Kistner v. State, NN-8
| Decision Date | 06 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. NN-8,NN-8 |
| Citation | 379 So.2d 128 |
| Parties | Steven Erik KISTNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles G. Brackins, of Meldon & Brackins, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
An appeal from convictions on charges of possession of marijuana and paraphernalia. The sheriff found the contraband in appellant's home when executing a warrant for searching the house. The sheriff knocked repeatedly and called out, "Anybody home?", to which there was no reply because his knock and call were not heard by the occupant, appellant's wife. So the sheriff entered. The trial court denied a suppression motion reasoning that if the occupant did not hear the knock and "Anybody home?" call, she would not have heard the sheriff announce his identity and purpose. The state urges that the sheriff's failure to announce his identity and purpose should be excused because that announcement was or seemed futile, and it reasonably appeared to him that no one was home to hear his call. We cannot subscribe to that erosion of Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1964). See Whisnant v. State, 303 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), Cert. den., 323 So.2d 273; Berryman v. State, 368 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Moreno v. State, 277 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); State v. Collier, 270 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1977).
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cable
...officers failed to announce their purpose as required by [section 901.19(1) ], the evidence must be suppressed."); Kistner v. State, 379 So.2d 128, 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (reversing trial court's denial of a motion to suppress where sheriff failed to comply with knock-and-announce statute—......
-
Soto v. State
...breaking in. See Cable v. State, 18 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA2009), approved State v. Cable, 51 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2010); Kistner v. State, 379 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Compare Ealey v. State, 714 So. 2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that "because the officers . . . did not have......
-
Hurt v. State
...160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1964); Earman v. State, 265 So.2d 695 (Fla.1972); Moreno v. State, 277 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Kistner v. State, 379 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). As observed in Benefield v. State, supra, arresting officers must comply strictly with the requirements of Section 901.......
-
Soto v. State
...to breaking in. See Cable v. State, 18 So.3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), approved State v. Cable, 51 So.3d 434 (Fla.2010); Kistner v. State, 379 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Compare Ealey v. State, 714 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that “because the officers ... did not have a ......