Burt v. State, 2D01-4286.
| Citation | 821 So.2d 437 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-4286.,2D01-4286. |
| Parties | Eddie BURT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Brad Permar, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Eddie Burt contends that the cocaine and paraphernalia found on his person during a search incident to his arrest should have been suppressed because no exigent circumstances supported law enforcement's warrantless arrest of him in his home. We agree and reverse.
At the hearing on Burt's motion to suppress, Officer Allister testified that while he was on duty, a woman who was crying and hysterical approached him at about 12:20 a.m. and stated that she had been raped by a man named Eddie several hours earlier. She gave the officer the address where the offense allegedly occurred, as well as a description of the building. The victim told the officer that she had been at the building to purchase crack cocaine. She was hanging out with several others in front of the building and needed to go to the restroom. When she entered the building, Eddie came up to her and indicated he was going to rape her. She tried to push him away but he punched her in the face and knocked out one of her teeth. The officer observed that one of the victim's teeth was missing.
Officer Allister took the victim to have a sexual assault victims' examination, and he was advised that some evidence had been found. He was familiar with Burt and put his photo in a photopak which he presented to the victim for purposes of identifying the perpetrator. She immediately picked out Burt's photo. Based on his interview with the victim, her injuries, and her identification of Burt, Officer Allister believed he had probable cause to arrest Burt. He and his partner proceeded to the address given by the victim, which Officer Allister knew to be a boarding house.
The front door to the boarding house was wide open. The officers walked through that door and were then in a hallway off of which were five or six rooms. The victim had described which room was Burt's, and the officers found that the door to his room was wide open as well. The officers found Burt lying on his bed passed out. Because they could not awaken him, they called paramedics, but Burt came to somewhat before the paramedics arrived. He was handcuffed and advised of the offenses for which he was being arrested. During a search incident to his arrest, the officers found a crack pipe and trace amounts of cocaine on Burt's person.
Officer Allister testified that he did not obtain an arrest warrant because he felt that it was of utmost importance that Burt's room be secured immediately in case word got back to him that the police were looking for him. Also, he was concerned that evidence could be destroyed or lost. However, Officer Allister stated that although some officers were directed to look around the area of the alleged sexual battery for a Tammy and a Mike, witnesses who may have been present at the time of the offense, they did not tell anyone they were looking for Burt.
In denying the motion to suppress, the trial court found that exigent circumstances justified law enforcement's failure to obtain an arrest warrant in that if Burt were not arrested as soon as he woke up, evidence of the rape could be destroyed or lost.
"The Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home for purposes of making a felony arrest unless exigent circumstances are present."1 Gnann v. State, 662 So.2d 406, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)). In order to justify a warrantless entry to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable fear that evidence might be destroyed before they could secure a warrant. United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...must have an objectively reasonable fear that the evidence will be destroyed before a warrant can be obtained. See Burt v. State, 821 So.2d 437, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 156 (7th The facts of the instant case do not show that the officers' fears were ob......
-
Nieves v. State
...were he, for example, just out on the street. See, e.g., Bennett v. State, 46 So. 3d 1181, 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Burt v. State, 821 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, the fact that the police had probable cause to arrest Mr. Nieves for the offense of domestic battery does not, by......
-
McDuffy v. State, 2D02-2580.
...provide officers with exigent circumstances to make a warrantless search of a constitutionally protected area. See Burt v. State, 821 So.2d 437, 438-439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). This case also involved a protective sweep of the home. To support such a search, a police officer must articulate fac......
-
TAMPA BAY 1, LLC v. LORELLO CYPRESS FAMILY LP
... ... the motion and discharged the lis pendens finding that the notice of lis pendens failed to state the time of institution of the action and failed to make a proper statement of the relief sought ... ...