Florida changed several search-warrant procedures in 2026 through House Bill 359. The Governor approved the measure on June 26, and it was recorded as Chapter No. 2026-177 on June 29.
The bill reaches more than one kind of search. Its official description covers the recovery of deceased bodies, deadlines for returning warrants to court, searches of seized devices, remote warrant applications, and warrants authorizing drone use in specified circumstances.
What the official description says
The official bill record identifies these changes:
- A search warrant may be issued to recover a deceased body.
- The time for returning certain warrants to court is revised.
- The act specifies when a warrant for certain devices is considered timely executed.
- A law-enforcement agency may review data or information in certain devices after specified periods when those devices were timely seized.
- A judge may allow an officer seeking a warrant or identified court order to appear remotely.
- The act defines audio-video communication technology for that process.
- A law-enforcement agency may obtain a warrant to use a drone for a search in specified circumstances.
The complete limits and conditions matter. The enrolled text is the primary source for the exact deadlines, covered devices, required findings, drone circumstances, and statutory cross-references.
What the vote record shows
The House passed H0359 on third reading by 115-0, with two members not voting. The House roll call identifies each recorded vote.
The Senate later passed it by 37-0, with two members absent. The Senate roll call contains the individual record. The House Judiciary Committee had reported the measure favorably by 16-0.
Those votes show unanimous support among members voting on the cited floor roll calls. They do not show how agencies will use each authority or how courts will interpret particular language.
Why the details deserve attention
Search-warrant law sits between investigative authority and judicial review. H0359 places new or revised procedures in that framework. For residents reviewing the measure, the most useful questions are tied to the text:
- What must an application establish before a drone-search warrant can be issued?
- Which devices and data-review periods are covered?
- What makes seizure and execution timely under the revised rules?
- What information must be presented during a remote application?
- Which existing warrant protections remain unchanged?
These are research questions, not claims that a protection is present or missing. The short bill description does not contain enough detail to answer them.
What this overview does not conclude
The saved source packet does not provide an implementation report, a fiscal estimate, or evidence of how frequently these powers will be used. It does not establish that the act increases or decreases privacy in practice, that remote applications change the level of judicial scrutiny, or that drone warrants will be used in any particular type of case.
It does establish that Florida adopted specified warrant procedures and that the measure passed the recorded floor votes without a nay vote. Readers can use the enrolled text and roll calls below to examine the law and the individual votes directly.