Exigent Circumstances and Knock and Announce Rule:
The supreme court affirmed defendant's conviction for first degree murder, holding that it was supported by substantial, competent evidence. The supreme court affirmed defendant's death sentence on the basis that it was appropriate under the circumstances. The supreme court held that the police officers' warrantless search of defendant's apartment was justified because exigent circumstances existed. Exigent circumstances existed because one officer lay dead from a sniper's bullet, and the police had good reason to believe the sniper was in defendant's apartment. Therefore, evidence obtained from the warrantless search of defendant's apartment was legally introduced against defendant at his trial. The supreme court also held that officers were not required to comply with the "knock and announce rule," because the officers were reasonable in assuming that an announcement of purpose would have increased their peril. The supreme court held that the trial court properly admitted defendant's confession because defendant implicitly waived his Miranda rights by voluntarily giving the confession to police after having been apprised of his right to remain silent. Jones v. State, 440 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1983).
Additional Cases: Jones v. Wainwright, 473 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1985); Jones v. Dugger, 533 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1988); Peacock v. State, 160 So. 2d 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964); Henderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1985).
Facts for a Warrant and Valid Search:
Defendant pled no contest to conspiracy to sell 200 to 400 grams of cocaine, possession of 200 to 400 grams of cocaine, possession of under 20 grams of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant contended that evidence seized by the police should have been suppressed because it was obtained as a result of an unreasonable and warrantless entry into his home made pending receipt of a search warrant. The police entered and occupied defendant's home for 15 hours while they waited for the search warrant. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant that was based on information known to the police before an illegal entry and that was wholly unrelated to the entry was not tainted. The search warrant contained facts known to the police before the initial entry, and no information obtained during the entry and occupation of defendant's home was used to secure the warrant. Thus, the factual basis for the warrant constituted an independent source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence, and purged it of any taint. Mercier v. State, 579 So.2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).
Additional Cases: State v. Hood, 68 So. 3d 392 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011); State v. Exantus, 59 So. 3d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 2011).
Non-Emergency Warrantless Arrest in Home:
The court vacated defendant juvenile's conviction and sentence for resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. Defendant was arrested after a deputy was dispatched to defendant's residence to determine if another person, who was thought to be a runaway juvenile, was present. When defendant answered the door and responded that the person was there and that he would get him, the deputy insisted that the door remain open. Defendant claimed that a warrant was required and after attempting to close the door, the deputy wrestled with defendant. The court found that an element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence was that the arrest must be legal. The court held that neither defendant's arrest nor the investigation was legal. It was further held by the court that the deputy was required to have an arrest warrant to effect a non-emergency arrest of defendant in his home. Finally, the court found that exigent circumstances did not exist, thus permitting a warrantless arrest, because even if defendant had committed the offense of resisting an officer without violence, it would only have been a misdemeanor. M.J.R. v. State, 715 So.2d 1103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Additional Cases: Espiet v. State, 797 So. 2d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001); Ortiz v. State, 600 So. 2d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992); Conner v. State, 641 So. 2d 143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).
Scope of Exigent Circumstances:
The officer testified that he was flagged down by an unknown man who informed the officer that narcotics activity was taking place in a motel room. The officer knocked and announced, and a woman opened the door of the motel room. The officer saw defendant lying on the bed. After defendant did not respond to the officer, the officer shook defendant a few times. After defendant awoke, the officer asked to see his identification. When defendant provided a suspended driver's license, the officer arrested him for possession of a suspended driver's license and violation of probation. The officer did not smell or see any drugs in the room. The appellate court held that once the officer confirmed that defendant had not overdosed, the officer was required to leave the motel room because the exigency dissipated and no criminal activity was apparent within the room. As such, the officer's stay in the motel room exceeded the scope of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and constituted an unreasonable search and seizure violative of the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress. Reed v. State, 944 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).
Additional Cases: Cote v. State, 14 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009); Peraza v. State, 69 So. 3d 338 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011); Aikens v. State, 80 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012).
Exigent Circumstances - Harm to Self:
Defendant's roommate left him alone in his apartment with the victim. Later, defendant would not let him in and said he was going to kill himself. The roommate called 911. When police responded, defendant opened the door slightly, told them he was "okay," and shut the door. When he finally opened the door again, police forced their way in. Through an opened bathroom door, an officer saw a severed foot. The victim's body was dismembered; DNA in semen found in her vagina was consistent with defendant's. The high court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances, as police were not investigating a crime but were attempting to ensure that defendant would not kill himself. Seibert v. State, 923 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2006).
Additional Cases: State v. Boyd, 615 So. 2d 786 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993); Davis v. State, 834 So. 2d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2005).
