Salyers v. State, 5D05-818.
| Decision Date | 10 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D05-818.,5D05-818. |
| Citation | 920 So.2d 747 |
| Parties | William Allen SALYERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Terrence E. Kehoe of the Law Offices of Terrence E. Kehoe, Orlando, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
William Allen Salyers appeals from a final judgment and sentence entered after a jury trial in which he was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and hydrocodone, possession of cannabis with intent to sell, possession of over twenty grams of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He alleges that evidence of the crimes was obtained by an illegal search and seizure and that the trial court erred by denying his pre-trial motion to suppress.
On January 7 and 9, 2004, an anonymous telephone caller informed the Orange County Sheriff that drugs were being kept and sold at a residence in Orange County; the address of the residence was also supplied by the informant. The Sheriff did not act on the information until February 26, 2004, when four deputies in civilian attire and carrying side arms arrived at the residence in two unmarked vehicles. The lead deputy knocked on the front door of the residence and Salyers opened it. The deputy identified himself as a law enforcement officer and when questioned, Salyers stated that he resided on the premises. The lead deputy asked if they could enter the residence and discuss a narcotics complaint that they had received, and Salyers allowed them to enter.
Once inside the residence, the deputy asked Salyers if any drugs were present and he responded "not that I'm aware of." When asked again, he said that his girlfriend may have left some cocaine in his bedroom or some friends may have left some marijuana after a party. Salyers then gave permission to search the bedroom and on the way to it closed an open door to another bedroom. When the search of the one bedroom revealed no contraband, Salyers was asked for permission to search the other bedroom where he had closed the door, but he refused and told the deputy that he had to leave for a doctor's appointment.
The deputies then exited the residence, Salyers provided his identification upon request, and consented to the search of his vehicle. That search produced one and one-half methadone pills which were seized because they were not in a proper container. Salyers advised that he had a prescription for the pills and obtained them from a methadone clinic, but was unable to produce the prescription.
One of the deputies noticed a bulge in Salyers' pocket and asked that he remove it. Salyers advised that it was $1200 in cash, but it proved to be $5326 which the officers seized because it was packaged in a manner that caused the deputies to suspect that it was proceeds from the sale of drugs.
Salyers drove away in his vehicle, but one or more of the deputies secured the residence so that no one could enter. A search warrant was then obtained, the residence was searched, and contraband was found in the bedroom with the closed door along with several weapons and Salyers' personal belongings.
Summarizing the affidavit submitted by the deputy applying for the search warrant, we note the following:
1. Salyers voluntarily allowed the deputies to enter his residence.
2. Salyers stated that his girlfriend may have left some cocaine in his room, but did not know exactly where, and some friends may have brought some cocaine and marijuana into the residence.
3. Salyers led the deputy into a bedroom that contained women's clothing, but no men's clothing. He was unable to state exactly where any cocaine was located in the room.
4. Salyers closed the door to a bedroom on the way to the bedroom that was searched.
5. Salyers stated that he had $1200 in his pocket, but pulled out $5326 in multiple bundles of various denominations.
6. The deputies searched Salyers' vehicle and found one and one-half methadone pills, each of which was contained in a separate bag. Salyers stated that he had a prescription, but obtained the pills from a methadone clinic.
7. Salyers' cell telephone number was the same number supplied by two separate anonymous tipsters who generated the visit by the deputies to Salyers' residence.
8. A records check revealed that Salyers had a criminal history of cocaine and cannabis possession.
The Sheriff's initial reason for visiting Salyers' premises was the anonymous telephone calls supplying the address and cell telephone number relating to drug possession and illicit sales that were almost two months stale by the time of the visit. No further information had been gathered between the time of the telephone tips and the visit and we must conclude that at the time the deputies entered the residence, no reasonable suspicion existed that Salyers was then engaged in an illegal activity. See State v. D.D.D., 908 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ().
Salyers argues that the facts in Miller v. State, 865 So.2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) are sufficiently similar to this case as to merit reversal. We need not make that comparison, however, because we view the predicate affidavit submitted to the trial court for a search warrant to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Felix
...the circumstances and a common sense assessment, that evidence of a crime will be found at the place to be searched. Salyers v. State, 920 So.2d 747, 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In order to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant, the affidavit must show: (1) that a particular perso......
-
State Of Fla. v. Sabourin
...nexus element-that evidence relevant to the probable criminality is likely located at the place to be searched. See Salyers v. State, 920 So.2d 747, 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Burnett v. State, 848 So.2d 1170, 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The task of an issuing magistrate, here the count......
-
The state of our trash in Florida: the use of evidence found in residential garbage to establish probable cause to search a citizen's home.
...California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 41 (1988)). (4) Id. (5) Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404, 409 (Fla. 1991). (6) Salyers v. State, 920 So. 2d 747, 749 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (7) Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-239 (1983). (8) Schmitt, 590 So. 2d at 409. (9) State v. Colitto, 929 So. 2d 6......