Your Child Was Just Arrested for a Threat They Never Made. AI Did This.

A classmate used artificial intelligence to fabricate a threatening image and fake text messages — and now your child is in handcuffs. This is not science fiction. It is happening in Florida schools right now. Here is what you need to know.

By Dennis Gonzalez Jr., Esq.  ·  Former Miami-Dade Assistant State Attorney  ·  Florida Bar  ·  (305) 209-0384

The Scenario No Parent Imagines — Until It Happens to Them

Marco's parents are calling lawyers before they have finished reading the arrest report. The charge: a second-degree felony under § 836.10, Florida Statutes — written or electronic threats to kill or conduct a mass shooting. Up to fifteen years in state prison. A permanent record. A destroyed future — for something their son did not do.

Now consider a second version of this nightmare.

These scenarios are not hypothetical in the sense that they are unlikely. They are composite descriptions of incidents that have already occurred. The technology to do this is free, available on any smartphone, and requires zero technical skill. What is happening next door — in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana — is coming to South Florida, if it has not already arrived.

This Is Already Happening. We Have the Cases.

"The law has not caught up to the technology. In Florida, there is no statute specifically criminalizing the use of AI to create threatening content and frame another person. That gap is a danger — and a defense."

The Florida Criminal Charges: What They Actually Mean

Florida law does not require police to verify the authenticity of digital evidence before making an arrest. They need only probable cause — a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. An AI-generated image that looks real can supply that probable cause. The charges that follow are serious.

The critical wrinkle no one is talking about

The 2021 amendment to § 836.10 — passed directly because of a Florida court ruling that social media threats did not violate the old law — now includes a "procuring" provision. A student who creates a fake AI image and causes someone else to share it could be charged as the person who procured the transmission. The creator of the fake threat and the person falsely accused may both face felony charges under the same statute.

And unlike most felony charges, violations of §§ 790.163 and 790.164 carry mandatory adjudication — meaning even a judge cannot withhold the conviction. Florida's standard juvenile diversion programs are largely unavailable for second-degree felonies. The path through this requires aggressive legal defense from the very first day.

The Constitutional Defense: Why the Law Is on Your Side

Here is what most people — and many attorneys — do not understand about these cases. The United States Supreme Court gave defendants powerful ammunition in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023). The Court held that to prosecute someone for making a "true threat," the State must prove the defendant subjectively understood — at minimum, recklessly — that their communication would be viewed as threatening. Good faith mistakes, pranks, and content someone never created cannot satisfy this standard.

For the wrongly accused student: they had zero awareness of any communication, because they sent none. The State cannot establish recklessness against someone who played no role in creating the content. Florida's own appellate courts have applied this principle. In TRW v. State, 363 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the court held the State must show the defendant communicated "with the knowledge that it would be viewed as a threat." No communication. No knowledge. No conviction.

For the student who created the fake content thinking it was a harmless prank: Counterman requires conscious disregard of a substantial risk. If a teenager genuinely did not understand that a fake AI image would trigger a school lockdown and police response, that subjective mental state is a legally cognizable defense — not an excuse, but a constitutional argument that must be investigated and raised by counsel who knows how to make it.

The Evidence Defense: What the AI Left Behind

AI-generated images are not forensically invisible. Every file tells a story — to those who know how to read it.

This is the defense that freed Kumayl Raza. A digital forensic expert examined the evidence, found the traces of fabrication, and traced the content back to its actual source. Without that expert — retained after his arrest — Raza might have taken a plea deal to a lesser charge just to end the nightmare.

What to Do in the Next 60 Minutes

One More Scenario — The One Nobody Talks About

Carlos is not a bad kid. He made a catastrophic miscalculation about what "funny" means when AI technology puts realistic-looking threatening content into anyone's hands. But Florida law does not currently have a specific AI-generated content exception. It does not distinguish between a prank and a genuine threat based on the medium. What it has is a second-degree felony statute, a mandatory adjudication provision for false reports causing school lockdowns, and a juvenile justice system with almost no diversion options for crimes of this severity.

Carlos needs a defense attorney who understands both the law and the technology — and who can argue, under Counterman v. Colorado, that a teenager who posted a dark joke did not "consciously disregard a substantial risk" that his content would be viewed as a genuine threat. That argument is available. But it must be made by someone who knows how to make it — and who moves on Day One.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change; consult a qualified Florida criminal defense attorney for advice specific to your situation. Dennis Gonzalez Jr. is licensed by the Florida Bar. Results are not guaranteed and depend on the specific facts of each case.

By Dennis Gonzalez, Esq.  |  The Law Office of Dennis Gonzalez, P.A.

Right now, as you read this, your Google search history is building a digital profile of your life — your health concerns, your financial decisions, your curiosities, your fears. And law enforcement across America is increasingly using that profile to identify criminal suspects, even when they don't have a suspect to begin with.

