Depriving an Officer of Means of Protection or Communication — Florida § 843.025

Depriving a law enforcement officer of their means of protection or communication under Florida § 843.025 is a third-degree felony carrying up to 5 years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. This charge — which covers grabbing for an officer’s firearm, disabling their radio, or interfering with any protective equipment — is among the most seriously prosecuted obstruction offenses in Florida, and it almost always comes alongside additional battery, assault, or obstruction charges.

Legally reviewed by Tonmiel Rodriguez, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer — last reviewed June 2026.

What Does Florida § 843.025 Prohibit?

Florida § 843.025 makes it a third-degree felony to intentionally deprive a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer of the officer’s means of protection or communication. The statute was designed to protect officers from being disarmed, isolated from backup, or stripped of their defensive equipment during encounters with suspects.

The term “means of protection or communication” is interpreted broadly and includes: firearms; conducted electrical weapons (tasers); batons; pepper spray; radio equipment; communication devices; and in some circumstances, body cameras that serve as an officer’s only means of documenting or requesting backup during an encounter.

The core elements the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant intentionally deprived the officer of their means of protection or communication
2. The person deprived was a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer
3. The defendant knew or should have known the person was an officer
4. The officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty

When Does This Charge Arise in Practice?

In my experience across the 10th Judicial Circuit, § 843.025 charges arise most often in these situations:

• Firearm grabs: A suspect reaches for or grabs an officer’s holstered firearm during a struggle. This is the most serious form of § 843.025 conduct and almost always accompanies charges for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer or attempted murder.
• Radio or communication device removal: During a physical altercation, a suspect knocks or pulls the officer’s radio away, preventing the officer from calling for backup.
• Taser or pepper spray removal: A suspect grabs or disables a taser or chemical agent device during a lawful arrest attempt.
• Body camera interference: A suspect intentionally covers, grabs, or disables an officer’s body camera. Whether this qualifies as a “means of protection or communication” is a developing area of law, but charges have been filed on this basis.
• OC spray displacement: Knocking pepper spray from an officer’s hand during a struggle, preventing its use.

The charge rarely appears alone. It usually comes alongside resisting with violence (§ 843.01), battery on a law enforcement officer (§ 784.07), or in the most serious cases, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer (§ 784.07(2)(b) or (c)).

What Are the Penalties and Sentencing Implications?

As a third-degree felony, § 843.025 carries:

• Up to 5 years in state prison
• Up to 5 years felony probation
• $5,000 fine plus court costs
• Permanent felony record

Under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code, § 843.025 scores as a Level 5 offense at 28 points. When charged alongside battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting with violence — both also third-degree felonies — the combined scoresheet points can push the sentencing range into mandatory prison territory even without a prior record.

When a firearm grab is involved and the circumstances could support a charge of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer — a life felony under § 784.07(3) — or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on an officer — a second-degree felony with a 3-year mandatory minimum under § 784.07(2)(c) — the sentencing exposure becomes potentially decades or life. I work to prevent that charge escalation from the moment I am retained by developing the factual record on what actually occurred during the encounter.

What Defenses Apply to a § 843.025 Charge?

The most important defense is the intentionality requirement. The statute requires intentional deprivation — not merely accidental contact with an officer’s equipment during a physical struggle.

Accidental versus intentional contact. Physical encounters between officers and suspects involve rapid, chaotic movement. A hand that accidentally contacts a radio, knocks a taser, or brushes against a holstered firearm during a takedown attempt is not the same as an intentional grab for that equipment. The body camera footage is critical in distinguishing the two — and I review every frame.

Lawful execution requirement. Like all obstruction statutes, § 843.025 requires that the officer was in the lawful execution of a legal duty at the time. An unlawful stop, an unconstitutional arrest, or an officer acting outside their authority is not in the lawful execution of a legal duty — which defeats the charge.

Knowledge of officer status. The defendant must have known or should have known the person was a law enforcement officer. Encounters involving plainclothes officers, off-duty officers, or officers without clearly visible identifying insignia can raise genuine knowledge questions.

Item is not a protected means. The statute covers means of “protection or communication.” Challenging whether a specific item constitutes a protected category under the statute — particularly novel items like body cameras — is a viable legal defense depending on how the courts in the specific jurisdiction have addressed the issue.

How to Prevent Charge Escalation From a § 843.025 Arrest

The most dangerous aspect of § 843.025 arrests is the potential for charge escalation. What begins as a § 843.025 investigation — deprivation of means of protection — can quickly become an attempted murder or aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer investigation if prosecutors decide the conduct was aimed at using the officer’s own weapon against them.

I intervene immediately after a § 843.025 arrest to establish the factual record before the State Attorney makes its charging decision. Providing the prosecutor with a clear, evidence-based account of what the body camera and other video actually shows — demonstrating that the contact was incidental or reflexive rather than an intentional weapon grab — can prevent the case from being elevated to a life felony. This is pre-filing intervention to control what charges are filed in the first place, not plea negotiation after the fact.

Time matters enormously in these cases. The earlier I get involved, the more ability I have to shape the charging outcome before the State’s case is locked in.

