Major FL Court Grants Stand Your Ground Immunity to Defendant Who Believed Police Were Kidnapping Niece

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant reasonably believed police officers, who did not identify themselves before grabbing his niece out of his home, were kidnapping her – allowing him to use deadly force.

In Florida, Stand Your Ground provides total immunity to defendants who successfully assert it from criminal prosecution. If someone reasonably believes that the force they use or threaten to use is necessary to protect against a threat – and that force or threat of force is proportional to the threat faced – the use or threatened use of such force is not a crime.

Statutorily, Stand Your Ground (codified under Fla. Stat. 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, 776.032 and 776.041) permits defendants to use or threaten deadly force when this is necessary to:

• Prevent death or serious bodily harm to themselves
• Prevent death or serious bodily harm to others
• Prevent the commission of a forcible felony (e.g. murder, armed robbery, sexual battery)

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law also allows the use (or threatened use) of nondeadly force if reasonably necessary to defend against any imminent use of unlawful force. To learn more about Stand Your Ground, click here.

Defendants in Florida frequently rely upon Stand Your Ground to defend against many criminal charges. These may include, but are not limited to:

• Murder and attempted murder
• Assault and aggravated assault
• Battery and aggravated battery
• Felony battery
• Manslaughter
• Kidnapping 

If someone wishes to assert a Stand Your Ground defense, the law permits them to file a pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis that their use or threatened use of force is protected under the Stand Your Ground law. In the event this occurs, a Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearing will be held. For more on this, click here.

To qualify for immunity, the judge must find that a “reasonable and prudent person situated in the same circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew would have used the same force as did the defendant.” Montanez v. State, 24 So. 3d 799, 803 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010)

At the pretrial immunity hearing, the defendant must make a prima facie (on its face) showing that based on the facts of the case, their use of force was reasonable and proportional to the threat faced. If the defendant does so, the State must prove that the use or threatened use of force was unlawful (e.g. not reasonable and proportional) by clear and convincing evidence.

If the State fails to do so, the case must be dismissed as a matter of law at the pretrial immunity hearing. If the State establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use of force was not reasonable and proportional to the threat (or that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of a protected use or threatened use of force), the case will move to trial.

At trial, a defendant can assert a Stand Your Ground defense yet again. The State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of the defendant’s peers that the use or threatened use of force was unlawful (e.g. unreasonable/disproportionate). If the State fails, acquittal is required.

In the event that a trial judge denies a defendant’s motion for Stand Your Ground immunity at a pretrial hearing, a defendant can appeal this decision (via a writ of prohibition) to an appellate court. 

The appellate court (Florida’s District Courts of Appeal) can either leave the trial judge’s ruling undisturbed (requiring the defendant to proceed to trial), or reverse it if the judge erred – leading to the discharge of the defendant (e.g. charges being dismissed).

A key aspect of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is that it does not apply to use of force against law enforcement officers engaged in their official duties. Although someone in their home who uses or threatens to use force is entitled to a presumption in favor of that use of force having been reasonable, this does not apply if either of the following are true:

• The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity
• The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter the home in performance of their official duties 

However, to defeat a Stand Your Ground claim, the State must establish the officer(s) identified themselves or that the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

In one major Stand Your Ground case, a defendant was charged with three counts of attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer. After his Stand Your Ground immunity claim was denied by a trial judge, he appealed to Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida).

Florida’s 5th DCA reversed the trial judge’s finding and ruled that the defendant had Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. Let’s take a look at that case – Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) – and find out why.

KEY CASE: Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) 

In Derossett, the defendant (Derossett) was an elderly former automotive plant worker, with no criminal record. His niece (Ellis) lived at his home, and was suspected by local law enforcement of using Derossett’s home while he was away to engage in prostitution.

At approximately 9:30 p.m., Ellis answered a knock on the door and a man started to drag her out of the house. She screamed to Derossett that she needed help. However, before he could get to her, two other men approached to assist the first man in pulling Ellis out of the home.

An armed Derossett rushed towards the front porch, visibly armed. The three men immediately let go of Ellis and started to run in various directions. Derossett fired a single shot into the air (e.g. a “warning shot”) to ensure they would not return.

However, the three men immediately turned around and all began to fire their weapons at him. Derosset and Ellis were both wounded. Derosset returned fire, hitting one of the men. All three of them turned out to be law enforcement officers who had not identified themselves before attempting to arrest Ellis on prostitution charges.

Derossett was charged with three counts of attempted first-degree murder of law enforcement officers. He immediately claimed Stand Your Ground immunity, arguing he reasonably believed his niece was being kidnapped and that his force was reasonable and proportional to the threat faced (burglary/forcible felony kidnapping).

The trial judge denied Derossett’s motion after holding a pretrial immunity hearing, finding the following:

• Law enforcement officers had not entered the home, nor were they “in the process of doing so” at the time Derossett first used deadly force (fired warning shots)
• The officers had “scattered” throughout the front yard, making the warning shot he fired unnecessary
• Derossett said his niece was inside the home at the time he first fired, making the warning shots “unnecessary”

Derossett appealed to the 5th DCA, arguing the trial judge misapprehended both the facts and the law. The 5th DCA agreed – reversing the trial judge and remanding the matter for a new pretrial immunity hearing.

