State v. Roman
103 So. 3d 922
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- State challenges suppression order of evidence from a house search in a marijuana-trafficking case.
- Investigators relied on information from another agency and a confidential source naming Roman.
- Police observed suspicious noises and odor near the garage and noted grow-house indicators (PVC pipes, equipment, surveillance camera).
- A protective sweep occurred after Roman declined consent and before a search warrant was obtained.
- The trial court suppressed evidence from the sweep, citing improper warrantless entry and unlawful basis for the warrant.
- The appellate court reversed, finding the sweep improper but that independent, lawful observations supported probable cause for the warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the protective sweep lawful given occupation and safety concerns? | Roman argues the sweep was improper and tainted the warrant. | State argues sweep was for officer safety and within permissible scope. | Sweep improper; not justified by exigent circumstances. |
| Does the odor of marijuana at the front door establish probable cause for a warrant after excising invalid sweep evidence? | Suppress evidence because warrant based on unlawfully obtained observations. | Odor observed at the door constitutes probable cause. | Probable cause established; warrant valid despite invalid sweep. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rabb, 920 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (illegality of evidence used to justify probable cause)
- Jardines v. State, 73 So.3d 34 (Fla. 2011) (knock-and-talk at front door; lawful contact with homeowner)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry for weapons/evidence generally unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152 (7th Cir.1987) (reasonable fear of destruction of evidence evaluated on momentary facts)
- Britton v. State, 336 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (distinguishable from present case; odor not basis for search without location rights)
- State v. Pereira, 967 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (odor while approaching house supports probable cause)
- Tobin v. United States, 923 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir.1991) (odor of marijuana at doorway can establish suspicion)
- State v. Hood, 68 So.3d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (excise invalid allegations when assessing probable cause)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep permissible with specific, articulable facts)