLE inspectors and breath test operators when necessary

As a result, this detailed investigation frequently reveals issues that provide grounds to suppress breath test evidence—just as the defense attorneys accomplished in Kilburn.

Frequently Asked Questions: Intoxilyzer Maintenance and DUI Defense

Can courts throw out breath test results if technicians failed to properly maintain the Intoxilyzer?

Yes. As the Kilburn case demonstrates, Florida courts will exclude Intoxilyzer 8000 results if the State cannot prove technicians maintained the machine according to Florida Administrative Code requirements. Specifically, this includes proper inspections, authorized repairs, and calibration procedures.

What qualifies as an “unauthorized repair” on an Intoxilyzer 8000?

Under Florida law, only the manufacturer or an approved repair facility may perform repairs on the Intoxilyzer 8000. In Kilburn, for example, FDLE inspectors replaced the breath tube themselves—a repair they lacked authorization to perform. Because this violated Florida’s rules, the court excluded the breath test results.

How often must FDLE inspect the Intoxilyzer 8000 in Florida?

Florida Administrative Code Rule 11D-8 requires FDLE to inspect the Intoxilyzer 8000 at least once per calendar month. Therefore, if gaps exist in the inspection records—or if officers used the machine during a period when FDLE missed inspections—this can provide grounds to challenge the results.

What is the 20-minute observation period?

Before administering a breath test, officers must observe the subject for at least 20 minutes. During this time, they must ensure the subject does not eat, drink, smoke, vomit, or put anything in their mouth. Essentially, this prevents mouth alcohol contamination from affecting the results. Consequently, failure to properly conduct this observation can provide grounds to challenge the test.

Can I request the maintenance records for the Intoxilyzer used in my case?

Yes. Your defense attorney can subpoena all maintenance logs, repair records, and inspection reports for the specific Intoxilyzer 8000 that officers used to test you. Indeed, these records prove essential for identifying potential grounds to challenge the breath test results.

What happens if the court excludes breath test results in my DUI case?

Without breath test results, prosecutors must rely on other evidence—such as field sobriety tests, officer observations, and video footage. As a result, this often leaves them with a significantly weaker case. Depending on the remaining evidence, the State may reduce charges or dismiss them entirely.

Does the officer’s certification affect breath test validity?

Yes. The breath test operator must hold valid certification at the time of testing. Therefore, if the officer’s certification had expired or the officer obtained it improperly, this can provide grounds to challenge the breath test results.

Should I refuse a breath test in Florida?

Refusing a breath test in Florida carries significant consequences. Specifically, implied consent laws trigger automatic license suspension and a separate charge apart from the DUI. However, every case presents different circumstances. If police have already arrested you for DUI—whether you took the test or refused—contact an experienced DUI defense attorney immediately to discuss your options.

Related:

• Tampa DUI Lawyer – Full-service DUI defense
• Trenton’s Law – Enhanced DUI and BUI Penalties
• Fight Your DUI Charge: Proven Defense Strategies
• How to Challenge Field Sobriety Exercises in Tampa

Snowden v. State, No. 1D2023-1998 (Fla. 1st DCA July 2, 2025)

A Florida appeals court recently overturned a murder conviction because police ignored the suspect’s Miranda rights when he made clear requests for a lawyer. The First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Snowden v. State highlights a core constitutional protection—your right to legal counsel. If police violated your Miranda rights, Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato of the Brancato Law Firm, P.A. can help.

Three Requests for a Lawyer—Police Kept Talking

What Happened in the Interview Room

Daquavion Snowden was charged with first-degree murder following a fatal shooting in Escambia County. Immediately after his arrest, law enforcement officers placed him in an interview room. At the time, he was shirtless, restrained in chains, and clearly under the influence of narcotics. Furthermore, the officers exited the room after telling him they would return shortly.

While waiting for their return, Snowden became physically ill and vomited. Staff moved him so they could clean the facility. It was during this transition that he asked his first clear question regarding legal counsel. However, the police did not stop to clarify his request or provide an attorney. Instead, they chose to resume the interrogation an hour later.

During the subsequent questioning, the officers continued to press him for information. In addition to the relentless questioning, they offered vague promises of leniency. Specifically, they suggested he could “minimize his involvement” if he continued to speak. Consequently, Snowden remained cold and confused without any legal protection.

The Miranda Rule: What Police Must Do

What the Court Ruled

The First DCA ruled that Snowden’s statements should have been suppressed. The judges found that all three requests were clear and unequivocal—meaning officers should have immediately stopped questioning.

Even worse, the court found that Snowden’s later decision to continue talking was likely the result of police pressure. Officers made repeated comments about “helping himself,” mentioned “mitigating factors,” and left him isolated for hours. This created a coercive environment.

The court reversed the murder conviction because police violated Miranda.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if police keep questioning me after I ask for a lawyer?

Any statements you make after invoking your right to counsel may be suppressed—meaning they cannot be used against you at trial. In Snowden, this suppression led to the entire murder conviction being reversed.

How clearly do I need to ask for a lawyer?

Your request must be clear and unequivocal. Phrases like “I need a lawyer” or “I want to talk to my attorney” are sufficient. The court in Snowden found that even “Is there any way I can talk to my lawyer?” was clear enough to invoke the right.

Can police pressure me to keep talking?

No. Once you ask for a lawyer, police cannot try to persuade you to waive that right. Tactics like promising help, mentioning “mitigating factors,” or suggesting you can “minimize involvement” may constitute coercion—and any resulting statements may be suppressed.

Does this apply to all criminal cases in Florida?

Yes. Miranda rights apply to all criminal interrogations in Florida—from misdemeanors to murder. If police violate these rights, the remedy is suppression of the illegally obtained statements.

Why This Matters for Tampa Bay Defendants

If police ignore your request for a lawyer, your statements may be thrown out. The court’s ruling in Snowden sends a clear message: law enforcement must respect your rights.

At The Brancato Law Firm, we review every interaction between police and my clients. If you were interrogated after asking for a lawyer, we may be able to suppress key evidence in your case. These details often make the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Were Your Miranda Rights Violated?

If you were questioned without a lawyer after clearly asking for one, the evidence may be inadmissible. You have the right to remain silent and the right to legal protection.

I’m Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have defended clients throughout Tampa Bay in serious felony cases. I understand how to identify Miranda violations and how to use them to protect my clients’ rights.

Don’t let police pressure cost you your future.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Polk Counties