Michael Eric Buttes v. the State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0525
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 27, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0525 Lower Tribunal No. F22-96 ________________

Michael Eric Buttes, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Lynn Weber, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468–69 (Fla. 2006)

(noting that the existence of exigent circumstances justifying warrantless

entry onto property is considered under the totality of the circumstances and

that “[e]xigent circumstances have been determined to exist when 911 calls

were received, even in cases when the callers did not identify a life-

threatening emergency, when the officers arrived at the source of the 911

call to find suspicious circumstances at the residence”); Rolling v. State, 695

So. 2d 278, 293 (Fla. 1997) (“The kinds of exigencies or emergencies that

may support a warrantless entry include those related to the safety of

persons or property, as well as the safety of police. Of course, a key

ingredient of the exigency requirement is that the police lack time to secure

a search warrant.” (citations omitted)); State v. Barmeier, 878 So. 2d 411,

413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding exigent circumstances and reversing

suppression of evidence discovered after warrantless entry of defendant’s

home where defendant had previously called 911 to report disturbance with

neighbor and did not respond to police announcing their presence at door).