I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As a former police academy legal instructor, I taught officers exactly when the law allows them through a front door — and I served as Chief Operating Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where home-search suppression motions were daily work. Our attorneys litigate these entries in Tampa Bay courtrooms, and 2026 has redrawn several of the lines.

When Can Police Legally Enter Your Home in Florida?

Police can enter your home only with a warrant, with valid consent, or under a recognized exception — because under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, a warrantless home search is “per se unreasonable.” The home is the most protected place in constitutional law, and the State always bears the burden of proving an exception applied.

Everything below is about how those boxes get tested in real cases — because the difference between “welfare check” and “warrantless search,” or between “we had a warrant” and “here is the warrant,” decided three major Florida decisions within weeks of each other this year.

Can Police Enter Your Home for a Welfare Check?

Only if the facts would make a reasonable officer believe someone inside is seriously hurt or about to be — and a Tampa Bay-area appellate court just held officers to that standard. In State v. Ford, No. 2D2025-0324 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2026), detectives entered a man’s home without a warrant, claiming they feared a medical emergency, and found evidence they hoped to use against him. The trial court suppressed it, finding the officers’ fear was built on “a hunch or a guess or a speculation” — and the Second District, whose decisions bind courts across Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, affirmed.

What sank the State was the officers’ own behavior. They did not call 911. They did not kick the door or break a window to render immediate aid. They called dispatch for a backup officer — “not with lights and sirens, just regular” — waited, and then went looking for an open window to climb through. None of them looked through the windows to confirm anyone inside actually needed help, and the court found they had plenty of time to get a warrant. The lesson our attorneys use in suppression hearings: exigency is measured by the totality of the circumstances, and officers who act like there is no emergency cannot later justify an entry by claiming one. The emergency-aid exception is real — police genuinely rescuing someone need no warrant — but Ford confirms it is “not a shortcut by which police may circumvent the requirement of a search warrant.”

Do Police Have to Knock and Announce Before a Raid?

Yes — Florida law still requires it — but as of June 2026, breaking that rule no longer gets the evidence thrown out. Florida’s knock-and-announce statute, Fla. Stat. § 933.09, lets officers executing a search warrant break open a door or window only after giving “due notice” of their authority and purpose and being refused admittance. For sixteen years, Florida courts suppressed evidence when officers violated it, under the Florida Supreme Court’s Cable decision.

That ended with State v. Times, No. SC2024-0647 (Fla. June 25, 2026). Officers executing a valid search warrant announced it but did not give the occupants enough time to answer the door before going in; the trial court suppressed the evidence under Cable, and the First District affirmed. On a certified question, the Florida Supreme Court held 6-1 that suppression is not an available remedy for a statutory knock-and-announce violation, receding from Cable. The court reasoned that § 933.09 contains no exclusionary rule of its own, and the Legislature chose a different remedy: under Fla. Stat. § 933.17, an officer who willfully exceeds his authority executing a search warrant — or exercises it “with unnecessary severity” — commits a second-degree misdemeanor. The court noted the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same conclusion for federal constitutional purposes in Hudson v. Michigan back in 2006.

Read carefully, Times is narrower than the headlines suggest. It applies to searches conducted under a valid warrant — the underlying warrant must still survive scrutiny — and the court answered only the § 933.09 question, leaving other doors open. For anyone whose home was raided, the defense analysis simply shifts one step earlier: from how the officers entered to whether the paperwork authorizing entry holds up at all. Which brings us to the third 2026 decision.

What If the State Can’t Produce the Search Warrant?

Then the search is treated as warrantless — and everything found, plus everything you said afterward, can be suppressed. In Cabrera v. State, No. 3D2024-1324 (Fla. 3d DCA May 13, 2026), a detective and federal agents entered a fenced Miami-Dade residential property based on a federal search warrant that was under seal — and when the defense moved to suppress, the State never produced the warrant or its supporting affidavit. The trial court denied suppression anyway, admitting it was “just skipping over” whether the warrant was valid.

The Third District reversed with instructions to grant suppression. A court reviewing a warrant is confined to the four corners of the probable cause affidavit; with no warrant and no affidavit in the record, there was no way to find probable cause — and no way to apply the good-faith exception, because the detective who entered had never even seen the warrant he claimed to rely on. The court went further: because the search was illegal, Cabrera’s post-search statements were “fruit of the poisonous tree” and had to be suppressed too. For defendants, Cabrera is a reminder that “we had a warrant” is a claim the State must prove with paper, not testimony — and that a successful challenge takes down not just the physical evidence but the statements that followed it.

