A sudden knock on the door, officers at your home, and your phone, laptop, or tablet in their hands. Many clients first meet me after law enforcement has already taken their devices or demanded access to accounts. In Florida, digital searches play a major role in solicitation of a minor investigations, undercover chat operations, and online sting cases.
The question I hear most often is simple and urgent: can the police search my device without a warrant?
The answer depends on how the search occurred, whether there was consent, what the officers viewed, and whether any recognized exception applies. I defend clients across Florida whose phones or computers were searched unlawfully, and I work to suppress evidence obtained in violation of state and federal law.
When a device is searched illegally, entire cases can collapse. With solicitation of a minor accusations, the case often relies almost entirely on chat logs, messages, screenshots, and digital forensics. If the search was unconstitutional, the state may lose its key evidence.
Understanding Your Rights When Police Search Phones and Computers
Under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts recognize that smartphones contain vast personal information.
The United States Supreme Court stated that digital devices are different in nature and scope. In Riley v. California (2014), the Court held that police must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized during an arrest, absent a valid exception.
Florida courts follow the same rule.
When officers conduct warrantless searches in solicitation of a minor cases, they often claim:
• consent was given
• material was in plain view
• there were exigent circumstances
• the search was incident to arrest
• probation terms allowed warrantless searches
Each of these claims can be tested in court. My role is to aggressively challenge them and seek suppression of illegally obtained evidence.
Florida Statutes that Affect Device Searches
Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 12
This provision states in part:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated.”
Florida requires courts to interpret this consistently with federal search and seizure law.
Florida Statute §933.02, Grounds for issuance of search warrants
Verbatim statutory text:
“Upon proper affidavits being made, a search warrant may be issued under the provisions of this chapter upon any of the following grounds:
(1) When the property shall have been stolen or embezzled in violation of law;
(2) When any property shall have been used as a means to commit any crime;
(3) When any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed;
(4) When any property is intended to be used as a means to commit any crime;
(5) When any property is in the possession of any person with the intent to use it as a means to commit any crime.”
Summary: This statute allows judges to issue search warrants when property is used in a crime or contains evidence of a felony. In solicitation of a minor cases, devices fall squarely into these categories, which is why investigators seek phone and computer warrants.
Florida’s Electronic Communications Privacy Statutes, Chapter 934
Relevant provisions include:
Fla. Stat. §934.23, Requirements for accessing stored communications
Verbatim statutory text excerpt:
“A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication that is in electronic storage only pursuant to a warrant issued by the court.”
Summary: Law enforcement typically must obtain a warrant to access stored email, chat messages, cloud data, and similar information. There are limited statutory exceptions, but they must fit precise legal requirements.
Solicitation of a Minor Statute, §847.0135
Verbatim statutory text excerpt:
“Any person who knowingly uses a computer online service, Internet services, local bulletin board service, or any device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct commits a felony…”
Summary: This is the primary solicitation statute in Florida. In almost every case, the prosecution uses digital communications as its core proof. If the underlying search of the device or account was unlawful, the prosecution’s case may be critically weakened.
What Happens When Police Search Without a Warrant
Police sometimes access devices without a warrant in situations involving:
• roadside stops
• arrests
• probation meetings
• border searches
• school searches
• consent obtained under pressure
• “friend” or decoy chatting online
• seized devices during home searches
The law focuses not only on whether a warrant existed, but also how the search occurred.
I examine:
• whether consent was voluntary or coerced
• whether the warrant was overbroad
• whether officers exceeded the wording of the warrant
• whether data extraction tools searched areas not authorized
• whether the person consenting had lawful ownership or authority
• whether officers delayed obtaining a warrant
• whether plain view actually applied
• whether a probation condition covered the device
When law enforcement breaks the rules, the proper remedy is a motion to suppress. If granted, the state is often left without evidence in a solicitation of a minor case.
Common Defenses When Devices Are Searched Without a Warrant
The defense strategy will depend on the exact facts, but the following issues frequently arise:
1. No valid consent
Officers frequently ask to “take a quick look” or request a passcode. Consent is invalid when:
• the person was intimidated
• the person was in custody
• officers falsely claimed a warrant existed
• language barriers prevented understanding
• the consenting party did not own the device
2. The warrant was defective
Even when a warrant existed, it may be defective if:
• it lacked probable cause
• it was stale
• it failed to describe the device with particularity
• it allowed unlimited forensic exploration
3. Search exceeded the scope
Example issues include:
• officers searching cloud backups without authorization
• reviewing unrelated photos or accounts
• forensic downloads far beyond warrant limits
4. Plain view did not apply
Officers often say they saw illegal material “in plain view.” For digital devices, plain view is limited.
