“Just Sign Here”: Why a Consent Form is Worthless After an Illegal Entry

By: John Guidry

Arrests happen. Unfortunately, some of these arrests occur after a citizen signs a “Consent to Search” form.

But, signed consent forms don’t mean much when they are obtained after illegal police activity. I know what you’re thinking: “Yeah, I knew that.” But as a criminal defense attorney here in Orlando for over 17 years, I never grow tired of discussing cases where police activity was deemed illegal.

Such issues were addressed in the case of Diaz v. State, 34 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Did you sign a consent form only after the police had already busted in?

That consent might be invalid. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Diaz v. State (The “Protective Sweep” Scam)

Diaz was arrested for Trafficking in Heroin.

• The Setup: Police were watching a house and allegedly witnessed a hand-to-hand drug transaction outside. (If I had a nickel for every time an officer claims to have seen a “hand-to-hand”…).
• The Arrest: They arrested a woman as she exited the home. She was only five feet from the wide-open front door.
• The Entry: Seeing the open door and hearing people inside, the police conducted a “Protective Sweep” of the house. Their excuse? “Well-being” and “making sure no one is armed.”

The Discovery: Inside, they found Diaz and a trafficking amount of heroin. The Consent: Once inside, the police “kindly” uncuffed Diaz and his girlfriend just long enough for them to sign a Consent to Search form. Diaz signed it.

The Defense: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Diaz argued that the officers had no right to enter his home in the first place.

• The Rule: To conduct a Protective Sweep, officers must have a reasonable belief, based on specific facts, that the home contains a dangerous person.
• The Reality: The arrest happened outside. The police had no evidence that anyone inside was armed or dangerous. They just wanted to look.

The Argument: Because the initial entry was illegal, the consent form Diaz signed afterwards was tainted. You cannot break into a house illegally and then ask, “Is it okay if we look around?”

The Ruling: Tainted Consent is Invalid

The Appeals Court overturned the conviction. They agreed that the police were not justified in entering the house without a warrant.

“The officers articulated no specific reasons for believing that anyone in the home posed a danger to law enforcement.”

Because the entry was illegal, the consent form was “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” The court quoted well-established law:

“Where a consent to search is obtained after illegal police activity such as an illegal search or arrest, the unlawful police action presumptively taints and renders involuntary any consent to search.” — Gonzalez v. State

John’s 2026 Update: The Camera Don’t Lie

Note: In 2010, we had to argue about what the police “heard” or “felt.” In 2026, we just watch the video.

1. Ring Doorbell Defense In Diaz, the police claimed they “heard people” and “feared for their safety” through the open door.

• Today: We pull the Ring Doorbell or Smart Home footage. If the audio shows the house was silent, or the video shows the police casually walking in (guns holstered) rather than “sweeping for threats,” the “Officer Safety” excuse falls apart instantly.

2. The “Electronic Warrant” Reality In 2026, police can get a search warrant signed by a judge on their iPad in about 15 minutes.

• The Argument: Courts are now less forgiving of warrantless entries because it is so easy to get a warrant electronically. If they had time to “uncuff him and get a form signed,” they had time to email a judge. Their choice to skip the warrant proves they knew they didn’t have probable cause.

3. “Exigent Circumstances” Trap Since Diaz, police have shifted tactics. Instead of “Officer Safety,” they now often claim “Destruction of Evidence” (e.g., “We heard a toilet flush”).

• Our Defense: We argue that the police created the emergency by knocking or announcing themselves. If they created the panic, they cannot use it as an excuse to enter without a warrant.

Don’t Let a Piece of Paper Fool You

Just because you signed a form doesn’t mean you waived your rights—especially if the police had already violated them.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s throw that form out.

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.