Memorandum of Law: Civil Law
Statement of Facts
On February 12, 2020 at 4:00 a.m. Helen North was driving home from the hospital where she worked (in Stuart, Florida) and saw a young girl walking down the sidewalk wearing pajamas. Ms. North stopped her car and approached the child. She asked the child where she lived and the child vaguely pointed in the direction of several houses. Ms. North then called the police. Officers Reed and Halsey arrived and questioned the young girl. She told the officers her name was “Hallie” and said she was four years old. The officers asked Hallie to show them where she lived and she led them to a house located at 611 Birch Road. To determine what prompted Hallie to leave her house, Officer Halsey approached the front door and knocked while Officer Reed stayed with Hallie in the squad car. Officer Halsey found the front door open and peered inside. He did not see anyone so he announced his presence and went into the house (he feared Hallie’s parent [or guardian] was incapacitated in some way). Officer Halsey heard music and saw a light down a hall and walked in that direction. As he stood in the door of a bedroom, he saw a woman on the bed; she appeared to be asleep. Officer Halsey approached her and she woke up. Several clear plastic bags containing approximately sixty pills were on the floor beside the bed. Officer Halsey asked the woman if she had a four year old daughter and she said yes. The woman identified herself as Allison Lewis and said she had been sick so she took “cold medicine and fell asleep.” Officer picked up the plastic bags and examined the pills inside. Officer Halsey believed the pills were alprazolam (brand name Xanax). Officer Halsey arrested Ms. Lewis.
Several weeks later Ms. Lewis was charged, by information, with trafficking in a controlled substance (Ms. Lewis did not produce a prescription for the drugs in her possession). Ms. Lewis is represented by Andrew Matthews, who has filed a motion to suppress alleging that Officer Halsey improperly entered Ms. Lewis’s house so that the seizure of the prescription drugs was unreasonable.
Questions Presented
- Whether police officers responding to a report of a young child, wearing pajamas and on a sidewalk at 4:00 a.m., provides an exigent circumstance justifying entrance into the house identified by the child as hers.
- Upon entrance into the house, can a police officer seize contraband in plain view?
Discussion
According to Riggs v. State, 918 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2005) and Ortiz v. State, 24 So.3d 596 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009), the circumstance of finding a young child wearing pajamas and on a sidewalk at 4.am justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant’s home.
In Riggs v. State, 918 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2005), at 3:00 a.m., deputies found a four-year-old girl wandering naked and alone in the company of local residents. The young girl was disoriented and “had no idea where she had wandered out of.” The deputies decided to search the complex door by door for the child’s caretakers. Upon reaching the second floor, the deputies noticed that every door appeared closed, except one, which the officers suspected the child had come out of. Through a small opening, the deputies pounded loudly but no one inside the apartment responded. Concerned that something had happened to the child’s caregiver and that maybe there was a medical concern, see State v. Riggs, 890 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the deputies entered the apartment. Once inside, they continued calling out in vain. On a coffee table in the living room, they noticed a plastic cigar tube containing some seeds (later identified to be marijuana). They then entered three rooms in succession. The first contained nothing unusual, the second contained seven potted marijuana plants and with a fluorescent light suspended above them. In the third was the petitioner Riggs, along with a woman later identified as the girl’s babysitter.
Upon arrest, the defendant confessed to growing the marijuana. The state charged the defendant with manufacturing cannabis and possessing drug paraphernalia. The defendant pled not guilty and moved to suppress the evidence, claiming it was the fruit if an unreasonable search. At the suppression hearing, the Florida Supreme Court argued that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry. Similarly, in Ms. Lewis’ case, the exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into the defendant’s house. Also, the officers found contraband in a plain view. The defendant’s (Ms. Lewis) motion to suppress the evidence would be denied by the DCA and be charged with trafficking in a controlled substance.
In Ortiz v. State, 24 So.3d 596 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009), the deputy received a report form a local elementary school that a six-year-old child’s parents failed to pick him up from an after-school program. The child was supposed to be picked up by 6.00, but the school was unable to contact the child’s parents by telephone. Before turning the child over the Department of Children and Families, the officer took reasonable steps to contact parents, and then drove the child to the address provided by the school as the child’s home. “When the deputy and the child arrived at the house, the house appeared to be dark and it did not appear that anyone was home.” When the child knocked, no one answered, prompting him to proceed to the garage. The front garage door was not locked, and the child opened it and invited the officer inside the home. After they looked around without finding anyone, the child took the deputy to the locked door of his parent’s bedroom whose door was looked from the inside. The deputy knocked on the bedroom and announced his presence without any response. Concerned for the well-being of the parents, the deputy was able to unlock the door and enter the bedroom. Once in the bedroom, the deputy walked into the adjoining bathroom and saw in plain view what turned out to be 34 grams of cocaine wrapped in baggies on the countertop. Moments later, the defendant entered the room. Upon questioning by the deputy, the defendant admitted that the cocaine was his, and was subsequently arrested on several drug-related charges.
The defendant was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia and filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, contending that contrary to the State’s position, exigent circumstances did not justify a warrantless entry into his home, and specifically, the locked bedroom. Also, the defendant argued that the six-year-old child lacked authority to consent to the warrantless entry into the house. The trial court denied the motion to suppress the cocaine. The defendant pled nolo contendere in the Circuit Court and appealed. The DCA affirmed, holding that exigent circumstance of a perceived medical emergency justified deputy’s warrantless entry into defendant’s home. Similarly, in Ms. Lewis’ case, Officers Reed and Halsey will seize the contraband in plain view, as the exigent circumstance of perceived medical emergency justified their warrantless entry into the defendant’s house. Thus, the defendant’s motion to suppress alleging that Officer Halsey improperly entered her house so that the seizure of the prescription drugs was unreasonable will be denied by the circuit court. The defendant will be charged of possessing and trafficking a controlled substance.
Conclusion
Riggs v. State, 918 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2005) and Ortiz v. State, 24 So.3d 596 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009), indicate that the evidence in the defendant’s home in plain view was legally seized by the officers since the exigent circumstances justified their warrantless entry into the house. This case considers the parameters of the exigent circumstances doctrine as applied to a police officer’s discovery of proscribed substances incident to an attempt to fulfil no investigative obligations. In conclusion, Officers Reed and Halsey acted reasonably under the circumstances in entering the defendant’s (Ms. Lewis) home without a warrant.