Search and Seizure - Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

What is Loitering and Prowling in Florida?

Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 04:25:58 GMT

KEY TAKEAWAY Bottom Line: Loitering and prowling under Florida Statute § 856.021 requires the State to prove TWO elements: (1) you were in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding people, AND (2) your conduct created justifiable alarm for the safety of persons or property. Critically, both elements must occur in the officer’s presence—consequently, arrests based solely on witness reports often result in dismissed charges or suppressed evidence.

I’m Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I’ve defended clients against loitering and prowling charges in Hillsborough County—and I’ve seen firsthand how often police misuse this statute.

Why Courts Call Loitering and Prowling a ‘Catchall’ Charge

Florida courts have repeatedly warned that the loitering statute “reaches the outer limits of constitutionality” and therefore “must be applied with special care.” Mills v. State, 58 So. 3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

Additionally, the Second District Court of Appeal has stated bluntly that loitering and prowling “is not to be used as a ‘catchall’ provision whereby police may arrest citizens where there is no other basis which would justify their detention.” Id.

In our experience at The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., however, this is exactly how police misuse the charge. When officers lack enough evidence for a burglary arrest, trespass, or drug charge, they often fall back on loitering and prowling—frequently without legal justification.

FLORIDA STATUTE § 856.021 – LOITERING OR PROWLING “It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.” Classification: Second-degree misdemeanor Maximum Penalty: 60 days in jail, $500 fine

Why a Misdemeanor Charge Can Lead to Felony Consequences

The Search Incident to Arrest

Although loitering and prowling is only a second-degree misdemeanor, the real danger lies in what happens after the arrest. Specifically, when police arrest someone for loitering and prowling, they gain the authority to conduct a search incident to arrest.

As a result, these searches often turn up evidence of far more serious crimes—including felony drug possession, concealed weapons, stolen property, or outstanding warrants.

Challenging the Underlying Arrest

This is precisely why challenging the legality of the initial arrest is so critical. If the loitering and prowling arrest lacked probable cause, then any evidence discovered during the subsequent search becomes “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Consequently, the court must suppress that evidence.

I have obtained dismissals of felony drug charges by successfully arguing that the underlying loitering arrest lacked probable cause. Therefore, even if you face additional charges stemming from the arrest, fighting the loitering charge may eliminate the State’s evidence entirely.

The Two Elements Police Must Prove

To sustain a loitering and prowling conviction, the State must prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Element 1: Unusual Conduct

First, the State must show that you loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals. Importantly, this requires more than a “vaguely suspicious presence.” Instead, it must be conduct that “comes close to, but falls short of, the actual commission or attempted commission of a substantive crime.” W.D. v. State, 132 So. 3d 871, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Element 2: Justifiable Alarm

Second, the loitering must occur under circumstances that warrant “a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.” In other words, the arresting officer must articulate specific facts showing an imminent breach of the peace or threat to public safety.

Because I taught criminal procedure at the police academy, I know officers receive training that “mere suspicion” isn’t enough. Nevertheless, we regularly see arrests that fail this basic standard.

WARNING: Both Elements Must Occur in the Officer’s Presence This is the rule police violate most often: “Both elements must occur in the officer’s presence and be complete before the officer takes action.” Fields v. State, 292 So. 3d 889, 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Therefore, if a neighbor calls 911 to report suspicious behavior, but the officer only sees you walking down the street when they arrive—the officer cannot arrest you for loitering and prowling based on what the neighbor reported.

What Conduct Does NOT Support a Loitering Charge

Florida courts have consistently found the following conduct insufficient for loitering and prowling charges:

Conduct	Court Ruling
Walking alone on a public street at night	Not unusual for law-abiding citizens (Fields v. State)
Being in a “high crime area”	Standing or walking in a high crime area does not, by itself, create reasonable concern (Coleman v. State)
Walking behind a closed business at 12:30 a.m.	“Vaguely suspicious presence” insufficient (Mills v. State)
Sitting in a parked car in a parking lot	Mere presence insufficient to raise immediate concern (Stephens v. State)
Juveniles on bicycles at end of driveway	Consistent with entirely innocent behavior (K.W. v. State)
Being out after teen curfew	Does not raise presumption of alarm without more (K.R.R. v. State)

The Brancato Law Firm has successfully challenged arrests in each of these scenarios. If your conduct matches any of these patterns, call (813) 727-7159 immediately.

