Evidentiary Issues

Published on: July 1, 2026

How to Challenge a Search Warrant in Tampa After a Home Raid

If law enforcement broke down your door to execute a search warrant and you are wondering whether that alone gets your case dismissed, the answer changed in June 2026. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the state’s knock-and-announce statute, by itself, no longer requires a court to suppress the evidence found inside. The search can still be challenged, just on stronger ground: the warrant, the affidavit behind it, and how officers carried it out. At The Mayberry Law Firm, a Tampa criminal defense lawyer reads every warrant and police report looking for the errors a judge will act on.

What Does Florida’s Knock-and-Announce Rule Actually Require?

Florida has two knock-and-announce statutes. Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, governs how officers execute a search warrant, and section 901.19 covers arrests. Under section 933.09, police may force entry into a home only after announcing their authority and purpose and being refused admittance. Officers must knock, state that they hold a warrant, and give the people inside a genuine chance to open the door before forcing it. The rule protects real interests: it lowers the risk of violence, protects privacy, and prevents needless destruction of property. Those protections remain Florida law. What changed is the consequence when officers ignore them.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 29, 2025

Florida Court Allows Vehicle Search without Miranda Warnings

By Mayberry Law Firm

Blue lights pop on in your rearview, you pull over for an expired tag, and a simple “Any weapons in the car?” turns into a search, handcuffs, and a ride you never planned. If that sounds familiar, you are not alone. A recent Miami-Dade appellate ruling explains how those quick questions during a traffic stop can lead to a full vehicle search—and why courts often allow it. The Mayberry Law Firm breaks down what that decision means for your case and how you can still fight the evidence.

What Happened During the Stop

An officer pulled a car over for an expired tag. The sergeant asked standard questions, including whether there were any firearms in the vehicle. You might expect those questions to require Miranda warnings, yet the driver was not under arrest at that moment. The driver said his license was suspended and that a rifle sat in a black duffel on the rear seat. The duffel was visible. The sergeant had the driver step out, frisked him, and placed him on the patrol car’s bumper. After opening the duffel, the sergeant found a loaded AR-15 that was not properly secured. Handcuffs followed, more questions came, and a later search turned up an open beer.

Why The Suppression Order Was Reversed

The trial court suppressed everything after the officer radioed a weapons code. The appellate court said that was the wrong legal yardstick. Here is the logic in plain terms: brief traffic-stop questioning is not the same as a formal arrest; Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation; and asking about weapons for officer safety during a lawful stop does not automatically create “custody.” Because the initial questions and the request to exit the car stayed within the scope of a normal stop, the answers were admissible. Once the officer learned a rifle was in the car and saw the unzipped bag, there was probable cause to search under the automobile exception. Even if a court later decided the stop turned into “custody” sooner than the State admits, the result would not change: the gun and the open container would have been found during a lawful vehicle search incident to arrest or inevitably discovered through routine procedures.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 30, 2025

Geofence Warrants: What Your Phone Reveals and How to Prevent Bad Evidence from Coming In

By Mayberry Law Firm

Your smartphone tracks location, searches, and app activity. Police know that. Prosecutors ask judges for “geofence” or “reverse keyword” warrants to sweep up data from every device near a crime scene or tied to a search phrase. If officers linked you to a case using this dragnet, you need to understand how the process works and how a strong defense can shut it down.

What A Geofence Warrant Looks Like

A geofence warrant tells a tech company to produce records for every device within a digital fence around a place and time. Investigators do not name a person. They request dots on a map. After the first round, they ask for more detail about a smaller group of devices, then for subscriber information on the final list. Reverse keyword warrants flip the idea: police pull a list of users who searched certain terms.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 30, 2024

How to Prevent a Small Traffic Stop from Turning into Serious Criminal Charges

By Mayberry Law Firm

Many criminal prosecutions in Florida start with something as simple as a routine traffic stop. What might seem like an ordinary interaction with law enforcement can quickly escalate into a much more serious situation based on what is seen or found in the suspect’s vehicle. For instance, an officer might pull someone over for a minor traffic violation, and upon approaching the car, notice something suspicious that leads to further investigation, such as the discovery of drugs or firearms. What begins as a straightforward stop can turn into charges for DUI, drug possession, or even more serious crimes like illegal firearm possession.

One case that illustrates this began with what seemed to be a minor traffic violation. The driver accelerated in front of another vehicle while in a turn-only lane at an intersection. While this may not sound significant, Florida law actually prohibits drivers from cutting in front of traffic from a turn-only lane, which many law-abiding drivers might not even realize. In this case, the driver’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered in his car was initially granted by the trial court, meaning the evidence couldn’t be used against him in court. However, the state appealed, and upon review, the appellate court found that the stop was justified under Florida law, which defines careless driving as any maneuver that might endanger other people or property. This ruling reversed the lower court’s decision, and as a result, the prosecution against the driver will now proceed.

The real issue in cases like this isn’t necessarily the specific law about turning at intersections. The bigger problem is how law enforcement officers often use minor traffic violations as a reason to stop a vehicle, get close to the driver, and look for other signs of illegal activity, such as DUI or drug use. In Florida, officers frequently stop drivers for small infractions that many people may not even be aware of, like improperly changing lanes or forgetting to signal. These stops are then used as opportunities to conduct more extensive investigations. Because of this, it’s important for drivers to be diligent and understand Florida’s traffic laws to avoid giving officers a reason to pull them over. However, even the most careful drivers can still find themselves in situations where they are stopped, sometimes for reasons beyond their control.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 30, 2024

Federal Court Affirms Use of ALPR (Automated License Plate Reader) Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions

By Mayberry Law Firm

As technology continues to evolve, so do the tools law enforcement agencies use in criminal investigations. One such tool is Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), which capture license plate numbers and vehicle movements for various law enforcement purposes. However, the admissibility of ALPR evidence in criminal prosecutions raises important legal questions, as highlighted in a recent judicial opinion.

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case in which ALPR evidence played a significant role in an attempted murder-for-hire trial. The evidence consisted of reports from online databases showing The defendant’s vehicle traveling at suspicious times and locations in relation to the shooting incident. The defendant raised objections to the admissibility of the ALPR evidence, arguing that its use constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, she contended that the government should have presented the evidence through an expert witness.

Despite the Defendant’s objections, the district court allowed the ALPR evidence to be introduced at trial. The court ruled that the Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her vehicle’s exterior or license plate, which the ALPR system visually captured. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not require expert testimony, as presenting photographs or images of vehicles is akin to other forms of visual evidence commonly admitted at trial.

Continue reading →