BUSCH PLAZA, INC. AND COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS, INC., APPELLANTS,

v.

MID-FLORIDA ASPHALT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Dedmon v. State, 400 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
  …e. Even before Payton, both Florida and federal courts have held that the post-arrest search of a house cannot be justified as a standard “protective sweep” in order to determine if other persons or weapons are present. According to Newton v. State, 378 So. 2d 297 (4th DCA 1980), police officers must have reasonable grounds to believe their security may be jeopardized by others on the premises. In Newton, the police officers testified that the search was “standard procedure;” they could offer no “ar-ticulable…
• State v. Parker, 399 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …arrest takes place is to check for possible accomplices, not evidence, and is justified only if necessary to allow officers to carry out the arrest without fear of violence. United States v. Bowdach, 561 F. 2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977); Newton v. State, 378 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980); Grant v. State, 374 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In the present case, the police had no reason to believe that there might be anyone else present at the house other than the defendant…
• Diaz v. State, 34 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …e home, “ ‘police officers have a right to conduct a quick and cursory check of a residence when they have reasonable grounds to believe that there are other persons present inside the residence who might present a security risk.’ ” Newton v. State, 378 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (quoting U.S. v. Bowdach, 561 F. 2d 1160 (5th Cir.1977)). The officers must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the protective sweep is necessary due to a safety threat or the destruction of evidence. United States…

Authorities Cited

• Boux v. E. Hillsborough Apts., Inc., 218 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)