The right to a public trial is one of the most fundamental protections in the American justice system. It’s designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. But what happens when that right collides with another powerful interest—like protecting a child victim from trauma?

A recent Florida appellate decision answers that question clearly: the right to a public trial is not absolute. In certain circumstances, courts can limit who is allowed in the courtroom—and still comply with the Constitution. For the full case see Cordon v State 3rd DCA.

When everything is on the line, the smallest words can carry the biggest consequences. In Florida criminal cases, we often see defendants who thought they were protecting themselves—only to learn later that what they said wasn’t legally enough. This case is a perfect example. A man sits in an interrogation room, admits involvement in a shooting, and says he “needs advice.” Most people would assume that’s a clear signal to stop questioning. Under Florida law, it isn’t. And that misunderstanding can turn a conversation into powerful evidence for the State. Here’s what this case teaches—and why knowing exactly how to invoke your rights matters more than you think.

When you look closely at the details of the Tiger Woods DUI arrest, what you actually see is not a simple or automatic case, but a series of legal steps that must each be proven by the State. From the initial crash investigation all the way through chemical testing, every part of the process raises important legal questions that apply to everyday drivers here in Florida.

At Landsman Law, we regularly challenge traffic stops that lead to criminal charges. A recent Florida appellate decision highlights a critical reality for drivers: even a brief “rolling stop”—often called a “Jersey stop” or “California stop”—can justify a traffic stop, and once that stop is deemed lawful, it can open the door to searches, statements, and ultimately convictions.

Florida lawmakers have recently approved new legislation aimed at cracking down on signal-jamming devices—technology designed to block or interfere with wireless communications such as cell signals, GPS tracking, or radio transmissions. If signed into law as expected, the measure will create new criminal penalties for possessing or using these devices in Florida.

The new law is expected to take effect July 1, 2026, as part of broader legislation passed during the 2026 legislative session.

For drivers, businesses, and technology users, the law introduces important restrictions that could easily catch someone off guard.

Florida courts have long held that a probation violation must be both willful and substantial before a person’s probation can be revoked or modified. A recent appellate decision involving Troy Lee Jackson reinforces this principle, emphasizing that a defendant cannot be punished for violating a probation condition that was not clearly communicated or properly implemented. To read the case yourself you can find it here Jackson v State (1st DCA).

Judges have lots of power in the Florida criminal justice system, but that power comes with rules. That's easy to forget on a crowded docket, with time pressure, and emotions running high for everyone involved. But one thing remains clear - a defendant cannot be punished for exercising the right to a hearing. Pickard v State (5th DCA)

In State v. Nealy, the police took a phone, but didn't immediately search it. The defense challenged the seizure arguing it was done without 'exigency' (emergency circumstances excusing the need for a warrant).

Florida’s controversial “Halo Law” may soon expand—potentially affecting how close citizens can stand near federal law enforcement officers and whether they can record federal agents in public. A newly proposed expansion could significantly increase the scope of this law and raise important constitutional and practical concerns.

One of the most common cases people can run into is misdemeanor DUI. Drinking has been a major hobby for millions of Americans for decades, and everyone knows someone who has had a DUI. What they don't know is that DUI sentencing courts must structure probation and jail terms in a way that actually allows the defendant to complete mandatory DUI school and treatment. In Garrett v. State (2nd DCA), the appellate court affirmed the DUI conviction—but reversed the sentence because it made compliance with statutory requirements practically impossible.

You'd be surprised how often a fatal car accident involves a defendant with no memory of what happened, and the defense boils down to whether or not the defendant was the driver.

When the State omits important information from your case, that is against the rules. It can undermine the entire court process.