Why a Phone, Messaging App, or Computer Can Lead to an Additional Felony Charge in a Florida Sex Sting

A person arrested in a Hillsborough County sex sting may look at the charging documents and wonder why there are several felony counts arising from what appears to be one online conversation and one attempted meeting. One of those charges may be unlawful use of a two-way communications device under Florida Statute § 934.215. Prosecutors can use this statute when they allege that a phone, computer, messaging application, or another two-way communication device was used to facilitate or further another felony. That means the communications device charge generally depends upon an underlying felony rather than standing entirely on its own factual foundation. In a sex-sting prosecution, the alleged underlying felony may involve online solicitation, traveling to meet a person believed to be a minor, or another offense connected with the electronic communications.

As a Hillsborough County Sex Crime Defense Attorney, I would not treat this additional count as an afterthought. Every felony charge can influence plea negotiations, sentencing exposure, the prosecution's leverage, and the way the case is presented to a jury. At the same time, Florida appellate courts have placed important limits on when a person may ultimately be convicted and punished for both a communications-device offense and other sex-sting offenses based upon the same conduct. A careful defense requires looking beyond the number of counts listed on the arrest affidavit and examining precisely what conduct the State says supports each charge.

How a Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney Analyzes Florida Statute § 934.215

Florida Statute § 934.215 governs unlawful use of a two-way communications device. The operative statutory language provides that a person who uses such a device "to facilitate or further the commission of any felony offense" commits a third-degree felony. The statute specifically includes portable two-way wireless communication devices, but its wording is broad enough to encompass modern forms of electronic communication when the statutory requirements are otherwise established.

In practical terms, the State generally must establish two central propositions. First, the accused used a qualifying two-way communications device. Second, the device was used to facilitate or further the commission of another felony. The existence of a phone or computer by itself does not establish the offense. There must be a legally sufficient connection between the use of that device and the felony the State claims was being facilitated.

A prosecutor may point to communications involving:

• Text messages sent or received on a cellular phone.

• Communications through social media or dating applications.

• Direct messages, online chat services, or internet messaging platforms.

• Communications transmitted through a laptop, tablet, desktop computer, or another electronic device.

The central issue is not merely whether you owned or touched a device. I would examine what you allegedly did with it, when the communications occurred, who participated in them, what the entire conversation shows, and what felony the State claims those communications advanced.

Florida classifies a violation of § 934.215 as a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony generally carries a statutory maximum of five years of imprisonment under § 775.082 and a fine of as much as $5,000 under § 775.083, although an actual sentence depends on the complete case, the Criminal Punishment Code, prior record, other pending counts, enhancements, and any negotiated resolution.

That is one reason I believe private defense counsel should evaluate this charge immediately. What looks like a secondary count can affect the structure of the prosecution and may present legal arguments that are different from those directed at the primary sex-sting allegation.

Why Hillsborough County Sex Sting Cases Frequently Include Multiple Felony Counts

Many undercover internet investigations are constructed around electronic conversations. An undercover officer may enter a chat room, application, social-media platform, or other online environment while posing as a minor or sometimes as an adult claiming access to a minor. The conversation may move from the original platform to text messaging or another application, and investigators may continue communicating while attempting to establish evidence of intent.

Florida Statute § 847.0135 is commonly relevant in these prosecutions. Subsection (3) prohibits knowingly using specified computer or electronic services or devices to seduce, solicit, lure, entice, or attempt to do those things to a child, or a person believed to be a child, for illegal sexual conduct. A standard violation is generally a third-degree felony, although the statute provides increased consequences in certain circumstances, including when a person violates subsection (3) while misrepresenting his or her age.

Section 847.0135(4) addresses traveling to meet a minor. In summary, it can apply when a person travels, attempts to travel, or causes another to travel for the purpose of unlawful sexual conduct after the electronic solicitation described by the statute. A violation of subsection (4) is generally a second-degree felony.

Because the electronic device may be central to the alleged solicitation and the alleged travel offense, prosecutors may also file a § 934.215 charge claiming that the same phone or computer facilitated another felony. As a Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney, I would therefore examine whether the State has taken one continuous chain of conduct and divided it into several counts.

