Britt v. State, No. 95-2273

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MINER and MICKLE, JJ., and SMITH
Citation673 So.2d 934
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly D1226 Anita Evette BRITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 95-2273
Decision Date20 May 1996

Page 934

673 So.2d 934
21 Fla. L. Weekly D1226
Anita Evette BRITT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-2273.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
May 20, 1996.

Page 935

Nancy Daniels, Public Defender; David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Douglas Gurnic, Assistant State Attorney, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us for review of a trial court order denying appellant's motion to suppress. Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, reserving her right to appeal denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized by a police officer after a warrantless entry into her home while pursuing another individual who did not reside in appellant's home. We find the denial of the motion to suppress was error, and reverse.

The facts are not in dispute. Members of the Pensacola Police Department converged on an apartment complex in the city to serve outstanding arrest warrants on eight to ten young, black men. Among those participating in this action was Police Officer Sievers, who travelled to the location in a van with other officers. The officers were advised that the warrants were for the arrest of eight to ten young, black males who were known to deal in cocaine from the front of a particular apartment building. All the officers were instructed that, upon arrival in front of the apartment building, they were to determine the identity of any suspect in the area and to stop anyone who tried to "flee."

Sievers was the first officer to exit the van and immediately saw a group of young, black males and females in front of the apartment building. Sievers' attention was drawn to Darrell Roy Lewis, when Lewis stood up among the group and looked straight at him, and because, as Sievers later testified, "[h]e looked like he was going to do something." Sievers identified himself as a police officer and told everyone to stay where they were. Lewis did not comply, but instead, according to Sievers, ran into the apartment building. Sievers pursued Lewis, entered appellant's apartment, and discovered Lewis in a hallway inside the apartment. As he was arresting Lewis, Sievers observed appellant pick up some marijuana and money from atop a freezer located in the hallway and attempt to conceal those items beneath her dress. Sievers instructed appellant to put the marijuana and money down, and she complied. After being advised of her rights, appellant stated that Lewis did not live in the apartment, but that he had earlier left some drugs there.

At the suppression hearing, Sievers testified that he did not know Lewis, and that he had not been involved in making or supervising any of the undercover drug purchases for which the arrest warrants had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • People v. Wardlow, No. 1-96-0094
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 1997
    ...Holmes, 81 N.Y.2d 1056, 619 N.E.2d 396, 601 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1993), Hopkins v. State, 661 So.2d 774 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla.App.1996), and State v. Hicks, 241 Neb. 357, 488 N.W.2d 359 (1992) (flight from police officers in high crime area does not justify stop).......
  • Alexander v. State, No. 96-0606
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 7, 1997
    ...1992); Palmer v. State, 625 So.2d 1303, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Daniels v. State, 543 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA The Florida Supreme Court in Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993), reversed a conviction where a defendant's furtive moveme......
  • Ingraham v. State, No. 2D00-2097.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 8, 2002
    ...is without merit because the plain view doctrine only applies when law enforcement is lawfully on the premises searched. Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA...
3 cases
  • People v. Wardlow, No. 1-96-0094
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 1997
    ...Holmes, 81 N.Y.2d 1056, 619 N.E.2d 396, 601 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1993), Hopkins v. State, 661 So.2d 774 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla.App.1996), and State v. Hicks, 241 Neb. 357, 488 N.W.2d 359 (1992) (flight from police officers in high crime area does not justify stop).......
  • Alexander v. State, No. 96-0606
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 7, 1997
    ...1992); Palmer v. State, 625 So.2d 1303, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Daniels v. State, 543 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA The Florida Supreme Court in Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993), reversed a conviction where a defendant's furtive moveme......
  • Ingraham v. State, No. 2D00-2097.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 8, 2002
    ...is without merit because the plain view doctrine only applies when law enforcement is lawfully on the premises searched. Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT