State v. Hernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hernandez

898 So. 2d 1179, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4635, 2005 WL 766493

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 898 So. 2d 1179 (State v. Hernandez) 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. Hernandez, 898 So. 2d 1179, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4635, 2005 WL 766493 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The state appeals from an order suppressing marijuana found in the appellees’ residence. Upon an acceptable view of the record, the court concluded that the contraband had been unconstitutionally discovered and then seized only when, without cognizable “exigent circumstances,” cf. State v. Riggs, 890 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(warrantless entry justified by founded concern for safety of occupants); Davis v. State, 834 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)(warrantless entry justified by reasonable suspicion that home had been burglarized), an officer, who was in their rear yard solely to return a dog that had been running loose, decided to open and peer through a sliding glass door at the rear of the house. We agree and affirm. See State v. Adams, 378 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hornblower v. State, 351 So.2d 716 (Fla.1977); Olivera v. State, 315 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 21 (Fla.1976).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The state appeals from an order suppressing marijuana found in the appellees’ residence. Upon an acceptable view of the record, the court concluded that the contraband had been unconstitutionally discovered and then seized only when, without cognizable “exigent circumstances,” cf. State v. Riggs, 890 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(warrantless entry justified by founded concern for safety of occupants); Davis v. State, 834 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)(warrantless entry justified by reasonable suspicion that home had been burglarized), an officer, who was in their rear yard solely to return a dog that had been running loose, decided to open and peer through a sliding glass door at the rear of the house. We agree and affirm. See State v. Adams, 378 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hornblower v. State, 351 So.2d 716 (Fla.1977); Olivera v. State, 315 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 21 (Fla.1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 So. 2d 1179, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4635, 2005 WL 766493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hernandez-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack