RICKEY JENNINGS, 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.
Appellant was convicted of grand theft and dealing in stolen property based on evidence obtained when police officers entered his back yard without a warrant to inspect trailers they could see from the street. The court reversed, holding that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers could not determine the trailers were stolen without entering the property, and no exigent circumstances justified the intrusion.
The warrantless entry into the back yard and subsequent inspection and seizure of the trailers was unlawful. Because the officers could see the trailers from the street but could not determine their stolen status without entering the property, and no exigent circumstances existed, they had no right to enter without a search warrant.
[1] Police entry into a private backyard to inspect property is unlawful without a search warrant absent exigent circumstances, even if the property is partially visible from…
[2] A search warrant is required to enter a curtilage to inspect property when the illegality of the property is not apparent from a public vantage point.
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 intelligence“Without obtaining a search warrant, Miller and Officer Ginsmer entered the back yard to take a closer look at the trailers.”
Establishes the warrantless entry that formed the basis of appellant's Fourth Amendment challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice received an anonymous tip that someone was sanding rental trailers at appellant's residence. Officers Miller and Ginsmer observed two trailers …
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 Appeal From Denial Of Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to charges of grand theft and dealing in stolen property. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Miller of the St. Petersburg Police Department testified that he received a call from an anonymous citizen who told him that an individual was sanding rental trailers at a location which turned out to be appellant’s residence. When Miller arrived, he observed, from the vantage point of the street, two rental trailers in the appellant’s back yard. Without obtaining a search warrant, Miller and Officer Ginsmer entered the back yard to take a closer look at the trailers. Upon close inspection, they noticed that the trailers had been partially sanded and the stenciling and license tags had been removed. While the police were looking at the trailers, the appellant came out of his house to talk to them. During the conversation, Officer Ginsmer located a serial number on one of the trailers. After running a check on the number, Ginsmer verified that the trailer had been stolen. Appellant was subsequently arrested and the trailers were seized.
Appellant argues that without a search warrant the police officers’ entry upon his property and the subsequent inspection and seizure of the trailers were unlawful. We agree.
This case is much like State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1981), in which the police, acting on a double hearsay report, seized some marijuana plants in the defendant’s back yard. The supreme court held that since the plants were not visible from outside the defendant’s property, the officer had no right to go into the back yard to seize them without a search warrant. Here, while the officers could see the trailers from the street, they were unable to determine whether the trailers were stolen until after they entered appellant’s back yard. Inasmuch as there was no showing of exigent circumstances, they did not have a right to enter the appellant’s back yard to inspect the trailers without a search warrant. Hence, the motion to suppress' should have been granted.
We reverse the judgment of guilt and remand the case for further proceedings.
SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1997)…rous instrumentalities or other evidence, even if they have probable cause to believe it is on the premises or otherwise subject to removal or destruction, if they have time to obtain a warrant and then enter under that authority. Jennings v. State, 419 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Graham v. State, 406 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Moreover, an entry based on an exigency must be limited in scope to its purpose. Thus, an officer may not continue her search once she has determined that no exigency exists. An…
-
State v. Duda, 437 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…ht to be in appellee’s back yard. State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1981). Although there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the back yard of a residence as an area not generally viewed by the public, State v. Morsman; Jennings v. State, 419 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), that expectation can give way in an emergency situation. The supreme court has stated that the police have the inherent right to enter and investigate an emergency, without an accompanying intent either to seize or arrest, as par…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981)