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. I have served as a police academy legal instructor teaching officers the constitutional limits of search, seizure, and arrest, and I served as Chief Operating Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office. Today our attorneys defend gun and drug charges across Tampa Bay, and this question — marijuana and guns — now sits at the center of one of the fastest-moving areas in criminal law.

What Does Federal Law Say About Marijuana Users and Guns?

Federal law makes it a crime for any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm or ammunition. That ban lives in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and because marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, it has always applied to marijuana users — including Florida’s hundreds of thousands of registered medical marijuana patients. A state card has never been a defense to the federal statute, because Florida’s medical marijuana program does not change what federal law says.

The federal ban shows up in a second place that trips up ordinary gun buyers: ATF Form 4473, the questionnaire every purchaser completes at a licensed dealer. The form asks directly whether you are an unlawful user of marijuana or any other controlled substance, and it warns that marijuana remains federally unlawful regardless of state medical programs. Answering falsely is a separate federal felony. Our attorneys have seen careful, law-abiding people put themselves in federal jeopardy with one checkbox — which is why the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision matters so much, and why it must be read carefully rather than treated as a green light.

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

In United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government’s prosecution of a regular marijuana user under § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment — the first time the Court has struck down the application of a federal gun ban to drug users. Ali Hemani was prosecuted for having a gun in his home while being a regular marijuana user; the government’s theory was that regular use of a controlled substance, by itself, was enough to disarm him. It did not claim he was addicted, that he was high when found with the gun, or that he posed any particular danger.

Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, affirming the Fifth Circuit 7-2, rejected that theory under the historical-tradition test. The government leaned on founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws, but the Court found those laws targeted people whose drinking left them “practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs” — not everyone who drank regularly. The Court also stressed how the modern statute operates: it “automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user . . . all without any pre-deprivation process,” while the historical laws required some proceeding — a conviction, a guardianship, a hearing — before anyone lost liberty. And the Court pointed out that the government’s own conduct undercuts the claim that all marijuana users are categorically dangerous: federal prosecutors have been directed to curtail enforcement against marijuana users, most states have legalized some use, and the government itself recently moved certain marijuana products down the federal schedules.

For Florida gun owners who hold medical marijuana cards, the practical takeaway is this: after Hemani, a federal prosecution built on nothing more than the fact that you regularly use marijuana is unconstitutional. That is a real shield. But it is a shield with defined edges, described next.

What Did Hemani Leave Undecided?

Hemani was an as-applied ruling, not a repeal — § 922(g)(3) is still on the books, and the Court expressly reserved several theories the government may still pursue. Anyone mixing marijuana and firearms in Florida should understand exactly where the line now sits.

That last row deserves emphasis. Nothing in Hemani changed the purchase paperwork. Until ATF revises Form 4473, a medical marijuana patient who answers “no” to the unlawful-user question is still committing a federal crime, whatever the Second Amendment now says about possession prosecutions. This is exactly the kind of trap where getting legal advice before you act is worth far more than defending a charge afterward.

Does a Florida Medical Marijuana Card Take Away Your Gun Rights?

No — holding a Florida medical marijuana card does not, by itself, disqualify you from owning or possessing a firearm under Florida law. Florida’s medical marijuana statute, Fla. Stat. § 381.986, created a physician-certification system with a patient registry, and nothing in Florida’s gun statutes makes registered patients prohibited possessors.

Florida’s concealed-carry licensing statute, Fla. Stat. § 790.06, does contain drug-related disqualifiers that patients should know about. The Department of Agriculture must deny a license to an applicant who “chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages or other substances to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired,” and to anyone found guilty of a chapter 893 drug crime within the three years before applying. A conviction for a controlled-substance offense also triggers revocation of an existing license. So while the card itself is not a disqualifier, a marijuana-related conviction — even a misdemeanor — can cost you your carry license for years.

Where Is Medical Marijuana Use Still Illegal Even With a Card?

