STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICKEY STEPP AND VICKIE STEPP, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in suppressing evidence obtained from a search warrant executed without exigent circumstances.
Law enforcement executed a search warrant at the Stepps' home after a controlled drug buy, but the affidavit failed to mention weapons present in the …
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
WHATLEY, Judge.
The state challenges a trial court order granting a motion filed by the appellees, Rickey and Vickie Stepp, to suppress evidence of contraband found in their possession. We conclude that the trial court committed no error here and affirm.
The Stepps were charged by information with possession of a controlled substance after a search warrant was executed at their home. Prior to obtaining the warrant, a confidential informant had made a controlled buy of drugs from the Stepps. After the buy, the confidential informant advised law enforcement of a handgun under a seat cushion in the home, as well as the presence of a rifle or a shotgun therein.
Law enforcement deemed execution of the instant warrant to be high risk; however, the affidavit for the search warrant made no mention of weapons in the home. The original police report also failed to indicate the presence of weapons at the Stepps’ residence. Neither the confidential informant nor anyone else indicated that the Stepps had a propensity for violence. The search warrant was executed by the Hillsborough County Emergency Response Team. At the hearing on the Stepps’ motion to suppress, it was stipulated that entry into the Stepps’ home was immediate after law enforcement knocked and announced their presence. Eight deputies ultimately entered the home. Two rifles were found; however, no ammunition for those weapons was recovered.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the execution of the search warrant constituted a no-knock search without exigent circumstances. The search of the Stepps’ home was, therefore, determined to be invalid. The trial court was correct in its analysis. See State v. Bomber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1994); Craft v. State, 638 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Searn Jerome Simmons v. State, 913 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…h was hazardous because confidential informant implied a firearm was present at search location, neither search warrant nor affidavit referred to alleged presence of firearm and confidential informant’s implication was not reliable); State v. Stepp, 661 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (noting that neither original police report, affidavit, or search warrant mentioned weapons in house to be searched; neither confidential informant nor anyone else indicated defendant had propensity for violence). See also Richard…
-
Wilson v. State, 673 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ng.”). A larger “quantity of disposable contraband in a home with standard plumbing” — not that it is clear that the quantity here was larger than 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…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)
- Craft v. State, 638 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)