That distinction matters considerably because being charged with several offenses does not necessarily mean that separate convictions and punishments for every count are legally permissible.

A Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney Must Examine Double Jeopardy Issues

One of the most important issues involving § 934.215 in Florida sex-sting prosecutions is double jeopardy. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy can restrict multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense. Florida also applies statutory principles for determining whether offenses are separate for purposes of multiple convictions.

This issue is especially important in Hillsborough County because the Florida Second District Court of Appeal addressed it in a Hillsborough County sex-sting case in 2025.

In Hatcher v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of traveling to meet a minor under § 847.0135(4)(a), solicitation using a computer service or device under § 847.0135(3)(a), and two counts of unlawful use of a two-way communications device under § 934.215. The case arose from a sting in which a detective posed online as a 15-year-old girl, communicated with the defendant, and arrested him when he traveled to the planned meeting.

The Second District concluded that, under the charging circumstances before it, the solicitation and two-way communications-device offenses were subsumed within the traveling offense because the convictions were based on the same conduct. The court vacated the solicitation conviction and both § 934.215 convictions while leaving the traveling conviction intact.

That ruling is highly relevant when I evaluate a Hillsborough County sex-sting prosecution. It does not mean that a prosecutor is automatically prohibited from initially filing several charges, nor does it mean every case presents the identical double jeopardy issue. The charging document, alleged acts, timing of those acts, and legal elements must be examined carefully. Florida's appellate decisions have repeatedly treated this as a fact-sensitive and charge-sensitive question.

For a defendant, however, the practical point is significant. I would not assume that every count listed by prosecutors can necessarily survive legal challenge through judgment and sentencing.

The Underlying Felony Is Critical to the Communications-Device Charge

Section 934.215 does not simply prohibit using a telephone while discussing something inappropriate. The State must connect the device to the facilitation or furtherance of a felony. That underlying felony therefore deserves intense scrutiny.

If the alleged underlying felony cannot be established, the foundation for the § 934.215 charge may also be attacked. I would ask several questions early in the case:

1. What specific felony does the charging document identify as the offense allegedly facilitated by the communications device?

2. What communication does the State claim advanced that felony?

3. Does the complete conversation establish the required criminal intent, or is the prosecution relying on selected statements taken out of context?

4. Is the same electronic conduct being used simultaneously to support solicitation, traveling, and unlawful use of a communications device?

These are not merely technical questions. They can affect motions to dismiss, motions to suppress, trial strategy, negotiations with prosecutors, and arguments concerning whether multiple convictions are legally permissible.

A private attorney has the ability to study those issues from the defense perspective rather than accepting the prosecution's characterization of the communications.

How I Review the Entire Electronic Conversation

Sex-sting prosecutions can turn on language, context, timing, and who first introduced a particular subject. One isolated screenshot may sound incriminating when separated from dozens or hundreds of messages that came before it. The defense therefore needs more than a police summary of what supposedly occurred.

I would seek the complete available record, which can include message logs, screenshots, extraction reports, police reports, recordings, warrant materials, photographs, undercover notes, dispatch records, location evidence, and communications between participating investigators.

My review may focus on issues such as:

• Whether investigators preserved the entire conversation rather than selected portions of it.

• Whether statements have been accurately attributed to the correct participant.

• Whether timestamps, deleted messages, application metadata, or device records change the apparent sequence of events.

• Whether the undercover officer repeatedly redirected an otherwise lawful conversation toward criminal conduct.

• Whether the defendant clearly demonstrated the intent required by the charged felony.

A criminal case should not be reduced to the most damaging sentence the State can extract from a long conversation. Context can matter enormously, particularly when intent is an element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney Strategies for Challenging Intent

Electronic communications are often informal, impulsive, ambiguous, exaggerated, sarcastic, or incomplete. None of that automatically provides a defense, but it can complicate the State's burden of proving exactly what a person intended.

