Knock and Announce in Florida: Why the Times Case Ended Very Differently Than It First Appeared
The knock and announce Florida Supreme Court ruling in State v. Times represents a genuine legal earthquake, but not in the direction the case initially seemed to be heading. What started as a clear victory for the defense ultimately became the opposite once Florida’s highest court weighed in.
Facing Charges From a Home Raid Involving a Knock-and-Announce Issue?
A recent Florida Supreme Court ruling changed the remedy available for these violations significantly. Call John Guidry at (407) 423-1117 to understand your actual options.
What Happened During the Raid
Law enforcement investigating a suspected drug trafficking operation obtained a valid search warrant for a Leon County residence connected to Keith Alexander Times. When officers arrived to execute the warrant, they knocked multiple times and announced their presence twice. They stated they had a search warrant only seconds before forcibly entering the home with a battering ram.
Inside, officers found Times along with three other individuals, plus cocaine, MDMA, more than $23,000 in cash, and two firearms. Prosecutors charged Times with trafficking in amphetamines, possession of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Why the Trial Court and First DCA Initially Sided With Times
Times moved to suppress the evidence, arguing officers violated Florida Statute § 933.09, the state’s knock-and-announce law, which requires officers to give occupants a genuine opportunity to respond after announcing their authority and purpose before forcing entry. The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence, relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in State v. Cable, which had established suppression as the required remedy for these violations. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, noting it remained bound by Cable, though the court certified the underlying question to Florida’s Supreme Court given how other jurisdictions had approached the issue differently following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).
Why the Florida Supreme Court Reversed Course
On June 25, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court issued a 6-1 decision that changed everything. Writing for the majority, Justice Meredith Sasso held that the plain text of § 933.09 doesn’t authorize or require suppressing evidence as a remedy for a knock-and-announce violation. The court found that the legislature had instead chosen a different consequence entirely: Florida Statute § 933.17 makes it a second-degree misdemeanor for an officer who willfully exceeds their authority or executes a warrant with unnecessary severity.
The court explicitly receded from its own sixteen-year-old precedent in State v. Cable, 928 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2006), concluding that decision had been wrongly decided. This ruling aligns Florida with the federal approach the U.S. Supreme Court established in Hudson v. Michigan, which similarly held that the federal exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to knock-and-announce violations under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Jorge Labarga dissented, criticizing the majority for removing long-standing privacy and safety protections.
What This Means for Times’ Case and Others Like It
This reversal means Times’ evidence, the drugs, cash, and firearms, remains admissible despite the underlying knock-and-announce violation. The case did not end in dismissal after all, contrary to how it initially appeared once the trial court and First DCA ruled in his favor. The knock-and-announce requirement under § 933.09 remains real Florida law, and officers who violate it can still face a misdemeanor charge personally. What changed is that a violation no longer automatically results in suppressing the evidence found during that search.
What This Means for Defense Attorneys Going Forward
This ruling significantly narrows one previously reliable defense strategy in cases involving forced entry during a warrant execution. A knock-and-announce violation alone, standing by itself, no longer provides the guaranteed path to suppression it once did in Florida. Defense attorneys handling cases involving a rushed or improper entry now need to look toward other available arguments, potentially including challenges to the underlying warrant’s validity, probable cause issues, or other constitutional grounds, rather than relying on the knock-and-announce violation as a standalone basis for excluding evidence.
If You Want More Related Content
Check out our more videos and breakdown articles covering major updates in Florida defense law. You can also use the links below to stay informed. Learn how to protect your constitutional rights when dealing with law enforcement.
Watch: https://youtu.be/BqFZlkgevr0
Read: https://jgcrimlaw.com/articles/police-knocking-front-door-florida-rights/
John’s Takeaways
- State v. Times, Case No. SC2024-0647 (Fla. June 25, 2026), reversed sixteen years of Florida precedent on knock-and-announce violations under Florida Statute § 933.09.
- The Florida Supreme Court held in a 6-1 decision that § 933.09 doesn’t authorize suppressing evidence as a remedy, expressly receding from its own 2010 decision in State v. Cable.
- The legislature’s actual chosen remedy for knock-and-announce violations is a second-degree misdemeanor charge against the officer under Florida Statute § 933.17, not exclusion of evidence.
- This means Times’ trafficking, cocaine possession, and firearm charges are no longer subject to dismissal based purely on the knock-and-announce violation, despite the trial court and First DCA initially ruling in his favor.
- Defense attorneys can no longer rely on a knock-and-announce violation alone as a guaranteed path to suppression. Other constitutional arguments now carry more weight in cases involving forced entry.
Facing Charges From a Search Warrant Execution in Central Florida?
I’ve been following Fourth Amendment developments affecting search warrant execution closely, and this recent reversal genuinely changes defense strategy in these cases. I represent clients across Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, and Volusia County.
Give my office a call. Let’s talk through the specific facts of your search and what arguments remain available.
John Guidry — (407) 423-1117
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 33 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.
John 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.