When the Evidence Lives on a Device
Not every internet crime involves an allegation about a minor. Florida prosecutes a range of computer offenses, from unauthorized access to the non-consensual sharing of private images, and what they share is that the case lives almost entirely in digital evidence. That evidence feels definitive and frequently is not, because a device, an account, or an IP address connects to a location and a login, not automatically to a specific person. The defense of these cases begins with the question the State often skips: can it prove who was truly at the keyboard.
| Offense | What it covers | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Computer crimes / unauthorized access | Accessing a computer, system, or network without authorization | 815.06 |
| Identity theft / fraud | Using another person’s identifying information unlawfully | 817.568 |
| Sexual cyberharassment | Sharing sexually explicit images without consent to cause distress | 784.049 |
| Video voyeurism | Secretly recording another in a private place | 810.145 |
Sexual Cyberharassment and Non-Consensual Images
Section 784.049, often called the revenge-porn statute, makes it a crime to willfully publish a sexually explicit image of an identifiable person, without consent, where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the publication causes substantial emotional distress. The elements leave real room to defend: whether the person depicted is identifiable, whether there was consent, whether a reasonable expectation of privacy existed, and whether the intent the statute requires can be proven. These cases often arise from bitter breakups, where the full context and the question of who truly posted the material matter a great deal.
The Warrant Requirement and the IP Address Problem
Two constitutional realities run through these cases. First, phones and computers cannot be searched without a warrant, under the rule the Supreme Court set in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), so a warrantless device search, an overbroad warrant, or a search that exceeded its scope can lead to suppression, on the search and seizure page. Second, an IP address identifies an internet connection and a location, not a particular person, and on a shared or open network many people may have used it. When the State leans on an IP address or a device to identify the accused, the gap between the connection and the person is often where the case is contested.
Proving Who Was at the Keyboard
The recurring weakness in a computer case is attribution. Devices, cloud accounts, and home networks are routinely shared among family, roommates, and guests, and access can be gained without the owner’s knowledge. The State has to prove that the accused, and not someone else, engaged in the conduct, and where several people had access, or where an account was compromised, that proof can fall short. This is a question about the State’s burden, and examining the digital record to test it is the work on the defending the case page.
How I Approach a Computer Crime Case
The defense works the Constitution and the attribution together: testing whether the search and any device examination were lawful, whether the State can connect the conduct to this person rather than a shared device or account, whether the elements of the specific offense are met, and whether any statements were properly obtained. A case that assumes a device equals a defendant is a case built on an assumption worth challenging.
Related: Sex and internet crimes overview, Child sexual abuse material, Challenging a search or stop, and Defending the case: forensics and suppression.
I started as an Assistant Public Defender in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in Tampa, and I am one of six ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientists in the state. These cases turn on evidence the State calls certain and rarely is, and I bring in the right experts, in DNA, digital and cell phone forensics, and medicine, while my own forensic-science training tells me what to demand of them and how to cross-examine the State’s analysts. Learn more about my background.
Common Questions
What internet and computer crimes does Florida prosecute?
Florida prosecutes a range of offenses, including unauthorized access under the Computer Crimes Act (section 815.06), identity theft and fraud (section 817.568), sexual cyberharassment or revenge porn (section 784.049), and video voyeurism (section 810.145). They share the feature that the case rests almost entirely on digital evidence.
What is the revenge-porn law in Florida?
Section 784.049, sexual cyberharassment, makes it a crime to willfully publish a sexually explicit image of an identifiable person without consent, where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the publication causes substantial emotional distress. Whether the person is identifiable, whether there was consent, whether privacy was expected, and who posted the material are all open to challenge.
Does an IP address prove I committed an internet crime?
No. An IP address identifies an internet connection and a location, not a specific person, and on a shared or open network many people may have used it. When the State relies on an IP address or a device to identify the accused, the gap between the connection and the individual is often where the case is contested.
Can digital evidence be suppressed?
It can be. Under Riley v. California, phones and computers cannot be searched without a warrant, so a warrantless device search, an overbroad warrant, or a search that exceeded its scope can lead to suppression. Because these cases depend so heavily on the device, suppression can substantially weaken or end the prosecution.
What if someone else used my device or account?
That goes to the heart of these cases. The State must prove that the accused, not someone else, engaged in the conduct, and devices, cloud accounts, and home networks are routinely shared. Where several people had access, or where an account was compromised, the State's proof of who was responsible can fall short.
This page is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Internet and computer offenses range from misdemeanors to serious felonies, and some carry sex offender registration. These are among the most serious charges in Florida, and penalties and registration consequences vary with the offense and facts, so confirm how the current law applies to your situation with counsel. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
