Walker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walker v. State

617 So. 2d 404, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4476, 1993 WL 120545

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1486

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 617 So. 2d 404 (Walker v. State) 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

Walker v. State, 617 So. 2d 404, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4476, 1993 WL 120545 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because (1) the warrantless police entry into the defendant Gina Walker’s apartment through a partially opened door was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Flori-da Constitution, based on the exigent circumstances exception to the search warrant requirement rule, as the police, contrary to the defense argument, had good reason to believe that two unattended crying children on the premises may have been harmed by unknown persons, see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Wooten v. State, 398 So.2d 963, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 407 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981); State v. Jones, 45 Or.App. 617, 608 P.2d 1220, 1222, rev. denied, 289 Or. 337 (1980), and (2) the warrantless police seizure of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia from the night stand in the bedroom of the apartment where one of the two children was located was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, based on the plain sight exception to the search warrant requirement rule, see Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Grant v. State, 374 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Webster v. State, 201 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are, accordingly,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because (1) the warrantless police entry into the defendant Gina Walker’s apartment through a partially opened door was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Flori-da Constitution, based on the exigent circumstances exception to the search warrant requirement rule, as the police, contrary to the defense argument, had good reason to believe that two unattended crying children on the premises may have been harmed by unknown persons, see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Wooten v. State, 398 So.2d 963, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 407 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981); State v. Jones, 45 Or.App. 617, 608 P.2d 1220, 1222, rev. denied, 289 Or. 337 (1980), and (2) the warrantless police seizure of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia from the night stand in the bedroom of the apartment where one of the two children was located was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, based on the plain sight exception to the search warrant requirement rule, see Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Grant v. State, 374 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Webster v. State, 201 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are, accordingly,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 404, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4476, 1993 WL 120545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack