IVY P. HUTCHINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant's conviction for drug possession offenses was affirmed because the trial court properly admitted evidence obtained when a police officer lawfully on the premises observed a crime in progress and entered without announcement under recognized exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule.
A police officer lawfully present on premises may enter without announcing his authority when he observes a crime in progress or reasonably believes persons are in imminent peril or evidence will be destroyed.
[1] A police officer lawfully present on premises for an unrelated purpose may enter without announcing his authority and purpose when he observes a crime in progress or reas…
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“where the officers are justified in the belief that the persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm”
Exception to knock-and-announce requirement stated in Benefield v. State
Appellant was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotic drugs, possession of drug implements, and unlawful marijuana possession. A pol…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Narcotic Drug cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was found guilty of (1) unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, (2) possession of implements for drug usage, and (3) unlawful possession of marijuana, after a trial before the court without jury in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County. On this appeal, he challenges the admission into evidence of a statement made at the time of his arrest, and urges error upon the trial judge’s failure to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest.
Appellant’s first point does not present reversible error because of the rule stated in State v. Craig, Fla.1970, 237 So.2d 737, and Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 518. The second point, which alleges error because the trial judge denied the motion to suppress, is also without merit. See Fla.Stat. §§ 901.15, 901.21(2) (c), F.S.A. Our holding is distinguished from the holding in Benefield v. State, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 706, because, in the case at bar, the police officer was lawfully upon the premises because of an unrelated matter when he observed a crime in progress. His entry, without demanding his admittance and announcing his authority and purpose, was justified under an exception stated in Benefield v. State, supra. The exception states that a police officer may proceed without demanding admit*626tance and stating his authority and purpose “ . . . where the officers are justified in the belief that the persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm.” Under another exception stated in Benefield, the police officer was further justified in his action because he believed that destruction of evidence would be attempted if he delayed his entry.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970)
- Anderson v. State, 207 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)