CANDACE MENSE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the police's immediate entry into the mobile home without waiting for refusal of admittance violated the knock-and-announce statute and the Fourth Amendment.
Following controlled buys of cocaine, police obtained a search warrant for the defendant's mobile home. Upon executing the warrant, officers knocked, …
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 Search Warrant Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Candace Mense appeals her conviction for possession of cocaine. We reverse.
An undercover police officer made two controlled purchases of crack cocaine from defendant’s mobile home. Each of the two purchases was for a single rock of crack cocaine. Based on these purchases, the police obtained a search warrant. When the police executed the search warrant, they knocked, announced, and within a few seconds, entered the mobile home. They did not wait to be refused admittance, as required by the knock-and-announce statute, section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1991).1 Inside the trailer the officers found cocaine.
Defendant moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the immediate entry did not comply with section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1991), and that the search was unreasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The trial-court denied the motion to suppress. In so doing, the court relied on this court’s then-existing precedent.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court decided State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1994). The court disapproved this court’s decisions in State v. Delasierra, 614 So. 2d 564, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and Armenteros v. State, 554 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).2
It is evident that the entry and search in the present case do not measure up to the exigent circumstances standard set forth in Bamber. We reverse the conviction and remand with directions to grant the motion to suppress, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
. 933.09. Officer may break open door, etc., to execute warrant
The officer may break open any outer door, inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house or anything therein, to execute the warrant, if after due notice of his authority and purpose he is refused admittance to said house or access to anything therein.
. The trial court had relied on Armenteros.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braham v. State, 724 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…nt of time to reasonably conclude that the occupants of the house were refusing them admittance. The record on appeal reveals no reason to disturb that finding. Appellant cites Craft v. State, 638 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and Mense v. State, 632 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), in support of his argument that the officers did not follow proper knock-and-announce procedure under section 939.09, Florida Statutes (1995). However, the facts in those eases were not similar. In those cases, the officers broke…
-
Wilson v. State, 673 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…n the quantity in Bamber — should logically be more, not less, difficult to destroy. See State v. Stepp, 661 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Blest, 647 So. 2d 126,127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“large supply of cocaine” suppressed); Mense v. State, 632 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Hansen v. State, 372 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Officer Peril Exception The majority opinion also addresses important questions about the scope of the officer peril exception to the “knock and announce” requirement.1 Alth…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)
- Armenteros v. State, 554 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Jose Luis Delasierra & Nicholas Rivera, 614 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)