Johnny James Tims v. State of Florida
204 So. 3d 536
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Officers responded to a domestic-violence call at Tims’s trailer; the victim (Tims’s girlfriend) flagged them down outside.
- One officer approached Tims’s door with a flashlight; Tims repeatedly refused to come outside and shouted for them to leave.
- From the doorway threshold Tims slapped at an officer’s hand, knocking the flashlight away, then lunged and retreated into the trailer.
- Officers entered the trailer and, during the arrest, Tims resisted violently (shrugging, trying to bite and strike officers).
- The State charged Tims with resisting with violence, battery on an officer, and depriving an officer of means of protection; Tims moved to suppress all evidence on the ground the officers were unlawfully present.
- Trial court denied suppression; Tims reserved appeal of that denial after pleading no contest to the charges; the First DCA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tims) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of crimes committed against officers must be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful entry | Officers had no right to be at the door or inside (no warrant; misdemeanor DV with victim outside; Tims asked them to leave), so all evidence of assaults on officers is tainted | Officers were lawfully present at the door and lawfully entered (probable cause for arrest after the slap); in any event the officers’ presence justified admitting evidence | Court affirmed denial of suppression: exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence of independent crimes committed against officers, even if officers initially were unlawfully present |
| Whether application of the exclusionary rule deters police misconduct in this context | Suppression needed to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights | Suppression would not further deterrence and would impose high societal costs | Suppression would not appreciably deter unlawful police entry and would create perverse incentives to assault officers, so exclusion unwarranted |
| Whether "but-for" causation makes evidence derivative and thus suppressible | The crimes observed would not have occurred but for officers’ presence, so evidence is derivative | "But-for" causation is insufficient; exclusionary rule is limited and requires appreciable deterrence | Rejected a rigid "but-for" test; independent criminal acts by defendant do not become fruits requiring suppression |
| Applicability of Florida precedent (e.g., Faith) | Faith suggests evidence of resisting should be suppressed when arrest/detention unlawful | Distinguish Faith on facts and seriousness; here violent offenses against officers are more serious | Faith not controlling; result consistent with other Florida district decisions denying suppression for independent crimes against officers |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule is intended to deter unlawful police conduct and is a last resort)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (exclusionary rule weighed against societal costs; deterrence focus)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (rejecting a rigid "but-for" causation for derivative evidence)
- Lee v. State, 856 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA) (typical application: suppress evidence found after unlawful entry)
- State v. Clavette, 969 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA) (evidence of independent violent acts against officers not suppressible even if entry unlawful)
- State v. Freeney, 613 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA) (rejecting derivative-evidence suppression for battery on officer occurring after an unlawful stop)
- United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192 (7th Cir.) (police will not detain to induce new crimes; little deterrent value in excluding evidence of new crimes committed against officers)
- United States v. Bailey, 691 F.2d 1009 (11th Cir.) (extending exclusion to immunize new crimes encourages resistance; disfavored policy)
- State v. Brocuglio, 826 A.2d 145 (Conn.) (exclusionary rule should not provide a shield to threaten or harm officers)