In State v. Brown, 36 So. 3d 770, 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the defendant argued that section 901.19(1), the knock-and-announce statute, supported the trial court's suppression of inculpatory evidence against him. Id. at 771, 773. The Third District rejected the defendant's knock-and-announce argument, but noted: We believe that reversal is required even if we are wrong on the knock and announce point. This is so because of the holding of Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006) that even established violations of the principle do not implicate the exclusionary rule so as to suppress pertinent evidence. We follow Hudson both because we are persuaded by its reasoning on the point and because we are required to do so by Article 1, section 12, of the Florida Constitution. Id. at 775.