Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 933.09 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 933.09 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 933.09

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 933
SEARCH AND INSPECTION WARRANTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 933.09
933.09 Officer may break open door, etc., to execute warrant.The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house or anything therein, to execute the warrant, if after due notice of the officer’s authority and purpose he or she is refused admittance to said house or access to anything therein.
History.s. 9, ch. 9321, 1923; s. 1, ch. 10273, 1925; CGL 8511; s. 1571, ch. 97-102.

F.S. 933.09 on Google Scholar

F.S. 933.09 on Casetext

Amendments to 933.09


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 933.09
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 933.09.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

FALCON, v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . evidence on the grounds that (1) the deputies had violated Florida’s “knock-and-announce” statute, section 933.09 . . . authority and purpose he or she is refused admittance to said house or access to anything therein. § 933.09 . . . The policy ' underlying section 933.09 derives from the sentiment that “[tjhere is nothing more terrifying . . . And absent certain exigencies, a violation of section 933.09 warrants suppression. . . . Significantly, however, section 933.09 does not provide how long “after due notice” the officer must . . .

CARTER, v. STATE, 173 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . his motion to suppress the illicit photographs because of the police’s failure to comply with section 933.09 . . . See § 933.09, Fla. Stat.; see also Soto v. State, 75 So.3d 296, 296-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). . . . execution, claiming that the officers had failed to properly knock and announce pursuant to section 933.09 . . .

MENDEZ- JORGE v. STATE, 135 So. 3d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . The Florida Legislature codified the common law knock-and-announce rule at section 933.09, Florida Statutes . . . haste that the occupant does not have a reasonable opportunity to respond, the search violates section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 does not set forth a certain period of time that an officer must wait following his knock . . .

STATE v. Jo CABLE,, 51 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2010)

. . . property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.[] A separate statute, section 933.09 . . . denial of a motion to suppress where sheriff failed to comply with knock- and-announce statute — section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. FERNANDEZ,, 50 So. 3d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . enforcement officers executing the warrant violated Florida’s “knock-and-announce” statute, section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 refers to “due notice of the officer’s authority and purpose,” and the record in this . . .

LLOYD, v. CARD,, 283 F. App'x 696 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 933.09. . . .

PILIECI, v. STATE, 991 So. 2d 883 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 933.09, Fla. Stat. (2005); Hudson v. . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008)

. . . application of the exclusionary rule to violations of the “knock-and-announce” requirement of section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. PRUITT,, 967 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Fourth Amendment, whereas the issue in this case is the purported violation of a state statute, section 933.09 . . . those based on constitutional protections] may be afforded to citizens via state statute,” section 933.09 . . . The Florida version (section 933.09), originally codified in 1923, is an almost verbatim copy of the . . . I also note that nothing in the language of section 933.09 requires suppression of the evidence if the . . . Section 933.09 contains no such provision. . . . the search on the basis that the forced entry violated Florida’s knock-and-announce statute, section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 states: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, or . . . attempting to analyze whether the time delay was long enough so as to be in compliance with section 933.09 . . . rise to a reasonable belief that the officers would be in greater peril had they complied with section 933.09 . . . The trial court correctly noted that if law enforcement fails to comply with section 933.09 on the basis . . .

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, v. BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. INC., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (N.D. Ala. 2007)

. . . Reimbursement 465.60 10/24/2005 Travel to Huntsville 1,040.00 10/24/2005 Travel Expense Reimbursement 933.09 . . .

PIGFORD, v. STATE, 935 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See Florida Statutes § 933.09 (2002). Once inside, the officers found Mr. . . .

SPRADLEY, v. STATE, 933 So. 2d 51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 933.09, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . THE KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE RULE Section 933.09 provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner . . . Section 933.09 thus requires law enforcement to provide due notice of their authority and purpose and . . . STANDING TO ENFORCE SECTION 933.09 AND ENTITLEMENT TO THE EXCLUSIONARY REMEDY Although neither party . . . Section 933.09 does not state that a defendant must be present inside the house in order to have standing . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE, 924 So. 2d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (2005), contains a knock-and-announce requirement for the execution . . . exclusionary rule as the remedy for any violation of the [knock-and-announce requirements] of section 933.09 . . .