5. Fruit of the poisonous tree
Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search may also be excluded.
Why This Matters So Much in Solicitation of a Minor Cases
In solicitation of a minor prosecutions:
• messages
• chat logs
• text threads
• images
• IP logs
• social media records
are usually the government’s strongest evidence.
If the search is ruled unlawful, the prosecution often cannot proceed. I work to exclude:
• Cellebrite and forensic extraction data
• screenshots collected off device without consent
• conversations obtained through improper subpoenas
• warrantless downloads of entire device contents
A private defense attorney has the time and resources to review these issues in detail and file carefully prepared suppression motions.
Real Case Example from My Practice
A client was accused of online solicitation following an undercover sting. Officers seized his phone during a roadside stop for a traffic infraction. They accessed messages immediately without obtaining a warrant, claiming the client consented verbally.
The device contained conversations with a person the client believed was over 18. The state charged him based primarily on chat excerpts.
I obtained body camera footage that showed:
• the client repeatedly asked if he had to hand over the phone
• officers suggested that refusal would “look bad”
• there was no written consent
• there was no warrant
I filed a motion to suppress all phone contents. The court ruled that the consent was not voluntary and that officers should have obtained a warrant after seizing the phone. Without the messages, the prosecution dismissed the case.
Outcomes always depend on facts, and no result is guaranteed, but this illustrates how warrantless search challenges can decide a solicitation case.
Why You Need a Private Attorney Immediately
Investigations involving solicitation of a minor often begin quietly. Devices may already be in police custody. You may already have been questioned. Early representation allows me to:
• demand preservation of evidence
• stop further questioning
• prevent consent from being improperly obtained
• review warrants and affidavits
• hire forensic experts when appropriate
• challenge illegal search practices
• address bond and pretrial release terms
• advise on media and employment exposure
A public defender may be highly capable, but private counsel can typically devote more time to complex digital search litigation and motions practice.
What To Do Right Now If Your Device Has Been Seized
Avoid the following mistakes:
• do not contact police to “explain”
• do not discuss your case online
• do not attempt to delete information
• do not contact the person involved in the allegation
Helpful immediate actions:
• write down exactly what officers said
• list devices taken
• note passwords changed afterward
• obtain receipts or property logs if provided
Protecting your rights means acting early and thoughtfully, with experienced legal guidance focused on search and seizure issues.
FAQs About Warrantless Searches, Florida Solicitation of a Minor Defense Attorney
Can police search my phone without a warrant in Florida?
Generally, officers need a warrant to search the digital contents of a phone or computer. Exceptions exist, such as consent or probation conditions, but courts carefully evaluate them. If your device was searched without a warrant, there is a real possibility that the search was unlawful, especially if you did not voluntarily consent.
What if officers say I gave consent but I do not remember doing so?
Consent must be freely and voluntarily given. If you were detained, confused, intimidated, or misled, consent may not be valid. Body camera footage, witness testimony, and recorded interviews can reveal the truth. If consent was coerced, the search may be suppressed.
What if I am on probation, can they search my phone?
Some probation agreements include search conditions, but these are not unlimited. Officers must still follow the exact terms of supervision. If the probation order does not clearly authorize digital search, or officers exceeded its scope, evidence may be excluded.
Can evidence from my social media be used against me?
Yes, but the method of obtaining it matters. Investigators must follow Florida’s communications privacy statutes or obtain proper warrants or subpoenas. If they did not do so lawfully, I can ask the court to suppress the records.
If my phone was seized during arrest, can police look through it?
Seizing a phone is not the same as searching it. Officers may secure a phone incident to arrest, but they normally must obtain a warrant to search its contents. Riley v. California makes this very clear. If messages were accessed before a warrant was issued, suppression may be appropriate.
What happens if the judge suppresses my device evidence?
In solicitation of a minor cases, suppressed evidence often leaves the prosecution with very little. The state may dismiss the charge or negotiate significantly reduced outcomes. Each case is different, but suppression motions are powerful tools in digital evidence prosecutions.
I already talked to police. Is my case ruined?
No. Statements may still be challenged based on Miranda issues or coercion. In addition, even if statements remain admissible, illegally seized device content can still be suppressed. Early legal counsel helps limit further damage.
What if officers used undercover decoys to communicate with me?
Decoy operations are common in solicitation cases, but digital search laws still apply. The identity of the other party does not automatically validate the method of device search. Entrapment or outrageous conduct defenses may also be explored.
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, the Florida Panhandle, and every county in Florida.