THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD JAY MARR, 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 the trial court's grant of a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search warrant execution. The court reversed, holding that evidence seized by sheriff's officers pursuant to a valid search warrant should not be suppressed merely because code enforcement officers subsequently inspected the premises for code violations after the search warrant had been fully executed.
The court held that evidence seized by the sheriff's officers should not have been suppressed because the code enforcement inspection took place after the search warrant had been fully executed and because the code enforcement inspection did not directly lead to the seizure of the contraband.
[1] Evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant should not be suppressed when code enforcement officers conduct a separate inspection after the execution of the warran…
[2] A subsequent code enforcement inspection, conducted after the execution of a search warrant and seizure of contraband, does not invalidate the initial seizure of contraba…
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“because the code enforcement inspection took place after the search warrant had been fully executed by the Sheriffs Officers and because the code enforcement inspection did not directly lead to the seizure of the contraband, the evidence seized by the Sheriffs Officers should not have been suppressed”
This establishes the court's holding that the temporal separation and lack of causal connection between the code enforcement inspection and seizure of contraband prevents the suppression of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 8, 2010, Monroe County Sheriff's Officers executed a search warrant at defendant's residence and seized marijuana and paraphernalia. During…
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
The State appeals the grant of a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. We reverse.
On October 8, 2010, Monroe County Sheriffs Officers executed a search warrant and seized marijuana and paraphernalia at the defendant’s residence. During the search by the Monroe County Sheriffs Officers, it was noted that there were certain possible code violations in the residence. After the search and seizure of the marijuana and paraphernalia, the officers contacted the Monroe County Code Enforcement Office which sent to the scene Code Enforcement Officers who then seized non-contraband items not related to the criminal conduct and not named in the search warrant.1 The defendant moved to suppress all of the evidence seized by the Sheriffs Officers claiming that the search conducted was invalid due to the subsequent presence of Code Enforcement Officers on the scene. The trial court granted the motion and suppressed all of the evidence. We are in agreement with the State’s position that, because the code enforcement inspection took place after the search warrant had been fully executed by the Sheriffs Officers and because the code enforcement inspection did not directly lead to the seizure of the contraband, the evidence seized by the Sheriffs Officers should not have been suppressed.2 See State v. Vargas, 667 So.2d 175 (Fla.1995); State v. Hill, 980 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Romero v. State, 641 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Morris v. State, 622 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Search Warrant Law Desk Book § 12:2 (Feb. 2012); cf. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the third parties in the home was not in aid of execution of the warrant; not addressing whether the exclusionary rule would apply to any evidence discovered by the media).
The order granting the motion to suppress the evidence is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1999)
- Morris v. State, 622 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- State v. Vargas, 667 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1995)
- Romero v. State, 641 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- State v. John and Jean Hill, 980 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)