How Does This Charge Interact With Resisting With Violence and Battery on an Officer?

In virtually every § 843.025 case I have handled in the 10th Judicial Circuit, the charge comes stacked with § 843.01 (resisting with violence) and § 784.07 (battery on a law enforcement officer). All three are third-degree felonies, but their combined scoresheet points under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code produce a far more serious sentencing picture than any one charge standing alone.

A Level 5 offense (§ 843.025) scores 28 points. Battery on a law enforcement officer (§ 784.07) also scores as a third-degree felony. Resisting with violence (§ 843.01) adds additional points. When combined with any prior criminal history, the total scoresheet can push into the range requiring a mandatory state prison sentence — even if each charge individually would have produced probation for a first-time offender. Understanding how the charges interact under the FCPC is essential to building a realistic picture of total sentencing exposure and developing an effective plea or trial strategy.

What Makes the Body Camera Evidence So Critical in § 843.025 Cases?

Body camera footage is the most important evidence in almost every § 843.025 case. The statute requires intentional deprivation of protection or communication — and the video is usually the only objective record of exactly how the encounter unfolded. Officer reports describe the encounter from the officer’s perspective and are written after the fact, with the benefit of time to reconstruct events.

I have reviewed body camera footage in § 843.025 cases where the officer’s written report described the defendant as intentionally reaching for the firearm, but the video showed the defendant’s hand making contact with the holster area during a defensive movement against the officer’s force. Those are legally and factually different events — and the video tells the truth when the report does not. I watch every second of every available camera angle before evaluating the strength of the State’s case and before making any recommendations to my client about how to proceed.

What Should You Do Immediately After a § 843.025 Arrest?

After an arrest for depriving an officer of means of protection, the immediate priorities are: invoke your right to remain silent; request an attorney before answering any questions; do not attempt to contact any witness or the arresting officer; and call a Board Certified criminal defense lawyer as soon as you have access to a phone. The investigation of the encounter continues after the arrest, and what you say — or do not say — in the hours immediately following the arrest affects what the State ultimately charges and how strong their case is.

Specifically, do not attempt to explain to the booking officers or investigators that the contact with the officer’s equipment was accidental. That explanation — even if true — should be developed with your lawyer’s guidance, with the full context of the body camera evidence available, and presented strategically rather than spontaneously under stress. An unguarded spontaneous statement that “I was just trying to push his hand away” can be characterized by prosecutors as an admission that the contact was intentional. Let your lawyer develop and present the factual account of what happened.

In § 843.025 cases with potential for charge escalation to aggravated assault or attempted murder, the window between arrest and formal charging is the most critical period for defense intervention. I work during that window to present the body camera evidence to the prosecution and prevent the most serious charge levels from being filed. That intervention cannot happen if you wait to find a lawyer until after arraignment.

What Are the Long-Term Consequences of a § 843.025 Conviction?

A third-degree felony conviction in Florida produces permanent loss of the right to possess or own firearms under both Florida law and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). This is a lifetime prohibition that cannot be restored under federal law without a presidential pardon. For someone who has ever owned a firearm, hunted, or relied on firearms for personal protection, this is one of the most significant collateral consequences of a felony conviction.

Beyond firearms, the conviction appears on all background checks, affects professional licensing across dozens of Florida-regulated professions, affects housing applications, and can have severe immigration consequences for non-citizens. A § 843.025 conviction specifically — a crime involving physical confrontation with a law enforcement officer — is viewed particularly negatively by employers in security, healthcare, education, childcare, and government service. Pursuing every available defense to avoid a formal felony conviction on the record is always worth the effort.

Frequently Asked Questions: Depriving an Officer of Means of Protection

What is depriving an officer of means of protection under Florida law?

Florida § 843.025 is a third-degree felony for intentionally depriving a law enforcement officer of their means of protection or communication, including firearms, tasers, radios, or other protective equipment. Maximum penalty is 5 years in state prison.

Does grabbing an officer’s gun automatically result in this charge?

Yes — and likely additional charges including battery on a law enforcement officer and potentially attempted murder or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A firearm grab is the most serious form of § 843.025 conduct.

What if I accidentally knocked equipment off the officer’s belt?

The statute requires intentional deprivation. Accidental contact during a struggle is not the same as a deliberate grab or disabling of equipment. The State must prove intentional conduct — not incidental contact.

Can turning off a body camera lead to a § 843.025 charge?

Potentially, depending on how the prosecution characterizes the conduct and how the court interprets the statute’s scope. This is a developing area of law. Intentionally disabling an officer’s only means of calling for backup or documenting the encounter is the theory under which such a charge would be supported.

What are the penalties for § 843.025?

Third-degree felony — up to 5 years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. When charged alongside battery or assault on a law enforcement officer, combined sentencing exposure can be significantly higher.

What defenses apply to a § 843.025 charge?

Key defenses include: accidental versus intentional contact; officer was not in lawful execution of a legal duty; no knowledge of officer status; or the item involved is not a means of protection or communication covered by the statute.