It's called a "reverse keyword warrant," and a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling just gave it the greenlight. If you're a Florida resident who uses Google — and that's virtually everyone — you need to understand what this means for your rights.

What Is a Reverse Keyword Warrant?

Traditional search warrants work the way most people expect: police identify a suspect, then ask a judge for permission to search that person's belongings or records. A reverse keyword warrant flips that process entirely.

With a reverse keyword warrant, law enforcement asks Google to hand over information about everyone who searched for specific terms during a specific time window. They don't start with a suspect — they start with a search term, and they work backward through Google's database of billions of users to find one.

Think about what that means. Police can effectively tell Google: "Give us the identity of every person who searched for this street address in the last two weeks." And Google — which processes billions of searches daily and holds the most detailed picture of human curiosity ever assembled — complies.

These warrants have been used to investigate bombings in Texas, the assassination of a Brazilian politician, and a fatal arson in Colorado. The ACLU has argued they give police "unfettered access to the thoughts, feelings, concerns and secrets of countless people." And yet courts are increasingly allowing them.

The Cases That Are Shaping the Law

Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. Kurtz (Dec. 16, 2025)

The most recent and consequential ruling came from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just two months ago. In 2016, a woman in rural Northumberland County was kidnapped from her home and sexually assaulted. Police had DNA evidence but no suspect. Traditional investigation hit a dead end.

Investigators obtained a reverse keyword warrant directing Google to disclose accounts that searched for the victim's name or address during the week of the attack. More than a year later, Google identified two searches for the victim's address made hours before the assault — both from the same IP address. That IP address led police to John Edward Kurtz, a state prison guard. Surveillance, a discarded cigarette butt matching crime scene DNA, and a confession followed. Kurtz was convicted and sentenced to 59 to 280 years.

But the legal question was whether the warrant was constitutional in the first place.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's fractured answer: Three justices authored the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC), holding that Kurtz had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his Google searches because he voluntarily shared that information with Google — a private company that explicitly warns users in its privacy policy that search data can be disclosed to law enforcement. Three other justices, led by Chief Justice Todd, concurred in the result but on narrower grounds — finding that police had sufficient probable cause and noting that Pennsylvania's stored communications statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 5743) appears to independently require a warrant for this type of data. One justice dissented, arguing that probable cause cannot rest on a "bald hunch" that a criminal used Google.

Critical detail: Because only three of seven justices agreed on the reasoning, Kurtz is a plurality opinion — its legal reasoning is not fully binding precedent, even in Pennsylvania. The holding is limited to the specific result: Kurtz's conviction stands. The door remains open for future courts to reach different conclusions.

The plurality also explicitly limited its analysis to "general, unprotected internet searches," stating it was not deciding the privacy rights of users who utilize VPNs, private browsing modes, or encrypted browsers. That carve-out matters significantly.

Colorado: People v. Seymour (Oct. 16, 2023)

Colorado was the first state supreme court to address reverse keyword warrants. In 2020, an arson in Denver killed five members of a Senegalese family, including an infant and a toddler. Police had no suspects after two months of investigation. They obtained a reverse keyword warrant asking Google for IP addresses associated with anyone who searched for the home's address in the 15 days before the fire.

Google returned information about five Colorado IP addresses from eight accounts totaling 61 searches. Investigators identified and charged three teenagers with multiple counts of first-degree murder.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that users do have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history under the Colorado Constitution. However, the court found the warrant was "constitutionally defective" because it lacked individualized probable cause — there was no probable cause as to any specific Google user. Despite this deficiency, the evidence was admitted under the "good faith" exception because police had acted reasonably in executing a novel technique with no precedent saying it was unlawful.

As one Colorado criminal defense attorney noted after the ruling: the next officers who try this technique "won't have that protection" — because the constitutional deficiency is now on the record.

The U.S. Supreme Court: Chatrie v. United States (Cert. Granted Jan. 16, 2026)

The U.S. Supreme Court has now entered this arena — not on keyword warrants directly, but on the closely related question of geofence warrants. On January 16, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in Chatrie v. United States to decide: "Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment."

Geofence warrants, like keyword warrants, work in reverse — instead of identifying who searched for specific terms, they identify whose phone was in a specific location at a specific time. Federal courts are deeply split: the Fifth Circuit declared in United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817 (5th Cir. 2024), that geofence warrants are "modern-day general warrants and are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment," while the Fourth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion.

Important nuance: The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the Fourth Amendment question — it declined to review the good faith exception. Even if the Court finds a constitutional violation, it will not address whether evidence must be suppressed. That fight continues in lower courts.

A decision is expected by summer 2026. Whatever the Court decides about geofence warrants will almost certainly influence keyword warrants as well.

What Does This Mean in Florida?

