DANIEL VANALLEN STAHL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Daniel Stahl appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court reversed, holding that officers executing a search warrant of Stahl's apartment could detain him during the search under Michigan v. Summers, but could not search his person absent probable cause to arrest, which did not exist here since no contraband was found in the apartment.
Officers executing a search warrant have limited authority to detain residents during the search, and if the premises search reveals probable cause to arrest, a search of the person is permissible. However, where no contraband is found in the apartment and there is no probable cause to arrest, a search of the resident's person is impermissible.
[1] A search warrant for a residence authorizes the limited detention of residents present during the execution of the warrant.
[2] A search of a person's person incident to their detention during the execution of a search warrant is permissible only if probable cause to arrest that person arises from…
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“A warrant to search for contraband carries with it the limited authority to detain residents of the premises while the search is conducted. If the premises search results in probable cause to arrest the resident, then a search of the person following arrest is permissible.”
Establishes the general rule allowing detention and conditional search authority under Michigan v. Summers
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 obtained a search warrant to search an apartment where Stahl resided. When officers arrived to execute the warrant, they recognized St…
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
FULMER, Judge.
The defendant, Daniel Vanallen Stahl, appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person. We reverse.
Law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant to search the apartment where Stahl resided. As the officers were executing the warrant, a vehicle in which Stahl and others were riding pulled into the parking lot of the apartment complex. One of the officers present at the scene recog nized Stahl as a resident of the apartment being searched. The officers prevented the vehicle from leaving the parking lot.
A pat-down search of Stahl was conducted in the parking lot and no contraband was found on his person. Stahl was then taken into the apartment where the search warrant was being executed. Stahl was searched again inside the apartment and cocaine was found on his person. Stahl was charged with trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). He entered a plea of no contest, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
A warrant to search for contraband carries with it the limited authority to detain residents of the premises while the search is conducted. If the premises search results in probable cause to arrest the resident, then a search of the person following arrest is permissible. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). In Summers, as in this case, the officers encountered the defendant outside the residence and brought him inside while they searched the premises. However, unlike Summers, no contraband was found in Stahl’s apartment and there was no probable cause to arrest. Thus, the search of Stahl inside the apartment was impermissible.
This court has previously determined that a person’s mere presence at a residence during the execution of a search warrant does not justify a search of that person absent the discovery of something which creates reasonable cause to believe that the person is involved in the criminal activity. Belvin v. State, 585 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Julian v. State, 528 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shannon v. State, 252 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…at issue, and the drugs were found in his car, not on his person. Thus, even if Summers justified the detention of Shannon during the search of the motel rooms, Summers did not give the officers authority to search his vehicle. See Stahl v. State, 634 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ("A warrant to search for contraband carries with it the limited authority to detain residents of the premises while the search is conducted. If the premises search results in probable cause to arrest the resident, then a se…
-
D.M.D. v. State, 798 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…thereon. The officers had no information indicating the residence in question was Appellant’s premises, and Appellant did not act in such a way as to give the officers reasonable cause to believe he was involved in criminal activity. Stahl v. State, 634 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Under these circumstances, “[m]ere presence cannot supply the reasonable connection to the illegal activity.” Bergeron, 583 So. 2d at 791. Accordingly, the search of Appellant is illegal, and the motion to suppress should have be…
Authorities Cited
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (U.S. 1981)
- Julian v. State, 528 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Belvin v. State, 585 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)