Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
If you case involves any jurisdictional issues, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at Sammis Law Firm in Tampa, FL. Our attorneys file motions to suppress and motions to dismiss in cases involving a jurisdictional issue.
We can help you understand the limitations of subject matter and personal jurisdiction in Florida cases. This article discusses different jurisdictional issues including crimes on the high seas and officers acting outside of the boundaries of their municipality.
Our main office is located in downtown Tampa, FL, in Hillsborough County. Our second office is located in New Port Richey, FL, in Pasco County.
Call 813-250-0500.
Crimes Prosecuted in Florida on the High Seas
When a crime occurs on the high seas, determining which court has the authority to hear the case creates a complex intersection of state and maritime law. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently clarified these boundaries in Batiz v. State, 286 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), a case involving a cruise ship cabin steward charged with lewd or lascivious molestation.
The ruling provides a critical roadmap for how Florida’s “special maritime criminal jurisdiction” functions and what the State must—and must not—allege in a charging document. Florida is a global hub for the cruise industry. Recognizing this, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 910.006, Florida Statutes, to protect persons traveling to or from Florida by sea. This statute allows Florida courts to exercise jurisdiction over acts committed on ships outside the state’s physical boundaries under specific “delimited circumstances.”
According to the statute, Florida may claim jurisdiction if:
- The suspect is a Florida citizen or resident.
- The victim is a Florida resident.
- The act is one of violence, detention, or depredation generally recognized as criminal.
Over half of the revenue passengers embarked and plan to disembark in Florida. The ship’s master commits the suspect to the custody of a Florida law enforcement officer.
In Batiz, the defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because the State’s “information” (the charging document) failed to specifically allege the maritime nature of the crime. In fact, the State incorrectly alleged the crime occurred in Brevard County rather than international waters.
The Court rejected this argument, establishing two key principles:
- Elements of Crime vs. Elements of Jurisdiction: The State is required to allege the essential elements of the crime charged, not the essential elements of jurisdiction.
- No Specific Citation Required: Neither the Florida Statutes nor the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate that a charging document cite the specific statutory basis for a court’s jurisdiction.
The Court concluded that the Brevard County circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction as long as the facts of the case fell under the “penumbra” of § 910.006.
While the State doesn’t have to allege jurisdiction in the charging document, it absolutely must prove it at trial. The Court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than the “preponderance of the evidence” used in many civil jurisdictional disputes.
In the Batiz case, the State attempted to prove jurisdiction through several avenues:
- The Effects Doctrine: The State argued that acts committed at sea had an intrastate effect. The Court rejected this as an “independent basis,” noting that § 910.006 is the specific application of this doctrine and must be followed.
- Passenger Percentages: The State provided testimony that the ship left from Port Canaveral, but offered no evidence regarding the total number of “revenue passengers.” The Court ruled this evidence was insufficient to prove jurisdiction.
- The Nature of the Act: Jurisdiction was ultimately upheld under § 910.006(3)(f). The State proved the victim was a Florida resident and the act was one of violence. The Court noted that lewd or lascivious molestation is recognized as a violent act, similar to how the U.S. Supreme Court views rape.
The Batiz decision serves as a reminder that while technical errors in a charging document regarding location may not result in a dismissal, the evidentiary burden at trial remains strict. “The Brevard County circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear felony charges based on acts or omissions on board a ship outside the state, so long as the facts of the case fell under the penumbra of section 910.006.” Id.
For those operating in Florida’s maritime corridors, the case confirms that the state’s reach extends far into international waters, provided the victim is a resident or the crime is sufficiently violent to trigger the state’s protective interests.
Municipal Officers Acting Outside the Boundaries of their Municipality
What happens if a municipal officer acts outside the boundaries of his municipality?
If the officer acts outside the boundaries of his jurisdiction, then the officer has no authority to gather evidence in a criminal investigation or make a lawful misdemeanor arrest. As a result, the evidence gathered must be suppressed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution if the proper motion is filed and litigated.
In these cases, the court will look at the jurisdictional boundaries and the authority of law enforcement to operate in/out of those boundaries.
As a general rule, a municipal police officer acting outside the boundaries of his municipality has no authority to gather evidence in a criminal investigation or make a lawful misdemeanor arrest. State v. Annatone, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 647a (Fla. 7th Cir., April 4, 2014); Gamache v. DHSMV, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 118b (Fla. 7th Cir., December 11, 2006).
When the record shows that the defendant was unlawfully arrested outside of the arresting agency’s jurisdiction without just cause (i.e. fresh pursuit, mutual aid, etc.), all evidence gathered as a result of the illegality must be suppressed.
When the officer acts outside of his jurisdiction, the state might advance a theory such as mutual aid or fresh hot pursuit. These legal mechanisms allow officers to act outside their jurisdiction in apprehending suspects.
In some jurisdictions, a “mutual aid agreement” allows police officers to make traffic stops and arrests outside of their city limits.
In some limited circumstances, the courts have found that the police officer was in fresh pursuit of a felon or misdemeanant or violator of traffic laws which gave the officer the right of arrest outside their jurisdiction. See, F.S. 901.25; Cheatem v. State (4DCA 1982).
Citizen’s Arrest Outside the Jurisdiction
“In addition to any official power to arrest, police officers also have a common law right as citizens to make so-called citizen’s arrests. We do not mean to imply that police officers acting outside their jurisdictions are treated as private persons for the purposes of the exclusionary rule.
Rather, we mean that the Legislature, by vesting police officers with official powers, did not intend to divest the officers of their common law right as citizens to make arrests.” State v. Phoenix, (4DCA 1982).
Attorneys for Jurisdictional Defenses in Florida
If your criminal case involves an officer acting outside of his or her jurisdiction, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at Sammis Law Firm. We understand the limitations on mutual aid agreements, fresh pursuit, and an officer making a citizen’s arrest.
We can help you assert the best legal defenses for your case felony or misdemeanor case.
Call 813-250-0500.
This article was last updated on Tuesday, January 13, 2026.