For a § 934.215 charge, I would examine whether the State can prove that the device was actually being used to facilitate or further a felony. For an associated § 847.0135 allegation, I would separately examine whether the communications satisfy the statutory requirements for solicitation, attempted solicitation, or traveling for unlawful sexual conduct.

The defense may become particularly important when the conversation changed direction several times. A person might reject sexual statements, express uncertainty, attempt to terminate the conversation, discuss lawful alternatives, or provide statements that contradict the theory presented in the probable cause affidavit.

Police reports are written after investigators have already decided an arrest is appropriate. They are not substitutes for the actual evidence. Hiring private defense counsel allows me to compare the officers' description of the case with the messages and other evidence on which that description supposedly rests.

Entrapment and Florida Statute § 777.201

Entrapment receives considerable attention in undercover sex-sting cases, but it is often misunderstood. The fact that an undercover officer pretended to be a minor does not, standing alone, establish entrapment. Section 847.0135 itself states that involvement of an undercover operative or law enforcement officer in detecting and investigating an offense under the statute does not constitute a defense merely because the operative was undercover.

Florida nevertheless recognizes an entrapment defense under § 777.201. In summary, statutory entrapment can occur when law enforcement induces or encourages criminal conduct through methods of persuasion or inducement creating a substantial risk that the crime will be committed by someone who was not otherwise ready to commit it. The statute provides that a person who establishes entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence is entitled to an acquittal, with the issue ordinarily decided by the factfinder.

When entrapment is supported by the facts, I would analyze matters such as who initiated the sexual discussion, how often the accused attempted to change or end the conversation, whether police escalated the communications, what inducements were used, and whether the evidence demonstrates predisposition.

Entrapment should not be asserted casually. It is a legal defense with specific requirements and potential strategic consequences. A private attorney can determine whether it fits the evidence or whether another defense provides a stronger path.

Suppression of Phone and Computer Evidence

Electronic evidence is frequently the heart of a sex-sting prosecution. That makes the circumstances under which police obtained a phone, searched it, extracted its contents, or acquired account information important to the defense.

I may review whether law enforcement acted pursuant to a warrant, whether the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause, what property and data the warrant actually authorized officers to search, and whether investigators exceeded the permitted scope. Depending on the circumstances, constitutional search-and-seizure principles can affect evidence obtained from electronic devices.

I also examine statements made after arrest. If police questioned you while you were in custody, issues involving Miranda warnings, invocation of the right to remain silent, requests for counsel, voluntariness, and the precise sequence of the interrogation can become important.

A successful suppression argument can change the prosecution considerably. Even when suppression does not eliminate the entire case, excluding a critical statement, search result, or category of digital evidence may affect what the State can prove and how a negotiated resolution develops.

Example of How I May Build the Defense

The following is a hypothetical example illustrating how I might analyze a case. It is not a representation that Musca Law obtained this particular result in an actual case, and past results in other matters would never guarantee a future outcome.

Suppose a man begins communicating with someone he believes to be an adult through a dating application. After an extended conversation, the other person claims to be underage. The man initially says that continuing the conversation would be inappropriate. The undercover officer nevertheless continues messaging him, repeatedly moves the conversation toward sexual topics, and eventually proposes meeting in person.

Assume the man later agrees to meet but continues sending inconsistent messages about why he is going. Police arrest him near the arranged location and charge him with solicitation, traveling to meet a minor, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device.

I would not begin by asking how quickly the case could be resolved with a plea. I would reconstruct the communications chronologically. I would identify exactly when the claimed age disclosure occurred, who introduced sexual subjects afterward, whether my client attempted to disengage, what conduct allegedly constituted solicitation, and what evidence allegedly proves that the purpose of travel was unlawful sexual activity.

I would then examine whether entrapment is legally supportable, whether the prosecution can establish criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the electronic evidence was lawfully obtained, and whether the § 934.215 count creates a double jeopardy problem in relation to the other charged offenses.

If weaknesses emerge, I can use them in discussions with prosecutors, pretrial motions, or trial preparation. Depending upon the evidence and procedural posture, the objective may be dismissal of one or more charges, exclusion of evidence, reduction of charges, reduced penalties, a negotiated disposition, or an acquittal at trial. No attorney can promise which result will occur, but the defense should be built around the actual evidence rather than the arresting agency's description of that evidence.

