PEDRO SOTO, APPELLANT,
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.
Pedro Soto's conviction for trafficking in heroin was reversed because police executed an arrest warrant at his home without announcing their purpose as required by Florida law. Although officers announced their presence, they failed to announce they were executing an arrest warrant, and the trial court improperly applied the "useless gesture" doctrine to validate the warrantless entry.
The conviction is reversed because the police violated section 901.19(1) of the Florida Statutes by failing to announce their purpose in executing the arrest warrant. The "useless gesture" doctrine does not apply to excuse non-compliance when police did not know prior to entry that announcing would be futile; the doctrine applies only when police knew of the uselessness before breaking in.
[1] A peace officer must announce both authority and purpose before using force to enter a building to make an arrest, as required by statute.
[2] The "useless gesture" doctrine, which excuses the announcement of purpose, applies only when police know prior to entry that announcing their purpose would be futile.
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“If a peace officer fails to gain admittance after she or he has announced her or his authority and purpose in order to make an arrest ..., the officer may use all necessary and reasonable force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that officers must announce both authority and purpose when executing an arrest warrant under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice entered Soto's home to execute an arrest warrant. Officers announced their presence at the door by shouting "police, police" but did not announ…
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 Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
Soto’s conviction and sentence for trafficking in heroin are reversed because the trial court did not but should have granted his motion to suppress the contraband found in his home after the police entered without complying with the “knock-and-announce” statute, section 901.19(1), Florida Statutes (2005). It is admitted that, although the police announced their presence at the door, there was fatally no evidence that they announced their purpose, which was to execute an arrest warrant, as the statute requires. § 901.19(1) (If a peace officer fails to gain admittance after she or he has announced her or his authority and purpose in order to make an arrest ..., the officer may use all necessary and reasonable force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.”); see Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958). The State attempts to invoke the so-called “useless gesture” doctrine,1 arguing that because the defendant and his girlfriend were asleep at the time of the entry and did not respond to repeated shouts of “police, police!”, the non-announcement of their purpose could have made no difference. See State v. Brown, 36 So.3d 770, 773-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). For good or ill, however, the Florida law is that this doctrine applies only when the police knew *297of the uselessness of the announcement of authority prior to breaking in. See Cable v. State, 18 So.3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), approved State v. Cable, 51 So.3d 434 (Fla.2010); Kistner v. State, 379 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Compare Ealey v. State, 714 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that “because the officers ... did not have a reasonable belief that the residence was unoccupied,” knocking and announcing would not have been a futile gesture) with Van Allen v. State, 454 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (finding “no violation of the knock and announce rule occurs where law enforcement officers, reasonably believing premises to be unoccupied, ... intrude upon premises without announcing their authority and purpose.”). Contra Walker v. State, 895 So.2d 366 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). In this case, it is undisputed that the police became aware of the occupants’ unconsciousness only after the unlawful entry.
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 173 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…et. General Law Before an officer may enter a home with reasonable and necessary force in order to execute a search warrant, the officer must knock, announce his presence, and announce his purpose. See § 933.09, Fla. Stat.; see also Soto v. State, 75 So. 3d 296, 296-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Facts Here, officers executed a search pursuant to an unchallenged warrant and, as a result, found five pornographic photographs of a minor on appellant’s laptop. Appellant challenged the validity of the search’s execut…1 / 2
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1958)
- Jones v. State, 440 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1983)
- Urquhart v. State, 211 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Williams v. State, 403 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Cable, 51 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2010)
- van Allen v. State, 454 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Pruitt, 967 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- State v. Brown, 36 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Kistner v. State, 379 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Cable v. State, 18 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)