WILLIAM CLARK BIBBY, 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.
Conviction for marijuana possession reversed because officers entered Bibby's home without warrant or consent to arrest him, and the State stipulated that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
A warrantless entry into a home to arrest without exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment, and when the State stipulates to facts supporting suppression, the conviction must be reversed.
[1] A warrantless entry into a home to effect an arrest without exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment, and suppression of evidence obtained thereby is required.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Thus the state has stipulated to all facts necessary for a reversal, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), and we must oblige.”
The court explaining why reversal was mandatory given the State's concession on the warrantless entry issue.
Bibby was arrested in his home by officers who entered without warrant or consent based on a signal from an undercover officer inside. The State stipu…
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 Stipulation Of Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
Bibby pleaded nolo contendere to possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana, reserving by agreement with the prosecutor and the court his right to complain on appeal that his motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence should have been granted. We have no choice but to reverse Bib-by’s conviction and discharge him. The State clearly agreed that the suppression issue is dispositive. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979).
In this case that means that the state could not convict Bib-by without introducing as evidence the contraband seized from Bibby incident to his arrest. See G.E.G. v. State, 417 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1982).
Bibby was arrested in his home by officers who entered without warrant or consent upon a signal1 that the incognito officer within the home had made the sale that put Bibby in possession of the marijuana then to be seized. The State stipulated that no exigent circumstances required the arresting officers to enter, so we cannot speculate upon their possible need to protect the incognito officer or reinforce him in an arrest that he hypothetically might have made.
Thus the state has stipulated to all facts necessary for a reversal, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), and we must oblige. The conviction is REVERSED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur. . We do not reach the question of whether by this signal the police unlawfully intercepted, by means of a body bug, a conversation within the house in which Bibby had a constitutionally recognized expectation of privacy. State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cantrell, 426 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…m had already left the home before the police had entered. Consequently, the holding of Benefield is also distinguishable. Finally, we note that our sister court recently quashed a seizure on what appears to be rather similar facts. Bibby v. State, 423 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, in reaching its conclusion, the court observed that since the state had stipulated that no exigent circumstances required the officers to enter the home, it could not speculate “upon their possible need to protect the i…1 / 2
-
Turner v. State, 429 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…we may not address issues which were not included within the scope of the stipulation. Appellant relies upon two opinions from this court, Jackson v. State, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), aff’d., 392 So. 2d 1324 (Fla.1981), and Bibby v. State, 423 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), as supportive of his position. Although those cases do not concern the issue of whether such a stipulation should be binding upon an appellate court if it finds an independent basis for affirming the judgment imposed, we see no…
-
State v. Gonyo, 578 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…llee’s, Robert Go-nyo’s, motion to suppress evidence in this drug trafficking case. The state contends and we agree that the trial court erred in finding that the undercover officer was required to obtain a search warrant pursuant to Bibby v. State, 423 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The state correctly argues that the facts of this case fall under the rationale of State v. Cantrell, 426 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047, 104 S.Ct. 721, 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984). The facts in Cantrell…
Authorities Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Sarmiento, 397 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1981)
- G. E. G. v. State, 417 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1982)