State of Florida v. Christopher Markus
211 So. 3d 894
Fla.2017Background
- Late-night noise call; officers encountered Christopher Markus outside a house and smelled marijuana from his cigarette; Markus moved back into an attached, open garage/recreation room that served as living space.
- Officer testimony: Markus fled into the house after being ordered to stop; officers followed without a warrant, struggled with and arrested Markus, and discovered a firearm in his waistband; officers later retrieved the discarded marijuana from the street.
- Co-resident testimony: Markus walked backward into the room with hands up and sat; officers forcibly removed and restrained him; occupants and guests were searched and rooms reportedly disturbed.
- Markus was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of cannabis; he moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an illegal warrantless home entry.
- Trial court denied suppression, finding hot pursuit justified entry; the First District reversed, holding hot pursuit did not apply to a nonviolent misdemeanor with evidence outside the home; the Florida Supreme Court granted review.
- Florida Supreme Court held hot pursuit did not justify a warrantless home entry here where probable cause was for a nonviolent misdemeanor and the evidence was in public view; it approved the First District and disapproved Ulysse to the extent it suggested any jailable misdemeanor always permits hot pursuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Markus) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hot pursuit exigency justified warrantless entry, search, and arrest when probable cause was for a nonviolent misdemeanor and evidence was outside the home | Entry was unlawful; offense was minor, evidence on public street, and officers could have obtained a warrant or secured scene | Hot pursuit doctrine permits follow‑in to effect arrest when pursuit begins in public; jailable misdemeanors can justify hot pursuit (relying on Ulysse/Santana) | Hot pursuit did not justify warrantless home entry where underlying offense was a nonviolent misdemeanor and evidence was outside the home; suppression and conviction reversed |
| Whether overnight guest/attached garage-recreation room is protected by Fourth Amendment | Markus had a reasonable expectation of privacy as an overnight guest and for the attached, enclosed recreation room | State argued room’s original design as a garage diminished expectation (rejected) | Room (attached/open garage used as living space) afforded Fourth Amendment protection |
| Whether gravity/jailability of offense alone determines exigency for home entry | Gravity matters; minor offenses generally require a warrant | State urged any jailable offense suffices for hot pursuit | Court rejected a bright-line jailable/offense rule; gravity and totality of circumstances control |
| Whether Ulysse controlling to allow entry for jailable misdemeanors | Argued Ulysse erroneously expanded hot pursuit to any jailable misdemeanor (supports reversal) | State argued Ulysse supports follow-in pursuit here | Court disapproved Ulysse to the extent it treated any jailable misdemeanor as per se justifying hot pursuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (importance of offense gravity in home-entry exigency analysis)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (hot pursuit principle: flight into private place does not defeat lawful public arrest)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry/arrest presumptively unlawful absent exigency)
- Riggs v. State, 918 So.2d 274 (Florida standard for exigent circumstances; grave emergency and no time for warrant)
- Ulysse v. State, 899 So.2d 1238 (Third DCA decision disapproved insofar as it implies any jailable misdemeanor permits hot pursuit)
- Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3 (Supreme Court discussion of Welsh and hot pursuit; not a criminal ruling)
- McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (historical discussion; exigency and limits on warrantless home searches)