STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DEON A. EDWARD, 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 State appeals a suppression order excluding evidence obtained from an illegal search of the defendant's trashcan on his carport. The court affirmed the suppression, holding that because police acquired knowledge of incriminating evidence through the illegal search and the State failed to prove an exception to the exclusionary rule applied, the evidence was properly excluded.
The court affirmed the suppression order, holding that the State failed to establish that the evidence would have been discovered absent the knowledge gained from the illegal trashcan search. Although police had knowledge of the trash's contents from the illegal search, the State did not prove that officers would have legally searched the garbage when it was placed curbside without that prior illegal knowledge.
[1] Evidence discovered as a direct or indirect result of a Fourth Amendment violation is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.
[2] The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine may be overcome if the state demonstrates the evidence was discovered through an independent source.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained directly or indirectly from a violation of the fourth amendment is not admissible against an accused at trial.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle governing exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers investigating a homicide went to Edward's residence to interview him. Finding no one home, a detective lifted the trashcan lid on the carport…
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 Attenuation Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals an order suppressing physical evidence and inculpatory statements made by appellee, Deon A. Edward, which were obtained after officers executed a search warrant of Edward’s residence and a subsequent arrest warrant. Because the incriminating evidence against Edward was discovered when officers illegally searched Edward’s trashcan on the carport of his home, and the State failed to establish that, absent the knowledge gained from this illegal search, the officers would have legally searched the garbage when it was placed curbside, we affirm.
Littleton McNeil was shot and killed August 29, 2007. Edward was a person of interest in the subsequent homicide investigation. Detectives went to his residence to interview him. As the trial court found, “they arrived with no intention to search the trash at the home.” However, upon finding no one at the home and being uncertain if the home was occupied, one of the detectives lifted the trashcan lid to see if there was trash. Inside were shoes and a garment that appeared bloodied. The detectives did not immediately seize the items, but waited until the trash was taken to the curb in the public right-of-way. Thereafter, the bloodied items and a black carry-on bag were seized from the trash. The evidence which was retrieved was cited in the applications for the search warrant and arrest warrant which were subsequently issued.
The State concedes that the initial search of the trashcan on Edward’s carport was illegal. Nevertheless, the State argues that, when the trashcan was placed on the street for collection, the contents therein were abandoned and Edward had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash.
The State’s argument, however, ignores the fact that the police acquired knowledge of the contents of the trash illegally, and the State never introduced evidence that, without this knowledge, officers would have nonetheless searched the trashcan.
The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained directly or indirectly from a violation of the fourth amendment is not admissible against an accused at trial. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The harsh consequences of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine are ameliorated by three crucial exceptions. A court may admit such evidence if the state can show that (1) an independent source existed for the discovery of the evidence, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in the course of a legitimate investigation, Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); or (3) sufficient attenuation existed between the challenged evidence and the illegal conduct, Wong Sun ....
State v. Griffith, 500 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Here, *612the trial court found that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that any of these exceptions apply.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
June v. State, 131 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…34 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). Under the exclusionary rule created by the United States Supreme Court, “[e]vidence obtained directly or indirectly from a violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment is not admissible against an accused at trial.” State v. Edward, 25 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing State v. Griffith, 500 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that there are three levels of encounters between citizens and law enforcement that determine whether Fourth Amendm…
-
Faith v. State, 45 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…charge. In support of her motion, appellant argued that both the pills and the behavior that formed the basis of the resisting charge were “fruits of the poisonous tree” stemming from her illegal arrest and thus inadmissible. See State v. Edward, 25 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); [*934] Jackson v. State, 1 So. 3d 273, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Without making any supporting factual findings, the trial court concluded that the post-arrest search and what it revealed were legal, and denied the motion to supp…
Authorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1920)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. Griffith, 500 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)