State v. Cunningham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Cunningham

891 So. 2d 1199, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 940, 2005 WL 236041

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 2, 2005·No. No. 4D04-907·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress because a deputy came through a gate into defendant’s backyard without a search warrant. The state asserted that there were exigent circumstances, however, the trial court found that there were not and granted the motion. Because the backyard was clearly within the curtilage of defendant’s home, State v. Sarantopoulos, 604 So.2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and there is evidence to support the findings, we affirm.

POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress because a deputy came through a gate into defendant’s backyard without a search warrant. The state asserted that there were exigent circumstances, however, the trial court found that there were not and granted the motion. Because the backyard was clearly within the curtilage of defendant’s home, State v. Sarantopoulos, 604 So.2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and there is evidence to support the findings, we affirm.

POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

State v. Cunningham, 891 So. 2d 1199, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 940, 2005 WL 236041 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

891 So. 2d 1199 (State v. Cunningham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related