What Evidence Gets Thrown Out After These Decisions?

The 2026 decisions sort home-search defenses into clear lanes — some stronger than ever, one now closed.

One practical note about consent, because it decides more home searches than any doctrine: you are allowed to say no. Officers at your door without a warrant may ask to “take a look around,” and declining is not evidence of guilt. Step outside, close the door behind you if you speak with them, and say clearly that you do not consent to a search. If they enter anyway, do not resist — the remedy is a suppression motion, not a confrontation, and our attorneys would rather litigate a clean record of non-consent than untangle a disputed one.

Can Police Search Your Yard, Porch, or Fenced Property?

The Fourth Amendment’s protection extends beyond your walls to the “curtilage” — the area immediately surrounding the home, like a porch, carport, or fenced yard, where the intimate activity of home life happens. That mattered in Cabrera, where the property agents entered without a producible warrant was a fenced residential lot. The controlling principle comes from a Florida-grown U.S. Supreme Court case: in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), officers walked a drug dog onto a Miami front porch, and the Court held that bringing an investigative tool into the curtilage to gather evidence is itself a search requiring a warrant.

The practical rules for Tampa Bay homeowners follow from that. Officers, like anyone else, may walk up to your front door, knock, and ask questions — the “knock and talk” — because that is what any visitor may do. What they may not do without a warrant is exceed that implied invitation: linger to peer into windows, walk the back yard, open a gate into a fenced area, or deploy a dog at the threshold. Evidence gathered from inside the curtilage without a warrant, consent, or true exigency is suppressible on the same footing as evidence from inside the house — and in our experience, entries “just to check the back door” are among the most commonly overlooked suppression issues in home-search cases.

What Should You Do If Police Searched Your Home?

Write down everything while it is fresh, and get the paperwork audited by a defense lawyer before the State’s charging decision. The questions that decided Ford, Times, and Cabrera are the questions we ask in every Tampa Bay home-search case: Was there a warrant, and can the State actually produce it and its affidavit? Does the affidavit establish probable cause within its four corners? If there was no warrant, what exception is the State claiming — and did the officers’ actual conduct match the emergency they now describe? Were your statements taken after the entry, so that they fall if the entry falls? In Hillsborough County, felony cases move from arrest to the State Attorney’s filing decision in a matter of weeks, and a suppression problem raised early can shape or stop the filing. These issues also connect to the rest of your digital and physical privacy — see our guides on whether police can track your phone without a warrant, stop and frisk on the street, and what to do after being arrested in Tampa.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can police enter my house if I don’t answer the door?

Not without a warrant, consent, or a genuine emergency. Simply not answering is not an emergency — and in State v. Ford, the Second District affirmed suppression where officers responded to an unanswered door by climbing through a window on nothing more than speculation. If officers have a valid search warrant, however, § 933.09 allows forced entry after they announce and are refused.

Can police come in for a welfare check?

Only when the facts give them an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside is seriously injured or in imminent danger. A true emergency justifies entry without a warrant; a hunch does not, and officers who wait around and search for an open window undercut their own claim of urgency. Our attorneys examine officers’ actual conduct minute by minute in these cases.

If police broke down my door without knocking, will my case be thrown out?

Not automatically — after State v. Times (Fla. 2026), evidence is no longer suppressed for a knock-and-announce violation when officers had a valid search warrant. But the warrant itself must still be valid, and other defects in the entry or the affidavit still support suppression. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. audits the entire warrant package in every home-search case, because Times moved the fight — it didn’t end it.

Do police have to show me the search warrant?

You are entitled to know they have one, and the State must be able to produce it in court — Cabrera v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) suppressed a search where the warrant was sealed and never produced, along with the statements that followed. At your door, don’t physically interfere; note the time, the agency, and what officers say, and call a lawyer immediately.

Can police search my home if my roommate lets them in?

A person with authority over the home can consent to entry of shared areas, but not to spaces exclusively yours, like your private bedroom — and if you are present and object, your refusal generally controls as to you. Consent questions are fact-heavy, and we litigate them regularly in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

Does an arrest warrant let police enter my home?

An arrest warrant lets officers enter the suspect’s own residence when they reasonably believe the person is home — it is not a search warrant for the whole house, and it does not authorize entering someone else’s home without more. Evidence found beyond those limits can be challenged, and The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. handles exactly these motions.

