FRANK F. HIGGINBOTHAM, 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.
Appellant Higginbotham challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of his motel room that led to drug convictions. The court held that the warrantless entry was unjustified because police created the exigent circumstances through their own actions rather than responding to pre-existing emergency conditions.
The court held that the warrantless search was unconstitutional because the exigent circumstances were created by the police's own actions rather than existing independently. A warrantless entry is not justified when law enforcement has generated the exigent circumstances through their deliberate conduct.
[1] A warrantless entry into a constitutionally protected area, such as a motel room, is not justified when law enforcement officers create the exigent circumstances by their…
[2] Probable cause alone is insufficient to support a warrantless search of a dwelling or motel room; if time exists to obtain a warrant, law enforcement must do so absent an…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“probable cause itself is not sufficient to support a warrantless search of a constitutionally protected area like a dwelling or motel room”
Establishes the fundamental principle that probable cause alone cannot justify warrantless searches of protected spaces
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted a warrantless search of Higginbotham's motel room, which resulted in drug evidence being seized and used to convict him of drug offen…
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 Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized in the warrantless search of his motel room, which resulted in convictions for drug offenses. He contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the motel room, based on the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement, where the circumstances were very similar to those presented in Gnann v. State, 662 *829So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), Levine v. State, 684 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Rebello v. State, 773 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and State v. Garcia, 866 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). He asserts that the possibility that illegal drugs might be destroyed did not exist until the police, through an informant, knocked on the motel room door, and that a warrantless entry is not justified when the actions of the police have created the exigent circumstances. We agree.
As in Levine, we are bound by the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Hornblower v. State, 351 So.2d 716, 718-19 (Fla.1977), which held that “probable cause itself is not sufficient to support a warrantless search” of a constitutionally protected area like a dwelling or motel room; that “if time to get a warrant exists, the enforcement agency must use that time to obtain the warrant,” absent an exception to the warrant requirement; and that “[l]aw enforcement officers may not sit and wait as here (when they could be seeking a warrant), then utilize their self-imposed delay to create exigent circumstances.” See also, Lee v. State, 856 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
The order denying the motion to suppress is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DAVIS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McRAE, 194 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…was injured or to render first aid. Based upon the evidence'as presented there was no evidence of any exigent circumstance, other than an exigency created by law enforcement. This Court is bound by the principles announced in Higginbotham v. State, 17 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Lee v. State, 856 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) and Vasquez v. State, 870 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The evidence seized in the motel room, any Defendant statement and any subsequent search of the vehicle using that informa…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1977)
- Gnann v. State, 662 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- LEE v. State, 856 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Levine v. State, 684 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- State v. Garcia, 866 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Wilson v. Zambito, 773 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)