Warrantless searches in the state of Florida by Veronica Rivera: Florida Jurisprudence

Crimpro § 151  → West's Key Number Digest: 68

The constitutional limitations on warrantless arrests inside a home do not apply when there are exigent circumstances, such as the hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, although exigent circumstances do not necessarily involve hot pursuit of a fleeing criminal.  Jones v. State, 440 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1983); Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed. 2d 85 (1990); Wike v. State, 596 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1992); M.J.R. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1998).

Factors which indicate exigent circumstnaces include:

1. the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged;
2. a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed;
3. probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime;
4. strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; and
5. a likelihood that delay could cause the escape of the suspect or the destruction of essential evidence or jeopardize the safety of officers or the public.

The determination of whether there are exigent circumstances is the reasonableness of the belief of the police as to the existence of an emergency, not the existence of an emergency in fact. Randolph v. State, 463 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1984).         FL. Jur. 2d Criminal Law - Procedure § 151 (2009). 

Warrantless Search or Seizure Generally §§ 776 to 784 → West's Key Number Digest, Searches and Seizures: 23, 26, 36.1

A warrantless search or seizure is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment or is at least suspect, unless it falls within one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement.  Those exceptions are consent, search incident to a lawful arrest, hot pursuit, stop and frisk, and probable cause with emergency or exigent circumstances. FL. Jur. 2d Criminal Law - Procedure § 776 (2009).

Exigent or Emergency Circumstances Generally § 780 → West's Key Number Digest, Searches and Seizures: 42.1

See, Hot Pursuit Doctrine, 17 A.L.R. 6th 327; 64 A.L.R. 5th 637; 11 A.L.R. 5th 52

The key ingredient of the exigency requirement is that the police lack time to secure a search warrant.    FL. Jur. 2d Criminal Law - Procedure § 780 (2009).

There must be objectively reasonable circumstances that convey to the police officer an articulable, reasonable belief that an emergency exists using the totality of the circumstances.  [The emergency need not in fact exist].  The burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate that the procurement of a search warrant was no feasible because the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.

When exigent circumstances are created by law enforcement, no exigency exists to justify a warrantless search. Davis v. State, 744 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1999).

Scope of search based on emergency § 781 → West's Key Number Digest, Searches and Seizures: 42.1

Entry based on exigency must be limited in scope to its purpose, and an officer may not continue to search once he or she has determined that no exigency exists. Reed v. State, 944 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2006).    FL. Jur. 2d Criminal Law - Procedure § 781 (2009).

If the police determine the exigency that initially allowed their entry into the residence no longer exists, any subsequent search is illegal and any contraband discovered pursuant to the illegal search is inadmissible. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2006).    Id.

Justification for investigation § 782 → West's Key Number Digest, Searches and Seizures: 42.1

An emergency permits the police to enter and investigate private premises to preserve life, property, or render first aid, where the need to act expeditiously is essential.    FL. Jur. 2d Criminal Law - Procedure § 782 (2009).

Crimsub § 1430 → West's Key Number Digest, Controlled Substances: 103-105, 121-123, & 128-130

Defense of Narcotics Cases, 8 Am. Jur. Trials 573 §§ 22 to 24 (Search and Seizure)

Exigent Circumstances as a warrantless search in drug cases require probable cause and are often based on the destructibility of the evidence.

• the defendants are in the process of destroying contraband.
• may be undertaking to leave the jurisdiction with contraband. Chestnut v. State, 382 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1980)
• the defendants are about to be alerted to an impending search. Mercier v. State, 579 So. 2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist 1991)

The exigent circumstances exception has particular application to vehicles since a vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought; therefore, a warrantless search of an automobile based upon probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of crime, and in the light of an exigency arising out of the likely disappearance of the vehicle, does not contravene the Fourth Amendment. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1991).      FL. Jur. 2d Criminal Law - Procedure § 1430 (2009).

See, Fla. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law - Procedure §§ 776 to 784