State v. Edward
| Decision Date | 22 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D08-5032.,1D08-5032. |
| Citation | 25 So.3d 610 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Deon A. EDWARD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Curtis S. Fallgatter and Mark S. Barnett of Fallgatter, Farmand & Catlin, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.
The State appeals an order suppressing physical evidence and inculpatory statements made by appellee, Deon A. Edward, which were obtained after officers executed a search warrant of Edward's residence and a subsequent arrest warrant. Because the incriminating evidence against Edward was discovered when officers illegally searched Edward's trashcan on the carport of his home, and the State failed to establish that, absent the knowledge gained from this illegal search, the officers would have legally searched the garbage when it was placed curbside, we affirm.
Littleton McNeil was shot and killed August 29, 2007. Edward was a person of interest in the subsequent homicide investigation. Detectives went to his residence to interview him. As the trial court found, "they arrived with no intention to search the trash at the home." However, upon finding no one at the home and being uncertain if the home was occupied, one of the detectives lifted the trashcan lid to see if there was trash. Inside were shoes and a garment that appeared bloodied. The detectives did not immediately seize the items, but waited until the trash was taken to the curb in the public right-of-way. Thereafter, the bloodied items and a black carry-on bag were seized from the trash. The evidence which was retrieved was cited in the applications for the search warrant and arrest warrant which were subsequently issued.
The State concedes that the initial search of the trashcan on Edward's carport was illegal. Nevertheless, the State argues that, when the trashcan was placed on the street for collection, the contents therein were abandoned and Edward had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash.
The State's argument, however, ignores the fact that the police acquired knowledge of the contents of the trash illegally, and the State never introduced evidence that, without this knowledge, officers would have nonetheless searched the trashcan.
The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained directly or indirectly from a violation of the fourth amendment is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
June v. State
...directly or indirectly from a violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment is not admissible against an accused at trial.” State v. Edward, 25 So.3d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing State v. Griffith, 500 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that there ar......
-
June v. State
...directly or indirectly from a violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment is not admissible against an accused at trial." State v. Edward, 25 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing State v. Griffith, 500 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that there ......
-
FAITH v. State of Fla.
...of the resisting charge were “fruits of the poisonous tree” stemming from her illegal arrest and thus inadmissible. See State v. Edward, 25 So.3d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); 45 So.3d 934 Jackson v. State, 1 So.3d 273, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Without making any supporting factual findings, the......
-
Search and seizure
...can on the carport was illegal, and he court properly suppressed the evidence and the evidence that flowed from it. State v. Edward, 25 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) Second District Court of Appeal Defendant was arrested at a motel. When officers went to retrieve items the defendant asked ......