Tampering with an Electronic Monitoring Device — Florida § 843.23

Tampering with an electronic monitoring device under Florida § 843.23 is a felony whose degree is tiered to the underlying case — third degree (up to 5 years in state prison and a $5,000 fine) when the monitor was ordered for a misdemeanor or third-degree felony, and second or first degree (up to 15 or 30 years) when it was ordered for a more serious charge. This charge is particularly dangerous because it almost always triggers simultaneous violation proceedings on whatever underlying sentence required the monitor in the first place — meaning one incident can generate both a new felony prosecution and a probation or community control revocation.

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

What Does Florida § 843.23 Prohibit?

Florida § 843.23 makes it a felony to intentionally and without authority tamper with, remove, destroy, alter, damage, or affirmatively act to circumvent the operation of an electronic monitoring device that must be worn or used pursuant to a court order or an order of the Florida Commission on Offender Review — including devices used for pretrial release, probation supervision, or community control (house arrest). The statute defines an electronic monitoring device as any device used to track a person’s location, which covers GPS ankle monitors and home confinement tracking equipment. It also makes it a crime to request, authorize, or solicit someone else to tamper with a monitoring device.

The elements the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant was subject to electronic monitoring pursuant to a court order
2. The defendant intentionally tampered with, removed, destroyed, damaged, or circumvented the monitoring device
3. The defendant knew the device was a court-ordered monitoring device

Intent is the most critical element. An accidental break, a device malfunction, or normal wear and tear that triggers a monitoring alert is not criminal conduct under § 843.23. The State must prove deliberate, intentional tampering — not merely that the device stopped transmitting.

What Circumstances Lead to § 843.23 Charges in Practice?

In the 10th Judicial Circuit, electronic monitor tampering charges arise in several common scenarios:

• Physical removal of the device: Cutting or breaking the ankle bracelet off. This is the most straightforward case and the easiest for the State to prove.
• GPS signal obstruction: Wrapping the device in foil, submerging it in water, or placing it in locations designed to block satellite signal.
• Charging failures: Allowing the battery to die can generate a tampering alert — though an accidental dead battery is a defense issue, not an admission of tampering.
• Zone violations combined with alleged tampering: When a person leaves an approved zone and the monitor also shows an anomaly, both a zone violation (VOP) and a § 843.23 charge may be filed.
• Third-party tampering: Someone else — a family member, a roommate — physically damages or interferes with the device. This creates a defense that the defendant did not personally tamper with the device.
• Device malfunction: Equipment failures happen. GPS monitors produce false alerts, malfunction in certain environments, and generate spurious tampering reports due to technical defects.

What Are the Penalties and Collateral Consequences?

§ 843.23 is a tiered felony — the degree depends on the charge or sentence that required the monitor in the first place:

• Third-degree felony — up to 5 years in state prison, up to 5 years felony probation, and a $5,000 fine — if the monitored person is charged with or serving a sentence for a misdemeanor or a third-degree felony
• Second-degree felony — up to 15 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine — if charged with or serving a sentence for a second-degree felony
• First-degree felony — up to 30 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine — if charged with or serving a sentence for a first-degree felony, a felony punishable by life, a life felony, or a capital felony
• A person under 18 commits a third-degree felony regardless of the underlying charge
• Mandatory revocation of pretrial release — if the violation occurred on pretrial release, § 843.23(5) requires the court to revoke release; a new bond requires written findings that conditions will protect the community, ensure appearance, and assure the integrity of the judicial process
• Monitoring fees and restitution for device damage, plus a simultaneous VOP filing on any underlying probation, community control, or pretrial release order

The dual-proceeding aspect is what makes § 843.23 cases particularly dangerous. When a VOP is filed simultaneously with the new felony charge, you face two separate hearings with two separate possible outcomes — each of which can result in incarceration. I manage the § 843.23 case and the VOP together, because decisions made in one proceeding directly affect the other.

What Defenses Apply to a § 843.23 Charge?

The most important defense element in virtually every electronic monitoring tampering case is intent. The statute requires intentional tampering. Here are the defenses I analyze:

Device malfunction or technical failure. Electronic monitoring devices are not infallible. GPS signals are affected by building interiors, geographical features, weather, and satellite positioning. Battery failures can be caused by defective charging equipment. I obtain the complete device data history and compare it against known technical failure modes before accepting that any alert represents actual tampering.

Accidental damage. Physical damage to a GPS ankle monitor during normal daily activity — catching it on furniture, a fall, exposure to water during showering — can damage the device without any intent to tamper. The State must prove intentional damage, not merely that the device was damaged while the defendant was wearing it.

Third-party interference. If someone else physically interacted with or damaged the device, the defendant did not personally commit the tampering. This defense requires evidence of who else had access to or contact with the monitoring equipment.

No knowledge it was a court-ordered device. While rare, there are situations where the defendant was unaware that a specific device was court-ordered monitoring equipment rather than another type of electronic device. This is more common with newer technology and less standard-looking monitoring systems.

Pre-approved removal. In limited circumstances, courts or monitoring companies authorize temporary removal for specific purposes (medical procedures, etc.). If the removal was pre-authorized, it is not tampering under the statute.

How Does This Charge Interact With Domestic Violence Bond Conditions?

GPS monitoring is commonly ordered as a condition of pretrial release in domestic violence cases. When a domestic violence defendant is charged with § 843.23, the State frequently argues that the tampering was done in order to approach the protected victim without detection — which increases the State’s argument for revocation of bond and no-bond pretrial detention. This narrative is damaging and must be addressed directly and early in the defense.

