STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID CRAYCRAFT, 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 narcotics officers did not need a new warrant to seize evidence observed by initial officers during a lawful entry under exigent circumstances.
Law enforcement officers entered a home without a warrant due to exigent circumstances and observed marijuana and paraphernalia. Narcotics officers ar…
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 Warrantless Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the order granting the defendant’s 'motion to suppress evidence. Law enforcement officers who arrived on the defendant’s premises without a warrant seized the evidence after the end of exigent circumstances which permitted other law enforcement officers lawfully to enter his home without a warrant. The court reasoned that the second set of officers had time to obtain a warrant and failed to do so. We reverse.
Following a neighbor’s report of a burglary in progress, the first set of officers searched the defendant’s residence to see if any burglars remained or if a victim needed assistance. During the search, they observed marijuana and paraphernalia. Neither party disputes the conclusion that their warrantless entry was justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., State v. Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
One of the original officers remained on the scene, staying outside the residence until narcotics officers, whom they called to the scene pursuant to department policy, arrived shortly thereafter. Because the road patrol officers could have legally seized the evidence at that time, the narcotics officers did not need a warrant to continue to exercise the police function which the road patrol officers had begun. The second “entry” was clearly part of one continuous episode. See Allen v. State, 638 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Wooten v. State, 398 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Unlike Anderson v. State, 665 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), where the exigent circumstances had ended prior to the discovery of evidence, the road patrol officers in this case observed the marijuana and paraphernalia during their initial, lawful entry into the home.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 834 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Hence, the police may enter a home to investigate a suspected burglary or to check on the safety of its residents, as those situations are generally considered exigent circumstances. See State v. Craycraft, 704 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Haines, 543 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also Anderson. An entry based on exigent circumstances must be limited in scope to its purpose. Rolling, 695 So. 2d at 293 (citing Anderson). Therefore, the police may h…
-
Young v. State, 207 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…o. 2d 322, 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“Summoning other officers to the scene a reasonable time after entry is made to further investigate is permissible as long as the investigation is considered one continuous episode.”); see also State v. Craycraft, 704 So. 2d 593, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding the warrantless seizure of evidence after the expiration of the exigency was proper when one set of officers lawfully entered a home without a warrant, observed marijuana and paraphernalia while inside the residence…
-
Mestral v. State, 16 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…, the State relies on exigent circumstances, “[t]he burden rests on the State to show the existence of such an exceptional situation.” Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). The State relied on State v. Craycraft, 704 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), State v. Haines, 543 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and State v. Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Those cases are not on point. In Haines, a neighbor called the police about a possible burglary in progress because th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wooten v. State, 398 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 638 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Anderson v. State, 665 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- State v. Mann, 440 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)