STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD BYRON DETLEFSON, 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 appealed the suppression of marijuana and drug paraphernalia seized under a search warrant. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that a police officer's warrantless entry onto a front porch to examine suspicious plants was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and provided adequate basis for warrant issuance.
The warrantless entry onto the front porch did not violate Fourth Amendment standards because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a front porch where delivery persons and others were free to observe, and the officer's examination of plants already visible from the street was a permissible investigative step. The officer's close-range identification of the marijuana, combined with observations of the plants being periodically removed and returned to the porch, provided adequate basis for warrant issuance.
[1] An officer's entry onto the front yard and porch of a dwelling to investigate suspected contraband visible from the street does not violate Fourth Amendment standards.
[2] A defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband plainly visible on the front porch of their home.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 entry into the yard and onto the porch to identify suspected contraband plainly visible in less detail from the street did not violate Fourth Amendment standards.”
Establishes that warrantless entry onto front porch for investigative purposes is permissible when examining visible contraband.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed two marijuana plants on the front porch of defendant's home, initially alerted by an informant of undemonstrated reliability…
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 Fourth Amendment Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
The State appeals from an order suppressing drugs and drug paraphernalia seized pursuant to a warrant held insufficient by Fourth Amendment standards. We reverse.
The affidavit on which the warrant was issued recited that patrolman Fouty had observed two marijuana plants on the front porch of the specified dwelling house on September 30, 1975, after observing the plants “on the porch at certain times and not visible at certain times” for approximately two weeks. His attention was initially called to the plants by an informant whose reliability was not demonstrated and is not here relied on by the State.1 Patrolman Fouty’s testimony revealed that he entered the yard and front porch of the premises on suspicion derived from the informant’s tip and his own inconclusive identification from the street, and that he positively identified the growing marijuana only on approaching it closer. The informer’s tip provided patrolman Fouty with only a suspicion that the growing material on appellant’s porch was marijuana. But that suspicion, coupled with his own observations, justified crossing the yard to look closer. The entry into the yard and onto the porch to identify suspected contraband plainly visible in less detail from the street did not violate Fourth Amendment standards. State v. Belcher, 317 So. 2d 842 (Fla.App.2d, 1975); Boim v. State, 194 So. 2d 313 (Fla.App.3d, 1967).
It cannot be said the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch 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 warrant. Cf. Howell v. State, 333 So. 2d 491 (Fla.App.1st, 1976).
REVERSED.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur. . An affidavit otherwise sufficient is not tainted by reference to an inadequate tip by an informant. State v. Smith, 233 So. 2d 396, 398 (Fla.1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981)…ate the neighborhood complaint, he was not infringing upon respondent’s privacy. Under Florida law it is clear that one does not harbor an expectation of privacy on a front porch where salesmen or visitors may appear at any time. State v. Detlefson, 335 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State v. Belcher, 317 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). However, the backyard of a residence is more private because passersby cannot generally view this area. In Pixel v. Wainwright, 492 F. 2d 480 (5th Cir. 1974), this concept was…
-
State v. Rabb, 920 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…an open field through which the officer passed to get to the threshold front door”); Koehler v. State, 444 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (determining that an unenclosed front porch is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment); State v. Detlefson, 335 So. 2d 371, 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (“It cannot be said that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front porch of his home where, presumably, delivery men and others were free to observe the plants thereon.”). Nothing, then, prohibited the…
-
State v. Joelis Jardines, 9 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…te the neighborhood complaint, he was not infringing upon respondent’s privacy. Under Florida law it is clear that one does not harbor an expectation of privacy on a front porch where salesmen or visitors may appear at any time. State v. Detlef-son, 335 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State v. Belcher, 317 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Our decision that this officer was lawfully present at defendant’s door is likewise consistent with Potts v. Johnson, 654 So. 2d 596, 597-98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Potts was a p…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perseo v. State, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- State v. Smith, 233 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1970)
- Marx Daniel Boim and Clorinda A. Boim v. State, 194 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- State v. Belcher, 317 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 246 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1971)
- Nizzo v. Amoco OIL Co., 333 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)