SIMMONS, v. STATE, 913 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . because the officers executing the search warrant failed to knock and announce in compliance with section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 provides that law enforcement officers may forcibly enter a home to execute a search warrant . . .

STATE v. A. WASHINGTON,, 884 So. 2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . that the search warrant was executed in violation of Florida’s knock and announce statute, section 933.09 . . . search, we do not reach the issue of whether the search warrant was executed in compliance with section 933.09 . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE, 863 So. 2d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Hernandez argues that the police violated the Florida and Federal Constitutions and section 933.09, Florida . . . Section 933.09 provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, . . . entry satisfied both the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which is almost identical to section 933.09 . . .

KELLOM, v. STATE, 849 So. 2d 391 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . officers who executed the search warrant violated the “knock and announce” rule codified in section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 imposes two requirements. . . . The policy underlying section 933.09 “derives from the sentiment that there ‘is nothing more terrifying . . . However, this generalized belief is not sufficient to excuse the officers’ violation of section 933.09 . . . The State also contends on appeal that if the officers’ actions violated section 933.09 and were not . . .

STATE v. CASSELLS,, 835 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The State appeals an order suppressing evidence under the knock-and-announce rule, section 933.09, Florida . . . assist the police if the legislature established waiting periods that presumptively satisfied section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 states: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, or . . . For example, section 933.09 could provide that, absent exigent circumstances, if the police waited twenty . . .

ROGERS, v. STATE, 795 So. 2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . denial of his motions to suppress contraband he claims was illegally seized in violation of section 933.09 . . . 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 . . .

RANDALL, v. STATE, 793 So. 2d 59 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . officers who executed the search warrant failed to comply with the “knock-and-announce” rule in section 933.09 . . .

RICHARDSON, v. STATE, 787 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . dispositive motion to suppress arguing that law enforcement officers failed to comply with section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 permits law enforcement, in the execution of a search warrant, to break open an outer . . . The policy underlying section 933.09 “derives from the sentiment that there ‘is nothing more terrifying . . . haste that the occupant does not have a reasonable opportunity to respond, the search violates section 933.09 . . . Before law enforcement may forcibly enter a home to execute a search warrant, section 933.09 imposes . . . suggested that the exclusionary rule was neither an essential remedy nor the best method to enforce section 933.09 . . . violation or to reprimand specific police officers, especially when the officers who violate section 933.09 . . .

BRAHAM, v. STATE, 724 So. 2d 592 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . was not a “no-knock” search for the reasons set forth above but was executed in accordance with F.S. 933.09 . . .

HOLLOWAY, v. STATE, 718 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The knoek-and-announce rule is codified in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1995), and provides that . . . Holloway did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond, the search violated section 933.09, Florida . . .

STATE v. F. ELKHILL,, 715 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . that, if the search warrant was valid, it was executed in violation of the knock and announce rule, § 933.09 . . .

EALEY, v. STATE, 714 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Because police officers did not comply with the knock and announce procedures of section 933.09, Florida . . . Arguing that the police officers had not complied with the knock and announce requirements of section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. McDUFFIE, Jr., 707 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . exigent circumstances excusing the police’s violation of Florida’s knock-and-an-nounce statute, section 933.09 . . .

WILSON, v. STATE, 673 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . unlawfully executed since the police did not comply with the knock-and-announce provisions of section 933.09 . . . against him contending, among other things, that the warrant was illegally executed contrary to section 933.09 . . . See, Florida Statutes, sections 901.19 (making arrest) and 933.09 (1995) (executing search warrant). . . . the outset, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the police did not comply with section 933.09 . . . this case must fall within one of the exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirements of section 933.09 . . . .” § 933.09, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

L. GERSTENBERGER, v. STATE, 667 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . the suppression issue since the officers complied with the knock and announce requirements of section 933.09 . . .

CRAFT, v. STATE, 638 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Therefore, the officers did not follow the knock-and-announce procedures set forth in section 933.09, . . . Section 933.09 provides: “The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, . . .

STATE v. BLEST,, 647 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . I write separately to emphasize that such a technical violation of section 933.09, Florida Statutes ( . . . Blest had standing to raise this violation of section 933.09, I would argue that he lacked that standing . . . Their technical violation of section 933.09 did not endanger him or invade his privacy. . . .

