STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TIM CARR AND JAMES FRANKLIN SHARP, 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 cocaine evidence found in a motel room. A security guard detective, lawfully on the motel premises, knocked on a door to investigate a suspicious individual and observed drug paraphernalia when the occupant answered. The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the detective had a right to knock on the door and properly seized evidence inadvertently exposed to plain view.
The court held that the detective was justified in investigating the suspicious individual, had a right to knock on the motel room door from a non-constitutionally protected area, and properly seized evidence that was inadvertently observed in plain view when the occupant opened the door in response.
[1] A police officer acting in a private security capacity on private property may detain individuals exhibiting suspicious behavior.
[2] A police officer's investigation of suspicious circumstances, even on private property, is permissible and necessary to prevent crime.
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“It is undisputed that Detective Murray was employed to protect the premises of Motel 6 and that he was entitled to detain the unidentified man who he observed in suspicious circumstances outside a motel room in the middle of the night.”
Establishes the detective's authority to investigate on the motel premises and the lawfulness of his initial detention of the suspicious individual.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetective James Murray worked as a security guard for Motel 6 on his off-duty hours. At 1 a.m., he observed a black male standing outside a motel room…
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 Motion To Suppress Physical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals an order granting a motion to suppress physical evidence.
The evidence showed that Detective James Murray of the Pompano Beach Police Department contracted to work as a security guard for Motel 6 on his off hours. While on patrol at 1 a.m. Detective Murray saw a black male standing outside one of the rooms. As Murray approached, the man left. Five minutes later Murray again saw the same individual at the same motel room knocking on the door. When the man saw Detective Murray he again walked away. Murray asked the man why he was knocking on the door. The man said that he was looking for a ride, but indicated that he did not know the occupants of the room. Detective Murray, who was suspicious that the man was intending a burglary, asked him to knock on the motel room door again. The lights were on in the room. On the third knock the door was opened by the defendant/appellant, Tim Carr. Detective Murray asked Carr if he knew the man who had been knocking on the door. Murray then noticed cocaine rocks and paraphernalia in the room on a table. Murray arrested the occupants. Carr was charged with possessing cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Carr filed a motion to suppress physical evidence on grounds that the officer had no reason to believe that any illegal activity was occurring in the room at the time that he knocked on the door.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress. This appeal followed.
We reverse.
It is undisputed that Detective Murray was employed to protect the premises of Motel 6 and that he was entitled to detain the unidentified man who he observed in suspicious circumstances outside a motel room in the middle of the night. The Detective was justified in investigating the circumstances of the unidentified man’s presence on the property; indeed, his duty required him to investigate. The United States Supreme Court has frequently acknowledged the necessity of police investigation. Without such investigation, those who are innocent might be falsely accused, and those who are guilty might escape prosecution, allowing crimes to go unsolved. See generally, United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980).
Additionally the Florida Supreme Court has recognized in State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1981) that “one does not harbor an expectation of privacy on a front porch where salesmen or visitors may appear at any time.” Thus in the instant case the detective did not intrude into the constitutionally protected area of the motel room prior to the time that he observed the contraband since he merely knocked on the door. The contact between the Detective and the occupants of the motel room was voluntary. The occupants remained free to ignore the knock and retain their seclusion. Only after the occupants opened the door and exposed the contraband to open view did the Detective enter the room. At that point he had probable cause to make an arrest. Because the contraband was inadvertently observed by the Detective from a place where he had a right to be, a nonconstitutionally protected area, the evidence he observed was properly seized. This is particularly true since the officer was investigating suspicious circumstances which may have posed a danger to the occupants of the room.
Thus, the motion to suppress was erroneously granted.
REVERSED.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. State, 898 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…police officers to investigate a complaint where there is no probable cause for a search warrant. The police officers knock on the door, try to make contact with persons inside, and talk to them about the subject of the complaints. . State v. Carr, 549 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). . See United States v. Rivera, 825 F. 2d 152 (7th Cir.1987); Turner v. State, 645 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1994); Gilbert v. State, 789 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). . See State v. Futch, 715 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Younger v.…1 / 2
-
Jacky Gilbert v. State, 789 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…warrant was obtained without tipping off the occupant as to their presence and the possible destruction of evidence. In this case, the officers saw the contraband in open view in appellant’s presence. Our conclusion is reinforced by State v. Carr, 549 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Both cases are factually on all fours with the instant case. While neither discussed the “open view exception,” each came to the conclusion that the officers had the righ…
-
Ulysses R. Williams v. State, 640 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…as well as to the identity of the registered owner of a car that was in clear violation of a traffic safety law. See Keeton v. State, 427 So. 2d 231 (Fla 3d DCA 1983); 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2(b) (2d ed. 1987); Cf. State v. Carr, 549 So. 2d 701, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (‘Without [police] investigation, ... those who are guilty might escape prosecution, allowing crimes to go unsolved.”)2 Furthermore, even assuming an unlawful detention of Williams after the passenger fled, such a restraint…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980)
- State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981)