MICHAEL ERIC BUTTES
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry onto the defendant's property where officers responded to a 911 call and discovered suspicious circumstances at the residence.
[1] Exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry onto property are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, and such circumstances may exist when officers res…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“exigent circumstances have been determined to exist when 911 calls were received, even in cases when the callers did not identify a life-threatening emergency, when the officers arrived at the source of the 911 call to find suspicious circumstances at the residence”
Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468–69 (Fla. 2006)
Michael Eric Buttes appealed a trial court decision regarding a warrantless entry onto his property. Officers responded to a 911 call and found suspic…
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 Suppression Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 27, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0525 Lower Tribunal No. F22-96 ________________
Michael Eric Buttes, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Lynn Weber, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468–69 (Fla. 2006) (noting that the existence of exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry onto property is considered under the totality of the circumstances and that “[e]xigent circumstances have been determined to exist when 911 calls were received, even in cases when the callers did not identify a lifethreatening emergency, when the officers arrived at the source of the 911 call to find suspicious circumstances at the residence”); Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 293 (Fla. 1997) (“The kinds of exigencies or emergencies that may support a warrantless entry include those related to the safety of persons or property, as well as the safety of police. Of course, a key ingredient of the exigency requirement is that the police lack time to secure a search warrant.” (citations omitted)); State v. Barmeier, 878 So. 2d 411, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding exigent circumstances and reversing suppression of evidence discovered after warrantless entry of defendant’s home where defendant had previously called 911 to report disturbance with neighbor and did not respond to police announcing their presence at door).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2006)
- State v. Barmeier, 878 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)