STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MARSHALL BOOREAM, 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.
The State appealed a trial court order suppressing drugs and paraphernalia found in Booream's vehicle during a search of a residence. The appellate court reversed, holding that a search warrant authorizing search of vehicles on the curtilage of a premises validly permitted the search of Booream's car parked in the driveway, even though Booream was merely a visitor.
The court held that the search was authorized by the warrant and reversed the suppression order. A search warrant that expressly permits search of vehicles within the curtilage of a dwelling validly authorizes search of a visitor's vehicle parked on the driveway, without requiring a reasonable connection between the vehicle's owner and the illicit activity at the residence.
[1] A search warrant authorizing the search of a premises, including the curtilage and vehicles thereon, permits the search of a vehicle parked on the driveway of the premise…
[2] A driveway of a residence may be considered within the curtilage for the purposes of a search warrant.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“search the afore-described place and premises, together with the yard and curtilage thereof, and any. and all out buildings and vehicles thereon, and any person reasonably believed to be connected with the illegal activ”
The exact language of the search warrant authorizing the search of vehicles on the curtilage, which the court found sufficiently authorized the search of Booream's vehicle
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement executed a search warrant at Eustis Jones's residence based on probable cause from controlled buys of controlled substances. Booream, …
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 Scope Of Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals a trial court order granting John Booream’s motion to suppress a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia found in Booream’s vehicle during a search. We conclude that the search was authorized by a search warrant, and we reverse the suppression order. Booream, a visitor at the residence of Eustis Jones, had parked his vehicle in the driveway of the residence. Law enforcement agents executed a search warrant at the dwelling of Jones. Probable cause for the warrant was based upon controlled buys of controlled substances in that residence. Apparently, vehicular traffic occurred on the property during the controlled purchases. The search warrant authorized the officers to “search the afore-described place and premises, together with the yard and curtilage thereof, and any. and all out buildings and vehicles thereon, and any person reasonably believed to be connected with the illegal activ ity.” The warrant and Miranda warnings were read to the persons inside the home, including Booream. The officers asked Booream which vehicle was his and requested the keys from him. Upon obtaining the keys, they searched his car which was parked on the property and discovered illegal drugs and paraphernalia that led to the charges against him.
The trial court granted Booream’s motion to suppress the evidence, reasoning “it would be an anomaly to prohibit the search of a visitor while simultaneously permitting a search of the automobile in which he arrived on the premises.” This court in State v. Musselwhite, 402 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 408 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.1981), found that the driveway of one’s residence is within the “curtilage,” so that a search warrant in that case authorizing search of vehicles on the curtilage of a described building permitted the search of an automobile parked on the driveway of the premises to be searched.
The fifth district in State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (1982),* upheld the search of a vehicle that was parked in the yard of the premises described in the warrant and was owned by a visitor to the residence. The basis for upholding the search of the vehicle in Haugee was that the warrant expressly authorized search of any vehicles within the yard and curtilage of the dwelling. More recently, the fifth district reaffirmed its decision in Haugee in Richardson v. State, 547 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), under virtually identical circumstances. In neither Haugee nor Richardson did the court require any reasonable connection between the search of the vehicle and the association of the vehicle's owner with the illicit activity within the residence.
Consistent with this court’s decision in Musselwhite and the fifth district’s decisions in Haugee and Richardson, we reverse the trial court’s suppression of the evidence found in Booream’s automobile, because Booream’s vehicle was parked on the driveway of the premises which were the subject of a search warrant that expressly permitted the search of vehicles within the curtilage.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. *
We recognize that the first district in Miller v. State, 516 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), has reached a result contrary to Haugee and has certified conflict with the Haugee decision to the supreme court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bergeron v. State, 583 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…on where the issuing magistrate, based upon the affidavit, issued a [*792] search warrant authorizing search of persons within the curtilage. Had the affidavit and warrant so stated, the result we reach may have been different. Cf. State v. Booream, 560 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (search warrant authorizing the search of the dwelling and curtilage and any buildings and vehicles thereon authorized the search of defendant’s automobile parked on the driveway of the premises); State v. Musselwhite, 402 So. 2d…
-
State v. Quillis Lee Freeman, Jr., 673 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…s court and other courts have not required a nexus between any vehicle found on the property and the alleged illegal activity when the search warrant authorizes the police to search any vehicle within the curtilage of the premises. State v. Booream, 560 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Richardson v. State, 547 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. den., 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982); but see Miller v. State, 516 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Given that the au…
-
Howard v. State, 59 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…State v. Freeman, 673 So. 2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), for the proposition that no “nexus between any vehicle found on the property and the alleged illegal activity” was required when the search was authorized by the warrant); State v. Booream, 560 So. 2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding same). Because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the search of the vehicle incident to Mr. Howard’s arrest and because the search fell within the scope of the warrant, the circuit court d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Musselwhite, 402 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Miller v. State, 516 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Richardson v. State, 547 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)