How Rocky Brancato Has Won Loitering and Prowling Cases

CASE STUDY #1: Motion to Suppress Granted The Situation: A client walked through an apartment complex parking lot at 2:00 a.m. carrying a backpack. Police approached because they suspected he was attempting to burglarize vehicles. When asked, the client stated he was simply out for a walk and refused to consent to a search of his backpack. Officers then arrested him for loitering and prowling, searched his backpack incident to arrest, and found cocaine. Rocky Brancato’s Defense: I filed a motion to suppress, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause. Walking through a parking lot—even at 2:00 a.m. with a backpack—does not constitute conduct that “comes close to the actual commission or attempted commission of a substantive crime.” Moreover, the client didn’t flee, didn’t try to enter any vehicles, and provided a reasonable explanation for his presence. The Result: The court granted the motion to suppress. Consequently, the court suppressed the cocaine as fruit of an unlawful arrest, and the State dismissed the loitering and prowling charge.

CASE STUDY #2: Motion to Dismiss Granted The Situation: Police received a call from neighbors reporting a “suspicious person” walking through their neighborhood who “didn’t belong there” and was allegedly checking door handles. When officers arrived, they encountered the client walking away from the neighborhood. However, officers did not personally observe him checking any door handles or engaging in any suspicious conduct—they only saw him walking. Rocky Brancato’s Defense: I filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the State failed to establish the elements of loitering and prowling. Under Florida law, both elements must occur in the officer’s presence before any arrest. Fields v. State, 292 So. 3d at 895. Therefore, the officers could not rely on the neighbors’ reports to establish the elements—they had to personally observe the conduct. The Result: The court granted the motion to dismiss. The court found that conduct reported by neighbors could not substitute for the officer’s own observations. Additionally, the court noted that walking down a street is not unusual for law-abiding citizens.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Your Right to Refuse Search and Remain Silent

What the Statute Requires

Under § 856.021(2), police may request that you identify yourself and explain your presence. However, Florida courts have made clear that significant limitations apply to this requirement.

Your Constitutional Protections

First, police cannot compel you to explain your presence without Miranda warnings

Second, your failure to provide an explanation is not an element of the crime

Third, if you provide identification and a reasonable explanation, “the charge under this statute can no longer properly be made”

At The Brancato Law Firm, we advise clients accordingly: you should provide your identification if lawfully detained. However, you are not required to consent to searches or make statements that could incriminate you.

BUILT-IN DEFENSES UNDER § 856.021(2) You cannot receive a conviction for loitering and prowling if: 1. The officer failed to give you an opportunity to identify yourself and explain your presence before arresting you, OR 2. Your explanation was true and would have dispelled the officer’s alarm if believed at the time These statutory defenses provide powerful tools for your defense. Indeed, we have obtained dismissals by demonstrating that police failed to follow the required procedures before making an arrest.

What Many Attorneys Miss in Loitering Cases

Issue	Why It Matters	The Brancato Law Firm Approach
Officer’s personal observations	Both elements must occur in officer’s presence	We scrutinize reports to identify what officers actually saw vs. what others reported to them
“Vaguely suspicious” vs. “incipient criminal behavior”	Courts require more than mere suspicion	We cite controlling case law showing the conduct failed to meet the legal standard
Flight after seeing police	Courts cannot use this retroactively to justify the stop	We argue post-pursuit conduct cannot establish pre-existing probable cause
High crime area	This factor alone is insufficient	We challenge “high crime” designations and demand specificity from the State
Opportunity to dispel alarm	The statute specifically requires this	We identify when officers failed to give the client an opportunity to explain

Call The Brancato Law Firm at (813) 727-7159 to discuss how these issues apply to your case.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is loitering and prowling in Florida?

Loitering and prowling under Florida Statute § 856.021 is a second-degree misdemeanor. To convict, the State must prove you were in a place, time, or manner not usual for law-abiding people AND that your conduct created justifiable alarm for safety of persons or property. Importantly, the State must prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and both must occur in the arresting officer’s presence.

