Nank v. State, 80-2318.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-2318.,80-2318. |
| Citation | 406 So.2d 1282 |
| Parties | Gary Leroy NANK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Thor White, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia following the execution of a search warrant at his home. He contends on appeal that the evidence seized should have been suppressed because the officers violated Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1979) when executing the search warrant. We agree and reverse.
The evidence was undisputed that the police officers opened an unlocked screen door and stepped into the house without first knocking and giving notice of their authority and purpose as required by section 933.09. See Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1964). Failure to follow this procedure renders the search illegal. This is so even where, as here, the state contended at the suppression hearing that appellant would have attempted to dispose of the contraband if the officers announced their presence, since no evidence was introduced to support this contention. State v. Collier, 270 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Accordingly, we hold that it was error for the trial court to deny appellant's motion to suppress. Appellant's judgment and sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia and the order placing him on probation for possession of marijuana are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with instructions to discharge appellant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...(police forcibly entered where they pushed open a screen door that came unlatched when they knocked); Nank v. State, 406 So.2d 1282 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (police forcibly entered where they opened an unlocked screen door). Most jurisdictions require an express announcement by police of the......
-
State v. Robinson, 89-02133
...unlocked screen door is a breaking which invokes the due notice requirements of section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1987). Nank v. State, 406 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Johnson v. State, 395 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). See also Burden v. State, 455 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review......
-
State v. Lee
...See Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. at 590, 88 S.Ct. at 1758-1759, 20 L.Ed.2d at 834; People v. Marinez, supra; Nank v. State, 406 So.2d 1282, (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981). The State contends that the existence of exigent circumstances, i.e., two young men entering the dwelling in front of the......
-
State v. Valentine
...evidence will be destroyed. See, e.g., State v. DeFiore, supra; United States v. Levesque (D.N.H.1985), 625 F.Supp. 428; Nank v. State (Fla.App.1981), 406 So.2d 1282; People v. Clark, supra; Commonwealth v. Scalise (1982), 387 Mass. 413, 439 N.E.2d The debate is based upon the Supreme Court......