Florida Pride Flag Property Damage Case
The confrontation began with a complaint to the manager and later cost Kemp his job. The case ultimately entered pretrial intervention.
Incident and arrest: October 22, 2025 | Later outcome: pretrial intervention in March 2026
Summary
A disagreement over a Pride flag displayed inside a St. Petersburg Starbucks became a misdemeanor property-damage case and later a pretrial-intervention agreement.
Police said Tucker Kemp entered the store at approximately 9:15 a.m. on October 22, 2025.
Kemp complained to a manager about the rainbow Pride flag hanging on the wall.
The manager reportedly explained that the display was consistent with company policy and would not be removed.
Investigators alleged that Kemp threw tea on the flag, pulled it from the wall and placed it in a trash container.
The damaged flag and wall were valued at $210.
Police arrested Kemp for criminal mischief. He posted $500 bond.
Kemp later acknowledged that his choices led to his arrest and termination from his sales-management job.
In March 2026, prosecutors offered pretrial intervention rather than taking the misdemeanor through trial.
The program required 25 hours of community service, an eight-hour anger-management course, $210 restitution and no contact with Starbucks.
The charge was eligible for dismissal after successful completion.
1. The Crime
The alleged crime was intentional damage to privately owned property.
Kemp’s criticism of the flag was not the charged conduct. The alleged destruction after the manager refused to remove it formed the criminal-mischief case.
2. Crime Location
The incident occurred inside a Starbucks in St. Petersburg.
3. Date and Time of the Crime
- October 22, 2025, about 9:15 a.m.Kemp confronted the manager and allegedly damaged the flag.
- October 22, 2025Police arrested him for criminal mischief.
- After the arrestKemp was terminated from his job.
- March 2026He entered the six-month PTI program.
- July 30, 2026A verified final dismissal had not been located.
4. Police Department
The St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the property damage.
5. Suspect Name
The defendant is Tucker Kemp.
6. Suspect Age
Kemp was 31 years old.
7. Charges
| Charge or Issue | Classification | Reported Basis | Outcome or Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal mischief | Misdemeanor | Kemp admitted responsibility for damaging the flag and wall. | Pretrial intervention |
8. Bond Amount
Kemp posted $500 bond after arrest.
9. Conviction
The reported resolution was diversion, not a final conviction.
The charge could be dismissed after successful completion.
10. Sentence
The PTI conditions included 25 service hours, anger management, restitution and a no-contact order.
These were diversion terms rather than a traditional sentence.
11. Outcome
The store received a restitution requirement for the $210 loss.
Kemp’s employment ended, and the criminal charge entered a conditional dismissal path.
12. Victim
Starbucks was the property victim.
The manager was involved in the confrontation but was not reported physically injured.
Victim Name
The manager’s name was not publicly released.
Victim Age
The manager’s age was not reported.
The Later Diversion Agreement
A later article focused specifically on the PTI terms.
Maintaining both versions allows the original arrest post to remain historically accurate while directing readers to the case outcome.
The diversion agreement required $210 in restitution, matching the damage figure attributed to the flag and wall in the arrest reporting. That alignment is significant because it connects the later court resolution directly to the property loss that supported the criminal-mischief allegation. Community service, anger management and the no-contact condition addressed the broader resolution, while successful completion was the path to dismissal.
Restitution Tracked the Reported Loss
Pretrial intervention is not the same thing as a guilty verdict after trial. The reported agreement created conditions that could lead to dismissal if Kemp completed them. For that reason, the article describes the matter as resolved through diversion rather than as a criminal-mischief conviction. The employment consequences reported after the arrest were separate from the criminal case and do not substitute for a court judgment.
What Diversion Means for the Outcome
Florida’s criminal-mischief statute criminalizes willful and malicious damage to another person’s real or personal property. Under the 2025 version of the law, damage greater than $200 but less than $1,000 is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor. The reported $210 loss put this allegation just above that statutory threshold. The charge did not require a court to decide whether Kemp’s criticism of the Pride flag was acceptable speech; the criminal case focused on the alleged physical damage after the store declined his demand.
Why the Case Was About Property Damage
The case later moved away from a conventional prosecution. In March 2026, Kemp entered a six-month pretrial-intervention agreement. The reported terms required 25 hours of community service, an eight-hour anger-management course, $210 restitution and no contact with Starbucks. He also acknowledged responsibility for the conduct in a court filing. If he successfully completes the program, the misdemeanor charge can be dismissed.
The case began on October 22, 2025, when police said Kemp entered a St. Petersburg Starbucks, complained about a Pride flag and asked that an American flag be displayed instead. After a manager declined to remove the Pride flag, investigators alleged that Kemp threw tea on it, pulled it from the wall and placed it in the trash. Police estimated the combined damage to the flag and wall at $210. Kemp was arrested for criminal mischief and released after posting $500 bond.
From the October Arrest to Pretrial Intervention
Sources
This article is based on police records, court documents, statutes and published
reporting available as of July 30, 2026. An arrest or criminal charge is not proof
of guilt. Victim addresses and unnecessary personal information have been omitted.
Court records and custody information may change after publication.
