This week’s Florida appellate decisions, covered case by case: a man walking his two snakes, convicted of resisting a stop the deputies never had grounds to make, acquitted by the Fifth District because a matching description is all they had. Plus a hot-car felony murder conviction reversed because the State never had to prove the defendant knew, the First District openly rejecting the Second District’s rule on explaining a refusal to depart, a sentence built on withdrawn violation affidavits, a resentencing held without the defendant, a contempt finding that rested on the spirit of an order, and the new sworn-motion requirement for rule 3.190(d)(2). On the civil side, a punitive damages proffer measured one defendant at a time, a personal jurisdiction appeal dismissed, and the new signature rule for discovery. Then a deep dive on the 911 call: when a caller’s report is enough to stop someone, and what that means for the DUI stop that starts with a dispatch.

PRACTICE AREAS THIS WEEK: eight criminal decisions, two civil decisions, and two Florida Supreme Court rule changes.

CHAPTERS
0:00 The missing element
1:55 Holliday: the snakes, the 911 call, and the resisting charge
3:59 Jewell: the hot car, knowledge, and felony murder
8:14 Weber: the First District rejects the Second on departures
10:26 Mc Taw: withdrawn affidavits at sentencing
11:50 Ganga: resentencing without the defendant
13:05 Rule 3.190(d)(2): sworn again
13:46 The rest of the criminal week
15:54 Benedetto: a punitive proffer, one defendant at a time
17:31 Holms, and the new discovery signature rule
18:43 Deep dive: when a 911 call justifies a stop
23:09 The working playbook for a 911 stop
25:06 The week in one line

Cases covered:
Holliday v. State, 5D2024-1865 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
Jewell v. State, 1D2024-3279 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 30, 2026) (Osterhaus, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Weber v. State, 1D2025-1427 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Mc Taw v. State, 3D24-0843 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Ganga v. State, 5D2024-2695 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190, SC2024-0839 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2026)
A.C. v. State, 5D2026-0508 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
Johnson v. State, 3D25-0403 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
State v. Hernandez, 3D24-1122 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Benedetto v. Cuatt, 4D2024-2388 and 4D2025-0265 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 30, 2026)
Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. v. Holms, 6D2025-2413 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 2, 2026)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(k), SC2025-1053 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2026)

Also discussed: R.E. v. State, 536 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Mahaun v. State, 377 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1979); Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623 (U.S. cert. granted June 15, 2026); Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999); Gazoombi v. State, 406 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); Williams v. State, 286 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Manyak v. State, 414 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Kezal v. State, 42 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014); Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998); State v. Korson, 413 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., 434 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2026).

Discussed in the deep dive: Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990); Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000); Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2008); Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014); Peterson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Holliday v. State, 5D2024-1865 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026).

Most of these decisions are not final until the time for rehearing expires. Want the opinions, or the one-page worksheet for taking apart a 911 stop? Email rory@thesafirlawyer.com and I will send them over, no charge.

Safir Injury and Criminal Defense Law handles criminal, DUI, and personal injury matters across Florida, and we gladly accept referrals from fellow attorneys. Call or text 727-472-8096, or find us at thesafirlawyer.com.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here. Attorney Rory Safir is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.