M. ALBRITTON, v. STATE, 634 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1989), provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door . . . opening of an unlocked screen door is a breaking which invokes the due notice requirements of Section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. HERSTONE,, 633 So. 2d 110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . amounted to a “breaking,” thereby triggering the “knock and announce” requirement set forth in section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 allows an officer to “break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, or any . . . The requirements of section 933.09, however, are applicable only to forcible entries. State v. . . . albeit by deception, they were not required to comply with the “knock and announce” provision of section 933.09 . . . The purpose of a “knock and announce” rule such as section 933.09 is to prevent physical injury to the . . .

MENSE, v. STATE, 632 So. 2d 185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . They did not wait to be refused admittance, as required by the knock-and-announce statute, section 933.09 . . . Defendant moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the immediate entry did not comply with section 933.09 . . . Reversed and remanded. . 933.09. . . .

STATE v. R. BAMBER,, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)

. . . granted Bamber’s motion to suppress the drugs and the district court affirmed, ruling that section 933.09 . . . Our legislature has codified this knoek- and-announce rule in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1989) . . . Second, no exigent circumstances appear in the record to excuse police from following section 933.09’ . . . We find the State’s “good faith” claim to be without merit in light of section 933.09’s clear language . . . and the fact that nothing in the warrant itself authorizes police to dispense with section 933.09’s . . .

STATE v. DELASIERRA, 614 So. 2d 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . paraphernalia, and handgun seized in the search of the defendants’ residence for failure to comply with section 933.09 . . . The knock and announce rule, which is contained in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1989), provides . . .

STATE v. THOMAS,, 604 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . .2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), provides an exception to the knock and announce requirement of section 933.09 . . .

B. POWER, Jr. v. STATE, 605 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1992)

. . . conducting the search did not “knock and announce” their identities and purpose in violation of section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. R. BAMBER,, 592 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . See § 933.09, Fla.Stat. (1989); Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1964). . . . attempt to create a preestablished right to dispense with the knock-and-announce requirements of section 933.09 . . . correctly issued a standard search warrant without any order overriding the requirements of section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. GAYLE,, 573 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Neither section 933.09 nor section 933.11, Florida Statutes (1989) is violated when an officer, without . . .

IN RE FORFEITURE OF NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OF UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 45 Fla. Supp. 2d 193 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Respondent maintains that the evidence was obtained in violation of F.S. 933.09 requirements. . . .

STATE v. BELL, 564 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . police officers had entered without complying with the knock-and-announce rule set forth in section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 of the Florida Statutes (1985) sets forth the knock-and-announce rule: 933.09 Officer . . .

STATE v. R. PRICE,, 564 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . The "knock and announce” rule, embodied in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1989) provides: 933.09 Officer . . .

STATE v. D. ROBINSON,, 565 So. 2d 730 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 933.09, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . . We make this proposal because we believe that it will strengthen compliance with section 933.09 and the . . . If a trial court finds that a search has violated section 933.09, before ordering the suppression of . . . Thus, the question is whether a statutory violation of section 933.09 is a constitutional violation of . . . Unless the boundaries of section 933.09 are identical to the fourth amendment, it is possible that an . . .

STATE v. BROWN,, 564 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . The trial judge apparently accepted the defendant’s argument that section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1987 . . . denied, 520 So.2d 584 (Fla.1988), this court indicated: [T]he plain language of the statute [section 933.09 . . . We think section 933.09 does not apply to the facts at bar. . . .

ARMENTEROS v. STATE, 554 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . the residence without first knocking at the door and announcing their presence as mandated by section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. AVENDANO,, 540 So. 2d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Asserting that a Pasco County deputy sheriff failed to comply with the requirements of section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 requires a police officer, in the execution of a search warrant, to announce his purpose . . . Unless the facts of this case fall within an exception to the requirements of section 933.09, the trial . . . It is not necessary for law enforcement officers to meet the section 933.09 requirements when “the officer . . . firearms likely to be present on the premises did not justify the officer peril exception to section 933.09 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MEALY B., 851 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . . §§ 901.19(1), 933.09 (1986). . . .

In FORFEITURE OF IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 519 So. 2d 700 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The “knock and announce” rule, embodied in section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Officer . . .

