WALTER MEECE, 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.
Walter Meece appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the shotgun found during a warrantless search. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officers' search of the sofa exceeded the scope of consent and was not justified as a protective sweep.
The court held that the search of the sofa cushions was not justified because no arrest was occurring, no exigent circumstances existed, no search warrant was obtained, and the search clearly exceeded the scope of consent given. The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
[1] A protective sweep is a search for individuals only, used incident to an arrest, and is limited to spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack c…
[2] A search of a sofa cushion is not justified as a protective sweep when no arrest is taking place and it is unlikely an individual would be hiding there.
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“Protective sweeps are searches for individuals only, used incident to an arrest, which allow officers to "look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched."”
Establishes the limited scope of protective sweeps doctrine and why it did not apply here
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 28, 1997, law enforcement officers arrived at Meece's mobile home seeking a fugitive named Mary Crow. Meece consented to a pat-down and a sea…
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 Protective Sweep cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Meece appeals the judgment imposed pursuant to his plea of no contest to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He specifically challenges the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress, a claim which he expressly reserved for appeal. We reverse.
On the morning of March 28, 1997, law enforcement officers arrived at Meece’s mobile home in search of a fugitive, Mary Crow. Meece informed the officers that Ms. Crow had been at the mobile home the night before, but that she had left. The officers asked if they could pat-down Meece and he stated that they could. The officers asked if they could search for Ms. Crow and Meece consented to the search. The officers initially limited their search to areas in which a person could hide. They did not find Ms. Crow. They asked Meece if he had any weapons on the premises. Meece then voluntarily took the officers to a room in the mobile home in which he kept two antique firearms and he displayed them for the officers. When asked if he had any other weapons, Meece indicated that he did not. The officers, however, had noticed some shotgun shells on a table near the sofa and knew that the shells would not have been used in the antique firearms. Meece was about to sit on the sofa when one of the officers lifted the cushions to discover the shotgun which was the subject of the motion to suppress. The officers justified the further search of the couch as being a “protective sweep.” Protective sweeps are searches for individuals only, used incident to an arrest, which allow officers to “look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” Runge v. State, 701 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
In the present case, no arrest was taking place and it was unlikely that an individual would have been hiding under the cushion of the sofa. Also, no exigent circumstances or search warrants existed to allow the officers to search the home.
Finally, the scope of the search clearly exceeded the consent given.
Thus, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCAULEY v. State, 842 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…in the bedroom. See Runge v. State, 701 So. 2d 1182, 1183-84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that the places searched during a precautionary or protective sweep must be places where a person could reasonably be expected to be); see also Meece v. State, 742 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that a search under the cushions of the defendant’s couch did not constitute a protective sweep); United States v. Ford, 56 F. 3d 265, 271 (D.C.Cir.1995) (holding that a search under a mattress exceeded the scope of…
Authorities Cited
- Runge v. State, 701 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)