Home-entry law moved three times in 2026 — Cabrera in May, Times in June, Ford in July — and the difference between a suppressed search and an admitted one now turns on details most people never think to write down. If officers entered or searched your home anywhere in Tampa Bay, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 before the State makes its filing decision. The suppression motion that ends a case is built in its first weeks.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

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

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. As a former police academy legal instructor, I taught officers what the Fourth Amendment lets them do — and where the line sits. Our attorneys use that same line every week in suppression litigation, and Chatrie just redrew it for every criminal case in Florida built on cell-phone location data.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Chatrie v. United States?

The Supreme Court held that when police obtained a suspect’s Google “Location History” through a geofence warrant, they conducted a Fourth Amendment search — because people keep a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location data. Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (U.S. June 29, 2026), extends the Court’s landmark 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States (which protected cell-site location records) to the far more precise location logs generated by smartphone apps.

Three points from the decision matter most for anyone facing charges. First, duration doesn’t save the government: the Court rejected the argument that a “short” window — the two hours pulled in Chatrie’s case — is too little to trigger the Fourth Amendment, explaining that even brief location records can reveal deeply private facts. Second, storage by a third party doesn’t matter: the Court held the “third-party doctrine” does not apply, because location data is “not truly shared” in any meaningful sense — it is simply the automatic price of using a modern phone. Third, the Court decided only that a search occurred. It vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to decide whether the warrant satisfied probable cause and particularity, and whether the good-faith exception saves the evidence if it did not.

What Was the Chatrie Case About?

The case began with a bank robbery that stumped investigators. On May 20, 2019, a man robbed a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia; witnesses and surveillance showed him approaching from the corner of a neighboring church while appearing to talk on a cell phone, but the trail went cold. Police then obtained a geofence warrant directing Google to identify devices with Location History enabled near the credit union around the robbery. That process ultimately pointed to Okello Chatrie, whose phone data placed him at the scene — two hours of his movements, pulled from Google’s servers. He moved to suppress, lost on good-faith grounds in the lower courts, and the Supreme Court took the case to answer the threshold question: was this a “search” at all? Six Justices said yes.

What Is a Geofence Warrant — and Can Google Still Answer One?

A geofence warrant works in reverse: instead of naming a suspect and searching their data, police draw a virtual perimeter around a crime scene and ask a company — most famously Google — to identify every device inside it during a time window. The process in Chatrie ran in steps: first an anonymized list of devices in the zone, then expanded data to narrow the list, then the “unmasking” of specific accounts — names, emails, phone numbers. Justice Jackson’s concurrence flagged the core defect defense lawyers now argue: the later steps often happen with no criteria and no judge supervising which devices get unmasked, leaving “too much to the discretion” of the officers.

Geofence Surveillance, By the Numbers

The scale of this surveillance tool is why the decision matters far beyond one Virginia robbery — the numbers below come from the opinion itself.

Two details from the opinion deserve emphasis. Location History runs constantly in the background once enabled — whether or not the app is open, whether or not the phone is in use — and it keeps running even if the user deletes the app that turned it on. And Android users are specifically warned their devices will not “work correctly” unless they turn it on. The Court treated that reality for what it is: tracking as a default condition of modern life, not a voluntary broadcast of your whereabouts.

Is My Cell-Phone Location Data Protected by the Fourth Amendment?

Yes — after Chatrie, your historical location data is constitutionally protected whether it comes from cell towers or from app-based logs, and regardless of how short the time window is. The decision closes the two arguments the government had been using to avoid Carpenter.

The undecided fourth row is not a footnote — it is the battleground. A ruling that a search occurred means nothing in a specific case until a court examines whether the warrant (if there was one) was supported by probable cause and described the search with particularity. That examination is defense work, done case by case, device by device.

How Did the Justices Vote in Chatrie?

Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson — with Justice Gorsuch concurring in the judgment, making six votes for the outcome. Justice Jackson added a concurrence (joined by Justice Sotomayor) arguing the multi-step geofence process gave officers an unsupervised “roving commission.” Justice Gorsuch would have reached the result on different reasoning. Justice Alito dissented — warning the decision “will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine” — joined in part by Justices Thomas and Barrett, and Justice Barrett filed her own dissent.

The lineup matters for what comes next: the majority’s reasoning was joined by five Justices, the case produced four separate opinions, and the open questions — warrant validity, good faith, other kinds of digital records — will be litigated against that backdrop for years.

Does Chatrie Apply to Criminal Cases in Florida?