Can police arrest me for loitering just for being in a ‘bad’ neighborhood?

No. Florida courts have consistently held that “standing or walking in a high crime area does not, by itself, create a reasonable concern for the safety of persons or property.” Coleman v. State, 707 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Therefore, police need more than your presence in a particular area to justify an arrest.

What if someone called 911 and reported me acting suspiciously?

The 911 call alone cannot establish the elements of loitering and prowling. Under Fields v. State, “both elements must occur in the officer’s presence.” Consequently, the officer must personally observe the alarming conduct—not just rely on what a caller reported.

Do I have to explain myself to police if they stop me for loitering?

You should provide identification if lawfully detained. However, police cannot compel you to explain your presence without Miranda warnings. Additionally, your failure to explain is not an element of the crime, and the State cannot use your silence against you at trial.

Can a court dismiss loitering charges?

Yes. Courts frequently dismiss loitering charges when defense counsel demonstrates that (1) the officer didn’t personally observe the required elements, (2) the conduct was merely “vaguely suspicious” rather than indicative of imminent criminal activity, or (3) police failed to give the defendant an opportunity to explain before arresting.

Why should I hire The Brancato Law Firm for a loitering charge?

Because I taught criminal procedure at the police academy, I know exactly how officers receive training to justify these arrests—and where their justifications fall short. I have successfully obtained dismissals and suppression of evidence in loitering cases throughout Hillsborough County. Moreover, a misdemeanor conviction still creates a criminal record that can affect employment, housing, and your future.

What do Super Lawyers and AV Preeminent ratings mean?

Super Lawyers recognizes the top 5% of attorneys through peer nomination and independent research—you cannot purchase this recognition. Similarly, AV Preeminent is Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating for legal ability and ethics, based on peer reviews from judges and other attorneys. Together, these third-party recognitions reflect 25+ years of proven results.

For more about our approach to challenging unlawful arrests and searches, visit our Tampa Criminal Defense page.

Arrested for Loitering and Prowling? Call Now.

If you face loitering and prowling charges in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, or Pasco County, the evidence against you may be weaker than police want you to believe. In fact, many of these arrests stem from officer speculation rather than observed conduct—and that’s a defense we know how to win.

Every day you wait is a day the prosecution builds its case.

Contact Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato and The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. today at (813) 727-7159 for a consultation.

_______________________________________________

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

Florida’s Second DCA Limits Plain Smell Cannabis Search Doctrine

Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 16:13:48 GMT

Williams v. State and Cherfils v. State Reshape Vehicle Search Law in Tampa and the Second DCA

Updated January 2026 with Cherfils v. State

KEY HOLDING: WILLIAMS V. STATE (FLA. 2D DCA 2025) The odor of cannabis, by itself, is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause for a search. Because medical marijuana and legal hemp are indistinguishable from illegal cannabis by smell alone, officers must now point to additional facts beyond odor to justify a warrantless search.

NEW UPDATE: CHERFILS V. STATE (FLA. 2D DCA DEC. 31, 2025) In its first application of Williams, the Second DCA ruled that while odor alone is insufficient, a search may still be justified under the totality of the circumstances. Critical factors included: the driver’s nervous and argumentative behavior, production of a medical marijuana card, admission of smoking earlier, and an odor intensity suggesting recent smoking in the vehicle. WARNING: Showing your medical marijuana card during a traffic stop can actually hurt you—it indicates the substance is medical marijuana (illegal to smoke in a vehicle) rather than hemp (legal to smoke anywhere).

JURISDICTION NOTE These rulings apply in Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, which covers Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, and DeSoto Counties. Other Florida appellate districts have not yet adopted this reasoning, so the law may differ in other parts of the state. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. serves clients in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

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.

WHY THE LAW CHANGED: LEGAL CANNABIS IS NOW INDISTINGUISHABLE BY SMELL The Second DCA recognized that legislative changes have dramatically altered cannabis regulation in Florida: Medical marijuana is lawful when dispensed from treatment centers for qualified patients. Hemp is lawful under both federal and Florida law if it contains less than 0.3% THC. Smokable hemp is legal in Florida, including in vehicles. Because these lawful forms smell identical to illegal cannabis, odor alone is no longer an “immediately apparent” indicator of criminal activity.

