GARY LEROY NANK, 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 evidence seized should have been suppressed because officers violated the statute requiring notice of authority and purpose when executing the search warrant.
Appellant was charged with drug offenses after a search warrant was executed at his home. The officers entered the home by opening an unlocked screen …
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.
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia following the execution of a search warrant at his home. He contends on appeal that the evidence seized should have been suppressed because the officers violated Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1979) when executing the search warrant. We agree and reverse.
The evidence was undisputed that the police officers opened an unlocked screen door and stepped into the house without first knocking and giving notice of their authority and purpose as required by section 933.09. See Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964). Failure to follow this procedure renders the search illegal. This is so even where, as here, the state contended at the suppression hearing that appellant would have attempted to dispose of the contraband if the officers announced their presence, since no evidence was introduced to support this contention. State v. Collier, 270 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Accordingly, we hold that it was error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion to suppress. Appellant’s judgment and sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia and the order placing him on probation for possession of marijuana are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with instructions to discharge appellant.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Robinson, 565 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…case, the trial court’s decision has the appropriate evidentiary support. As a matter of law, the opening of an unlocked screen door is a breaking which invokes the due notice requirements of section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1987). Nank v. State, 406 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). See also Burden v. State, 455 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1985); Bouknight v. State, 455 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied,…1 / 2
-
Burden v. State, 455 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…intrusion whether officers break down a door, force open a chain lock on a partially opened door, open a locked door by use of a passkey, or, as here, open a closed but unlocked door. At 589, 88 S.Ct. at 1757. 396 So. 2d at 221. In Nank v. State, 406 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress was reversed because the officers opened an unlocked screen door and stepped into the house without first knocking and giving notice of their authority and purpose. S…
-
Albritton v. State, 634 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…he statute at that point dissipated any illegal taint to such an extent that the seizure of the gun did not bear a sufficiently close relationship to the underlying illegality. AFFIRMED. MINER, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . See Nank v. State, 406 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Burden v. State, 455 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1985); Boueknight v. State, 455 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (Ervin, C.J., concu…
Authorities Cited
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Collier, 270 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)