{"id":6387,"date":"2012-02-16T15:34:13","date_gmt":"2011-12-10T07:50:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-12-10T07:50:57","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6387","title":{"rendered":"FL4: With arrest outside house, no facts supported a protective sweep; generalization about drug cases not enough"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s arrest was outside the house, and a <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14617911839617855186&amp;q=maryland+v.+buie&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">protective sweep<\/a> was unjustified on this record. Once inside, the father\u2019s consent was tainted by the officers\u2019 presence during the protective sweep. <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1186320576536867116&amp;q=34+So.+3d+797&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Diaz v. State<\/a>, 34 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), is similar. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.4dca.org\/opinions\/Dec%202011\/12-07-11\/4D09-3913.op.pdf\">Rozzo v. State<\/a>, 75 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Similarly, \u201cexigent circumstances exist where the occupants of a house are aware of the presence of someone outside, and are engaged in activities that justify the officers in the belief that the occupants are actually trying to escape or destroy evidence.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=15928834558470033687&amp;q=856+So.+2d+1133&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Lee v. State<\/a>, 856 So. 2d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (citing <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=13097120103919835688&amp;q=160+So.+2d+706&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Benefield v. State<\/a>, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)) (emphasis in original). Fears for officer safety based on generalizations about drug cases, rather than on any specific risk presented by the facts of defendant&#8217;s case, do not qualify as exigent circumstances. Lee, 856 So. 2d at 1139-40.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Police were called to an altercation in a rural area, and they walked down a gravel driveway. On the driveway, marijuana plants were plainly visible, and the view was reasonable. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.in.us\/judiciary\/opinions\/pdf\/12061102par.pdf\">Dora v. State<\/a>, 957 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. App. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6387\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}