STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DUDLEY S. HAINES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appeals a trial court's suppression of evidence from a warrantless search of Haines' home where marijuana was discovered. The court holds that police officers lawfully searched the residence for a possible burglar based on exigent circumstances, and the discovery of cannabis in plain view during that search does not invalidate the search.
The police officers were justified in conducting a warrantless search of the residence based on exigent circumstances to investigate a possible burglary. The discovery of cannabis in plain view within a closet they were entitled to search does not invalidate the search.
[1] Exigent circumstances may justify a warrantless search of a residence for possible intruders when a neighbor reports an unsecured door and the occupants are known to be a…
[2] Police officers are justified in searching a residence for intruders when a neighbor reports an open door and no response to police presence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We think the police officers were justified under these circumstances in conducting a search of the residence for possible intruders.”
The court's primary holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a neighbor's call reporting a possible burglary of Haines' duplex residence. The neighbor informed officers that the residents wer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probable Cause For Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Chief Judge.
The state appeals from the trial court’s order which suppressed evidence located within Haines’ home. Haines was charged with possession of a controlled substance, cannabis, in excess of twenty grams.1 Haines argued below that the police lacked sufficient probable cause to search for a possible burglar in his residence where the cannabis was discovered; and that they exceeded the bounds of a reasonable search when a police officer peeked into a closet and found marijuana plants growing in a large terrarium. We reverse.
The record of the suppression hearing established that Haines’ well-meaning neighbor, Moore, called the police to investigate a possible burglary of Haines’ residence. Moore occupied the other half of Haines’ duplex. He told the three police officers when they arrived that the owner or people living in Haines’ duplex were out-of-town on a fishing trip. He was concerned because he noted that the front door of Haines’ residence was standing open approximately four to five inches. It was 8:00 p.m.; and no lights were on inside.
At that point, the police officers opened the door and announced they were members of the police department. Receiving no response, they searched the various rooms of the residence for an intruder. While making the search, they pulled aside a curtain covering the entrance to a closet in the hallway, and discovered the terrarium. It was in plain view, and the closet was sufficiently large to have provided a hiding place for a possible burglar. We think the police officers were justified under these circumstances in conducting a search of the residence for possible intruders. State v. Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Guin v. City of Riviera Beach, 388 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Garcia, 374 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Sufficient exigent circumstances existed to excuse the obtaining of a search warrant. See Johnson v. State, 386 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The search conducted here was not for cannabis, but for a possible burglar. The fact that the police discovered cannabis in plain view in a place they were entitled to search for an intruder was bad luck for Haines, but it does not invalidate their search and discovery. See Sheff v. State, 301 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), affirmed, 329 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1976).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. . §§ 893.03(l)(c), 893.13(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 834 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…police may enter a home to investigate a suspected burglary or to check on the safety of its residents, as those situations are generally considered exigent circumstances. See State v. Craycraft, 704 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Haines, 543 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also Anderson. An entry based on exigent circumstances must be limited in scope to its purpose. Rolling, 695 So. 2d at 293 (citing Anderson). Therefore, the police may hot continue the search once it is determined that no e…
-
Anderson v. State, 665 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…Deputy Herron had completed his search of Skipwith’s home to locate the intruder and to ascertain no one was in need of assistance inside the apartment, the exigency that allowed the warrantless search of the premises had ended. Cf. State v. Haines, 543 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The desire to contact the owner did not justify any further search of the apartment or its contents, including the documents in the plastic bag. Other courts also have rejected the notion that the need to secure a person’s prope…
-
Mestral v. State, 16 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…urden rests on the State to show the existence of such an exceptional situation.” Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). The State relied on State v. Craycraft, 704 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), State v. Haines, 543 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and State v. Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Those cases are not on point. In Haines, a neighbor called the police about a possible burglary in progress because the door to the neighboring apartment was standing open…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheff v. State, 329 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1976)
- Sheff v. State, 301 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Fleetwood Guin v. City OF Riviera Beach, 388 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- State v. Garcia, 374 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Johnson v. State, 386 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)