State v. Cunningham

891 So. 2d 1199, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 940, 2005 WL 236041
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 2, 2005
DocketNo. 4D04-907
StatusPublished

This text of 891 So. 2d 1199 (State v. Cunningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

State v. Sarantopoulos
604 So. 2d 551 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
891 So. 2d 1199, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 940, 2005 WL 236041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cunningham-fladistctapp-2005.