A Florida medical marijuana card authorizes “medical use” — and the statute defines that term to exclude specific places, so using marijuana in the wrong location remains a crime even for a fully registered patient. Under § 381.986, “medical use” does not include using or administering marijuana on public transportation, in any public place, in an enclosed indoor workplace, on school grounds, or — critically for Tampa Bay’s boaters and drivers — “in a school bus, a vehicle, an aircraft, or a motorboat,” with a narrow exception for low-THC cannabis not in a form for smoking. A qualified patient who uses marijuana in plain view of the public or in a vehicle or boat commits a first-degree misdemeanor.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal enforced exactly this limit in Tanaka v. State, No. 6D2024-1581 (Fla. 6th DCA June 19, 2026), a Collier County case where the court affirmed a conviction by quoting the statute’s rule that “medical use” does not cover marijuana in a vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat. The lesson for the hundreds of thousands of Floridians with cards: your protection travels with the statute’s definitions, not with the card in your wallet. Smoking in your car — parked or moving — is outside the program, and once an officer smells it, you may face both the misdemeanor and a vehicle search. Our attorneys have litigated where the odor-of-cannabis doctrine now stands in the Tampa Bay area; see our analysis of Florida’s Second DCA limiting the plain-smell doctrine.

Can 18-to-20-Year-Olds Carry a Concealed Gun in Florida Now?

As of mid-2026, Florida’s ban on concealed-carry licenses for adults under 21 has been declared facially unconstitutional by one of Florida’s appellate courts — a major shift, though not yet a statewide settled rule. In Eubanks v. State, No. 4D2025-1698 (Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 2026), a Broward County prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm, the Fourth District held that § 790.06(2)(b) — which requires concealed-carry applicants to be 21 — “is facially unconstitutional as it relates to 18- to 20-year-olds.” The court reasoned that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people” the Second Amendment protects, that the State produced no historical tradition of categorically disarming young adults, and — quoting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision — that a group cannot be “disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible.’” The court reversed the young man’s conviction outright.

Two cautions before anyone under 21 straps on a holster. First, Eubanks is a Fourth District decision; Tampa, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties sit in the Second District, which has not yet spoken, and the State may seek further review in the Florida Supreme Court. Second, the decision addressed concealed carry — it did not touch Florida’s open-carry ban or the separate federal rules for handgun purchases by under-21 buyers. Anyone in that age group facing a carry charge should treat Eubanks as a powerful defense to raise, not a settled right to rely on. For the broader landscape — permitless carry under Fla. Stat. § 790.01, where guns are still prohibited, and how gun charges are penalized — see our guide to gun crime laws in Florida.

How Do These Decisions Change a Florida Gun Charge Defense?

They add constitutional attacks to a defense toolbox that already starts with the Fourth Amendment. When our attorneys defend a Tampa Bay gun charge involving marijuana, the analysis now runs on three tracks at once.

1. Was the stop and search lawful? Most marijuana-and-gun cases begin with a traffic stop, a pat-down, or a search justified by the smell of cannabis. If the stop was unlawfully prolonged or the frisk exceeded its limits, the gun itself can be suppressed — see our breakdown of stop and frisk law in Florida.
2. Is the charge constitutional after Hemani and Eubanks? A federal § 922(g)(3) charge premised on use alone is now unconstitutional as applied. A state concealed-carry charge against an otherwise law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old is squarely challenged by Eubanks. These arguments are raised by motion — and where a district conflict exists, preserving the issue protects your appeal.
3. Does the statute even fit the facts? Was the marijuana “medical use” within § 381.986? Was the firearm actually “possessed”? Was a license exception satisfied? The State must prove every element, and pre-file advocacy — engaging the State Attorney’s Office before charges are formalized — can resolve borderline cases before they ever reach a courtroom.

What Should You Do If You Are Arrested on a Marijuana-Related Gun Charge?

Move fast, and say nothing about your marijuana use to anyone but your lawyer. Statements about how often you use — the exact fact that decides whether the government can build a lawful case after Hemani — are routinely volunteered in the first police interview, and they are admissible. In Hillsborough County, a felony gun arrest means booking at Orient Road Jail, first appearance within 24 hours, and formal charging decisions by the State Attorney’s Office in the weeks that follow. That charging window is where an early defense presentation can change everything: our attorneys use it to put suppression problems, Hemani and Eubanks issues, and medical-marijuana documentation in front of the prosecutor before the filing decision is made. If you were just arrested, our step-by-step guide to what to do after being arrested in Tampa walks through the first 72 hours.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I buy a gun in Florida if I have a medical marijuana card?

