FL2: Protective sweep of curtilage unreasonable; CI’s tip of obvious details to any observer not corroborated

The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress under the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement because the trial court’s finding that the detective’s intrusion onto the curtilage was justified for officer safety was not supported by competent, substantial evidence because there are no facts giving rise to a reasonable or articulable suspicion that a sweep was necessary to ensure officer safety or to prevent the destruction of evidence. The anonymous tip the police received did not create probable cause for the search warrant because the tip was not shown to be reliable. The mere fact that readily ascertainable details such as defendant’s location were verified did not show that the tipster had knowledge of concealed criminal activity. Daniels v. State, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 418 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 18, 2017).

A probation and parole residence check resulted in finding defendant in the back room of his house with a joint. The residence search was conducted with cause based on intel from another law enforcement agency. Nobody at the suppression hearing inquired into the quality of the information [so that’s essentially waived], and the search was not overly intensive because the marijuana was in plain view. State v. Brignac, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 75 (La.App. 4 Cir. Jan. 18, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Probation / Parole search, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.