Fernandez v. State
63 So. 3d 881
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Narcotics bureau received anonymous tip that a southwest Miami-Dade house was a marijuana hydroponics lab and began surveillance.
- The one-acre lot is fully fenced and hedged, with a gated driveway; the mailbox sits outside the fenced perimeter and there is no public access opening.
- Sergeant Falcon slipped into the property through the gate as it opened when Fernandez left the house to enter his car, and several officers followed.
- Officers approached Fernandez in his car, obtained his consent to search the house, and entered; inside, they found 144 marijuana plants.
- Fernandez moved to suppress on grounds of trespass, unlawful entry, lack of consent, and no exigent circumstances; the trial court denied the motion.
- The appellate court reverses, holding the entry was a trespass that tainted subsequent consent and suppression is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entry onto Fernandez's curtilage was unlawful trespass | Fernandez | State | Yes, unlawful trespass on curtilage |
| Whether the illegal entry tainted Fernandez's consent to search | Fernandez | State | Taunt persists; consent invalid |
| Whether there were exigent circumstances or a valid knock-and-talk exception | Fernandez | State | No valid exception; entry unlawful |
| Whether the tainted consent could be cured by subsequent events or evidence | Fernandez | State | No break in the taint; suppression required |
| What is the remedy for the unlawful entry | Fernandez | State | Reversal with remand to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Butler, 1 So.3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (establishes framework for exclusion based on unlawful intrusion)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (reasonable expectation of privacy in curtilage)
- Potts v. Johnson, 654 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (curtilage has privacy protections; barrier assertions)
- Ratcliff v. State, 783 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (privacy measures indicate expectation of privacy)
- Quintana (United States v.), 594 F.Supp.2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (knock-and-talk exception not apply to initial entry)
- Diaz v. State, 34 So.3d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (taint dissipated only by clear break in chain of events)
- Navamuel v. State, 12 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (taint dissipation standard)
- Gonzalez v. State, 578 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (consent after illegal activity tainted unless dissipation proven)
- State v. Sakezeles, 778 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (state bears burden to show taint dissipated)