State v. Cable
2010 Fla. LEXIS 2084, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 705, 51 So. 3d 434 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The judicial remedy of excluding evidence applies to violations of Florida's statutory knock-and-announce provision. A U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminating the exclusionary rule for violations of the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce requirement does not control the remedy for a violation of a state statute that provides greater protection.
Facts:
- Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Richard Lawrence discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for Kathy Jo Cable for failure to appear on a drug charge.
- Lawrence located Cable at the Lake Wales Inn motel.
- After his initial attempts to have Cable come outside failed, Lawrence knocked on her motel room door and announced "Sheriff's Office."
- Lawrence did not announce his purpose for being there—to execute the arrest warrant.
- After receiving no response, Lawrence opened the unlocked door and entered the room.
- Lawrence found Cable on the bed, placed her under arrest, and conducted a search of her person incident to the arrest.
- The search revealed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Cable with trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia in a Florida trial court.
- Cable filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer violated Florida's knock-and-announce statute (§ 901.19).
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Cable entered a nolo contendere plea, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion.
- Cable, as the appellant, appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal, with the State of Florida as appellee, reversed the trial court's decision, holding the evidence should have been suppressed.
- The Second District then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the judicial remedy of exclusion of evidence be applied for violations of Florida's statutory knock-and-announce provisions, in view of the U.S. Supreme Court's abrogation of the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce violations in Hudson v. Michigan?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the remedy of exclusion of evidence should be applied for violations of Florida's statutory knock-and-announce provisions. This Court's precedent in Benefield v. State, which established the exclusionary rule for violations of Florida's statute, was based on state law grounds, not the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan, which eliminated the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce violations, is therefore not controlling. States are free to provide greater protections and independent remedies under their own statutes. Furthermore, the Florida Legislature has not amended the statute in the decades since Benefield, which amounts to legislative acceptance of the exclusionary rule as the proper remedy.
Dissenting - Polston, J.
No, the judicial remedy of exclusion should not be applied because it is not present in the text of the statute and is contrary to constitutional principles articulated in Hudson. By adding a judicially created exclusionary rule, the majority departs from the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court and the principles of the common law upon which the statute is based, which did not include an exclusionary rule. The court should recede from its prior decision in Benefield and align Florida law with both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, which do not mandate suppression for knock-and-announce violations.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the principle of federalism by preserving a state-law remedy that is no longer available under the Fourth Amendment. The court clarifies that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a federal constitutional issue does not compel the court to abandon its long-standing interpretation of an independent state statute. This creates a significant divergence, where evidence that would be admissible in federal court (or other states following Hudson) must be suppressed in Florida for the same police conduct. The case solidifies the power of state courts to enforce state statutes with remedies, like the exclusionary rule, that provide greater protection for individual rights than the federal floor.
