State v. Gansz, 73--976
| Decision Date | 19 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--976,73--976 |
| Citation | 297 So.2d 614 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Fredrick George GANSZ et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and H. Bryant Sims, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Kenneth J. Scherer, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellees, Patricia C. Gansz and Peter G. Glynn.
Martin Luther Haines, III, of Haines & Penrose, North Palm Beach, for appellee, Fredrick George Gansz.
The appellant, State of Florida, files this interlocutory appeal from an order granting the motion to suppress evidence by appellee, Fredrick George Gansz. We affirm.
On July 24, 1972 the appellee-defendant, Fredrick George Gansz, pled guilty to the crime of possession of marijuana in excess of five grams, a felony. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed Mr. Gansz on probation for three years.
Between 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on March 27, 1973, Mr. Gansz's probation officer received an anonymous telephone call. The caller inquired of the probation officer if he was Mr. Gansz's supervisor, and then stated: The anonymous caller then hung up.
At 10 p.m. on March 27, 1973 the probation officer decided to go to Gansz's house and took with him two other probation officers and police officers of the West Palm Beach Police Department. The police were instructed by Mr. Gansz's probation officer to remain outside the dwelling. The probation officer knocked on the door of the Gansz house. A male visitor answered the door and said that Mr. Gansz was asleep. Mr. Gansz's probation officer asked the visitor to awaken Mr. Gansz. The visitor then left the door open and went to awaken Mr. Gansz.
Mr. Gansz's probation officer and the other two probation officers then proceeded to walk into the living room through the open door. Mr. Gansz appeared in the living room and was told by his probation officer, Mr. Gansz replied, 'Sure, man, I am going to sleep.'
The ensuing search of the Gansz residence by the probation officers uncovered marijuana in a vegetable bin in the refrigerator. At this point, Mr. Gansz's probation officer invited the police into the house to identify the substance found in the vegetable bin. Additional marijuana was found in other locations in the dwelling.
Thereafter, Mr. Gansz was charged with possession of marijuana in excess of five grams. Prior to trial, Mr. Gansz moved the court to suppress the evidence identified as marijuana which the state sought to use at the trial. After hearing argument on the motion, the trial court entered an order granting Mr. Gansz's motion to suppress. It is from this order that the state files this interlocutory appeal.
The state adopts a two-pronged attack against the trial court's order. First, the state insists that Mr. Gansz's status as a probationer precluded him from protection granted under the fourth amendment.
The fourth amendment puts a restraint on the arm of the government and prevents it from invading the sanctity of a man's home or his private quarters except under safeguards calculated to prevent oppression and abuse of authority. The fourth amendment exempts no branch of government from the commandment that 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Its protecting arm extends to all alike, worthy and unworthy, without distinction. 'Rights intended to protect all must be extended to all, lest they so fall into desuetude in the course of denying them to the worst of men as to afford no aid to the best of men in time of need.' Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Velasquez
...382 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.1978); State v. Fogarty, Mont., 610 P.2d 140 (1980); State v. Gansz, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614 (1974); State v. Cullison, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 533 (1970). We decline to do so because that rule is not, in our view, consonant with ......
-
State v. Short, 12–1150.
...that the protective arm of article I, section 8 “extends to all alike, worthy and unworthy, without distinction.” State v. Gansz, 297 So.2d 614, 616 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974). As noted by Justice Murphy many years ago, Rights intended to protect all must be extended to all, lest they so fall i......
-
State v. Caron
...See, Martin v. United States, 1950, 4 Cir., 183 F.2d 436, 439, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 904, 71 S.Ct. 280, 95 L.Ed. 654; State v. Gansz, 1974, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614. Violation of probation is not a criminal offense in itself. The power to suspend execution of sentence imposed upon one convi......
-
State v. Means
...82; Tamez v. State, (Tex.Cr.App.1976), 534 S.W.2d 686, 692; People v. Peterson, (1975), 62 Mich.App. 258, 233 N.W.2d 250; State v. Gansz, (Fla.App.1974), 297 So.2d 614. In Tamez the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals " * * * (W)e conclude that the probationary condition in the instant case is ......