I move immediately to address bond conditions, contest the tampering characterization, and present evidence that the monitoring alert was caused by a technical issue rather than intentional removal aimed at approaching any protected person. Acting immediately — within hours of the arrest — is critical in these cases to prevent weeks or months of unnecessary pretrial detention.

What Technical Evidence Is Used in Electronic Monitor Tampering Cases?

Electronic monitoring companies provide data reports to law enforcement and the courts that log every event associated with a monitoring device — signal losses, strap-cut alerts, movement outside approved zones, charging status, and communication with the monitoring center. This data is the primary evidence in § 843.23 cases, and it is not always as clear-cut as prosecutors suggest.

GPS monitoring technology has well-documented limitations. Buildings, vehicles, dense foliage, and certain geographic formations can cause GPS signal loss that appears identical to intentional jamming. Battery alerts can result from charging equipment failure rather than deliberate discharge. Strap tension alerts can be triggered by normal movement, weight changes, or swelling in the ankle area. I retain monitoring technology experts when the device data is ambiguous and challenge the State’s interpretation of monitoring reports before any plea or trial.

I have represented clients who received tampering alerts caused by defective monitoring equipment from the vendor — not by any action the client took. Obtaining the device’s complete maintenance history, fault logs, and the monitoring company’s internal records about that specific device is part of my standard discovery demand in every § 843.23 case.

How Does a VOP Hearing Work Alongside a § 843.23 Case?

When a § 843.23 arrest triggers a violation of probation or community control proceeding, the two cases are heard separately but affect each other strategically. The VOP hearing is governed by a lower standard of proof — preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The VOP judge has broad discretion, and if the judge finds the violation was willful and substantial, they can impose any sentence up to the maximum on the underlying offense.

I manage both proceedings simultaneously. If the § 843.23 case can be resolved favorably — through a finding of no intentional tampering or through a negotiated disposition — I use that outcome as leverage in the VOP proceeding to argue that the basis for the violation was not proven. Conversely, if the VOP hearing comes first, I ensure the testimony and findings in that hearing do not create admissions or factual findings that prejudice the defense in the criminal trial on the tampering charge. Both proceedings have to be coordinated; decisions in one directly affect the other.

What to Do Immediately After an Electronic Monitor Alert or Arrest

If your monitoring device fires an alert or if law enforcement contacts you about a monitoring issue, the most important immediate steps are: do not make any statements to law enforcement explaining what happened or why; do not attempt to repair or further interfere with the device; contact your supervising officer immediately to report any technical issue you believe caused the alert; and call a Board Certified criminal defense lawyer before taking any other action.

Clients who contact their monitoring company or probation officer immediately — before law enforcement arrives — and report what they believe to be a technical malfunction create a stronger factual record than clients who wait for law enforcement to show up. The proactive report of a potential technical issue signals the absence of concealment and supports the defense that any malfunction was accidental rather than intentional. That does not mean the charge cannot still be filed — but it creates a factual record that helps your defense lawyer from day one.

If an arrest has already occurred, invoke your right to remain silent and request an attorney. Arrest does not end the investigation; investigators keep building the case, and everything you say continues to be used in it. Do not attempt to explain the device alert to the arresting officers. Your explanation, given without counsel, will be used to argue against you later.

What Are the Long-Term Consequences of an Electronic Monitor Tampering Conviction?

A § 843.23 felony conviction creates a permanent felony record with all associated collateral consequences: loss of firearm rights, loss of voting rights, effects on professional licensing, and immigration consequences for non-citizens. For clients on pretrial release, the conviction likely means more restrictive conditions — or no release — on any future case. For clients on probation, a tampering conviction strongly suggests to any future sentencing judge that the client is not a suitable candidate for community supervision.

The practical effect of a § 843.23 conviction on future cases is significant: it signals that the client violated a direct court order, destroyed or disabled a monitoring device, and could not be trusted to comply with supervision conditions. This history affects bail decisions, plea negotiations, and sentencing in all subsequent cases. Avoiding a formal conviction — through a withhold, a diversion, or a dismissal — is always worth pursuing aggressively.

Frequently Asked Questions: Electronic Monitor Tampering in Florida

What is tampering with an electronic monitoring device under Florida law?

Florida § 843.23 makes it a felony to intentionally remove, destroy, damage, or circumvent a court-ordered electronic monitoring device. The degree is tiered to the underlying case: third degree (up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine) when the monitored person’s charge is a misdemeanor or third-degree felony, second degree (up to 15 years) for a second-degree felony, and first degree (up to 30 years) for a first-degree felony or higher.

Does a damaged monitor automatically result in a charge?

No. The statute requires intentional tampering. Accidental damage, device malfunction, or manufacturing defects are not criminal. The State must prove intentional interference with the device.

Can I be charged without physically touching the monitor?

Yes. Circumventing the device’s function — including jamming GPS signals or blocking reception — is covered by the statute even without physically touching the hardware.

What happens to my bond when I’m charged with § 843.23?

If the violation occurred while you were on pretrial release, § 843.23(5) requires the court to revoke your release. A new bond may be set only after the judge makes written findings that release conditions will protect the community, ensure your appearance, and assure the integrity of the judicial process. A VOP is filed simultaneously on any underlying probation order.

What defenses apply to electronic monitor tampering?

Key defenses include: unintentional damage; device malfunction or technical failure; third-party interference; no knowledge the device was court-ordered; or pre-authorized removal.

Can I be charged with both § 843.23 and a VOP at the same time?

Yes — this is what always happens. The § 843.23 arrest creates a new criminal case and simultaneously triggers a VOP proceeding on the underlying sentence. Both must be defended together as a coordinated strategy.