DENNIS RAY HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the seizure of marijuana plants observed in plain view inside the house was valid, rendering any error in suppressing backyard evidence harmless.
[1] Evidence knowingly exposed to the public, even within one's home, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
[2] Contraband observed in plain view by a law enforcement officer legally present at the viewing location is subject to seizure.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheriff's deputies observed marijuana plants in a backyard and inside a house. After a motion to suppress was denied, the appellant pleaded nolo conte…
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 Manufacturing Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Two uniformed sheriff’s deputies went to appellant’s home to talk with the residents about misdemeanors which had occurred several days previously. One deputy went into the fenced backyard and there observed (1) marijuana plants growing near a shed, and (2) other marijuana plants growing in pots inside the house in the dining room window. The other deputy went to the front door, knocked and was invited to enter. Once inside, he saw the plants on the windowsill and recognized them as marijuana. All the plants were then seized.
After his motion to suppress was denied, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of manufacturing cannabis. This appeal challenges the suppression ruling on the ground that the deputy who first spotted the plants had no legal right to be in appellant’s backyard, and therefore the seizure of the plants was invalid under our Morsman decision, now approved by the Florida Supreme Court. State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1981). We affirm the judgment and sentence. What appellant says about the activities of the first deputy may well be true, yet that in no way alters the fact that the plants inside the house were in plain view of the deputy who was invited to enter. True, it was appellant’s home, but “what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of fourth amendment protection.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 89 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 581-82 (1967). The contraband was in plain sight of a uniformed officer legally entitled to be in the viewing position. He had not only a right but a duty to seize it.
The evidence taken from inside the house amply supports the judgment. It may be that the plants taken from the backyard should have been suppressed, but any error in that regard was harmless because that evidence was merely cumulative and clearly unnecessary to the judgment. Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes; Ross v. State, 202 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and DAN-AHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brown, 408 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…a common area. The seizure of the marijuana plants from the defendant’s bedroom occurred after Cornish sighted them from his position in the living room. The seizure of the plants was thus justified under the plain view doctrine. See Hall v. State, 395 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Hence, the plants are admissible [*849] into evidence. Moreover, the pipe containing marijuana which was seized from a living room table pursuant to Bailey’s voluntary consent is also admissible into evidence since Bailey, as a c…
-
McVAY v. State, 553 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…etting, the cocaine found in McVay’s purse was lawfully seized as a part of the search incident to his arrest; the purse was within his control. The seizure of the marijuana which was in plain view on the closet shelf was also lawful. Hall v. State, 395 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The marijuana found in the closed metal box, however, was unlawfully seized. Chimel. We reverse that aspect of the trial court’s order. The record, however, does not disclose the amount of marijuana contained in either the bag o…
-
State v. Peggiann H. Johnson, 691 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…te v. Gray, 518 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1988); Koptyra v. State, 172 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). After the officers saw the crack pipe in plain view, they had a right to seize the evidence, Hall v. State, 395 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), which was subject to being concealed or destroyed. Their reentry into the home, after identifying themselves as officers and asking for the pipe they had observed, was proper. Obviously, the police cannot legally enter a private…
Authorities Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981)
- Wilton A. Ross v. State, 202 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)