Florida law does not prohibit the purchase, but the federal purchase form still asks whether you are an unlawful user of marijuana, and marijuana remains federally unlawful even for state medical patients. Answering falsely on ATF Form 4473 is a federal felony that Hemani did not eliminate. Our attorneys advise cardholders on lawful paths before purchase, because this is far easier to get right in advance than to defend afterward.

Did the Supreme Court legalize gun ownership for all drug users?

No. United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026), held only that prosecuting a person for regular marijuana use alone violates the Second Amendment. The Court expressly left open prosecutions of people who are addicted, armed while presently intoxicated, or shown by individualized proof to be dangerous — and it did not touch the felon-in-possession ban.

Can I keep a gun in my car along with my medical marijuana?

Carrying a firearm in your vehicle can be lawful under Florida’s permitless-carry framework, but using marijuana in a vehicle is never “medical use” under Fla. Stat. § 381.986 — it is a first-degree misdemeanor even for cardholders. Combining the two also invites a search and a charging decision that treats you as an unlawful user. Keep the marijuana sealed, in its original packaging, and never use it in the car or on a boat.

Can an 18-year-old legally carry a concealed gun in Florida in 2026?

The Fourth District held in Eubanks v. State that the 21-and-over rule in § 790.06(2)(b) is facially unconstitutional, but that ruling comes from South Florida’s appellate district and the issue is not finally settled statewide. In Tampa Bay — the Second District — prosecutors may still file the charge, and the defense must raise Eubanks by motion. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. litigates these constitutional challenges and preserves them for appeal.

Will a marijuana conviction cost me my concealed weapons license?

Yes — a finding of guilt for a chapter 893 drug crime requires revocation of a Florida concealed-carry license, and it bars a new license for three years under Fla. Stat. § 790.06. That collateral consequence is one more reason to fight a “minor” possession charge rather than plead it out quickly. We routinely defend possession cases with the license consequences as a central goal.

Does Florida report medical marijuana patients to the federal government?

Florida’s medical marijuana use registry is a state system, and Florida law treats patient records as confidential; the registry is not a public list handed to federal authorities. But dispensary purchases, statements to police, and social media can all establish “unlawful user” status in a federal case. If you hold a card and own firearms, The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. can walk you through how the two programs actually interact.

Marijuana-and-gun law is moving faster right now than at any point in decades — Hemani and Eubanks both landed within a single week of June 2026, and the next round of decisions will decide how far they reach in Tampa Bay. If you are facing a gun or marijuana charge, or you hold a medical card and want to keep your gun rights intact, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 today. Constitutional defenses are strongest when they are raised before the State’s filing decision, not after.

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. I’ve tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict in my 25+ years in Hillsborough County courtrooms — almost all of them to six jurors — and our attorneys are now raising and preserving the jury-size issue in cases across Tampa Bay while the Supreme Court decides.

How Many Jurors Sit on a Florida Criminal Jury?

Six — unless the charge is a capital one, such as first-degree murder. Section 913.10, Florida Statutes, sets the number:

That means a person facing decades in prison on a robbery, trafficking, or attempted murder charge in Florida gets half the jury a shoplifting defendant would get in most other states — and half the jury any defendant gets in federal court across the street. The verdict must still be unanimous: all six jurors must agree to convict.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Tampa trial defense — (813) 727-7159

According to the federal Defender Services Office, Florida is one of only six states that still use fewer than twelve jurors in at least some criminal trials — and Florida applies the six-person jury more broadly than any of them, to every noncapital crime on the books. Our attorneys try cases in front of these six-person panels every year, and the arithmetic matters: with six jurors, a defendant needs to reach just one less skeptical mind, but also gets far fewer chances that someone on the panel sees the case the way the defense does.

Which Florida Cases Actually Get a Twelve-Person Jury?

