STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS DUDA, 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.
Florida appeals the suppression of a marijuana plant and incriminating statements discovered during a warrantless entry into the defendant's back yard in response to a domestic disturbance call. The court reversed the suppression order, holding that exigent circumstances (the reported disturbance) justified the officers' warrantless entry and the subsequent plain view seizure of the marijuana plant.
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into the back yard in response to the reported disturbance, and therefore the marijuana plant was properly seized under the plain view doctrine. The officers' reasonable belief in the existence of an emergency, measured objectively at the time, permits police entry without a warrant.
[1] Police officers may enter a private residence's curtilage, including the backyard, without a warrant if they reasonably believe an emergency situation exists.
[2] The reasonableness of an officer's belief in an emergency situation is measured by the circumstances known to the officer at the time of entry, not by whether an emergenc…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 police have the inherent right to enter and investigate an emergency, without an accompanying intent either to seize or arrest, as part of their duties as peace officers”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that police may enter without a warrant in emergency situations as part of their peacekeeping duties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers responded to a radio call about a domestic disturbance or possible fight at a residence around 1:20 a.m. Upon arrival, they heard shouting fr…
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 Emergency Exception To Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The state appeals an order suppressing a marijuana plant and incriminating statements made by the appellee.
The facts are not in dispute. At approximately 1:20 a.m. on November 15, 1982, Officer John Corbett of the St. Petersburg Police Department responded to a radio bulletin concerning a domestic disturbance or possible fight at a residence. He was quickly joined by two other officers on patrol. After arriving at the scene, Corbett heard shouting coming from the area of the rear of the house and the back yard. He proceeded around the building to a carport which led to a back door. There he met a woman. As the shouting continued, she informed him that appellee and his brother were arguing inside. She called to the men, and Officer Corbett then stepped through the back door to speak with them. After he was satisfied that the disturbance had ended, Officer Corbett turned to leave.
As Officer Corbett was walking through the carport, Officer Fridlund, who had stayed outside in a backup capacity, advised him that there was something he should see. Officer Fridlund then pointed to a marijuana plant approximately four feet high growing from a white plastic bucket. The plant was readily visible from the driveway and was ten to twelve feet from the house. The woman had previously informed Officer Fridlund that the plant belonged to appellee. Officer Corbett then returned to the house to question appellee. After receiving Miranda warnings, appellee admitted that the plant belonged to him.
Officers Corbett and Fridlund had inadvertently sighted the marijuana plant in plain view. They were able to seize the plant, however, only if they had the legal right 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 part of their duties as peace officers. Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035, 102 S.Ct. 1739, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982). Their determination of the existence of an emergency is to be measured by the reasonableness of their belief at the time, not the existence of an emergency in fact. See Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); State v. Hetzko, 283 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In the instant case we find that a potential emergency situation had existed which justified the presence of the police in appellee’s back yard.
Officers Corbett and Fridlund had responded to a call of a disturbance or possible fight. When they arrived at the address, they could hear shouting from the rear of the house. They were unaware of the number of persons involved or the reason for the controversy. Sensing a need for immediate action, they proceeded without a warrant to the back of the house. The officers’ decision to go directly to the location at which the disturbance appeared to be occurring rather than knocking at the front door cannot be faulted. Since the officers acted under exigent circumstances, their presence in the back yard was justified. At this point, the marijuana plant, being in plain view, was properly seized.
The order granting the motion to suppress is reversed.
OTT, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.E.R. v. State, 464 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…pursue the appellant in an attempt to temporarily detain her because the circumstances reasonably indicated that the juveniles were involved in criminal activity. See State v. Bowen, 444 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Moreover, in State v. Duda, 437 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), we held that police officers who responded to a neighborhood disturbance complaint were justified in entering the backyard of the residence where the disturbance appeared to be occurring rather than knocking at the front door. Th…
-
P.B.P. v. State, 955 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…, had no lawful basis to enter his backyard. We disagree. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists in the backyard of a residence that is not generally viewed by the public, but that expectation gives way in an emergency situation. State v. Duda, 437 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In Duda, the police responded to a radio bulletin concerning a domestic disturbance or a possible fight, and an officer went to the rear of the house because he heard shouting. The court noted that the existence of a potenti…
-
Amador v. State, 539 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964); State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Duda, 437 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mathes v. State, 375 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.…
Authorities Cited
- Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981)
- Greene v. Grievance Comm. for the Ninth Jud. Dist., 455 U.S. 1035 (U.S. 1982)
- Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Napoli, 283 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- State v. Hetzko, 283 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Jennings v. State, 419 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)