STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM G. SKAFF, 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 from suppression of evidence obtained during a protective sweep of a defendant's residence executed during his arrest on a drug conspiracy warrant. The court affirmed the suppression, holding that the sweep was unconstitutional because police lacked reasonable grounds to believe their security was jeopardized.
The protective sweep was not supportable under the requisite exigency standard. Protective sweeps are confined to situations where police have reasonable grounds to believe their security may be jeopardized by others on the premises. Routine police procedure alone cannot support such a search, nor can a defendant's resistance to arrest without a warrant being initially produced constitute exigent circumstances when there is no indication that others might be present.
[1] A protective sweep of a residence is permissible only when police have reasonable grounds to believe their security may be jeopardized by others on the premises.
[2] Routine procedure alone is insufficient to justify a protective sweep of a residence.
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“protective sweeps are confined to situations where the police have reasonable grounds to believe their security may be jeopardized by others on the premises”
Establishes the legal standard for when protective sweeps are permissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers arrested Skaff at his residence pursuant to an outstanding drug conspiracy warrant. During the arrest, officers conducted a protective sweep …
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 Protective Sweep cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The cursory search, or “protective sweep,” of the defendant’s residence at which he was arrested on an outstanding drug conspiracy warrant and which produced a small quantity of controlled substance found in the defendant’s bedroom which, in turn, formed the basis for a subsequent search warrant of the residence was not supportable under the requisite exigency standard applicable to such searches. See Dedmon v. State, 400 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); United States v. Bowdach, 561 F. 2d 1160 (5th Cir.1977); Newton v. State, 378 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); McNair v. State, 354 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). These authorities stand for the proposition that protective sweeps are confined to situations where the police have reasonable grounds to believe their security may be jeopardized by others on the premises. The officers in the instant case testified that such sweeps were routine procedure when making such arrests. That will not support such a search.
The officers had no information indicating that the defendant was armed or dangerous although they did indicate that they were aware that he had at some time in the past been charged with aggravated assault. There was no indication that any other persons resided with the defendant at the subject premises or that anyone else would likely be present when the arrest warrant was executed. And the officers had surveilled the premises intermittently prior to the arrest.
The state, however, points to the fact that the defendant offered resistance when the officers failed to produce a warrant although he asked to see it several times. The officers were able to subdue the defendant and calm him down after displaying the warrant. Although the defendant was not justified in his resistance of the officers who had advised the defendant of their identity and of their possession of a warrant for his arrest, such does not by itself constitute the kind of exigent circumstances as will support a protective sweep of the entire premises as there was still no indication that others might be present.
Based upon the authorities, the trial court was clearly correct in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, NIMMONS and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klosieski v. State, 482 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ircumstances would include a situation where, after an arrest, the officers have a reasonable basis to suspect that there may be other individuals on the premises who would be dangerous to the police officers or destroy evidence. See State v. Skaff, 450 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Dedmon v. State, 400 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Newton v. State, 378 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980); Grant v. State, 374 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); McNair v. State, 354 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Dedmon v. State, 400 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Busch Plaza, Inc. v. Mid-Florida Asphalt Corp., 378 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Newton v. State, 378 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- McNAIR v. State, 354 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)