The 5th DCA found that the trial judge was incorrect when he claimed the officer never entered Derossett’s home – a key aspect of his analysis:

“First, the court’s findings that the deputies had neither entered the home nor removed Ellis from the home were not supported by any evidence. The testimony from Ellis and the deputies at the hearing conclusively showed that the first deputy reached into the home and pulled Ellis out and that the deputies thereafter physically engaged with the now-screaming and agitated Ellis on the covered front porch to eventually remove her to the front lawn within seconds of Derossett coming onto his porch with a firearm. No evidence was presented at the hearing that either refutes this sequence of events or suggests otherwise. Therefore, under section 776.013(5)(a) and (b), and directly contrary to the trial court’s factual findings, these actions of the deputies did constitute an entry into Derossett’s dwelling and a removal of Ellis from it.”

The 5th DCA also found that Derossett was presumed to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm because he was in his dwelling at the time he used the deadly force, and an apparent forcible felony (burglary/kidnapping) had just occurred. Referencing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law (Fla. Stat. 776.013(1)), the 5th DCA wrote:

“The statute directs a court to presume that a person held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another when using deadly force against a person if, among other things, that person had just removed another from the dwelling and the person using the deadly force knew that the abduction had occurred. Here, the three men clearly had just removed Derossett’s niece against her will from his dwelling. Derossett, as the person using the defensive deadly force, knew that this apparently unlawful and forcible act (his niece’s abduction) had just occurred. Thus, under these circumstances, Derossett was statutorily entitled to the presumption of having held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to his niece at the time that he used the defensive deadly force. The trial court’s conclusion that Derossett was not entitled to this presumption was incorrect.”

Moreover, the 5th DCA found that Derossett’s immunity claim was not eliminated by the fact that the “victims” were law enforcement, as they did not identify themselves and Derossett did not know they were police:

“Preliminarily, Derossett readily concedes that a person is not entitled to immunity from prosecution under section 776.032(1) for knowingly shooting at law enforcement officers. Derossett testified that it was very dark when the shooting occurred and that neither prior to his warning shot nor after the deputies started shooting at him did any of them ever identify themselves to him as law enforcement officers…. Thereafter, during the trip to the hospital to treat his injuries, Derossett pointedly told one of the deputies in the ambulance, “I shot in self-defense. Who would shoot a cop?” Finally, at least two of the three deputies confirmed in their respective testimony at the hearing that they had not announced to Derossett that they were law enforcement officers. The two also testified that they did not hear the third deputy make such an announcement, if he did at all.”

The 5th DCA also found that the trial judge incorrectly applied the burden of proof at the pretrial immunity hearing – finding that the judge expected Derossett to present evidence in support of his self-defense and defense of others claim (beyond the prima facie showing the law requires):

“We conclude that Derossett’s motion to dismiss, together with the numerous deposition transcripts that he filed in support of the motion, easily met the requirements under section 776.032(4) of raising a facially sufficient prima facie claim of self-defense immunity. The burden was on the State to proceed first at the hearing and prove by clear and convincing evidence that Derossett was not entitled to immunity. Martin, 313 So.3d at 661. Derossett properly raised the argument at the hearing that the State had the burden of producing evidence to negate his self-defense immunity claim. However, the trial court elected to place the burden on Derossett to produce evidence first at the hearing in support of his motion. This flaw permeated the hearing.”

The 5th DCA concluded that a new hearing was required, and heavily implied that the inexorable outcome was Derossett being granted immunity:

“As previously indicated, we have relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to hold this hearing, at which the court shall specifically address whether the State can establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) Derossett knew or should have known at the time that he fired his warning shot that he was shooting at law enforcement officers, or (2) Derossett was using his home to further criminal activity. Ultimately, if, following the hearing, the court finds that the State has failed to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof that Derossett’s actions fall under one of these exceptions under section 776.013(2)(c) and (d), then it shall enter an order granting Derossett’s motion and then discharge him from the crimes charged.”

In sum, Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) is a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law on Stand Your Ground immunity. The 5th DCA found:

• The trial judge erroneously determined that Derossett’s use of force was unjustified
• The trial judge made both factual errors and legal errors (namely shifting the burden of proof) during Derossett’s immunity hearing
• The evidence overwhelmingly indicated Derossett acted reasonably
• This required reversal of the trial judge’s denial of immunity and a new hearing – though the 5th DCA indicated the next step should be dismissal of the charges

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Derossett v. State, 311 So.3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), as it provides a fascinating analysis of Stand Your Ground immunity generally – and when the fact that a police officer was an alleged victim of force no longer negates a Stand Your Ground claim.

If someone is charged with a felony that is potentially enhanceable for sentencing purposes under Florida’s 10-20-Life law, this can carry lengthy prison sentences and heavy financial penalties if they are convicted. It is vital to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. 

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 criminal 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