State v. Keith Alexander Times
The First DCA affirmed suppression of evidence seized after officers forcibly entered Times' home with a battering ram just 5-7 seconds after announcing they had a search warrant, finding this violated Florida's knock-and-announce statute, section 933.09. The court held that Florida Supreme Court precedent (State v. Cable and Benefield v. State) mandates suppression as the remedy for such violations, rejected the State's Hudson v. Michigan and inevitable discovery arguments, but certified a question of great public importance asking whether the Florida Supreme Court should revisit whether suppression remains the appropriate remedy given that Florida is now in the minority nationally on this issue.
Key facts
- Officers executed a search warrant at Times' residence by announcing the warrant and simultaneously instructing occupants to step away from the door, then forcing entry with a battering ram approximately 5-7 seconds after the announcement.
- The trial court denied Times' motion to suppress evidence seized during the entry, finding the officers complied with Florida's knock-and-announce statute, section 933.09.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reaffirms that Florida's knock-and-announce statute (section 933.09) carries an independent statutory exclusionary rule broader than the Fourth Amendment's post-Hudson framework, giving defense counsel a… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.