Knock, Announce... But Don't Expect Suppression: Florida Supreme Court Rewrites Search Warrant Law

State v. Times, No. SC2024-0647 (Fla. June 25, 2026)

TL;DR

In a major shift in Florida search-and-seizure law, the Florida Supreme Court held that evidence will no longer be suppressed solely because officers violate Florida's statutory knock-and-announce requirement while executing a valid search warrant. In doing so, the Court expressly overruled its 2010 decision in State v. Cable, aligning Florida with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan.

Why It Matters

For nearly sixteen years, Florida was one of the few jurisdictions that required suppression of evidence when officers violated the state's knock-and-announce statute—even if the search warrant itself was valid. That rule is now gone.

This opinion dramatically changes how suppression motions involving search warrant execution will be litigated in Florida.

Limits of the Decision

This case does not eliminate Florida's knock-and-announce statute. Officers are still legally required to comply with section 933.09. The decision only changes the remedy for violations. Suppression is no longer automatic simply because officers entered too soon or otherwise violated the statute.

Facts

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigated a Leon County drug trafficking organization and obtained a valid search warrant for a residence believed to contain narcotics and drug proceeds.

When officers executed the warrant, they:

• knocked multiple times,

• announced their presence twice,

• demanded someone answer the door, and

• forcibly entered using a battering ram.

  
  

However, officers did not announce that they possessed a search warrant until only seconds before forcing entry. Inside, officers located cocaine, MDMA ("Molly"), over $23,000 in cash, and two firearms.

The trial court found officers violated Florida's knock-and-announce statute because occupants were not given sufficient time to respond after learning officers possessed a search warrant.

Under existing Florida Supreme Court precedent (State v. Cable), the court suppressed all evidence.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed but certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court because Cable appeared increasingly inconsistent with national authority following Hudson v. Michigan.

Issue

Does a violation of Florida's statutory knock-and-announce requirement require suppression of evidence obtained during execution of an otherwise valid search warrant?

Holding

No.

The Florida Supreme Court held that suppression is not the appropriate remedy for violations of section 933.09 and expressly receded from State v. Cable to the extent it required exclusion of evidence.

Court's Reasoning

1. The Statute Never Required Suppression

The Court began with statutory interpretation.

Section 933.09 tells officers when they may forcibly enter a residence:

• after giving notice,

• announcing authority and purpose, and

• being refused admittance.

What the statute does not say is equally important.

It contains no language requiring suppression of evidence when officers violate those requirements.

The Court emphasized that when the Legislature intends suppression to be the remedy, it knows how to say so expressly.

2. Florida Already Has a Statutory Enforcement Mechanism

Rather than suppression, the Court pointed to section 933.17.

That statute makes it a misdemeanor for an officer executing a search warrant to willfully exceed his or her authority or exercise unnecessary severity.

Because the Legislature created an enforcement mechanism, the Court concluded it was not the judiciary's role to create another remedy by excluding evidence.

3. The Court Admitted Cable Was Wrongly Decided

Perhaps the most striking part of the opinion is the Court's candid discussion of its own precedent.

The majority concluded that State v. Cable improperly assumed suppression was available without first determining whether the Legislature intended that remedy.

According to the Court, Cable mistakenly expanded an older decision (Benefield) into an area where the only question was statutory remedy—not constitutional law.

The Court stated that it had effectively supplied a remedy the Legislature never enacted.

4. Hudson Still Matters

The Court revisited the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan, which held that violations of the constitutional knock-and-announce rule do not require suppression under the Fourth Amendment.

Although Cable had previously distinguished Hudson by treating Florida's statute differently, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that distinction was no longer justified.

The practical result is that Florida now largely follows the federal approach regarding remedies for knock-and-announce violations.

Street Takeaways

• Florida officers must still comply with section 933.09 when executing search warrants.

• Violating the knock-and-announce statute no longer automatically results in suppression of evidence.

• This opinion overrules sixteen years of Florida precedent established by State v. Cable.

• Expect defense attorneys to continue litigating whether officers actually complied with the statute, even though suppression is generally no longer available as the remedy.

• Agency policies regarding knock-and-announce procedures remain important. Policy violations can still create administrative, civil, or credibility issues even if they no longer lead to exclusion of evidence.

• Investigators and supervisors should continue documenting compliance with knock-and-announce requirements through body-worn cameras, reports, and warrant execution plans.

  
  

Disclaimer

This article is intended for educational and training purposes only and is not legal advice. Officers should always follow current Florida law, agency policy, and guidance from their legal advisors and prosecutors when planning and executing search warrants.