Shepard v. State
Decision Date | 12 May 1975 |
Docket Number | Nos. W--42 and W--136,s. W--42 and W--136 |
Citation | 319 So.2d 127 |
Parties | Readus Roscoe SHEPARD and Geraldine Elizabeth Shepard, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. Randolph Fallin and Edward J. Hopkins, Millar, Fallin & Lally, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' (Constitution of the United States)
(Constitution of the State of Florida)
At approximately 9:30 p.m., January 31, 1974, two Jacksonville policemen met with a confidential informant who advised them that appellants had that day sold some amphetamines in the informant's presence in a motel room which appellants had been occupying for two of three days. The two policemen were joined by a third policeman and immediately went to the named motel where they procured from the manager the number of appellants' 1 room and a passkey. The officers, who were dressed in what they described as casual attire, proceeded to the room occupied by appellants. One of the officers, whose hair style was long, knocked on the motel room door. 2 Appellant, Readus Shepard, opened the door with the night chain in place. The long-haired plainclothes officer identified himself as 'police' whereupon Shepard slammed the door. Within a matter of seconds, the three officers kicked the motel room door open and proceeded to search the bedroom and the bathroom occupied by appellant, Readus Shepard, and his wife, Geraldine. A small quantity of amphetamines were found in the bathroom in Geraldine's possession. The commode in the bathroom was completing a flushing cycle.
Upon the foregoing essential facts, the trial judge denied a timely motion to suppress introduction of the articles obtained as a result of the search into evidence. The officers testified on deposition that:
(R at 76) (Emphasis supplied.)
'. . . We had planned to go there to search the room with consent or without consent.' (Transcript at 87)
To sum up, these officers, in the name of probable cause predicated upon information of an unnamed individual of one sale of amphetamines, during the night kicked appellants' bedroom door open for the sole purpose of conducting a search.
A basic argument submitted by the state as to the reasonableness of the search is that one of the officers testified that during his employment with the Sheriff's office, he had applied for some 50 search warrants and that during working hours, it took some two to three hours to obtain a search warrant. The state then reasons that it would have been impractical to procure a search warrant at this time of night. The absence of efficient administrative machinery on the part of the sovereign does not repeal the constitutional guarantee to a citizen to be secure in his bedroom during the nighttime. The state further argues that the officers at that time of night were apprehensive that appellants might: a) sell the remaining evidence; b) leave their motel room, or c) destroy the evidence. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzalez v. State
...361 So.2d 835 (Fla.1978); Britton v. State, 336 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 326 (Fla.1977); Shepard v. State, 319 So.2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 328 So.2d 845 (Fla.1975); Hannigan v. State, 307 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 315 So.2d 195 (Fla.19......
-
Taylor v. State
...(Fla.1977); Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376, 378 (1921); Britton v. State, 336 So.2d 663 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Shepard v. State, 319 So.2d 127 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Hannigan v. State, 307 So.2d 850 (Fla.1st DCA 1975). "( O)ne of the specifically established exceptions to the requireme......
-
State v. Shaktman, 79-1339
...354 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 888 (Fla.1978); Britton v. State, 336 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Shepard v. State, 319 So.2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 328 So.2d 845 (Fla.1975); Hannigan v. State, 307 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 315 So.2d 195 The ......
-
Miranda v. State
...27, 1977); Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376, 378 (1921); Britton v. State, 336 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Shepard v. State, 319 So.2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Hannigan v. State, 307 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One of the recognized exceptions to the search warrant requiremen......