Bryan v. State of Florida, 4D10-632
June 15, 2011
The Fourth District Court of Appeal wrote to address a trial court’s order denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search. Acting on an anonymous tip, police were dispatched to investigate a call about three black males in front of a home by a white sports utility vehicle (“SUV) with narcotics and a gun. When police arrived, only the white SUV was present that coincided with the tip. The officers heard voices from the backyard and proceeded to enter through a gate into the appellant’s back yard. When the officers reached the back door, they noticed marijuana inside the home through a broken window and smelled marijuana coming from the house. After verifying that one black male was inside the home, the officers performed a protective sweep of the home, for the safety of those on the street, to see if the other male was inside the house with a weapon. The trial court upheld the warrantless entry, finding that the tip was corroborated when the white SUV was spotted and when drugs were spotted inside the home.
On appeal, the Fourth District cited Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Haire, 836 So.2d 1040, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) that held that any area within the curtilage of the home deserves the same protection as the home itself. The Court also noted that the possession of a gun, without more, would not justify the intrusion, and that an anonymous tip without any signs of past, present, or future criminal activity cannot give rise to a constitutional stop or search. Relgalado v. State, 25 So.3d 600, 606-607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In reversing the denial of the motion to suppress, the Fourth District held that no exception to the warrant requirement applied. The Court held that the officers “entered the curtilage of the home acting solely on an anonymous tip” and that there was no indication a crime had been, was being, or would be committed. Since the police entry into the backyard was illegal, the entry into the home based on the sight of the marijuana gained as a result should have been suppressed.