ALBERTO ARMENTEROS AND MARDA HERNANDEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the police's forced entry into the defendants' home was permissible under the "knock and announce" statute exception because there was a good reason to fear the destruction of evidence.
[1] The "knock and announce" statute is subject to an exception when there is a reasonable fear of the imminent destruction of evidence.
[2] The nature of the contraband sought is a relevant factor in determining whether the "knock and announce" statute's exception applies.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice gained entry to the defendants' apartment by breaking down the door without announcing their presence, after an undercover officer purchased co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Knock And Announce Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Associate Judge.
The defendants appeal adjudications of guilt and sentences entered following pleas of nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of their motions to suppress cocaine seized in their home. It appears that the police SWAT unit gained entry to the defendants’ apartment by breaking down the front door of the residence without first knocking at the door and announcing their presence as mandated by section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1985) (“knock and announce” statute). The trial court denied defendants’ motions to suppress based upon the established exception to the “knock and announce” statute which is applicable if there exists good reason to fear the destruction of evidence at the time of entry. State v. Kelly, 287 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1973); Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964); Bouknight v. State, 455 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1985); see Berryman v. State, 368 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
The defendants contend that the forced entry into their home violated their fourth amendment rights1 and also violated their rights which are afforded by the cited Florida statute.
The break-in occurred after an undercover police officer advised the “break-in” officers that she had purchased a small amount of cocaine in the defendants’ home. The court below heard testimony of the existence of normal residential plumbing in the premises.
It is noted that cocaine, when purchased in “user” quantities, is not found in barrels, bushels or bales. Experience tells police officers that cocaine is marketed to the consumer trade in quantities which are readily disposable in sinks or toilets. Experience also teaches that attempts are made to destroy evidence in a great majority of drug-related arrests.
We note that the break-in would have been impermissible if the contraband sought was commonly maintained in quantities not readily disposable in a residential sink or toilet.
The order denying defendants’ motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
. U.S. Const., amend. IV: accord Fla. Const, art. I, § 12.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)…ould swallow the legislature’s rule. Accordingly, we approve Bamber.8 It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . State v. Delasierra, 614 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993); Armenteros v. State, 554 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989); State v. Thomas, 604 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), review pending, 613 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1992); State v. Bell, 564 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). . The affidavit alleged that Bamber kept a large dog in the house and the safet…
-
State v. Price, 564 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…would have reasonably concluded that he would be subject to increased peril if he complied with the knock and announce requirement. The state established a reasonable basis to fear that a gun would be used. We next note that in Armenteros v. State, 554 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), our sister court observed that [Cjocaine, when purchased in “user” quantities, is not found in barrels, bushels or bales. Experience tells police officers that cocaine is marketed to the consumer trade in quantities which are re…
-
State v. Bamber, 592 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…nd that the home in question had normal residential plumbing, we do not believe these conditions alone establish an exigent circumstance. We recognize express conflict with State v. Bell, 564 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and Armenteros v. State, 554 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We also express conflict with State v. Pardo, 582 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, No. 78,318 (Fla. July 26, 1991). On August 18, 1989, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office applied for a search warrant…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Kelly, 287 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1973)
- Berryman v. State, 368 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Jacquelyn Harriet Bouknight and Nellie Mae Anderson v. State, 455 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)