Criminal Defense
Since 1993
Since 1993
The iPad “Gotcha”: Why Your Privacy Interest Must Be Proven in Court
By: John Guidry
If I had a dollar for every time someone called to tell me their rights were violated, I wouldn’t have to work; I could just keep answering the phone and make a dollar here, a dollar there. Part of my work as an Orlando criminal defense attorney is to challenge the constitutionality of a government search. It’s one of my favorite things to do (boring, huh?).
The Fourth Amendment is all about privacy rights. A government search violates the Fourth Amendment only if a citizen can first prove they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing or place searched. In 2025, with our lives living inside our devices, you’d think this would be a “given,” but the law requires you to affirmatively claim that privacy in court.
Was your phone or tablet searched without a warrant after you “left it behind”? In 2025, the law on digital abandonment is tricky. Call John Guidry today at (407) 423-1117 to protect your digital life.
The Case Study: Henderson v. State (The Hotel iPad)
In Henderson v. State, 120 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), we see a perfect example of how a defense can fall apart on a technicality. Henderson booked a room at a Hampton Inn. In the middle of the night, the hotel found out the credit card used was stolen. When Henderson didn’t come down to pay, the manager and the police opened the door to find the room empty of luggage or clothes—except for one iPad left under the edge of the bed.
The police, curious as “Young Indiana Jones,” started exploring. They found a list of names and credit card numbers. Henderson later called the hotel asking for his iPad back, which—as you might expect—led straight to his arrest.
The Two Major Failures in Henderson’s Case
Henderson’s attorney filed a Motion to Suppress, but the appeal was denied for two reasons that every defendant should understand:
- The “Dispositive” Technicality: To appeal a search after a plea, you must ask the judge to find that the motion is “dispositive.” This is a fancy way of saying, “If I win this motion, the State has no case left.” If the State has other evidence (like a confession or travel records), the motion might not be dispositive, and the appeals court won’t even look at it.
- The Privacy Interest (Standing): Henderson never testified that the iPad was his or that he expected it to be private. To win a suppression hearing, you usually have to take the stand and say: “This is my device, I don’t share it with the public, and I intended for its contents to stay private.”
John’s Takeaways for 2025
- Digital Privacy is Evolving: Since the landmark Carpenter v. United States ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that digital data is different. However, if you “abandon” a device in a hotel room, the State will argue you’ve forfeited your privacy.
- Testifying is a Tactical Risk: To establish a privacy interest, a defendant often has to testify. In 2025, we use Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 to ensure that anything you say at a suppression hearing cannot be used against you at trial to prove your guilt.
- Lock Your Devices: In 2025, a passcode-protected iPad is a much stronger “subjective manifestation of privacy” than one left unlocked.
- The “Plain View” Myth: Cops love to say an iPad was in “plain view,” but as we saw in Henderson, seeing the device is not the same as having the right to scroll through the “Notes” app.
- Failure of Proof: If the State can’t prove you intentionally abandoned the property, we can argue the search was unconstitutional.
The justice system is harsh, and it’s “insane” to think that a judge can ignore an illegal search just because you didn’t say the “magic words” about your privacy. I’ve been defending Central Florida residents since 1993, and I know that the “typical script” of a police search always has a weak spot if you know where to look.
Whether you’re in Orange, Seminole, or Osceola County, your digital footprint is your business—not the government’s.
Police searched your electronics? Call John at (407) 423-1117.
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.