Alvarado v. State, 84-1089
| Decision Date | 27 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1089,84-1089 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 546,466 So.2d 335 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 546, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 880 Henry J. ALVARADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Henry J. Alvarado, was convicted of burglary/assault and sexual battery with physical force likely to cause serious personal injury. He raises five points on appeal, only two of which require discussion.
Alvarado attacks the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The victim in this case, an 82-year old woman who lived in a neighboring apartment, identified Alvarado as her attacker when she spoke Alvarado moved to suppress the evidence procured during the warrantless search and the statements he uttered following his warrantless arrest. The state has urged exigent circumstances to justify the arrest and search--specifically, that one of the officers overheard the victim say that the appellant told her he was planning to leave town; that appellant had used a knife to cut through the screen door of the victim's apartment and therefore he was armed and dangerous; and that appellant could easily destroy evidence by washing blood stains from his clothing.
with the police at the hospital at approximately 11:30 in the evening. This was some hours after the incident, which occurred at about 1:00 that afternoon. In response to the victim's identification, the police went to Alvarado's apartment. They covered the possible exits to prevent escape, and knocked on the doors and windows for about ten minutes. Hearing no answer, they entered the apartment through an open window, awoke the appellant, took him outside where he was placed under arrest, and asked for his consent to search the apartment. Alvarado replied, "I don't care. Go ahead." The arrest and subsequent search occurred at about 3:00 in the morning
Florida's courts have found exigent circumstances to exist in cases where an officer is in peril, escape is likely, or the officer reasonably fears that evidence might be destroyed. Generally, however, exigent circumstances arise only when there is a very short time between the incident giving rise to probable cause and the warrantless entry into the defendant's premises. See Graham v. State, 406 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 403 So.2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Moyer, 394 So.2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In this case, sufficient time elapsed between the officers' conversation with the victim and the arrest of Alvarado for the police to have made at least a minimal attempt to obtain a warrant. The officers did not know when the appellant was supposed to leave town; they had four men covering three exits to the apartment; and the appellant could easily have eradicated bloodstain evidence between the time of the afternoon assault and the arrest early the next morning. The conditions were, indeed, less than exigent. Furthermore, law enforcement officers cannot be permitted to convert self-imposed delay into a circumstance of exigency when the elapsed time is sufficient to seek a warrant. Hornblower v. State, 351 So.2d 716 (Fla.1977); State v. Moyer, 394 So.2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Wilson v. State, 363 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Notwithstanding the illegality of the initial entry into the appellant's apartment, however, the subsequent events rendered the fruits of the search and the appellant's statements to the police admissible. There is no dispute that the officers asked the appellant for permission to search and that consent was granted: When informed that anything found in the apartment could be used against him, the appellant remained mute but, according to one of the policeman, "acted as if he understood." Although consent to search is not valid after an illegal arrest unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...of exigent circumstances, where eight officers were at scene, greatly reducing risk that defendant would escape); Alvarado v. State, 466 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding that no exigent circumstances existed to allow warrantless entry into apartment containing suspect, where four ......
-
Gnann v. State
...did not provide them with exigent circumstances to make a warrantless search of a constitutionally protected area. See Alvarado v. State, 466 So.2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (law enforcement's self-imposed delay in obtaining warrant does not convert to exigent Because the officers failed to ob......
-
Anderson v. State, 86-3147
...2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). As the state did not argue this doctrine in its brief, it cannot raise it on rehearing. Alvarado v. State, 466 So.2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Finally, we reiterate something we have said on numerous occasions. Motions for rehearing should be filed only after care......
-
Alvarado v. State
...672 476 So.2d 672 Alvarado (Henry J.) v. State NO. 66,954 Supreme Court of Florida. AUG 26, 1985 Appeal From: 2d DCA 466 So.2d 335 Pet. for rev. ...