STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE TREPANY, JAMES TESSMER, GARY SALZLEIN AND FRANK VINO, JR., 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 the suppression of evidence in a drug case arising from police surveillance of a residence and boat. The trial court suppressed evidence due to alleged unlawful trespass and detention prior to obtaining a warrant, but the appellate court reversed, holding that under Rizzo v. State, the arrests and seizures were lawful.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the arrests and seizures were lawful under the precedent established in Rizzo v. State, despite the warrantless trespass and detention occurring before the warrant was obtained.
[1] A law enforcement officer's observation of suspicious activity from a lawful vantage point, even with the aid of a night scope, can establish probable cause for a search…
[2] The use of a night scope by law enforcement to observe activity across a canal does not constitute an unlawful trespass.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court granted the motion to suppress because there was "no justification or support for the trespass by the police officers and the arrest and detention of the defendants prior to the obtaining of a warrant."”
Establishes the trial court's basis for suppression based on warrantless trespass and detention
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBased on an anonymous phone call, the Broward County Sheriff's Office surveilled a residence and boat. An officer observed from across a canal using a…
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 Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The State appeals the granting of a motion to suppress in this drug case. As the result of an anonymous phone call, the Bro-ward County Sheriff’s Office began surveillance of the residence and boat which were involved in the suppression hearing. An officer viewed the area from across a canal with the aid of a night scope and noticed that the boat was riding low in the water. After some hours, a person came onto the deck of the boat, scanned the canal area with the use of a night scope similar to that being used by the officer and left. Later, two people went below deck and started transporting bundles from the boat to the back of the house. All of this activity was carried out in darkness. Lights were not turned on in the boat or in the house. Recognizing the bales as marijuana, the officer radioed support units. These officers approached the house and detained one man who was carrying a large package into the house. Next, an officer went to the boat, identified himself, and asked anyone on board to get off. Receiving no response, the officer stepped onto the top section of the boat and shined a flashlight. Two men exited and were detained. Finally, an officer called into the house and a fourth man exited the home. The police arrested all four and then proceeded to obtain a search warrant prior to entering the house and the boat.
The trial court held that the surveilling officer lawfully observed the above occurrences and had grounds for seeking a warrant. Furthermore, the court found the warrant was legally sufficient and based upon probable cause. However, the court granted the motion to suppress because there was “no justification or support for the trespass by the police officers and the arrest and detention of the defendants prior to the obtaining of a warrant.” We reverse. In its suppression order, the trial court relied on our opinion issued on March 12,1980 in the case of Rizzo v. State Ex Rel City of Pompano Beach, whose facts were similar to this case. We granted rehearing in Rizzo and reversed our prior decision. The final holding in Rizzo was that the arrests and seizures made under similar circumstances were lawful. Rizzo v. State Ex Rel City of Pompano Beach, 396 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Unfortunately, the trial court did not have the benefit of our opinion on rehearing. Pursuant to that opinion, we conclude the motion to suppress in this case should have been denied. The order granting suppression is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newberry v. State, 421 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…s cited in Judge Anstead’s dissent involve situations where the police failed to get a warrant. In the case before us now, a warrant was in fact obtained. Moreover, this very Court has impliedly upheld the use of a night scope. See State v. Trepany, 409 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Similarly the Fifth District, citing numerous federal cases as well as the Florida Supreme Court, has upheld the use of binoculars. Bernstiel v. State, 416 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Even State v. Barnes, 390 So. 2d 1243…
-
Sims v. State, 425 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ed no recognized expectation that their activities would not be subject to “open view.” Accordingly, through their observations, the police obtained sufficient probable cause for arrest and search. As to the use of binoculars, see State v. Trepany, 409 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), in which this court held by implication that use of a nightscope does not violate constitutional rights. When law enforcement personnel have the right to look where they are looking there is no constitutional prohibition against…
-
State v. Schneider, 420 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…had grounds to arrest the individuals involved. § 901.15(3), Fla.Stat. (1981). Pursuant to that arrest they could properly seize the marijuana bales. Rizzo v. State ex rel. City of Pompano Beach, 396 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Trepany, 409 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We therefore reverse the order granting the motions to suppress and remand for further appropriate proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anthony Rizzo & 1978 Sea Ray v. State, 396 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)