Can Police Search Your Phone in a Florida Traveling to Meet a Minor Case?

September 5, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

In traveling to meet a minor cases that stem from law enforcement stings, a frequently asked question is – when can the police legally search my phone if I am arrested? The answer largely depends on the facts of the case and whether or not someone consents to law enforcement going through their phone.

This blog will explore when law enforcement is permitted (and not permitted) to search a cell phone of a suspect arrested in a traveling to meet a minor case.

When someone is arrested for traveling to meet a minor in Florida (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) in a law enforcement sting, one of the first steps by law enforcement is to seize a suspect’s phone as evidence.

Phones are often critical evidence in these cases because police can determine the following:

• Whether a particular person (or someone on their phone) was the one communicating with the undercover officer
• Whether the suspect was engaged in online solicitation or attempting to travel to meet other minors for sexual activity (which may result in additional charges)

It is critical to understand that you are not legally required to give your consent for police to search your phone if you are arrested and accused of traveling to meet a minor. Though this may be frustrating to officers, it is your constitutional right to refuse a search of your cell phone unless law enforcement gets a warrant. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

If someone is arrested in a Florida law enforcement sting and is alleged to have traveled to meet a minor, their first move should be to exercise their right to remain silent, ask for an attorney, and refuse any search of their cell phone if and when law enforcement asks – requiring them to get a warrant.

Even before Riley, Florida’s courts recognized that police must obtain a warrant to search a cell phone. Smallwood v. State, 113 So.3d 724 (Fla. 2013). If the warrant application to search a cell phone is excessively broad or inaccurate, the contents recovered from the cell phone must be suppressed, rendering this inadmissible in court. Carpenter v. State, 228 So.3d 535 (Fla. 2017)

Standard exceptions to the warrant requirement apply to cell phones, which include:

• Voluntary abandonment of the phone (e.g. using a burner phone and throwing it in a garbage can near the alleged meet-up site, per State v. Darter, 350 So.3d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022))
• Exigent circumstances (e.g. an imminent terror threat, finding the location of a kidnapped child, etc.)

In a typical traveling to meet a minor case where someone is arrested and their phone is seized, neither of these exceptions apply. Thus, officers have two choices – either get the consent of a suspect, or seek a warrant for the cell phone.

If someone consents to a phone search after they are arrested without officers first having to seek a warrant, this is ill-advised and may make the case much harder to defend. Do not assume that officers will get a warrant anyway – exercise your rights. However, it is important to note that consent to search a phone must be voluntary (not the product of coercion or threats).

Florida’s courts have been clear on this point for many years. Consent to search, whether this is of a home or cell phone, cannot be the product of coercion, duress, or implied (or explicit) threats to the suspect by police. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). 

The voluntariness of consent analyzed by looking at the totality of the circumstances. Aguilar v. State, 259 So.3d 262 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2018).

Aguilar listed all of the following factors that may be considered by courts in determining whether consent to a search (including of a cell phone) was lawfully obtained:

• The presence or absence or coercive police questioning
• The subjective state of the person consenting (e.g. if they were under the influence, unable to understand what was going on , etc.)
• Whether police made a show of force or engaged in threatening conduct
• Age, education and intelligence of the suspect
• Whether they were detained or in custody at the time of the consent
• The number of officers present
• Time of day (e.g. very late at night when the suspect is sleep-deprived may impact consent)
• Whether consent was written or oral 

Notably, officers do not have to tell you that you have a right to refuse a search of your cell phone if you are arrested in a traveling to meet a minor case in Florida. Wyche v. State, 987 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2008). Many make the mistake of assuming they have no choice but to allow the search, but this is not true unless the police obtain a warrant. 

In sum, police can search the phone of someone suspected of traveling to meet a minor only under two circumstances – they provide consent, or law enforcement obtains a warrant. In very rare cases, the voluntary abandonment or exigent circumstances exceptions may apply to this rule – but this is unlikely in a traveling to meet a minor case.

Even if law enforcement obtains a warrant (or someone’s consent), the results of a cell phone search can be suppressed on various grounds. These may include:

• The warrant is invalid or overbroad (e.g. “the cell phone” without providing additional specifics/limits)
• Consent was not voluntarily obtained (according to Aguilar factors)
• Failure to follow warrant procedures
• Exceeding scope of consent (e.g. officers checking someone’s messages after someone says “you can only look at my camera roll”)
• Technical/forensic mishandling: Problems with the chain of custody, improper forensic imaging of the phone, or potential contamination (may lead to the suppression of its contents)
• If the warrant itself was based on illegally obtained evidence (e.g. an unlawful arrest led to the phone’s seizure), this is “fruit of the poisonous tree” subject to suppression. 

If officers ask to go through someone’s phone after traveling to meet a minor arrest in Florida, it’s critical they understand their right to refuse a warrantless search of the device. Like a home, a cell phone is protected by the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with traveling to meet a minor, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share