State v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 25 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. SC05-1844.,SC05-1844.
• Citation: 948 So.2d 725
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Gregg CAMPBELL, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

948 So.2d 725

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Gregg CAMPBELL, Respondent.

No. SC05-1844.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January 25, 2007.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Fourth District — Case No. 4D04-2442 (Broward County).

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Celia A. Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Monique E. L'Italien, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

Samuel R. Halpern, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review State v. Campbell, 911 So.2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal certifying a question to this Court as one involving great public importance. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. However, during oral argument, the parties conceded that the facts as outlined in the Fourth District's decision are materially different from those depicted in the trial court record. Neither of the parties filed a motion for rehearing with the Fourth District to address these materially disparate facts. We conclude that reviewing a case under such circumstances would place the instant proceeding in the procedural posture of a rehearing. This Court lacks jurisdiction to rehear a decision issued by a district court; therefore, we exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion.

WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurring.

I concur in the decision to exercise our discretion to discharge jurisdiction. The certified question is premised on the assumption that the officer retained Campbell's driver's license and obtained consent to search his car after completing the warrant check. We now know this scenario is inconsistent with the testimony during the suppression hearing. Our discretionary review of district court decisions certifying questions of great public importance under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, is limited to decisions that rule on the questions certified. Salgat v. State, 652 So.2d 815, 815 (Fla.1995). We should not use our certified question jurisdiction to correct errors of fact on which a certified question is based and then compose our own question of great public importance based on the actual facts. Issues involving temporary detentions and warrant checks are reaching us with such frequency that it is unlikely the question certified by the Fourth District will long evade our review. See, e.g., Golphin v. State, 945 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2006); State v. Frierson, 926 So.2d 1139 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 734, 166 L.Ed. 2d 570 (2006); State v. Baez, 894 So.2d 115 (Fla.2004); State v. Diaz, 850 So.2d 435 (Fla.2003). I would prefer to reach that question when it actually comports with the facts.

Further, I strongly disagree with Justice Wells' view that this is a case in which, assuming a Fourth Amendment violation, application of the exclusionary rule would be in question. Justice Wells relies on statements concerning the societal costs of excluding evidence as a penalty for Fourth Amendment violations in Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006), and in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Neither case supports the broad rollback of exclusionary rule jurisprudence suggested in his dissent.

In Leon, the Court held that, subject to several qualifications, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence acquired in reasonable reliance on a search warrant later ruled invalid. 468 U.S. at 921-22, 104 S.Ct. 3405. This is a very narrow exception to the exclusionary rule, one that rests on the "detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, which is a more reliable safeguard than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer." Id. at 913-14, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (quoting United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 9, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977)). This Court has recognized that the Leon "good faith" exception is limited to cases involving search warrants. See State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 564 (Fla.1999) ("The `good faith' exception becomes applicable only upon finding that the affidavit for a search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause.").

In Hudson, the Court declined to apply the exclusionary rule to violations of the "knock-and-announce" rule governing residential search warrants. 126 U.S. at 2165. The Court stated:

[C]ases excluding the fruits of unlawful warrantless searches say nothing about the appropriateness of exclusion to vindicate the interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement. Until a valid warrant has issued, citizens are entitled to shield "their persons, houses, papers, and effects," U.S. Const., Amdt. 4, from the government's scrutiny. Exclusion of the evidence obtained by a warrantless search vindicates that entitlement. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are quite different—and do not include the shielding of potential evidence from the government's eyes.

Id. (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted). Hudson concerned a Fourth Amendment violation in the execution of a valid warrant, and the Court in no way receded from application of the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained without a warrant.

This case involves a warrantless search and seizure, a situation in which evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment remains subject to suppression as "fruit of the poisonous tree" under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), and its progeny. In the absence of a probable cause determination by a detached magistrate, exclusion of evidence continues to vindicate persons' entitlement to the shield against government intrusion provided by the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, I believe Justice Wells is in error in suggesting both that the exclusionary rule can be abandoned in the case of a warrantless search or seizure and that this result would be consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent.

WELLS, J., dissenting.

I do not agree with discharging jurisdiction. There is no question that this Court has jurisdiction since the case is here on a certified question by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

There is likewise no question that the Fourth District was in error as to material facts in the case. As the majority states, the parties agreed at oral argument before this Court that the Fourth District was in error. However, I would not ignore the error and allow the erroneous decision to stand when this Court has jurisdiction to correct it. The fact that neither party filed a motion for rehearing in the Fourth District does not affect this Court's jurisdiction.

The factual error is in the Fourth District's statement:

Campbell handed over his driver's license upon request. While two detectives stayed next to his vehicle, the third conducted a warrant check. The check came back clean, but instead of returning his license and concluding the encounter, one of the detectives asked whether Campbell had any guns or drugs in the vehicle. Campbell replied "no." The detectives then, without first returning the license, asked for consent to search. Campbell consented, and a firearm was found in the car.

State v. Campbell, 911 So.2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The Fourth District also states, "Here, the state does not offer justification, or articulable suspicion, explaining the deputies' failure to return Campbell's driver's license before seeking and obtaining his consent to search." Id. at 193. The transcript of the testimony at the suppression hearing does not support that the search by the law enforcement officers was after the check came back clean.

The transcript of the testimony was of law enforcement officers Patrick White and Michael Catalano. Campbell did not testify. The testimony was undisputed that Campbell consented to giving to the officers his identification, consented to the officers doing a warrant check using his driver's license, which he had given as identification, that he consented to the officers doing a search of the vehicle while the warrant check was being done, and that the search which uncovered the weapon was while the warrant check was being done. The testimony by Officer Catalano was:

Q Describe for the Court accurately as possible exact words or terminology you used back in January.

A I believe I said do, do you mind if I see your license and registration.

Q And don't you raise your voice at all?

A No. Just like a friendly conversation.

Q Did you predicate him not giving you his license on anything?

A No. I just asked him. I didn't say anything else but that.

Q In similar tone of voice that you have used here today?

A Yeah.

Q And what was his response to that request?

A Very cooperative. He was no problem. He handed it over to me.

Q And what did you do with the driver's license?

A Once I took it from him I just said I'm going to check you for any warrants, or check your license. He said no problem. I went to the teletype, did so.

Q He said no problem?

A Yeah.

Q What did you do then?

A I checked him on the teletype and waited for response back from them.

Q How long was that?

A A few minutes.

Q When you say a few minutes, like thirty minutes? A minute? Less than five minutes?

A I probably didn't get it back for ten, like five to seven minutes. I will bet three to five minutes.

. . . .

Q While teletype is running did either or any of three of you get consent to search the Defendant's vehicle?

A Yes.

Q Who did that?

A I did. While I got his credentials I told him that I'll run him on the teletype. Then I said hey, while we are waiting do you mind if I check your vehicle for...