State v. Fultz
189 So. 3d 155
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- At ~7:45 a.m., Officer Lovelace drove past John Fultz’s townhouse after a routine house check and observed the front door open, an upstairs light on, mail on the foyer floor, closed garage door, and a vehicle in the driveway.
- Police had unconfirmed tips: a citizen’s report of suspicious foot traffic, a neighboring officer’s suspicion of drug activity, and an unverified informant tip relayed by a sergeant about a possible meth lab in the garage.
- Lovelace called for backup; Sergeant DeShay and Officer Smallen arrived about ten minutes later, spoke with Detective Taylor (who declined to come), then approached the open door, announced “police,” and entered to perform a welfare check.
- Upon entry DeShay immediately opened the garage door and discovered signs of an active meth lab; evidence was seized and later suppressed by the trial court.
- The State appealed the suppression order, arguing the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances: the community-caretaker exception and the feared medical-emergency exception.
- The Second District affirmed suppression, holding officers lacked an objectively reasonable basis to believe an emergency existed to justify warrantless entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry under community-caretaker doctrine | Officers reasonably entered to protect public safety from a suspected meth lab | Officers lacked training, investigation, or observations to reasonably believe a meth lab was operating | No — insufficient objective basis for community-caretaker entry |
| Whether feared medical-emergency exception justified entry | Open door and mail suggested occupant in distress or overdose, justifying prompt entry | Open door and mail alone, plus unverified tips, do not create objective belief of medical emergency | No — no objectively reasonable belief of an ongoing medical emergency |
| Whether open front door alone can justify warrantless entry | Policy of entering when door open and occupants don’t answer supports welfare checks | Open door is too common; absent other signs it cannot justify entry | No — open door alone is insufficient to justify warrantless entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boyd, 615 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (warrantless home entry is per se unreasonable unless a recognized exception applies)
- Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2006) (Fourth Amendment analysis under Florida law)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (exigent-circumstances standard requires objectively reasonable basis)
- Vanslyke v. State, 936 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (police must show objectively reasonable basis for exigent entry)
- Barth v. State, 955 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (meth labs are inherently dangerous but entry requires reasonable belief based on experience and observations)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (community-caretaker function must be divorced from criminal investigation)
- Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2005) (feared medical-emergency exception allows entry to preserve life but requires objective fear)
- Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1977) (police may not use subjective suspicion as pretext to enter without warrant)
- Davis v. State, 834 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (exigent entry upheld where officers observed additional signs supporting emergency)