State v. Rabb
Decision Date | 23 June 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 4D02-5139.,4D02-5139. |
Citation | 881 So.2d 587 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James RABB, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Claudine M. LaFrance, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles Wender of Charles Wender Attorney-at-Law, Chartered, Boca Raton, for appellee.
The State appeals the trial court order granting James Rabb's1 motion to suppress. James Rabb was charged with possession of Alprazolam (Xanex), possession of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and possession of cannabis (marijuana). Rabb moved to suppress the drugs recovered from his house pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant had been issued based on a "dog sniff" at the exterior of Rabb's house by a canine trained to detect the odor of marijuana. The trial court granted Rabb's motion to suppress, and the State appeals. We affirm.
We take our facts directly from the Affidavit and Application for a Search Warrant:
Based on this affidavit, a search warrant was issued for Rabb's house. When law enforcement entered the house, it discovered a cannabis grow operation and sixty-four cannabis plants. Additionally, a safe was discovered containing two MDMA tablets, Alprazolam tablets, and three cannabis cigarettes. The safe also contained a key to one of the grow rooms and Rabb's Social Security card and birth certificate, which presumably identified him as James Rabb and not John Brown. Based on the evidence recovered from Rabb's house, he was charged by information with possession of the controlled substance Alprazolam, possession of the controlled substance MDMA, and possession of cannabis in an amount of twenty grams or less.
Rabb filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his house, asserting that the dog sniff at the exterior of his house was an illegal search, and thus, there was no probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for Rabb's house.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress, recognizing the question of "whether it is violative of the Fourth Amendment to conduct a dog sniff of a private residence in order to obtain probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant," to be one of first impression in Florida. It should be noted that this question was addressed in the context of the trial court's factual finding that "Taranu took Chevy to the front door of the residence where the dog alerted."2 Considering United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir.1985), as persuasive precedent, the trial court concluded that the use of the dog sniff of Rabb's house amounted to a warrantless search and could not support the issuance of the subsequent search warrant for Rabb's house. The trial court then undertook to determine whether there was sufficient lawfully obtained evidence to establish probable cause to obtain a search warrant for Rabb's house without the dog sniff, and concluded that there was not where "[t]here was no indicia of a marijuana grow house, i.e., covered windows, high pedestrian traffic, higher than normal use of electricity, etc.," the informant's veracity was not established in the affidavit, and the marijuana in Rabb's car did not establish any illegal activities in his house.
"The standard of review applicable to a motion to suppress evidence requires that this Court defer to the trial court's factual findings but review legal conclusions de novo." Backus v. State, 864 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(citing Batson v. State, 847 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Under the lockstep approach of Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures "shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court."
The question raised in this case is whether a dog sniff at the exterior of a house is a search under the Fourth Amendment. In order to be classified as a search, law enforcement conduct must violate a "`constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.'" California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986)(quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)(Harlan, J., concurring)). Furthermore, as Justice Harlan pointed out in his concurring opinion in Katz: Katz, 389 U.S. at 361, 88 S.Ct. 507.
When considering whether law enforcement activity at a house constitutes a search, it is necessary to consider the constitutional protections afforded a house throughout the long history of the Fourth Amendment. At the center of the Fourth Amendment stands "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). In fact, "the `physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.'" Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)(quoting United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972)). The Fourth Amendment operates to draw "a firm line at the entrance to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jones
...Silverman, supra at 510, 512, 81 S.Ct. 679. 2. This was the Rabb court's second opinion in the matter. Its first opinion, State v. Rabb, 881 So.2d 587 (Fla.App., 2004), was vacated by the United States Supreme Court and remanded for further consideration in light of Caballes, supra. Florida......
-
State v. Jardines
...the Court has, for now, decided to leave the issue open. In 2004, the Fourth District issued its initial decision in State v. Rabb, 881 So.2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which it held that a warrant is required for a dog sniff at the door of Rabb's house. Id. at 595-96. On the State's petit......
-
State v. Rabb
...opinion on remand and substitute the following opinion in its place in order to both incorporate our initial opinion, State v. Rabb, 881 So.2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), clarify portions of that opinion, and address the specific issue on remand from the United States Supreme The State appeals......
-
Fitzgerald v. State
...United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2nd Cir.1985), State v. Ortiz, 257 Neb. 784, 600 N.W.2d 805 (1999), and State v. Rabb, 881 So.2d 587 (Fl.Dist.Ct.App.2004). We are not persuaded by Ortiz, because the Nebraska Supreme Court's analysis only perfunctorily discussed Place and focused mai......
-
Curbing the Dog: Extending the Protection of the Fourth Amendment to Police Drug Dogs
...to modern developments according to the fundamental principles that the Fourth Amendment embodies."). 128. State v. Rabb (Rabb I), 881 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004), vacated, 544 U.S. 1028 (2005). 129. Id. at 589. 130. Id. 131. Id. 132. Id. 133. Id. at 589-90. But see id. at 590 n.2......
-
§ 6.09 USE OF DOGS AND OTHER "BINARY" INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES TO DISCOVER CONTRABAND
...(Alaska Ct. App. 1991) (dog sniff of the exterior of a commercial building is a search, requiring reasonable suspicion); State v. Rabb, 881 So.2d 587 (Fla. App. 2004) (dog sniff of odors coming from the closed door of a home is a search); State v. Ortiz, 600 N.W.2d 805 (Neb. 1999) (id., dog......
-
§ 6.09 Use of Dogs and Other "Binary" Investigative Techniques to Discover Contraband
...(Alaska Ct. App. 1991) (dog sniff of the exterior of a commercial building is a search, requiring reasonable suspicion); State v. Rabb, 881 So.2d 587 (Fla. App. 2004) (dog sniff of odors coming from the closed door of a home is a search); State v. Ortiz, 600 N.W.2d 805 (Neb. 1999) (id., dog......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...364 (1964), 193 Puffenbarger, State v., 998 P.2d 788 (Or. App. 2000), 118 Quino, State v., 840 P.2d 358 (Haw. 1992) , 118 Rabb, State v., 881 So.2d 587 (Fla. App. 2004), 92 Rabinowitz, United States v., 339 U.S. 56 (1950), 162, 198, 264 Rafay, State v., 222 P.3d 86 (Wash. 2009), 551 Rakas v......