Yes — immediately and automatically. Florida’s own constitution, Article I, Section 12, commands that Florida’s search-and-seizure right “shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.” So Chatrie is not persuasive authority here; it is the governing rule in every Florida courtroom, from the 13th Judicial Circuit in Tampa outward.

Florida law enforcement already works with location technology under state statutes like Fla. Stat. § 934.42, which lets officers get court orders for mobile tracking devices — and which expressly makes U.S. Supreme Court standards govern their installation and monitoring. After Chatrie, those standards now clearly include a warrant requirement for historical app-based location data. In practice, our attorneys look for location evidence in Tampa Bay cases in three familiar places: geofence-style requests tied to a crime scene, account-specific demands for a suspect’s Google or Apple data, and downloads from a seized phone itself. Each source now has its own constitutional checklist, and a defect in any of them supports a motion to suppress.

What Comes Next — Are Reverse Keyword Warrants Legal?

Chatrie answered the geofence question but teed up the next fight: reverse keyword warrants, where police ask a search engine to identify everyone who searched a particular term — a victim’s name, an address, a chemical — during a window of time. The logic of Chatrie (a dragnet over mostly innocent people’s private data, revealed only because using the internet is the price of modern life) applies with obvious force, but the Supreme Court has not yet decided it, and lower courts are split on how far Carpenter and now Chatrie reach. The same goes for other data dragnets: tower dumps, automated license-plate reader networks, and purchases of location data from commercial brokers. Currency matters in this area more than almost any other — the constitutional rules your case is judged by may literally change between arrest and trial, which is why preserving these issues early is essential.

What Should You Do If Police Used Phone Location Data in Your Case?

Get the warrant paperwork in front of a defense lawyer before you make any decisions about your case. After Chatrie, the questions our attorneys ask are concrete: Was there a warrant at all, or just a subpoena or “exigent” request? Does the affidavit establish probable cause tied to the place and time searched? Did the warrant limit the geofence’s size, duration, and the unmasking steps — or did officers get a blank check? Was your data pulled at step one or only after unsupervised narrowing? Every one of those defects is a suppression argument, and in a case built on placing your phone at a scene, suppression is usually the whole case. Location-data challenges also travel with the rest of the digital-privacy toolbox — see our guides to whether the State can get your medical records in a DUI case and what to do after being arrested in Tampa. And because these motions are won on timing — witnesses’ memories, preservation letters to Google, litigation before the State’s filing decision — the sooner the defense starts, the more options you have.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do police need a warrant to get my Google location history?

Yes. After Chatrie v. United States (2026), obtaining your historical cell-phone location data — including Google Location History — is a Fourth Amendment search, so police generally need a valid warrant supported by probable cause. Our attorneys examine whether the warrant in your case actually meets those requirements, because “a warrant existed” is not the same as “the warrant was valid.”

Can police still use geofence warrants after Chatrie?

Geofence warrants were not banned — the Court held only that they are searches, which means they require valid warrants. Whether any particular geofence warrant satisfies probable cause and particularity is now the contested question, and Justice Jackson’s concurrence gives the defense a roadmap for attacking the unmasking steps. We raise those challenges by motion to suppress in Florida courts.

Does Chatrie apply if police only got a couple hours of my location data?

Yes — that was precisely the government’s argument, and the Court rejected it. Two hours of Location History was enough to trigger the Fourth Amendment because even short windows reveal private associations. There is no minimum number of hours before your rights apply.

Will the evidence in my case be thrown out automatically?

No. Chatrie decided that a search occurred; whether evidence is suppressed depends on whether the warrant was valid and whether the good-faith exception applies — the questions remanded in Chatrie’s own case. That is exactly the analysis The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. performs when location data appears in discovery, because the suppression fight is where these cases are won or lost.

How do I know if a geofence warrant was used in my case?

You usually learn it from discovery — search warrant returns, affidavits, or references to Google legal process in reports. Defense counsel can demand the full warrant package, the data Google produced at each step, and the communications around it. If you were arrested in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County and phone location evidence is involved, The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. can obtain and audit that paperwork.

Does turning off Location History protect me?

Turning it off stops Google’s Location History logging going forward, but other apps, your carrier’s cell-site records, and data brokers still generate location trails — each with its own legal protections. Chatrie and Carpenter now protect the two biggest categories. The safest assumption is that your phone creates records someone may one day try to use, and the Constitution now stands between those records and warrantless access.

