Rebello v. State

Decision Date22 November 2000
Docket NumberNo. 4D99-2754.,4D99-2754.
Citation773 So.2d 579
PartiesAntonio REBELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Siobhan Helene Shea, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jan E. Vair, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Rebello timely appeals after pleading no contest to possession of cocaine. In pleading no contest, he specifically reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress as being legally dispositive. We reverse his conviction and sentence.

At the suppression hearing, the state showed that police received information that Rebello was supplying cocaine from a motel room. Officers then went to Rebello's motel room and knocked on the door. Rebello opened the latched door slightly. Because of the latch, the door was only able to be open two to three inches. One of the officers, Fuller, announced to Rebello that he was a police officer.

Rebello then ran to the bathroom. Fuller could not see into the bathroom through the slightly opened door, but testified that as soon as Rebello went to the bathroom, he could hear the toilet being flushed and the shower start to run. Fuller then kicked open the door and found Rebello kneeling over the toilet as it was flushing with his hand inside it. Fuller recovered cocaine from the base of the toilet. Another officer generally corroborated Fuller's version of events, but testified that the hotel room door was shut before Fuller kicked it open.

Citing Levine v. State, 684 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Rebello argued that as a matter of law there were no exigent circumstances which justified the warrantless search of the hotel room. The court disagreed and denied the motion. It held that sufficient "suspicious" activities that were occurring inside the room, i.e., the toilet flushing and the shower being turned on, supported that illegal activity was occurring and justified the search.

Rebello then pled no contest, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Because Rebello had already served time greater than that recommended by the guidelines, the court sentenced him to time served.1 This appeal followed.

The sole issue in this case is whether the warrantless search of Rebello's hotel room was justified. Even when they have probable cause, police officers may not enter a dwelling2 without a warrant absent consent or exigent circumstances. Levine, 684 So.2d at 904 (citation omitted). Police may not create exigent circumstances by their own conduct. Id. (citation omitted).

Rebello maintains that because Fuller and the other officers created the exigency in this case, under Levine they could not enter his hotel room without a warrant. In Levine, police officers learned that Levine was selling drugs from a motel room. They and an informant went to Levine's motel room, where the informant agreed to make a buy. After knocking on the door, and hearing a response from inside, the informant said "it's me, let me have another twenty piece." He then stepped in front of the window, so Levine, who was inside, could see him. Upon seeing the informant, Levine opened the door. As soon as the door opened, a police officer stepped into view and identified himself as a sheriff's deputy. Levine looked at the deputy and slammed the door. Police then broke the door down and found drugs in plain view.

Levine moved to suppress the drugs, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Levine argued no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search. The state countered that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Diaz v. State Of Fla.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 19, 2010
    ...based on generalizations about drugs and guns are not enough to create an exigent circumstance. Id. at 1139-40. In Rebello v. State, 773 So.2d 579, 579-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the defendant was supplying cocaine from his motel room. When an officer knocked on his door and announced he was a......
  • Alfa Life Insurance Corporation v. Jackson, No. 1001854 (AL 5/7/2004), 1001854.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 7, 2004
    ... ... 12th ed. 1994) (emphasis added) ...         In Williamson , supra ; Stringfellow v. State Farm Life Insurance Co. , 743 So. 2d 439 (Ala. 1999); and DeArman v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. , 786 So. 2d 1090 (Ala. 2000), the ... ...
  • Lee v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2003
    ...time that would have reasonably led the officers to believe that they were trying to destroy evidence or escape. See Rebello v. State, 773 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Levine, 684 So.2d at 904; State v. Clarke, 242 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Berryman v. State, 368 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th ......
  • Rozzo v. State , s. 4D09–3913
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2011
    ...639 (1980). Absent consent or exigent circumstances, police officers may not enter a dwelling without a warrant. Rebello v. State, 773 So.2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). A protective sweep is a “quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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