Penalties Can Become More Complicated When Several Felony Counts Are Filed

A third-degree felony under § 934.215 carries a statutory maximum of five years in prison, while the associated sex-sting charges may carry different felony classifications and maximum penalties. Florida's Criminal Punishment Code also uses a scoresheet system that assigns points according to the primary offense, additional offenses, prior record, victim injury, and other applicable sentencing factors.

For that reason, simply adding another felony count can matter even before trial. Additional counts may increase sentencing exposure, influence negotiations, and create pressure on a defendant who sees a lengthy list of felony charges on the information.

I look at the prosecution as a complete charging package. If one count is legally duplicative, unsupported, subject to suppression, or vulnerable because the underlying felony cannot be established, attacking that count may change the leverage available to both sides.

The possible collateral consequences are also important. Depending on the offense of conviction, a sex-related felony prosecution can affect employment, professional licensing, housing, reputation, immigration status for a noncitizen, firearms rights, and other aspects of a person's life. Certain qualifying sex-offense convictions can also trigger registration obligations, although a § 934.215 conviction should not simply be assumed to create registration by itself. The specific offense of conviction and applicable registration statute must be reviewed.

Why a Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney Should Become Involved Early

The period immediately following an arrest can be critical. Digital evidence needs to be preserved, charging documents need to be examined, and the defense needs to understand exactly how the operation unfolded.

I would want to identify which agency conducted the sting, which officers participated, how the undercover profile was created, what representations were made, whether the conversation was preserved completely, how police established the identity of the accused, and what happened immediately before and after the arrest.

Early representation also helps prevent unnecessary statements. People accused in sex-sting cases often feel an overwhelming need to explain themselves. That instinct can create additional evidence. A conversation with an investigator is not an opportunity for informal clarification when criminal charges are being investigated.

Private counsel gives you someone whose role is exclusively to protect your interests. I can communicate with prosecutors and law enforcement, obtain and analyze discovery, identify pretrial issues, investigate factual weaknesses, prepare motions, discuss possible resolutions, and prepare for trial when a satisfactory resolution cannot be achieved.

Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney FAQs About Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communications Device Charges

Why was I charged with unlawful use of a two-way communications device when I was already charged with solicitation?

Florida Statute § 934.215 creates a separate third-degree felony when the State alleges that a two-way communications device was used to facilitate or further another felony. In a sex sting, prosecutors may claim that the same phone or computer used for alleged solicitation also facilitated that felony. Florida law also permits separate uses of electronic services under § 847.0135 to be charged under certain circumstances.

That does not necessarily mean every conviction can ultimately stand. In Hatcher v. State, a case originating in Hillsborough County, the Second District Court of Appeal vacated § 934.215 convictions and a solicitation conviction because, under the charging circumstances there, those offenses were subsumed within the traveling offense. I would compare the information and alleged conduct in your case with the controlling case law rather than assume the State is entitled to multiple punishments.

Can I be charged under § 934.215 for using an ordinary cell phone?

Yes. The statute expressly encompasses a two-way communications device and specifically refers to portable two-way wireless communication devices. A modern smartphone can therefore fall within the statute when it is allegedly used in the required manner.

The prosecution still has to establish more than possession of a phone. It must establish the connection between use of that device and the alleged felony. I would examine the communications, the alleged underlying offense, and whether the State can prove the required relationship between them.

What is the punishment for unlawful use of a two-way communications device in Florida?

Section 934.215 classifies the offense as a third-degree felony. Florida law generally permits up to five years of imprisonment for a third-degree felony, and § 775.083 generally permits a fine of up to $5,000.

Those statutory maximums do not tell you what sentence would actually be imposed. Florida's sentencing system can take account of the primary offense, additional offenses, prior criminal record, applicable enhancements, and other factors. When several sex-sting felonies are filed together, I would calculate the potential exposure from the entire case rather than looking at § 934.215 in isolation.

Does it matter that there was no real child involved in the sting?