STATE v. E. GRAY,, 518 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . . § 933.09, Florida Statutes (1985). We disagree and reverse. . . . The statute in question, section 933.09, provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door . . .

STATE v. L. PETERS,, 499 So. 2d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . The search was held invalid on the ground that it violated Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, the “knock . . . We find there was no violation of the knock and announce rule, codified at Section's 901.19 and 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 authorizes an officer to break into a house in order to execute a search warrant, "if . . .

RYALS, Sr. v. STATE, 498 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1985), Florida’s “knock and announce” rule, provides: The officer may . . . rule as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3109, the language of which is almost identical to that in section 933.09 . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. STATE, 484 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . As the trial court recognized, this action plainly violated Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1983), . . . which provides: “933.09 Officer may break open door, etc., to execute warrant. — The officer may break . . .

COBHAM, v. STATE, 478 So. 2d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . either that the officer in question complied with the “knock-and-announce” statutes, §§ 901.19(1), 933.09 . . .

STATE v. L. BERNIE J., 472 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . We also note that Detective Matosky and the other officers fully complied with section 933.09, Florida . . .

VAN ALLEN, v. STATE, 454 So. 2d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . The statutory provision applicable here is Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1983), which relates to . . .

BOUKNIGHT v. STATE, 455 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Appellants contend that Florida’s knock and announce statute, § 933.09, was illegally violated by officers . . . The officers in this case did not adhere to the requirements of the knock and announce statute, § 933.09 . . . appeal the denial of their motions to suppress the evidence seized, alleging (1) a violation of Section 933.09 . . . Florida case law clearly establishes that compliance with the provisions of section 933.09 must be strictly . . .

A. BURDEN, v. STATE C. DILLMAN, v. STATE, 455 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . They contend the warrant was executed in violation of section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1981), the “knock . . . physical evidence seized under the warrant, alleging the warrant was executed in violation of section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, . . . which the United States Supreme Court strictly construed the federal statute equivalent to section 933.09 . . . We hold that the officer’s entry in this case violated section 933.09, and reverse the denial of the . . .

CREWS, v. STATE, 431 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . 18] Crews also asserts that the search warrant was executed in such a manner as to violate Section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. DROWNE Jr., 436 So. 2d 916 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door . . .

RILEY, v. STATE, 448 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . entered the premises after announcing tlieir authority and purpose in full compliance with Section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. J. HILLS, E. R. J. L., 428 So. 2d 715 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1981) requires the officer executing a search warrant to have given . . . The trial court found the police violated Section 933.09 by failing to give “due notice.” . . .

NEWBERRY, v. STATE, 421 So. 2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . testified that the entry was pursuant to the knock and announce procedures provided for in Section 933.09 . . . The trial court found that the police, in the execution of the search warrant, complied with section 933.09 . . .

NANK, v. STATE, 406 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . on appeal that the evidence seized should have been suppressed because the officers violated Section 933.09 . . . house without first knocking and giving notice of their authority and purpose as required by section 933.09 . . .

STATE v. G. MANNING, M. T. Jr., 396 So. 2d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . In view of the finding, the trial court held that the officers had failed to comply with Section 933.09 . . . The State submits that the officers scrupulously observed the procedures enumerated in Section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09 is the statutory embodiment of a common law rule which has its roots in a tradition of . . . In commenting on the federal counterpart to Section 933.09, the United States Supreme Court stated in . . . BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . 933.09 Officer may break open door, etc., to execute warrant. . . .

STATE v. CLARKE, B., 387 So. 2d 980 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . and (2) that the officers who executed the warrant violated the “knock and announce rule”, Section 933.09 . . . obligations on law enforcement officers preliminary to their forcible entry into a private residence. § 933.09 . . . their purpose prior to entering the house to execute the search warrant as required by Fla.Stat. § 933.09 . . .

BROWN, v. STATE, 380 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . The issue on appeal is whether there was compliance with Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1977) by law . . . Section 933.09 specifically provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window . . . of events in the execution of the warrant and concluded that there had been compliance with Section 933.09 . . . was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding of compliance with Section 933.09 . . .

HUNSUCKER, Jr. v. STATE, 379 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . estimated that evidence had been destroyed in half the instances in which he complied with Section 933.09 . . .

KISTNER, v. STATE, 379 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Collier, 270 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1977). REVERSED. . . .

