W.R., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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 officers' entry into the residence without knocking or announcing their presence violated the "knock and announce" rule, and thus the motion to suppress should have been granted.
[1] Law enforcement officers must knock and announce their purpose and authority before entering a residence to execute an arrest warrant, absent exigent circumstances.
[2] Opening an unlocked screen door constitutes a "breaking" that invokes the knock-and-announce rule for the execution of arrest warrants.
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 intelligenceLaw enforcement, executing an arrest warrant for W.R., entered a residence without knocking or announcing their presence, seeing W.R. through the scre…
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
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
W.R. appeals the order adjudicating him guilty of possession of marijuana, specifically arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in committing him to community control for an indeterminate period of time. We agree that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress and, therefore, reverse the adjudication of delinquency. Accordingly, W.R.’s sentencing issue is moot.
Two law enforcement officers, holding an arrest warrant for W.R., went to a residence where they believed W.R. to be located. The officers could see W.R. through the front screen door. Officer Duran went to the back door of the residence and entered without knocking or announcing his presence when he saw W.R. get up from a sofa and walk toward the front door. Officer Doan entered the front door of the residence without knocking or announcing his presence, arrested W.R., and read the Miranda1 warnings to him. The officers found marijuana in open view on the sofa which W.R. admitted was his.
When an officer is authorized to make an arrest in a building, the officer should first knock on the door of the building and announce his purpose and authority for being there, unless there are exigent circumstances to justify entry without prior notice. Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964); State v. Bomber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1994). In State v. Robinson, 565 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 574 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1990), this court held that opening an unlocked screen door is a breaking” which invokes the knock and announce requirements for execution of a search warrant. See also State v. Blest, 647 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We agree with W.R. that there was no evidence to support the state’s argument that the officers’ actions satisfied any of the exceptions to the “knock and announce” rule. We, therefore, reverse W.R.’s adjudication of delinquency and his sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Robinson, 565 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Brunner v. State, 647 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Mason v. Marabella, 647 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)