The absence of an actual child does not automatically defeat charges under § 847.0135 because the statute expressly applies in several places to a person whom the accused believes to be a child. The statute also states that the mere participation of an undercover officer does not itself create a defense.

That does not eliminate other defenses. I can still challenge what you actually believed, whether the evidence proves solicitation, whether the required intent existed, whether the communications have been accurately presented, and whether law enforcement conduct supports an entrapment defense.

Can entrapment get a Hillsborough County sex-sting charge dismissed?

Entrapment may be available when the facts satisfy Florida Statute § 777.201, but an undercover officer merely providing an opportunity to commit an offense is not automatically enough. The statute focuses on improper inducement or encouragement and whether law-enforcement methods created a substantial risk of causing criminal conduct by someone who was not otherwise ready to commit it.

I would review the entire conversation before recommending this defense. Who initiated the unlawful proposal, how the accused responded, whether police repeatedly pressured the person after reluctance, and evidence of predisposition can all become significant.

Can the communications-device charge be dismissed if the underlying felony is dismissed?

Potentially. Section 934.215 requires the alleged use of the device to facilitate or further a felony. If the prosecution cannot legally establish the felony identified as the predicate for that charge, the defense may have a substantial argument concerning the viability of the § 934.215 count.

The procedural result depends on the charging document, evidence, and reason the underlying count fails. I would therefore analyze the two charges together rather than treating them as unrelated offenses.

Can police search my phone after arresting me in a sex sting?

An arrest does not automatically give law enforcement unlimited authority to search every category of digital information stored on your phone. Search warrants, consent, recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, the scope of judicial authorization, and the methods investigators used to acquire data can all matter.

I would obtain the warrant and related application materials when they exist, review the authorized scope, and compare it with what investigators actually searched. If evidence was obtained unlawfully, a motion to suppress may become part of the defense.

Why should I hire a private Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney instead of immediately accepting a plea?

An early plea can permanently surrender defenses that have never been investigated. Sex-sting cases can involve issues concerning intent, entrapment, constitutional searches, interrogation, incomplete message records, identity, evidentiary authentication, charging defects, and double jeopardy. The 2025 Hatcher decision itself demonstrates why the number of counts filed by prosecutors should not automatically be accepted as the number of legally sustainable convictions.

I can examine the evidence before advising you whether negotiation, motions, trial, or another strategy is appropriate. The goal may be dismissal, a reduced charge, reduced penalties, suppression of damaging evidence, or an acquittal, depending entirely on the facts and law applicable to your case.

Contact Our Hillsborough County Sex Sting Defense Attorney at Musca Law

An unlawful use of a two-way communications device charge may appear to be only an additional count attached to a larger sex-sting prosecution, but it should be examined closely. The State still has to establish the statutory elements, connect the device to an underlying felony, prove the associated sex-sting allegations, and withstand any applicable constitutional, evidentiary, entrapment, suppression, or double jeopardy challenges. Recent Florida appellate authority, including a 2025 case arising directly from Hillsborough County, shows why these overlapping charges require careful legal analysis.

If you have been arrested after an undercover online investigation in Tampa or elsewhere in Hillsborough County, I recommend speaking with private defense counsel before discussing the allegations with investigators or making decisions about a plea. A defense attorney can examine the complete communications, police conduct, electronic evidence, charging document, search warrants, and the relationship between each felony count while pursuing dismissal, reduction of charges, reduced penalties, or preparing the case for trial when appropriate.

Contact Musca Law 24/7/365 at 1-888-484-5057 For Your FREE Consultation.

Musca Law, P.A. has a team of experienced criminal defense attorneys dedicated to defending people charged with a criminal or traffic offense. We are available 24/7/365 at 1-888-484-5057 for your FREE consultation. We have 35 office locations throughout the state of Florida and serve all counties in Florida, including Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Hialeah, Port St. Lucie, Cape Coral, Tallahassee, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Gainesville, Clearwater, Lakeland, Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Fort Myers, Naples, Daytona Beach, and Pensacola, the Florida Panhandle, and every county in Florida.