STATE v. JOHNSON,, 372 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . ’s motion to suppress evidence was grounded upon an alleged violation of Section 901.19 and Section 933.09 . . . enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.” § 933.09 . . .

BERRYMAN, III, v. STATE, 368 So. 2d 893 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . The second point raises the alleged violation of Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1977), by the police . . . will be an attempt to destroy evidence, the Benefield-Clarke exceptions, infra, engrafted on Section 933.09 . . . not authorize an intrusion into a residence to serve a search warrant without complying with Section 933.09 . . . first situation that the police are justified under that exception in not complying fully with Section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1977). . Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1984); State v. . . .

STATE v. L. DOMINGUEZ, Jr., 367 So. 2d 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . second search warrant should be suppressed because in executing this warrant the police violated Section 933.09 . . .

R. TORNA, v. STATE, 358 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Smith, 308 So.2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1975); and Fla.R. . . .

STATE v. BUSBEE, 344 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . premises pursuant to a search warrant on the ground that the warrant was executed in violation of Section 933.09 . . . By its decision, this court has held that Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1975), requires that a police . . .

STATE v. ROMAN,, 309 So. 2d 12 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . .§ 933.09; see the leading case of Benefield v. State, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 706. . . . State, supra, are identical to those involved, under F.S. § 933.09, when, as in Collier and Yenke, a . . .

STATE v. PRICKETT, 305 So. 2d 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . . § 933.09. See, State v. Kelly, Fla.1973, 287 So.2d 13; Earman v. . . .

WHISNANT v. STATE, 303 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . . §§ 901.19(1) and 933.09, F.S.A. in executing the search warrant, thus invalidating the legality of . . .

STATE v. YENKE,, 288 So. 2d 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . The controlling statute concerning execution of a search warrant in the situation at bar is Section 933.09 . . . taken from the defendant was seized under the search warrant, the police had to comply with Section 933.09 . . . Therefore, the statutory mandate of Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., (that the police officer . . . This would constitute an exception to the mandates of Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and compliance . . . Since the police officers failed to comply with Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, F.S. . . . The requirements of the knock and announce statute, 933.09, F.S.1971, F.S.A., are not involved in a determination . . .

STATE v. S. KELLY,, 287 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1973)

. . . . § 933.09, F.S.A., requiring prior “due notice of authority and purpose” and refusal of admittance before . . . a toilet or other drain, and that compliance with the ‘Knock and Announce’ requirement of Sections 933.09 . . .

STATE v. COLLIER, 270 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Section 933.09, F.S.A.1971. . . . Section 933.09, F.S.A.1971. . . . Section 933.09, F.S.A. 1971, the statute now before this court. . . . Section 933.09, F.S.A. 1971. . . .

STATE v. JOSEPH, Sr., 269 So. 2d 36 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Section 933.09, F.S.A. . . .

STATE v. S. KELLY,, 260 So. 2d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . to Suppress on the ground that the search warrant had not been executed in compliance with Section 933.09 . . . Section 933.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: The officer may break open any outer door, inner . . . a toilet or other drain, and that compliance with the “Knock and Announce” requirement of Sections 933.09 . . .

L. CARTER, v. STATE, 199 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . Sections 933.09 F.S.A. to 933.15 F.S.A. have to do with execution of the warrants and returns made thereon . . .

STATE v. E. MACH, 187 So. 2d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . or not the officers in execution of the search warrant herein substantially complied with Section '933.09 . . . Section 933.09 provides as follows: “The •officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window . . . stated that, “It is the court’s opinion every case involving interpretation of Sections 901.19 and 933.09 . . . The officers have offered no testimony or excuse for non-compliance with section 933.09 Florida Statutes . . . conscientiously find that the officers herein substantially complied with the requirements of Section 933.09 . . .

McLENDON, v. STATE, 176 So. 2d 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Statutory guidance for execution of search warrants is found in Section 933.09, F.S.A., wherein it is . . . hold here that a finding to the effect that the searching officers did in fact comply with Section 933.09 . . .

H. MILLER v. STATE, 170 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . . §§ 933.09 and 933.11, F.S.A. We find the latter contention without merit. . . .

MARION F. JOHNSON, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 157 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1946)

. . . giving due notice of their authority and purpose prior to their entry therein, as is required by Section 933.09 . . .