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

Factor	Why It Mattered
Production of medical marijuana card	Indicated the cannabis was medical marijuana (illegal to smoke in a vehicle) rather than hemp (legal to smoke in a vehicle)
Intensity of burnt marijuana odor	Officer testified smell was “a lot more than just if someone smoked earlier”—suggesting recent smoking in the vehicle
Nervous and argumentative behavior	Court noted this “unusual behavior revolved around” the subject of the potential crime—evasiveness about cannabis use
Apparent dishonesty about timing	Driver claimed he smoked “earlier,” but odor intensity contradicted this—officer perceived driver as being untruthful
High-crime area	While not sufficient alone, contributes to totality of circumstances analysis

CRITICAL WARNING: YOUR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU In Cherfils, the court specifically noted that producing a medical marijuana card indicated the cannabis was medical marijuana—which is illegal to smoke in a vehicle under § 381.986, Florida Statutes. By contrast, hemp is legal to smoke anywhere, including in vehicles. By voluntarily producing his card, Cherfils eliminated the possibility that the smell came from legal hemp and gave the officer reason to believe a crime was being committed. If you are a medical marijuana patient stopped by police, consult with a criminal defense attorney before making any statements or producing any cards.

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.

CASE SUMMARY: WILLIAMS V. STATE (FLA. 2D DCA 2025) Facts: Traffic stop in Hillsborough County; officers searched vehicle based solely on cannabis odor. Defense Argument: Plain smell doctrine no longer valid given medical marijuana and hemp legalization. Holding: Court receded from Owens v. State; ruled odor alone insufficient for probable cause. Outcome: Conviction affirmed on good-faith reliance grounds (Davis v. United States), but certified question to Florida Supreme Court.

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.

IMPORTANT: THIS RULING APPLIES TO FUTURE SEARCHES The Williams decision applies prospectively. For searches conducted after October 1, 2025, officers in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, and DeSoto Counties) can no longer rely solely on cannabis odor to establish probable cause. Evidence obtained through odor-only searches may now be subject to suppression. Other Florida appellate districts may still follow the old rule until the Florida Supreme Court decides the certified question.

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:

CERTIFIED QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE “Does the plain smell doctrine continue to apply to establish probable cause based only on the odor of cannabis?”

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

Before Williams (Pre-10/1/25)	After Williams (Post-10/1/25)
Cannabis odor alone = probable cause for search	Cannabis odor alone = NOT sufficient for probable cause
Smell treated as “immediately apparent” evidence of crime	Smell no longer “immediately apparent” due to legal cannabis/hemp
Officers could search without additional articulable facts	Officers must point to additional facts beyond odor (see Cherfils)
Owens v. State (2021) controlled	Owens receded; Williams controls in 2d DCA
Suppression motions based on smell unlikely to succeed	Suppression motions should be filed—but watch for Cherfils factors

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

Odor Alone (Insufficient)	Odor + Additional Factors (May Be Sufficient)
“I smelled marijuana”	Odor + driver produces medical marijuana card (Cherfils)
“Strong odor of cannabis coming from vehicle”	Odor + driver admits to smoking marijuana (Cherfils)
“Odor indicated marijuana inside”	Odor + intensity suggests very recent smoking in vehicle (Cherfils)
“Based on my training and experience…”	Odor + nervous/argumentative behavior about cannabis (Cherfils)
Any variation of odor-only justification	Odor + visible drug paraphernalia or contraband

Frequently Asked Questions: Plain Smell Doctrine in Florida

Does the odor of cannabis still allow police to search my car in Florida?

Not by itself—at least not in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction. The court ruled in Williams v. State that the odor of cannabis alone does not provide probable cause for a search. However, under Cherfils v. State, officers may still conduct a search if the odor is combined with other factors such as admissions, production of a medical marijuana card, or behavior suggesting recent use in the vehicle.

What is the plain smell doctrine?

The plain smell doctrine allowed officers to search based solely on detecting the odor of cannabis. For decades, courts treated the smell of marijuana as automatic probable cause. Because Florida has legalized medical marijuana and hemp, the Second DCA found that odor alone no longer proves criminal activity.

