Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida held that the hot-pursuit exigent-circumstances exception does not justify a warrantless home entry, search, seizure, and arrest when the suspected conduct is a nonviolent misdemeanor and the related evidence is outside the home. The court disapproved Ulysse v. State to the extent it treated any jailable misdemeanor as automatically sufficient to justify hot pursuit. The court affirmed the protection afforded to Markus's reasonable expectation of privacy in the attached recreational garage and concluded that the firearm evidence should have been suppressed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the hot-pursuit exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement justified a warrantless entry into a home, search, and arrest when officers had probable cause to believe the suspect committed only a nonviolent misdemeanor.
- Whether the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the evidence of the misdemeanor was outside the home and posed no risk of imminent destruction, supported the warrantless entry.
- Whether Markus had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attached garage/recreation room used as part of the home.
Holdings
- A warrantless home entry accompanied by a search, seizure, and arrest is not justified by hot pursuit when the underlying conduct for which probable cause exists is a nonviolent misdemeanor and the evidence related to that misdemeanor is outside the home.
- Markus had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attached garage/recreation room because it was an attached, multipurpose area used as part of the home and as a living or recreational space.
- A jailable misdemeanor does not automatically justify a warrantless home entry under the hot-pursuit exception; Ulysse is disapproved to the extent it holds otherwise without regard to the gravity of the offense and the totality of the circumstances.
Key quotations
“The totality of the circumstances must be taken into account in evaluating Fourth Amendment cases, and we hold that a warrantless home entry, accompanied by a search, seizure, and arrest is not justified by hot pursuit when the underlying conduct for which there is alleged probable cause is a nonviolent misdemeanor and the evidence related thereto is outside the home.” (211 So. 3d at 894)
“Accordingly, we hold that the exigent circumstance of hot pursuit here on these facts does not justify a warrantless home search and arrest when the underlying conduct for which there is probable cause is the alleged violation here—a nonviolent misdemeanor.” (211 So. 3d at 941)
“The sanctity of the home is paramount and we cannot do so.” (211 So. 3d at 942)
Factual background
Police officers responding to a noise disturbance encountered Christopher Markus near a residence and claimed to smell marijuana coming from a cigarette he had discarded near the street. When officers ordered Markus to stop, he either fled or slowly backed into an attached garage/recreation room, depending on the testimony credited. Officers entered the residence without a warrant, physically detained and arrested Markus, and recovered a firearm from his person; the marijuana cigarette was not collected until after the entry and arrest. Markus was an overnight resident of the home and used the attached room as a recreational living space.
Procedural history
Markus was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis, and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the firearm, finding that officers' warrantless entry into the home was justified by hot pursuit, and a jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The First District reversed the suppression ruling and conviction, concluding that the warrantless home entry was not justified; the Florida Supreme Court approved that decision and disapproved Ulysse in part.