Soto v. State
Soto v. State
Opinion of the Court
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,
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
. The trial court based its decision on the application of the "officer peril” exception. See Jones v. State, 440 So.2d 570, 573 (Fla. 1983); State v. Pruitt, 967 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Williams v. State, 403 So.2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). On appeal the State has wisely abandoned this ground and raises "useless gesture" as a tipsy coachman reason for affirmance. See Miller, 357 U.S. at 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190; Ealey, 714 So.2d at 1162; Van Allen, 454 So.2d at 49; Urquhart v. State, 211 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.