FLORIDA JUST STRIPPED AWAY ONE OF YOUR LAST PROTECTIONS AGAINST NO-KNOCK POLICE RAIDS
A few days ago, the Florida Supreme Court quietly eliminated a protection that Florida residents had relied on for over 60 years.
In a 6-1 decision in State of Florida v. Times, the court ruled that when police officers violate Florida’s knock-and-announce law — the rule requiring them to knock, identify themselves, and wait before forcing entry into your home — the evidence they find inside can still be used against you in court.
In other words: officers broke the law getting in. But what they found still counts.
What Happened in This Case
The case grew out of “Operation No Warning,” a drug trafficking investigation in Leon County, Florida. Officers obtained a valid search warrant for a residence they believed was being used to store drugs and cash.
When they arrived to execute the warrant, they knocked multiple times and announced their presence. But they stated they had a search warrant only a few seconds before swinging a battering ram through the door — not nearly enough time for anyone inside to respond.
Inside, officers found Keith Alexander Times, three other people, cocaine, the drug “Molly,” two firearms, and more than $23,000 in cash.
Times went to court and argued the evidence should be thrown out. Florida law — specifically Section 933.09 of the Florida Statutes — requires officers to knock, announce their authority and purpose, and give occupants a fair chance to open the door before forcing entry. The trial court agreed the law was violated and suppressed the evidence. An appeals court affirmed that decision.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed both of them.
What the Court Said
Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Meredith Sasso focused on the plain text of the statute itself. Her conclusion: the knock-and-announce law requires officers to knock and announce, but it does not say anywhere that evidence must be thrown out if they fail to do so.
“The plain text of section 933.09 does not authorize, let alone require, the suppression of evidence,” the majority wrote.
The court acknowledged that officers violated the statute. It acknowledged that Florida courts had been suppressing evidence for these violations since 1964. But it ruled that prior practice had been a judicial invention — courts had added the suppression remedy on their own, and the legislature never put it in the statute. That, the majority said, was an error. The 2010 case that had required suppression, State v. Cable, was wrongly decided and is now overturned.
The statute still threatens officers who violate it with potential criminal penalties. But in practice, officers are almost never criminally charged for how they execute a search warrant. So in real terms, the rule now has no enforcement mechanism.
The One Voice of Dissent
Justice Jorge Labarga disagreed sharply.
He pointed out that Florida courts had applied the exclusionary remedy to knock-and-announce violations since the 1964 case Benefield v. State— more than six decades of consistent practice. The 2010 Cable decision didn’t invent that remedy, he argued. It simply confirmed what Florida courts had always done.
Labarga warned that the majority’s ruling removes the only meaningful incentive for officers to comply with the knock-and-announce requirement. If there is no consequence for violating it, many officers simply won’t bother.
Why This Decision Is Bigger Than One Case
To understand the full weight of Florida v. Times, you need a little background.
In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hudson v. Michigan that violating the federal knock-and-announce rule does not require evidence to be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment. That decision was controversial and narrowly decided, 5-4. Critics called it the effective end of the knock-and-announce rule at the federal level.
After Hudson, states had a choice. They could follow the federal approach, or they could provide stronger protections to their own residents under state law. Florida was one of the states that chose to hold the line — its courts continued requiring suppression for knock-and-announce violations based on state statute.
For the past 20 years, that state-level protection was the last real safeguard many Florida residents had.
Florida v. Times closes that door. Florida has now aligned itself with the federal approach: the rule exists, violations are acknowledged, but the evidence comes in regardless.
What This Means Practically
If you are a Florida resident, here is where things stand today:
Police are still legally required to knock and announce before forcing entry into your home. If they don’t — or if they knock and immediately ram the door — they are technically violating the law.
But if they find evidence during that search, it will almost certainly be admitted in court against you. You cannot have it suppressed based on the knock-and-announce violation alone. And while you could theoretically sue the officers in civil court, those cases face enormous hurdles, take years, and do nothing to stop the criminal case proceeding against you in the meantime.
The Bottom Line
The knock-and-announce rule is still on the books in Florida. Officers are still supposed to follow it. But as of June 25, 2026, there is no longer a practical legal consequence in Florida courts when they don’t.
A rule with no remedy is not really a rule. It is a suggestion.
The dissent got it right: when compliance is optional because the consequences have been eliminated, the protection that rule was designed to provide effectively ceases to exist.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe your rights were violated during the execution of a search warrant, consult a qualified criminal defense lawyer.
#FloridaVTimes #KnockAndAnnounce #FourthAmendment #FloridaLaw #SearchAndSeizure #CriminalJustice #KnowYourRights #ConstitutionalRights #CivilLiberties #NoKnockWarrants #FloridaSupremeCourt #LegalNews #PoliceReform #CriminalDefense #LawUpdate2026
