“Things That Make You Go Hmmm!”: When Judges Call Out Bogus Police Stories

By: John Guidry

Remember Arsenio Hall? Of course you do. Arsenio had this saying: “Things that make you go Hmmm!” (C+C Music Factory also had a hit song by the same name).

So, why would a Florida District Court of Appeal cite this bit of pop culture wisdom? I’ll tell you why. I’ve been defending criminal cases here in Orlando for over 18 years. After reading one bogus police report after another, Arsenio’s words ring true. It’s that gut reaction telling your brain, “I know this cop’s story is bogus, but how can I get the judge to recognize the bogosity?”

Did the police claim you “invited” them in to find your stash?

Don’t let them twist your words. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Hernandez v. State (The Helpful Trafficker)

The appellate judge in Hernandez v. State (Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 2012) had this exact “Arsenio Hall reaction” when he encountered a “Consent to Search” story that defied logic.

• The Crime: Hernandez was charged with Trafficking in Cannabis and Cultivation (Grow House).
• The Search: Police didn’t have a warrant. To get around the Fourth Amendment, they claimed Hernandez consented (agreed) to the search.
• The Story: Police admitted Hernandez told them “No” twice. He even told them to “Get a warrant.”
• The Twist: According to the police, Hernandez suddenly changed his mind, invited them in, put his dog away, and kicked down his own door to show them his indoor weed wonderland.

The Judicial Eye Roll: Judge May wasn’t buying the logic. In his opinion, he wrote:

“But one must wonder why, after twice telling the police to get a warrant, the defendant would invite law enforcement on his property, put the dog away, and kick down his own door to allow law enforcement to have a good look at his indoor marijuana grow room… As Arsenio Hall used to say, ‘Things that make you go Hmmm!’“

The Legal Trap: Why He Still Lost

Despite recognizing the absurdity of the cop’s story, the Appeals Court affirmed the conviction.

• The Reason: The Appeals Court is bound by the factual findings of the lower court. The Trial Judge believed the cops, so the Appeals Court was handcuffed.
• The Fatal Mistake: At the Suppression Hearing, the defense did not present any testimony to contradict the police.
  • The Lesson: If the cop says you kicked down your own door, and you stay silent, the Judge has to accept the cop’s version as the only evidence.

This is a lesson for all Orlando criminal defense attorneys: You must give the trial court testimony regarding consent (or lack thereof). You cannot win a “He Said/She Said” if “He” never speaks.

John’s 2026 Update: Body Cams & Doorbell Footage

Note: In 2012, Hernandez lost because he didn’t testify. In 2026, the camera testifies for him.

1. The “Body Cam” Verification In 2026, almost every encounter like the one in Hernandez is recorded.

• The Defense: If an officer claims you “consented” after saying no twice, we pull the Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage.
• The Reality: If the video shows you standing your ground, or if the audio cuts out right at the moment of “consent,” we file a Motion to Suppress alleging Spoliation of Evidence or Fabrication. We don’t just say “Hmmm” anymore; we say “Gotcha.”

2. The “Ring” Witness Most “Knock and Talk” encounters happen at the front door.

• The 2026 Witness: Your Ring/Nest Doorbell.
• The Strategy: Even if the cops “forgot” to turn on their body cams, your doorbell didn’t. We use your cloud footage to prove you said, “Get a warrant!” and never invited them in.

3. Testifying is Safer Now In Hernandez, the lawyer was likely afraid to put the client on the stand.

• The Modern Rule: We now know that testimony given at a Suppression Hearing generally cannot be used against you at trial on the issue of guilt.
• The Tactic: In 2026, we are much more aggressive about putting defendants on the stand for the limited purpose of contesting consent. We don’t let the cop’s narrative stand unchallenged.

Make Them Get a Warrant

If the police are at your door, say “No.” Then say it again. And if they claim you said “Yes,” we will find the footage to prove them wrong.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s suppress the search.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.