THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ARNOLD ADAMS AND LINDA HARRIS, APPELLEES
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 order suppressing marijuana evidence obtained when police officers stood on a chair on the defendants' porch to peer through a window into their apartment without a warrant. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding the warrantless search violated the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy and finding no exigent circumstances justified the search.
The court held that the contraband was not in plain view, the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy that police would not enter their porch, stand on furniture, and look into their apartment, and no exigent circumstances were demonstrated that would justify the officers' failure to obtain a search warrant before conducting the search.
[1] A police officer's act of stepping onto a porch, standing on a chair, and peering into a window above eye level to observe contraband constitutes an unlawful search.
[2] A reasonable expectation of privacy exists against police officers climbing on furniture to look into a private dwelling.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the Defendants entertained a reasonable expectation of privacy that Police Officers would not enter their porch area, climb up on a piece of furniture and look down from a window into their apartment.”
Establishes the core holding that the warrantless peering into the home violated the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers acting on an informant's tip went to a rooming house where defendants Arnold Adams and Linda Harris were said to be residing with mari…
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 Search Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The state appeals from the following order suppressing evidence:
1. That this Court specifically finds that the Defendants, ARNOLD ADAMS and LINDA HARRIS, were arrested on June 12, 1978, and charged with violation of Statute 893.12(l)(e), possession of marijuana. Acting upon the information supplied by an informant, Miami Police Officers Allagood and Cox proceeded to a rooming house where the Defendants were said to be residing and in possession of marijuana. Upon arrival, Officer Alla-good went to the Defendants’ apartment, but since he could not see through the window, which was above his eye level Officer Allagood stepped up onto the porch, stood on a chair, and peered in, observing the Defendants sitting in a room which contained marijuana. The Officers did testify at the deposition that the arrest area was ‘secured’ before the Officers entered the apartment, and that there was no back door to the apartment and further, that the Officers could have detained any person leaving the apartment prior to arrest. The Officers knocked at the door whereupon the door was opened and the Officers observed marijuana at which time they entered the Defendants’ dwelling, arrested the Defendants and seized the contraband. The .Officers at no time attempted to procure a search warrant. 2. This Court specifically holds that the contraband seized was not in ‘plain view’. Furthermore, the Defendants entertained a reasonable expectation of privacy that Police Officers would not enter their porch area, climb up on a piece , of furniture and look down from a window into their apartment. Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1977); Olivera v. State, 315 So. 2d 487 (2 DCA 1975).
3. That furthermore, this Court specifically holds that there were no exigent circumstances demonstrated which would otherwise obviate the constitutional requirement that the Officers first procure a search warrant. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Hornblower v. State, supra.
That the Court therefore, based upon the above authorities cited herein, suppresses the marijuana illegally seized by the Police from the Defendants’ rooming house on June 12, 1978.
In this order, the trial court ably and correctly resolved the issues in controversy. Its treatment of the applicable law is supported, in addition to the authorities cited, by the comprehensive opinion in Morsman v. State, 360 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). See also Hunter v. State, 375 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331, 1335 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); cf. State of Texas v. Gonzales, 388 F. 2d 145 (5th Cir. 1968); Brock v. United States, 223 F. 2d 681, 685 (5th Cir. 1955).
On the basis therefore of the findings and reasoning contained in the order under review, it is
Affirmed.
. In this court, the state, citing Menendez v. State, 368 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1979); State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971); Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1979); and Dacus v. State, 307 So. 2d 505 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); argues that the search and seizure should be upheld on the ground that the marijuana was in “plain sight” when the defendants opened their door to the officers.
This contention was not presented to the trial court at the hearing on the motion to suppress, which was concerned only with the issue of whether the officer’s standing on the chair in order to peer into the defendants’ home was constitutionally permissible. Thus, it may not be considered for the first time on appeal, Silver v. State, 188 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1966); State v. Giardino, 363 So. 2d 201 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Even were the issue properly before us, the record reveals that the police knocked on the door only after and because the officer had seen the cannabis from his perch on the chair. Thus, the sighting through the open door was a direct product and exploitation of the illegal window view. Any evidence seized as a result was required, therefore, to be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 120 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ngaging in otherwise lawful “knock- and-talks,” they can exceed the scope of a reasonable visit to a front door or porch through physical actions that encroach into areas in which the resident has a reasonable expectation of privacy. State v. Adams, 378 So. 2d 72, 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (standing on a chair on front porch to look down from a window into apartment was unreasonable). Cf. State v. Leonard, 764 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 1st DCA [*585] 2000) (stretching to full height and standing on tiptoes on doorsi…
-
State v. Leonard, 764 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…that Leonard’s activities were not in plain view because the officer had to stand on his tip toes, or on the door sill of Leonard’s apartment, to see Leonard’s activities. The trial court, in reaching this legal conclusion, relied on State v. Adams, 378 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (affirming suppression of evidence). We find Adams inapposite to the instant facts; the Adams court found evidence out of plain view based on these facts: Acting upon the information supplied by an informant, Miami Police Officer…
-
State v. Crowley, 232 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…was] not what anyone would think he had license to do”); Powell, 120 So. 3d at 587 (suppressing evidence where an officer spied contraband by peering through a home’s front window that was off the traditional path to the front door); State v. Adams, 378 So. 2d 72, 74 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1979) (suppressing evidence where an officer stood on a chair on the front porch to look down through a window into an apartment), B. The- novel issue in this case is whether the presence of a “No Soliciting” sign negates the cus…
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 (17 total)
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971)
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Menendez v. State, 368 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1979)
- Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Brock v. United States, 223 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1955)
- Silver v. State, 188 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1966)
- The State OF Tex. v. Gonzales, 388 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)