Capital murder cases — and that entitlement holds even when the State chooses not to seek the death penalty. In State v. Griffith, 561 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1990), the Florida Supreme Court held that a prosecutor “cannot, by electing not to seek the death penalty, change the classification of an offense from capital to noncapital” — so a defendant indicted for first-degree murder keeps the statutory right to twelve jurors unless that right is waived, something the defense should never let happen by accident.

The “capital felony” label alone, though, is not what controls. Capital sexual battery — despite carrying that label — is tried to a six-person jury unless the State is actually seeking the death penalty, because Florida defines a capital case for jury purposes as one where death is a possible punishment. State v. Hogan, 451 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1984); Phillips v. State, No. 1D19-0470 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 23, 2021). Sit with what that leaves: charges carrying mandatory life — trafficking with decades of minimums, attempted murder, armed robbery, capital sexual battery itself — are decided by six people. In our felony practice across the 13th Judicial Circuit, the twelve-person jury is a genuine rarity, which is exactly why the question the Supreme Court just agreed to answer reaches nearly every serious case in this state.

Is a Six-Person Jury Legal?

Yes — for now, because of a case that came out of Florida itself. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’” and that Florida’s six-person jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the number twelve was a historical accident rather than a functional necessity, and that what matters is whether the jury is large enough to promote group deliberation, resist outside intimidation, and represent a cross-section of the community.

Eight years later, the Court drew the floor. In Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), it struck down Georgia’s five-person jury, concluding — based on a body of empirical studies — that “the purpose and functioning of the jury in a criminal trial is seriously impaired, and to a constitutional degree, by a reduction in size to below six members.” So the line has sat at six ever since: five is unconstitutional, six is permitted, and Florida has stayed at the constitutional minimum for over half a century.

Why Does Jury Size Matter?

Because the research the Supreme Court itself relied on in Ballew shows smaller juries deliberate worse. The Ballew Court found that as juries shrink, they are less likely to have members who remember each important piece of evidence, less able to counterbalance individual jurors’ biases, and less likely to represent a true cross-section of the community — and that smaller panels raise the risk of convicting the innocent.

For the defense, the practical stakes are concrete. A Florida verdict must be unanimous, so every juror is a potential holdout against a weak case — and six jurors means half as many people who might catch the flaw in the State’s evidence, half as many life experiences in the room, and far fewer minority voices on any given panel. When our attorneys pick a jury at the Hillsborough County Courthouse, we are choosing six people who will carry the full weight most states spread across twelve. That is exactly the concern now in front of the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reconsidering: Kian v. Florida

On June 15, 2026, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, to decide whether a defendant is deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights “to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony.” The case comes out of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, where Hamed Kian was convicted by a unanimous six-person jury of five felony counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license. It asks the Court to reconsider Williams itself.

Challengers have been knocking on this door for years. Florida’s appellate courts have repeatedly rejected six-person jury challenges — the Fourth District did so again in Gonzales v. State, No. 4D2025-2161 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 26, 2026), citing its earlier decision in Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the issue up as recently as 2024 in Cunningham v. Florida, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024). But those same August 2026 opinions now add three words that tell you everything about where this is heading: “But see Kian.” The Court that would not hear the issue two years ago has now agreed to hear it, with argument expected in the October 2026 term.

Here is the road that led there:

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — (813) 727-7159

Ramos matters in this story for a reason: in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Court overruled decades of tolerance for non-unanimous verdicts because history and the jury’s function demanded it. The Kian petition asks the Court to apply that same reasoning to jury size. No one knows how Kian will come out — but the Court does not take cases like this to leave everything as it is.

What Happens to Florida Cases While Kian Is Pending?

Six-person juries remain fully legal, and Florida courts are still bound by Williams until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Florida’s appellate courts made that explicit this summer: in Rogers v. State, No. 6D2025-0883 (Fla. 6th DCA June 29, 2026), the court refused to let a defendant add the jury-size issue after briefing closed, holding that claims based on a cert grant “are speculative and premature” — and, critically, that a defendant who never raised the issue has waived it.

That waiver holding is the practical heart of this entire subject. Rogers also acknowledged the other side of the coin: if the Supreme Court announces a new rule, defendants whose appeals were already final “could seek post-conviction relief to the same extent as any other person” — but whether a new rule would apply retroactively to final cases is a separate question Florida courts would have to resolve. New rules generally apply to cases still pending on direct review; they reach final convictions only through a much narrower retroactivity doctrine. In plain terms: the people best positioned to benefit from a defense win in Kian are the ones whose lawyers put the objection on the record before their case became final.

