Rogers v. State

795 So. 2d 142, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12072, 2001 WL 965056
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rogers v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 665
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 27, 2001·No. Nos. 1D00-1345, 1D00-1774·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motions to suppress contraband he claims was illegally seized in violation of section 933.09, Florida Statutes. We agree that the search did not meet the requirements of section 933.09, Florida Statutes, and that exigent circumstances did not exist to create an exception to the “knock and announce” rule of section 933.09. We affirm the other issues raised by Appellant.

The ruling on the motions to suppress was dispositive of Appellant’s case. The search was illegal and the drugs and firearm found in the search therefore should have been suppressed. See State v. Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1994); Randall v. State, 793 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse with directions to discharge Appellant.

REVERSED.

BOOTH, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rogers v. State, 795 So. 2d 142, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12072, 2001 WL 965056 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

795 So. 2d 142 (Rogers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Bamber
630 So. 2d 1048 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
Randall v. State
793 So. 2d 59 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)