LINDA RANDALL, 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.
Linda Randall appealed her conviction for drug possession, challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of her residence. The appellate court reversed, finding that Bradenton police violated Florida's knock-and-announce statute by entering her home within ten seconds of announcing themselves, without allowing reasonable time for response.
The court held that the police officers violated the knock-and-announce rule by forcibly entering the residence within ten seconds of announcing themselves and without affording Randall reasonable time to respond. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was therefore reversed.
[1] A search warrant execution violates the "knock-and-announce" rule when officers fail to provide a reasonable amount of time for a resident to respond before forcibly ente…
[2] A ten-second delay following a "knock-and-announce" before forcibly entering a residence is generally not a reasonable amount of time to allow for a response.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the Bradenton police officers who executed the search warrant failed to comply with the "knock-and-announce" rule in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1999), by not affording Ms. Randall a reasonable amount of time to respond before forcibly entering her residence, we reverse.”
Establishes the core holding and basis for reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradenton police officers executed a search warrant at a residence where Randall was staying as a tenant between 6-7 a.m. while still dark outside. Th…
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 Search Warrant Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
Linda Randall appeals a judgment convicting her of possession of cocaine, pos session of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, and sentencing her to a total of eighteen months’ probation. Ms. Randall pleaded no contest to the charges, reserving her right to appeal a dispositive motion to suppress the drugs found in her bedroom. Because the Bradenton police officers who executed the search warrant failed to comply with the “knock-and-announce” rule in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1999), by not affording Ms. Randall a reasonable amount of time to respond before forcibly entering her residence, we reverse.
Bradenton police officers obtained a search warrant to search for drugs in Essie Craig’s residence, where Ms. Randall was residing as a tenant. There was no mention in the search warrant that firearms might be found in the residence or that the residents posed a threat to police. Between 6 and 7 a.m. on September 17, 1999, Bradenton police officers executed their search warrant while it was still dark outside.
During the suppression hearing, several officers on the entry team testified regarding the knock-and-announce procedure used at Ms. Randall’s residence. The officers knocked and announced, “Bradenton Police, search warrant,” three times. The officers observed no movement inside the house and received no response. Within ten seconds, the officers forcibly entered the house using a battering ram.
Ms. Randall testified that at the time of the entry she was sleeping in her bedroom located at the back of the house. Ms. Randall heard a loud noise and heard Ms. Craig scream. Ms. Randall then heard police officers coming toward the back of the house. Officers wearing camouflage entered her room, ordered her to put her hands up, and led her outside in her nightgown. The officers discovered less than .01 grams of cocaine, less than .01 grams of marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Ms. Randall’s bedroom.
The facts of this case are essentially identical to the facts in Richardson v. State, 787 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In that ease, this court reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress and held that Bradenton police officers failed to comply with the statutory “knock-and-announce” rule when they used exactly the same technique that they used in executing their search of Ms. Randall’s residence. But see United States v. Johnson, 215 F. 3d 1328 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding five-second wait following a knock and announce at 7 a.m. reasonable); United States v. Knapp, 1 F. 3d 1026 (10th Cir.1993) (finding failure to respond after ten-to twelve-second wait following a knock and announce late at night was affirmative refusal to admit police).
Accordingly, on the authority of Richardson, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Ms. Randall’s motion to suppress.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Essie Craig v. State, 830 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…posed as a result of that conviction. She specifically challenges the denial of her dispositive motion to suppress. The evidence against Ms. Craig was seized from her home during the execution of the same search warrant involved in Randall v. State, 793 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), in which this court reversed the denial of Ms. Randall’s motion to suppress. Both Ms. Randall’s case and Ms. Craig’s case arose out of the same factual incident and the legal issues presented for consideration were identical. Acc…
-
Mendez-Jorge v. State, 135 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…dence, “the amount of time preceding entry is less imperative.” Pruitt, 967 So. 2d at 1026. Needless to say, the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry has resulted in different outcomes for similar time frames. Compare Randall v. State, 793 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that ten-second delay between knock and announcement and forced entry was unreasonable in executing search warrant for drugs where there was no evidence that firearms might be present or that the occupants posed a threat…
-
Falcon v. State, 230 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…To the contrary, the deputies knew that the residence was Falcon’s family residence, which he shared with his wife and children, and that Falcon’s criminal history consisted of one prior arrest for driving under the influence. See Randall v. State, 793 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding ten seconds unreasonable, when officers executed warrant between 6:00 and 7:00 a,m, and had no information .that firearms might be present or.that residents posed any threat). Furthermore, in executing the warrant at…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 787 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)