Florida has not yet had a state appellate court rule directly on reverse keyword warrants. But understanding the framework is essential for anyone facing criminal charges where digital evidence plays a role.

Florida's Constitutional Framework

Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it includes a critical conformity clause: "This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court." The upcoming Chatrie decision will directly impact Florida law.

However, Florida also has a separate, independent right to privacy under Article I, Section 23: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life." In Planned Parenthood of Southwest & Central Florida v. State, 384 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 2024), the Florida Supreme Court conducted an extensive originalist analysis of this provision and traced its origins to concerns about "personal and financial data" collected through "computer operated information systems," government surveillance, and technological advances threatening individual privacy. Id. at 83–84. While that case narrowed prior interpretations of the clause in the reproductive rights context, the Court's analysis powerfully reinforces that the Privacy Clause was designed to protect Floridians from precisely the kind of government digital dragnet that reverse keyword warrants represent — mass government collection of private data through technology.

This would be a novel argument in Florida. But Article I, Section 23 is not subject to the conformity clause of Section 12, meaning Florida courts are free to provide greater digital privacy protections than federal courts require.

Defense Strategies Available to Florida Defendants

If you are facing criminal charges in Florida and believe your Google search history, location data, or other digital information was used in the investigation:

• Challenging the warrant's probable cause. A reverse keyword warrant that simply guesses the suspect used Google — without specific evidence linking the crime to online activity — may lack sufficient probable cause under both federal and Florida constitutional standards.
• Challenging particularity. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to particularly describe the "place to be searched" and "things to be seized." A warrant that sweeps through billions of Google users' search histories may fail this requirement. The Colorado Supreme Court found the warrant in Seymour "constitutionally defective" on precisely this basis.
• IP address does not equal identity. An IP address identifies a device's approximate location on the internet — it does not identify a person. Shared WiFi networks, public hotspots, VPN exit nodes, and compromised devices all mean that an IP address associated with a search does not prove who performed that search.
• Asserting Florida's independent privacy right. Article I, Section 23 is not bound by the conformity clause of Section 12 and operates independently from the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court's own analysis in Planned Parenthood v. State, 384 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 2024), traced this provision directly to concerns about government collection of personal data through technology — the exact mechanism a reverse keyword warrant exploits.
• Challenging the "good faith" exception. Now that multiple state supreme courts have identified constitutional problems with keyword warrants, future officers have diminished ability to claim ignorance.

What You Should NEVER Do If You Think Your Searches Are Being Investigated

Beyond Criminal Defense: Civil Implications

The same digital privacy issues are beginning to surface in civil litigation. Attorneys in personal injury, employment, and family law cases are increasingly seeking access to opposing parties' search histories during discovery. If you are an attorney dealing with digital evidence issues in civil litigation and need consultation on the constitutional and technical dimensions, our office is available to consult.

Protecting Yourself: Practical Steps

• Use a VPN (Virtual Private Network). A VPN masks your IP address, making it significantly harder for a reverse keyword warrant to trace a search back to you. The Kurtz plurality explicitly excluded VPN users from its holding.
• Use privacy-focused search engines. DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search do not track or store your search history the way Google does.
• Enable private browsing mode. While not a complete solution, it prevents searches from being tied to your logged-in Google account.
• Review your Google privacy settings. Delete your search history and disable Web & App Activity tracking at myactivity.google.com.
• Never consent to searches of your digital devices. If law enforcement asks to look through your phone, computer, or accounts, you have the right to refuse. In Florida, Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), established that police generally need a warrant to search a cell phone.
• Contact a criminal defense attorney immediately if contacted by law enforcement. Do not answer questions about your online activity. Do not try to delete evidence. Call a lawyer first.

The Bottom Line

The law around reverse keyword warrants is developing rapidly. Pennsylvania and Colorado have both upheld the technique under varying legal theories, though both identified significant constitutional concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on geofence warrants in Chatrie v. United States, with a decision expected by summer 2026. That ruling will directly impact Florida through the conformity clause — and Florida's independent privacy right under Article I, Section 23 may provide additional protections regardless.

If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges in Miami-Dade County and believe your digital footprint played any role, you need an attorney who understands both the technology and the rapidly evolving constitutional landscape.

As a former Miami-Dade prosecutor with a background in network administration and cybersecurity, I bring a unique combination of technical expertise and prosecutorial experience to these cases. I know how law enforcement builds digital evidence cases because I used to build them myself.

Contact The Law Office of Dennis Gonzalez, Jr., P.A.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges involving digital evidence — whether it's cyber crime defense, drug trafficking, domestic violence, or any other serious offense — you need experienced representation.

Schedule a Free Consultation

□ (305) 209-0384

□ www.dgonz.com

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different — consult with a qualified attorney about your specific situation. This post will be updated when the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in Chatrie v. United States.