Chatrie redrew the digital-privacy map on June 29, 2026, and the next rounds — warrant validity, good faith, keyword warrants — are being litigated right now. If cell-phone location data shows up anywhere in your Tampa Bay case, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 before the State’s filing decision is made. Suppression issues are strongest when they are raised early, and location-data challenges are the sharpest new tool in the box.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

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

At The Brancato Law Firm, we handle cases across the full spectrum of criminal investigations, from sex crime anddrug investigations to domestic violence accusations and internet sting operations. Our founder, Rocky Brancato, spent 25 years in criminal defense, including serving as Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office and training law enforcement officers at the police academy on criminal procedure and courtroom testimony. That background gives our team a direct understanding of how investigations are built, how officers are trained to develop cases, and where the real opportunities for defense begin.

The window between investigation and formal charges is often the most valuable time to act in a Florida criminal case. This article covers the signs that an investigation may be underway, what each sign tells you about where things likely stand, and what you can do to protect yourself before charges are ever filed.

How Criminal Investigations Work in Florida Before Charges Are Filed

Most people assume a criminal case starts with an arrest. In reality, many Florida cases begin with a pre-file investigation that can last weeks or months before a prosecutor decides whether to file formal charges.

During this window, law enforcement and prosecutors have broad investigative authority. Under Florida Statute §27.04, state attorneys can summon witnesses from anywhere in the state, question them under oath, and investigate potential violations of law before any charging document is filed. State-attorney investigators have law-enforcement status and can serve arrest warrants, search warrants, and witness subpoenas connected to criminal investigations (§27.255).

For more serious cases, Florida prosecutors can also convene a grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the grand jury has the power to subpoena witnesses, hear testimony, and return an indictment. If you are called before a grand jury, Florida law allows you to bring one attorney into the room, but only to advise and consult, not to speak to the grand jurors (Florida Statutes Chapter 905).

Florida’s public records law classifies active criminal investigative material as nonpublic while the investigation is ongoing with a reasonable, good-faith anticipation of arrest or prosecution (§119.011). You may receive very little official confirmation that an investigation exists, even when one is well underway.

All of this matters because the pre-file stage is where defense intervention can have the greatest impact. Once formal charges are filed, the case takes on its own momentum. Before that point, there is an opportunity to present evidence, provide context, and advocate directly to the prosecutor’s office to prevent charges from being filed in the first place.

Common Signs That You May Be Under Investigation

Law Enforcement Asks You to “Come In and Talk”

A request for a “voluntary interview” or an invitation to “clear something up” is one of the clearest signs that investigators consider you a person of interest. These conversations are designed to develop evidence, not to help you.

What makes this risky in Florida: Miranda warnings are only required during custodial interrogation, not during every police conversation. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the trigger for Miranda protections is whether the person is in custody, not whether they are a suspect (Traylor v. State). A noncustodial interview at a police station can produce statements that are fully admissible at trial, even if you were never read your rights.

What this sign tells you about where things stand: Investigators believe you may provide information that helps their case. They would not ask if they didn’t think the conversation could be productive for the prosecution.

What to do: Do not agree to speak without an attorney present. The fact that the conversation is described as “voluntary” does not mean your statements can’t be used against you.

People Around You Are Being Contacted

When law enforcement begins interviewing your family members, co-workers, neighbors, or friends, this typically means investigators are corroborating facts they already believe to be true. This is not usually the beginning of an inquiry. It’s a sign the investigation has progressed to the point where detectives are building context around information they’ve already gathered.

Florida law expressly recognizes that investigator and informant reports are part of criminal investigative information (§119.011), and state attorneys can formally summon witnesses for questioning under oath (§27.04).

What this sign tells you about where things stand: The investigation is past the initial stages. Investigators are testing their theory of the case against what the people in your life can confirm or deny.

What to do: Do not contact these individuals to coordinate stories, ask them what they said, or encourage them not to cooperate. Florida law criminalizes tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant under §914.22.

You Receive a Subpoena or Prosecutor Summons

A subpoena or a summons from the State Attorney’s Office is a stronger signal than a phone call or a detective’s visit. It means someone with legal authority has decided your testimony or records are relevant enough to compel production.

If the subpoena is connected to a grand jury, the secrecy rules are strict. Grand jury proceedings are confidential under Florida law, though a witness may bring one attorney into the room to advise and consult (§905.17, §905.185).

What this sign tells you about where things stand: The investigation has moved into formal evidence-gathering. Prosecutors are actively evaluating whether to bring charges.

