GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Bamber, 630 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)
  …this case.” Ker, 374 U.S. at 40, 83 S.Ct. at 1634. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal eschewed the particularity approach in favor of the blanket approach in the key case of State v. Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 112 (Fla.1971). There, the district court used a two-step analysis. First, it expanded the four Bene-field exceptions noted above to include a fifth, the so-called Clarke exception: The knock-and-announce rule may be dispensed with in situations not jus…
• State v. Detlefson, 335 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
  …h of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon. E. g., People v. Bradley, 1 Cal.3d 80, 81 Cal.Rptr. 457, 460 P. 2d 129 (1969). See also State v. Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla.App.4th, 1971), cert. den. 246 So. 2d 112 (Fla.1971). The officer’s identification of the marijuana at close range, together with his prior observation that the plants so identified were periodically removed from and returned to the porch, supplied an adequate basis for the issuance of a wa…
• State v. Robinson, 565 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
  …ral exigent circumstances are recognized as conditions under which the police need not comply with the knock-and-announce requirements. Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964); State v. Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 112 (Fla.1971). In this case, however, the state did not present evidence which established any exception. Two possible exceptions warrant comment. First, the state did not present evidence that the deputies reasonably believed that this search involve…

Authorities Cited

• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 242 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)