FL1: Violation of state knock-and-announce statute requires suppression; Hudson not followed

Violation of the state knock-and-announce statute required suppression. Officers entered with haste and didn’t give defendant the chance to surrender peaceably to the search. The statute is a century old, and it serves important privacy interests. The state’s claim that Hudson v. Michigan should be followed instead is rejected, based on State v. Cable, 51 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2010). State v. Times, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 2681 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 10, 2024).

Defendant argued that possession of a key to the place searched as set out in the affidavit for warrant showed standing. The court doesn’t have to decide that issue because he loses on the merits. That claim is lack of nexus, which is established by the affidavit for warrant. United States v. Sanders, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66816 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2024).*

Defendant challenged search warrants for cell phones, premises, and Instagram accounts. All were found constitutional and/or with good faith. The five day delay between seizure of a phone and the warrant was not unreasonable. United States v. Davis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65836 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.