What to do: Contact a criminal defense attorney before responding. An attorney can help you understand the scope of the subpoena, whether you are a target or a witness, and how to protect your rights.

A Search Warrant Is Executed or Your Devices Are Seized

A search warrant means a judge has already found probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in a specific location. Under Florida law (Chapter 933), warrants require probable cause, sworn testimony, and a description of the specific place to be searched and items to be seized. Florida imposes additional statutory protections for searches of private dwellings (§933.18).

The Florida Supreme Court has also placed constitutional limits on newer investigative techniques. In Jardines v. State, the court held that a drug-detection dog sniff at the front door of a private home constitutes a search requiring probable cause. In Tracey v. State, the court held that real-time cell-site tracking is a search that requires probable cause.

Device seizures are increasingly common and can involve phones, computers, tablets, external drives, and cloud-connected devices. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s forensic laboratories receive more than 100,000 items of evidence per year, and digital-evidence analysts routinely deal with encryption, deleted-data recovery, and damaged devices.

What this sign tells you about where things stand: The investigation is well developed. A judge has already reviewed evidence and concluded there is probable cause. This does not mean charges will definitely be filed, but the case is serious.

What to do: Do not interfere with the search. Do not attempt to hide, destroy, or move any items. Note the names of the officers, the warrant number if visible, and what is taken. Contact an attorney immediately.

You Receive a Notification from Google, Apple, Microsoft, or Meta

This is a sign that most articles about criminal investigations don’t mention. But it’s one of the most concrete, modern indicators that law enforcement has served legal process on a technology company holding your data.

Each of these companies has a policy of notifying users when the government requests account data, unless a court order, law, emergency circumstances, or nondisclosure order prevents notification:

• Google generally emails users before disclosing information to a government agency unless notice is legally prohibited, delayed by a gag order, or blocked by an emergency
• Apple notifies customers when account information is sought unless a court order or similar exception applies, and describes delayed notice after nondisclosure periods
• Microsoft provides prior notice unless prohibited by law, and delayed notice when nondisclosure orders expire
• Meta notifies users before disclosure unless prohibited or subject to nondisclosure, with delayed notice when restrictions lift

What this sign tells you about where things stand: Legal process (a warrant, court order, or subpoena) has already been served on a company that holds your data. The notification may arrive before, during, or after the disclosure, depending on whether a nondisclosure order was in place. You may not be the target of the investigation. You could be a witness, victim, or associated account holder. But it means the investigation is real and involves your digital information.

What to do: Preserve the notification. Do not delete or purge the account. Contact an attorney who can evaluate what process was served, what data may have been disclosed, and whether any challenge or strategic response is available. At The Brancato Law Firm, we handle internet crime and digital evidence cases where tech company notifications are the first sign a client receives that an investigation exists.

You Notice Signs of Surveillance

Surveillance can take many forms: unfamiliar vehicles near your home or workplace, the sense that you’re being followed, unusual activity on your phone or accounts, or the feeling that someone is monitoring your movements.

Florida law treats ordinary observation in public spaces differently from more invasive surveillance methods. The Florida Supreme Court has placed constitutional limits on certain techniques. Real-time cell-site location tracking requires probable cause (Tracey v. State), and a drug-detection dog sniff at the front door of a home is a search requiring probable cause (Jardines v. State).

Florida’s wiretap law (Chapter 934) prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications unless a statutory exception applies. Authorized interceptions require a detailed written application explaining the target offense, the communications to be intercepted, and why less intrusive methods failed or would be too dangerous (§934.09).

Not every suspicious car or strange feeling constitutes surveillance. But if multiple signs on this list are happening at the same time, the possibility becomes harder to dismiss.

What this sign tells you about where things stand: If actual surveillance is occurring, the investigation has likely been approved at a supervisory level and may have judicial authorization. This typically indicates a more advanced stage of investigation.

What to do: Document what you observe (dates, times, descriptions) but do not confront anyone you suspect of conducting surveillance. Do not attempt counter-surveillance. Share your observations with your attorney.

Someone Approaches You with a Suspiciously Convenient “Opportunity”

If someone you don’t know well, or someone you do know who is acting out of character, presents you with an unsolicited opportunity to engage in illegal activity, you may be the subject of an undercover operation or sting.

Florida law explicitly addresses this through its entrapment statute (§777.201). Entrapment occurs when law enforcement or its agents induce or encourage a crime by methods that create a substantial risk that the offense will be committed by someone not otherwise ready to commit it. Florida courts apply both subjective entrapment (looking at inducement and predisposition) and objective entrapment (looking at whether police conduct was outrageous).

