Waldo v. State

Decision Date06 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. 1D06-1877.,1D06-1877.
Citation975 So.2d 542
PartiesDarin Lee WALDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ALLEN, J.

The appellant challenges convictions entered upon jury verdicts at a trial after the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Despite the appellant's assertion that the court should have entered a judgment of acquittal, there was sufficient evidence at trial to submit the case to the jury. But because some of the evidence resulted from an unlawful search and should have been suppressed, the convictions must be reversed.

At a hearing on the motion to suppress it was established that after receiving a tip about criminal activity, sheriff's officers went to the appellant's home and knocked on the front door. When nobody answered the knock at that door, officers went to the side and back of the house and tried to get the occupants to respond at those locations. During this foray into the side and back yard, the officers observed incriminating evidence in the yard. An affidavit for a search warrant was prepared, with a description of those observations. A search warrant issued, and on a subsequent search of the house officers found additional incriminating evidence.

In denying the motion to suppress, the trial court indicated that the officers had a legitimate and lawful reason to be on the property. However, while there was no violation of the appellant's privacy rights when the officers first went to the front door where visitors might be expected, the side and backyard areas are more private and are constitutionally protected. See State v. Morsman, 394 So.2d 408 (Fla.1981); Maggard v. State, 736 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). As Morsman and Maggard indicate, the officers' uninvited and warrantless entry into the side and backyard areas was an unlawful search. And because the officers' observations during the unlawful search may not be used to obtain a warrant for a further search of the property and the house, see Morsman, the evidence resulting from the searches should have been suppressed.

The state argues that the evidence may be received under the good faith doctrine announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). But although a warrant was obtained before the officers entered the house, the officers had already made an unlawful search of the yard outside...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Ware
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 2020
    ...spotted as a consequence of the intrusion should be suppressed.Our court has applied Morsman on various occasions. In Waldo v. State , 975 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), the officers observed incriminating evidence in the side and backyard of a home after their knocking on the front door w......
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 2013
    ...Powell v. State, 120 So.3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Nieminski v. State, 60 So.3d 521, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Waldo v. State, 975 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). Given the consensual nature of the contact, of course, a resident is supposed to have the option of refusing to open ......
  • Powell v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 1, 2013
    ...with the resident or immediately depart. See, e.g., Nieminski v. State, 60 So.3d 521, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Waldo v. State, 975 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). A resident has the option to either open the door or refuse to do so. Kentucky v. King, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1849, ......
  • Osorio v. State, 4D17–0654
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2018
    ...that in rural properties, officers may attempt to knock at side and back doors pursuant to a "knock and talk"); Waldo v. State , 975 So.2d 542, 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In this case, Appellant's brother testified that their property was posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Neither agent refu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT