STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE WARREN BROWN, 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 Florida's 'knock and announce' statute does not apply to peaceful entries through open doors.
An officer with a search warrant entered a residence through open doors without announcing his presence and waiting for a response. The officer found …
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 Forcible Entry cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
The state appeals an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized by a police officer who executed a search warrant at the defendant’s residence. We reverse.
Upon entering the defendant’s property, Officer Joseph Ambrosio, Jr. walked past the defendant and other people standing in the yard. As he came to the front doorway of the defendant’s residence, he announced that he was a St. Petersburg police officer with a search warrant. He entered without waiting for a reply. Both the door to the porch and the inner door into the home were open. Officer Ambrosio found cocaine and marijuana inside the house.
The trial judge apparently accepted the defendant’s argument that section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1987), Florida’s “knock and announce” statute, applied. The defendant argued that the statute required the officer to stand before the open doors and wait for admittance or a refusal, after which force would be justified. We disagree.
In State v. Gray, 518 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1988), this court indicated:
[T]he plain language of the statute [section 933.09] restricts its applicability. A literal reading of the statute reveals that the requirements are applicable only when an officer desires to effect a forcible entry into a residence.... Nothing in the statute reflects that the enumerated steps [notice and wait for response] must precede a peaceful entry that does not involve force.
We think section 933.09 does not apply to the facts at bar. The officer was justified in walking through the open doors to execute the valid search warrant. He did not need to stop and wait for permission to enter peaceably.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Robinson, 565 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…creen door had disappeared from view. The screen door created a condition in which activities inside could be viewed from the doorway. Indeed, if the screen door had been open, it appears that this entry would not have been forcible. State v. Brown, 564 So. 2d 136 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). Since the purposes of knock-and-announce are not strongly affected by this case, we question whether the extreme penalty of exclusion is necessary or appropriate. If the penalty is not proportionate with the wrong, we wonder wheth…
-
Hammersley v. State, 715 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Brown, 564 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Dooley v. State, 501 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). GOSHORN, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gray, 518 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)