How Do You Preserve the Jury-Size Issue in Your Case?

By putting it on the record at every stage — even though today’s courts will deny it. When our firm handles a felony case heading to trial while Kian is pending, preservation looks like this:

1. Demand a twelve-person jury in writing before trial. The motion will almost certainly be denied under Williams and § 913.10 — the point is the record.
2. Object when the six-person panel is sworn. A contemporaneous objection anchors the issue at trial, where appellate courts require it to be made.
3. Raise it in the opening brief on appeal. Rogers shows what happens when it appears late: waiver, no matter what the Supreme Court does afterward.
4. Track finality. A case pending on direct review when Kian is decided stands on far stronger ground than one that became final the month before — timing decisions, including whether to seek rehearing, can matter.

None of this costs the defense anything, and all of it is insurance. Our attorneys are building these records now in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County cases, because the cheapest issue to preserve is the one you preserve before the law changes.

Facing a Felony Trial in Tampa Bay While Kian Is Pending?

If you or a family member has a felony case heading toward trial, this is a moment when the calendar itself is a defense consideration. The jury that decides the case, the objections made before it is sworn, and the timing of the appeal could all look different a year from now. Call The Brancato Law Firm at (813) 727-7159 — our attorneys can evaluate whether the jury-size issue belongs in your case and make sure nothing is waived while the Supreme Court decides.

Frequently Asked Questions: Florida Jury Size and Kian v. Florida

How many jurors are on a jury in Florida?

Six, in every criminal case except capital cases, which get twelve. Fla. Stat. § 913.10. In our Tampa Bay trials, that means six jurors decide felonies carrying decades of prison exposure.

Does a Florida jury verdict have to be unanimous?

Yes — all six jurors must agree before a defendant can be convicted, and a single holdout means no conviction. That unanimity requirement is one reason jury selection is where our attorneys invest so heavily in every trial.

What is Kian v. Florida?

Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, is a U.S. Supreme Court case, accepted for review on June 15, 2026, that will decide whether trying a serious felony to a six-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment. It asks the Court to reconsider Williams v. Florida, the 1970 decision that approved Florida’s six-person jury.

Is a six-person jury unconstitutional?

Not under current law — Williams v. Florida upheld six-person juries in 1970, and Florida courts remain bound by it while Kian is pending. Five-person juries, however, have been unconstitutional since Ballew v. Georgia in 1978. We treat the question as live and preserve it in our clients’ cases.

If the Supreme Court strikes down six-person juries, will it apply to old cases?

Nobody knows yet — new constitutional rules generally apply to cases still pending on direct appeal, while reaching already-final convictions requires a separate retroactivity ruling. That uncertainty is exactly why preserving the issue now matters so much; The Brancato Law Firm is doing that in pending cases rather than betting on retroactivity later.

How long has Florida used six-person juries?

Well over a century — the Florida Supreme Court upheld the six-person jury as early as 1877 in Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s nationwide approval of the practice in 1970 came in a Florida case, Williams v. Florida. In our experience, most clients are surprised to learn the tradition is that old — and that it has never before faced the direct reconsideration it faces now in Kian.

Can my lawyer demand a 12-person jury in Florida right now?

Yes — the demand will be denied under current law, but making it in writing and objecting at trial is what preserves the issue if Kian changes the rule. The attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. build that record in felony cases heading to trial. Call (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation.

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

Related reading: How Trial Preparation Builds a Stronger Defense · How to Decide Whether to Accept a Plea Bargain · How Does a Bond Hearing Work in Tampa? · The Complete Guide to Homicide Charges in Florida

The Law May Be About to Change — Your Record Should Be Ready

Kian v. Florida will likely be argued this term, and the defendants who benefit will be the ones whose lawyers preserved the issue before the decision came down. If you’re facing a felony charge in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159. What goes on the record before your trial may decide what relief is available after the Supreme Court rules.

Brancato Law Firm, P.A., 620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

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.