Should I show my medical marijuana card if police smell cannabis in my car?

Proceed with extreme caution. In Cherfils, the court specifically noted that producing a medical marijuana card indicated the cannabis was medical marijuana—which is illegal to smoke in a vehicle. By contrast, hemp is legal to smoke anywhere, including in vehicles. Producing your card may actually provide the additional factor needed for probable cause. Consult with a criminal defense attorney before making any statements or producing any cards during a traffic stop.

Does this mean cannabis possession is legal in Florida?

No. Cannabis possession remains illegal in Florida unless it is medical marijuana from a licensed treatment center or hemp containing less than 0.3% THC. The Williams ruling only limits how police can justify a warrantless search—it does not legalize recreational cannabis.

Can probationers still be searched if officers smell cannabis?

Probationers have constitutional protections unless their probation terms specifically authorize warrantless searches. In Williams, the court noted that odor alone is not sufficient for probationers whose supervision conditions do not include a search waiver.

How does this decision affect DUI or impaired driving cases?

The odor of cannabis may still be considered along with other factors, such as driving behavior, field sobriety test results, or visible evidence of impairment. However, odor alone is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

Does this ruling apply statewide?

Currently, Williams and Cherfils are binding only in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction, which covers Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, and DeSoto Counties. Other Florida appellate districts have not yet adopted this reasoning, so the law may differ elsewhere in the state. The Brancato Law Firm serves clients in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, where these rulings apply. The court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, which may adopt this reasoning statewide.

What should I do if I was searched based on cannabis odor?

Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. If your search occurred after October 1, 2025, you may have grounds for a motion to suppress. Your attorney will analyze whether additional factors like those in Cherfils apply to your case. Even for earlier searches, an attorney can evaluate whether other facts support the probable cause determination.

Searched Based on Cannabis Odor? Your Rights May Have Changed. Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato monitors every development in Florida search and seizure law to ensure his clients receive the strongest defense. With over 25 years of experience and as former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, he understands how constitutional protections evolve—and how to use new case law like Williams and Cherfils to challenge unlawful searches. Call (813) 727-7159 Confidential Consultation | The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

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

Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Supreme Court Immigration Case: What You Need to Know

Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Mon, 15 Sep 2025 01:54:59 GMT

The Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Supreme Court immigration case is already shaping the national debate over immigration enforcement and constitutional rights. On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request to pause a lower court ruling that had blocked immigration raids in Los Angeles. This emergency order has immediate consequences for both undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

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.

Motion to Suppress Evidence in Tampa: What Defendants Need to Know

Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 02:15:03 GMT

Why Suppressing Evidence Can Change Your Case

When facing criminal charges in Tampa, Hillsborough County, or the surrounding areas, the evidence against you often determines whether the prosecution can move forward. But if the police obtained that evidence illegally, it may be excluded from court. This is where a Tampa attorney for motions to suppress comes in.

A motion to suppress is one of the strongest legal tools available to protect your rights. Attorney Rocky Brancato brings more than 25 years of criminal defense experience, including service in an elite sex crimes unit, to challenge unconstitutional searches, unlawful police conduct, and violations of your constitutional protections. When the state’s case relies on illegally obtained evidence, a successful suppression motion can force the prosecutor to reduce charges—or even dismiss the case entirely.

What Is a Motion to Suppress?

A motion to suppress is a formal request asking the judge to prevent specific evidence from being used at trial because it was obtained unlawfully. If granted, the prosecution cannot present that evidence, which may weaken or destroy their case.

Requirements Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)

A legally sufficient motion to suppress must:

Identify the evidence to be suppressed
Provide the factual basis for suppression
Provide the legal basis for suppression

Legal Grounds for Suppressing Evidence in Florida

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h) outlines five grounds for suppressing evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure.

Evidence seized without a valid warrant

If police do not have a warrant and no exception applies, the evidence may be excluded.

Warrant insufficient on its face

A warrant that fails to meet legal requirements can invalidate the search.

No probable cause for the warrant

If officers failed to establish probable cause, the warrant—and the evidence—may be unconstitutional.

Search exceeded the scope of the warrant

Police can only search areas and seize items authorized by the warrant.

