RATCLIFF

v.

UNITED STATES; GIPSON V. ROSENBERG ET AL.; KUBAT V. ILLINOIS, IN RE GRAY, MRAOVIC V. LYNAUGH, INTERIM DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARTIN V. PEREZOUS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (28 total)

• LEE v. State, 856 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
  …red; and (5) a likelihood that delay could cause the escape of the suspect or the destruction of essential evidence, or jeopardize the safety of officers or the public. See United States v. Standridge, 810 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1072, 107 S.Ct. 2468, 95 L.Ed.2d 877 (1987). The officers in the instant appeal claimed to have been concerned that they might lose control over Dumas and the other suspects. Because Dumas had traveled to the motel in his own vehicle, the officers feare…
• Warfield Raymond Wike, Jr. v. State, 596 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1992)
  …tine felony arrest, absent exigent circumstances. We find that the facts in this case comply with the exigent circumstances standard as explained by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Standridge, 810 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1072, 107 S.Ct. 2468, 95 L.Ed.2d 877 (1987), in which it stated: Exigent circumstances do not necessarily involve “hot pursuit” of a fleeing criminal. Factors which indicate exigent circumstances include: (1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense…
• Kendrick Herring v. State, 168 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
  …od that delay could cause the escape of the suspect or the destruction of essential evidence, or jeopardize the safety of officers or the public. Id. at 1136-37 (citing to United States v. Standridge, 810 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1072, 107 S.Ct. 2468, 95 L.Ed.2d 877 (1987)). Here, the suspect was to be charged with murder and attempted murder. Law enforcement officers had á reasonable belief that the suspect was armed because they did not recover a firearm from the scene of the…