Florida Kills the Knock-and-Announce Suppression Rule: What State v. Times Means for Motions to Suppress

For years, a Florida defense lawyer who could show that police broke down a door without first knocking and announcing had a clean shot at suppressing whatever the search turned up. On June 25, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court took that argument away.

In State v. Times, the court receded from its own precedent and held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when officers violate Florida's knock-and-announce statute. The evidence comes in. If your case involved a forced entry, the ground just shifted under it.

State v. Times eliminates the knock-and-announce suppression argument in Florida. The search now has to be challenged on the warrant and the Fourth Amendment, not the manner of entry.

Key Takeaways

• On June 25, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held in State v. Times that suppression is not an available remedy for violations of Florida's knock-and-announce statute.
• The court receded from State v. Cable, which for decades required exclusion of evidence when police failed to knock and announce before a forcible entry.
• Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, still requires officers to announce their authority and purpose, but the statute provides criminal penalties for violations, not suppression of evidence.
• The ruling tracks the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan and the federal knock-and-announce rule under 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
• Florida defendants can still attack the search warrant itself and the Fourth Amendment validity of the search.
• Only the standalone knock-and-announce suppression argument is gone.

What the Florida Supreme Court Actually Decided

The case came out of Leon County. A defendant facing drug trafficking and felon-in-possession charges moved to suppress the evidence officers seized after a forced entry, arguing they violated § 933.09, the statute that requires law enforcement to knock, announce their authority, and state their purpose before breaking into a home to execute a warrant.

The trial court granted the motion. Under State v. Cable, a knock-and-announce violation meant the evidence was out. The First District Court of Appeal saw the conflict between Cable and the direction federal law had taken, and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.

The court used it to clean house. It receded from Cable and held that because § 933.09 prescribes criminal penalties for officers who violate it, and says nothing about excluding evidence, courts have no business reading a suppression remedy into the statute. The First District's decision was quashed and the case sent back.

The court receded from State v. Cable and aligned Florida with the federal rule. The statute's criminal penalties for officers are the only consequence the law now attaches to a knock-and-announce violation.

What Changes for Police Entries in Florida Now

This is the part that matters for anyone with a pending case built on a search. A knock-and-announce violation, standing alone, is no longer a path to suppression in Florida. Officers are still legally required to announce before a forcible entry. They just do not lose the evidence when they cut corners. The only consequence the statute attaches is potential criminal liability for the officer, which in practice almost never happens.

Florida has now lined up with the federal rule. The U.S. Supreme Court reached the same result in Hudson v. Michigan, holding that the federal exclusionary rule does not apply to knock-and-announce violations under the Fourth Amendment. Federal officers operate under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which carries the same announce requirement and, after Hudson, the same lack of a suppression remedy.

If you are defending a federal case in Florida, none of this is new. What changed is that Florida state court is no longer the friendlier forum on this one issue.

Times changes the consequence of a knock-and-announce violation, not the Fourth Amendment analysis of the search itself. The warrant, probable cause, and scope arguments remain the primary defense tools.

The Suppression Arguments That Still Work

Losing the knock-and-announce remedy does not mean losing the suppression hearing. It means the fight moves to stronger ground. The motion to suppress is still the most important pretrial tool in a search case, and Times leaves the real Fourth Amendment arguments fully intact.

The warrant itself. Was there probable cause? Was the supporting affidavit truthful, or did it omit or misstate material facts? A successful Franks challenge still guts the entire search.

Scope. Officers can only search where the warrant authorizes and for what it describes. Evidence seized outside that scope is still subject to exclusion.

Warrantless entries. If there was no warrant at all, the government has to prove a valid exception. Consent, exigency, and protective sweeps are all still contestable.

Staleness and particularity. A warrant built on old information, or one that fails to describe the place and items with particularity, remains vulnerable.

Times narrows one argument. It does not touch the core Fourth Amendment defense work that wins search cases. An experienced Florida criminal defense attorney reads this decision as a signal to stop leaning on the procedural shortcut and build the suppression motion on the warrant and the search itself.

Mistakes That Will Cost You a Suppression Motion

Assuming the search was clean because officers had a warrant. A warrant is the start of the analysis, not the end of it.

Talking to agents during or after a search. People standing in their own doorway during a raid say things that become the government's best evidence. If you are under investigation or the target of a search warrant, say nothing and call counsel.

Waiting. Suppression issues are time-sensitive. Witness memories, bodycam retention windows, and dispatch logs all degrade or disappear.

Filing a boilerplate motion. After Times, a motion that leads with knock-and-announce and stops there is a loser. The motion has to be built on the warrant and the Fourth Amendment.

A suppression motion after Times is built on the warrant, the affidavit, scope violations, and Fourth Amendment validity. The knock-and-announce procedural shortcut no longer belongs in it.

How to Attack a Search the Right Way After Times

Early intervention is where search cases are won. The defense needs the warrant, the affidavit, the return, the bodycam, and the dispatch records fast, before anything ages out. From there, the work is identifying every defect in the probable cause showing and every place the execution went beyond what the warrant allowed.

This is the same discipline that drives federal investigation defense. Whether the case is a state drug prosecution or a federal white collar matter, the analysis is identical: was the intrusion authorized, and did the government stay inside the lines?

The window to shape a search case closes quickly. Bodycam footage is often retained for a limited period. Dispatch and CAD records roll off. The deadline to file a motion to suppress is set early in the case, and missing it can waive the issue entirely. If your home, office, or business was searched, the time to get counsel involved is now, not after the next court date. The defense built in the first weeks is the one that holds up at the suppression hearing.

Common Questions

Facing a Search or Drug Charge in Florida?

If your home, office, or business was searched, the defense starts with the warrant and the evidence behind it. AMC Defense Law handles search and seizure litigation, motions to suppress, and federal investigation defense across Florida. If you are under investigation or have been charged after a search, contact the firm to discuss your situation in confidence.

Aaron M. Cohen handles search and seizure litigation, motions to suppress, and federal investigation defense in Florida and nationwide.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are under investigation or believe you may be a target of a federal or state criminal investigation, consult a qualified federal criminal defense attorney immediately.