Undercover operations and controlled buys are common in drug investigations, and online sting operations are a frequent tool in internet crime and sex crime investigations.

What this sign tells you about where things stand: An undercover approach means the investigation is active and may be targeting you specifically. Law enforcement has allocated resources and personnel to the operation.

What to do: Do not engage. Do not participate in the proposed activity. Do not agree to anything “just to see what happens.” Contact an attorney.

What You Should NOT Do If You Think You’re Being Investigated

Recognizing the signs matters, but what you do next matters just as much. These are the most common mistakes people make when they suspect an investigation is underway.

Every one of these actions can create additional criminal exposure on top of whatever the original investigation involves. The instinct to “clean up” or “get ahead of it” without legal guidance is understandable, but it almost always makes things worse.

What a Criminal Defense Attorney Can Do Before Charges Are Filed

Many people assume they need to wait until they’re arrested or formally charged before hiring an attorney. That assumption costs people cases.

Pre-file advocacy is one of the most effective services a criminal defense attorney can provide. In the window between an investigation and a charging decision, a defense attorney can:

• Control contact with law enforcement. Once you have counsel, investigators must communicate through your attorney. This prevents the kind of unguarded statements that frequently become the prosecution’s strongest evidence.
• Determine the scope of the investigation. Your attorney can find out whether subpoenas, warrants, or data requests have been issued and what agency is conducting the investigation.
• Prepare you for a grand jury appearance. If you receive a grand jury subpoena, your attorney can help you understand your rights, prepare your testimony, and accompany you into the grand jury room as your advisor.
• Present evidence and context to the prosecutor. This is the core of pre-file advocacy. An experienced defense attorney can provide exculpatory evidence, witness statements, and contextual information directly to the State Attorney’s Office before a filing decision is made.
• Advocate for a no-file decision. Florida prosecutors sometimes review completed investigations and decide not to file charges. “Not filed on” is a recognized official outcome in the State Attorney’s system. While there is no public data quantifying how often defense-generated pre-file submissions lead to this result, the mechanism is real and well-established.

Pre-file advocacy requires an attorney who understands how the State Attorney’s Office evaluates cases and what evidence influences charging decisions. At The Brancato Law Firm, our system-level knowledge of the criminal justice system, built through years of institutional leadership at the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, gives us direct insight into how these decisions are made.

This approach is especially effective in domestic violence cases, where the evidence often tells a more complex story than the initial accusation suggests, and in sex crime investigations, where early intervention with detectives can shape the entire trajectory of the case.

How Long Do Florida Criminal Investigations Last?

There is no single answer. Investigation timelines vary depending on the type of case, the complexity of the evidence, and how many agencies are involved.

If you have already been arrested but not formally charged, Florida’s rules set specific deadlines. Under Rule 3.134, the State must file formal charges within 30 days if you are in custody, or within 60 days if you are on pretrial release. If those deadlines pass, the rule requires release on recognizance (on the 33rd or 63rd day, respectively), though limited extensions are available.

If you have not been arrested, there is no comparable deadline. The investigation can remain “active” as long as arrest or prosecution is reasonably anticipated. This is another reason early attorney involvement matters: without counsel monitoring the situation, you may not know the investigation has progressed until an arrest warrant is executed.

If You Recognize These Signs, Talk to an Attorney Now

The period before charges are filed is not dead time. It is the most important window in many criminal cases. What happens during the investigation, and whether a defense attorney is involved, can determine whether charges are ever filed at all.

If you recognize any of the signs described in this article, do not wait for an arrest. Contact The Brancato Law Firm at (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation. We serve clients across Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties and are available 24/7 for emergencies.

Moschella v. State, No. 2D2023-0044 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 9, 2025)

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently issued a decision that reinforces a fundamental protection in criminal law: search warrants have expiration dates, and when police miss them, the evidence goes away. In Moschella v. State, the court reversed a child pornography conviction because law enforcement waited too long to execute the warrant—and no amount of “good reasons” could save the State’s case. An Experienced Tampa Sex Crimes Attorney may be able to help in your search warrant case too.

What Happened in This Case

James T. Moschella entered a no contest plea to possession of child pornography but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The State agreed that if Moschella won the suppression issue on appeal, the charges would be dismissed.

