Mendez-Jorge v. State
135 So. 3d 464
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellants Arturo Mendez-Jorge and Mayra Rodriguez-Cabrera pleaded no contest to cannabis trafficking-related charges but reserved the right to appeal denial of suppression of evidence seized under a search warrant.
- Deputies executed the warrant at midday on March 18, 2013; a patrol vehicle announced “Sheriff’s Office, search warrant” over a loudspeaker while approaching.
- Deputy Galarza knocked at the front door and yelled “Policía, Policía,” waited, knocked and announced again, and then officers used a battering ram to enter.
- At least twenty seconds elapsed from the initial loudspeaker announcement to forced entry; Appellants were previously seen walking around the property.
- No exigent circumstances existed (deputy admitted he was not concerned about destruction of evidence); trial court credited testimony that the wait was at least twenty seconds despite deposition testimony reporting a shorter delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers violated the knock-and-announce statute by failing to wait a reasonable time before forcible entry | Appellants: deputies waited only 5–10 seconds (per deposition) and forced entry too quickly, denying a reasonable opportunity to answer | State: officers announced via loudspeaker and at the door; at least 20 seconds elapsed and, under the totality of circumstances, that delay was reasonable | Court affirmed: 20-second wait was reasonable under the facts (midday, prior observation of occupants, loudspeaker announcement); trial court’s factual findings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003) (reasonableness of knock-and-announce is fact-specific; totality of circumstances governs)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (no bright-line reasonable-wait time; standard is necessarily vague)
- Sowerby v. State, 73 So.3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (trial-court fact findings reviewed for competent substantial evidence)
- Spradley v. State, 933 So.2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (short delay plus distraction tactics rendered entry unreasonable)
- Pruitt v. State, 967 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (12-second wait reasonable where serious drug trafficking and other risks were known)
- Richardson v. State, 787 So.2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (ten-second delay before forcible entry was insufficient under facts presented)