“Teflon Warrants”: Why You Can’t Know Who Sent the SWAT Team to Your House

By: John Guidry

Accountability is an important part of the relationship between our government and its citizens. Sure, we can’t know everything—that’s why we have “Black Budgets” for covert ops overseas. But when the government shows up at your front door, you would expect some accountability.

Hopefully, you’ve never had your house ransacked by 15 stormtroopers at 3:30 a.m. I haven’t either, but I’ve seen the pictures.

• The Reality: Search warrants are often executed while you are sleeping.
• The Scene: Imagine waking up to guns and men with deep football coach voices barking orders. You are forced to sit in your underwear (or less) while 12+ armed men tear through your belongings and stare at your significant other’s sleepwear.

The Question: After the trauma subsides, you ask the age-old question: “Why?” Believe it or not, under current Florida law, you are not entitled to know.

Was your home searched based on the word of a “Secret Snitch”?

The law says they can hide his name. We say that’s unconstitutional. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The “Confidential Informant” Loophole

When you ask, “Why was my home searched?”, the smart-aleck answer is: “Because a judge signed a warrant.” But the real question is: “Why did the judge sign the warrant?”

Often, the answer is: “Because a Confidential Informant (CI) told us there were drugs inside.”

• The police didn’t see you do anything.
• They have no physical evidence.
• The probable cause rests solely on the word of a ghost.

The Problem: In America, we have a Sixth Amendment right to confront our accusers. Cross-examination is the great truth-finder. If a witness lies to get a warrant, we should be able to drag them into court and expose them. But what if the police don’t have to tell you who the witness is?

The Law: Rule 3.220(g)(2)

The reason law enforcement dodges accountability is found in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(g)(2). It states:

“Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial…”

The Teflon Warrant Equation:

1. Police claim an “Unnamed Source” told them you have drugs.
2. They get a warrant and raid your house.
3. They charge you with what they find.
4. They don’t call the Informant as a witness at trial.
5. Result: You are never allowed to know who the Informant was, or if they even existed.

Courts have supported this. In State v. Hernandez, 546 So. 2d 761 (1989), the court ruled that the State does not have to disclose an informant who “merely furnished the probable cause for a search.”

“Merely?” They kicked in your door at 3:00 a.m. based on this person’s word, and the court says they “merely” furnished the cause? That is absurd.

John’s 2026 Update: The “Frank’s Hearing” & Digital Ghosts

Note: In 2026, we don’t just accept the “Secret Snitch” excuse. We attack the officer.

1. The Franks Hearing (Attacking the Cop) Since the law protects the Informant, we go after the cop who signed the affidavit.

• The Strategy: We file a motion for a Franks Hearing (based on Franks v. Delaware).
• The Goal: We try to prove that the officer lied about the existence or reliability of the informant. If we can show the officer made up the snitch (which happens more than you think), the warrant is voided, and the evidence is thrown out.

2. “Controlled Buys” Must Be Recorded In 2026, many police departments now require officers to wear Body Cams even during meetings with CIs.

• The Defense: If the affidavit says, “CI bought drugs from the suspect,” we demand the video of the buy. If the police say, “We didn’t record it to protect his identity,” we argue that the “buy” never happened. Juries in 2026 are very skeptical of unrecorded police claims.

3. The “Digital” Informant (Parallel Construction) Sometimes, the “Confidential Informant” isn’t a person at all—it’s an illegal wiretap or a Stingray device (cell phone tracker).

• Parallel Construction: Police use illegal tech to find your stash, then invent a “CI” to make it legal.
• Our Job: We demand the “history” of the CI. If this “CI” has no history of helping the police before, it’s a red flag that they might be covering up digital surveillance.

Don’t Let a Ghost Convict You

If your home was invaded based on secret whispers, do not assume the warrant is valid. We can challenge the lies behind the search.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s expose the truth.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.