The central issue involved a search warrant authorizing forensic examination of Moschella’s electronic devices—mobile phones, a tablet, and a laptop. The warrant issued on July 27, 2020. However, law enforcement didn’t execute it until sometime in September—well beyond the 10-day execution window required by Florida law.

Florida’s 10-Day Search Warrant Rule

Under Florida Statute §933.05, a search warrant must be returned within ten days of issuance. This rule has existed for over a century, reflecting the legislature’s clear intent to protect citizens’ privacy rights by limiting how long a warrant remains valid.

Florida courts have consistently held that a warrant executed beyond this 10-day period becomes “stale,” and any search conducted under it is invalid. The Second DCA established this principle in Spera v. State, 467 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), making clear that the 10-day requirement is firm and doesn’t depend on whether the defendant suffered actual prejudice from the delay.

Key Legal Points from Moschella

Why the Trial Court Got It Wrong

The trial court denied Moschella’s suppression motion by finding he wasn’t “prejudiced” by the delay. In other words, the trial judge reasoned that since the evidence would have been the same whether police searched on day 8 or day 45, Moschella couldn’t complain.

The Second DCA rejected this reasoning. Citing Spera, the appellate court explained that courts cannot graft a “prejudice” requirement onto the statute’s straightforward language. The legislature—not judges—determined that 10 days is reasonable for warrant execution. When police exceed that deadline, the warrant becomes invalid regardless of circumstances.

Because the State had stipulated that suppression would be dispositive, the Second DCA reversed Moschella’s judgment and sentence and remanded with instructions to dismiss the charges.

What This Means for Criminal Defendants

Moschella reinforces several critical principles that apply to any Florida criminal case involving search warrants:

1. Strict Compliance Matters: Law enforcement must execute search warrants within 10 days. Missing this deadline—even by a few days—can invalidate all evidence obtained.
2. Prejudice Is Irrelevant: Defendants don’t have to prove the delay harmed them. The expired warrant alone is enough to suppress the evidence.
3. Dispositive Stipulations Are Binding: When prosecutors agree that suppression ends the case, a successful appeal results in dismissal—not a new trial.
4. Technical Defenses Win Cases: Procedural violations by law enforcement—timing, documentation, chain of custody—can be just as effective as challenging the evidence itself.

Why This Matters in Digital Evidence Cases

Cases involving electronic devices—child pornography, internet crimes, fraud—often depend entirely on digital evidence seized under warrant. These searches require forensic examination, which takes time. Law enforcement sometimes delays execution because devices need to be shipped to specialized labs, or forensic examiners have backlogs.

But Moschella makes clear that these practical difficulties don’t excuse missing the 10-day deadline. If police need more time, they must seek a new warrant—not simply ignore the expiration of the existing one.

For defendants facing serious charges based on seized computers, phones, or storage devices, this case demonstrates why meticulous review of warrant execution dates is essential. An attorney who overlooks this issue leaves a potentially case-ending defense on the table.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Florida’s 10-day search warrant rule?

Under Florida Statute §933.05, law enforcement must execute and return a search warrant within 10 days of issuance. A warrant executed after this deadline is considered “stale” and invalid, meaning evidence obtained from the search must be suppressed.

Do I have to prove the late warrant execution hurt my case?

No. Florida courts have consistently held that no showing of prejudice is required. The mere fact that the warrant was executed beyond the 10-day deadline is enough to invalidate the search, regardless of what evidence was found.

What happens if evidence is suppressed in my case?

If suppressed evidence is central to the State’s case—as it was in Moschella—the charges may be dismissed entirely. In other cases, suppression may weaken the prosecution’s case enough to result in reduced charges or acquittal at trial.

How do I know if my warrant was executed late?

The warrant itself shows the issuance date, and the return shows when it was executed. An experienced criminal defense attorney reviews these documents carefully as part of standard case evaluation. Many defendants don’t realize this issue exists until their attorney identifies it.

Facing Digital Evidence Charges in Tampa?

Your freedom may depend on holding the government to its constitutional and statutory obligations. Cases like Moschella don’t happen by accident—they happen because defense attorneys scrutinize every detail of how evidence was obtained.

I’m Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have defended clients facing serious criminal charges throughout Tampa Bay, including cases involving digital evidence and constitutional violations. If you’re facing charges based on seized electronic devices, I can review your case for warrant timing issues, chain of custody problems, and other procedural violations that could result in suppression or dismissal.

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, Pasco, and Polk Counties

Case Citation: Moschella v. State, No. 2D2023-0044 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 9, 2025). See also Spera v. State, 467 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).