Warrant illegally executed

If officers do not follow proper procedures—such as failing to announce themselves when required—the search may be invalid.

Suppressing Confessions and Defendant Statements

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(i)(1) governs suppression of statements. Under Miranda v. Arizona, law enforcement must advise individuals of their rights before custodial interrogation.

When statements must be suppressed:

Failure to give Miranda warnings
Coercion or improper pressure
Threats or promises of leniency
Psychological manipulation

Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

Exception for impeachment

Even suppressed statements can be used to impeach a defendant who testifies inconsistently.
See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).

For this reason, a skilled defense attorney will carefully assess whether a defendant should testify.

The Exclusionary Rule: Why Suppression Matters

In most cases, police officers who violate your rights are not fined or disciplined. Instead, the primary consequence is the exclusionary rule, which prevents unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court.

The purpose of the exclusionary rule:

Discourage unconstitutional police conduct
Protect defendants from unlawful searches and coerced interrogations
Ensure fair trials based on legally obtained evidence

If evidence is suppressed, the prosecution may lose the foundation of its case.

Suppression Motions Create Leverage

Even if the motion is never heard, filing it can push prosecutors to negotiate because:

They risk losing key evidence
Their case may fall apart without it
Judges may question the legality of the investigation

As a result, prosecutors often reduce charges—sometimes from felony to misdemeanor—to avoid losing a suppression hearing.

The Risk of Losing the Motion

A suppression motion is powerful, but it carries risks:

If denied, the evidence can be used at trial
Suppression issues may need to be appealed later
A denial may weaken negotiating power

An experienced attorney will decide whether filing, arguing, or postponing the motion is the best strategy based on the facts.

Why Choose Rocky Brancato for a Motion to Suppress?

Motions to suppress require deep knowledge of:

Constitutional law
Police search and interrogation techniques
Forensic procedures
Courtroom strategy

Attorney Rocky Brancato has successfully challenged illegal searches, defective warrants, coerced confessions, and unlawful police conduct in serious cases, including sex crimes, child abuse, and violent felonies.

What sets him apart:

Thorough independent investigations
Strategic use of expert testimony
Detailed analysis of police practices
Relentless commitment to protecting your rights

How a Successful Suppression Motion Can Transform Your Case

If evidence is suppressed, it can:

Result in dismissal of all charges
Force prosecutors to offer reduced charges
Strengthen your defense at trial
Undermine the credibility of the police investigation

This makes a motion to suppress one of the most impactful defense tools available.

Frequently Asked Questions About Motions to Suppress in Florida

What is the purpose of a motion to suppress?

A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of your constitutional rights. If granted, the prosecution cannot use that evidence against you.

Can evidence be suppressed if police did not have a warrant?

Yes. Evidence obtained without a warrant may be suppressed unless law enforcement can prove that a valid exception applied.

What happens if police did not read my Miranda rights?

If you were in custody and interrogated without being advised of your Miranda rights, your statements may be excluded from the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

Can coerced confessions be suppressed?

Yes. Statements obtained through threats, promises, deception, or psychological pressure may be ruled involuntary and suppressed.

Does the exclusionary rule apply to all illegal searches?

Generally, yes. If evidence was obtained unlawfully, the exclusionary rule prevents it from being used in court.

Can suppressed statements still be used at trial?

Sometimes. Suppressed statements may still be used for impeachment if you testify inconsistently. See Harris v. New York.

Will filing a suppression motion help with plea negotiations?

Often. Prosecutors may reduce charges to avoid losing a suppression hearing, especially when the evidence is critical to their case.

Can a case be dismissed if evidence is suppressed?

Yes. If suppressed evidence is essential to the prosecution’s case, the state may dismiss the charges.

How do I know if a motion to suppress applies to my case?

Only a skilled defense attorney can evaluate whether a search, seizure, or interrogation violated your rights under Florida or federal law.

Contact a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you believe evidence in your case was obtained unlawfully, do not wait. A motion to suppress could be the key to protecting your freedom.

Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. at (813) 727-7159 for a confidential consultation. We aggressively challenge unlawful police conduct and fight to protect your constitutional rights throughout Tampa and Hillsborough County.