Diaz v. State, (4th District Court of Appeals, May 19th, 2010)

The police had an informant who said the Defendant was selling drugs out of his house.  The police went to the residence and arrested the Defendant outside the his home, about five feet from the front door. The front door remained open. the police said they could tell that there were other people inside because from the front door the police could see some movement in the back bedroom. Five officers entered the home with guns drawn and performed a protective sweep. the police explained that the protective sweep was “for our well being, making sure nobody was armed,” and that they “went inside and detained the other people that were inside the house.”

The Court stated that without extraordinary circumstances, “government agents have no right to search a dwelling when an arrest is effectuated outside it.” Klosieski v. State,482 So.2d 448, 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (citing Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970)). The threshold to the entrance of a house “may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant” absent exigent circumstances. Id. (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)). 

Moreover, in Klosieski v. State,482 So.2d 448, 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the police conducted a protective sweep of the house after the two defendants were arrested and secured outside the home. The fifth district reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that “the police had no reason to believe that other individuals, dangerous to their safety, were inside the house.... The fact that the police did not know, as an absolute certainty, whether more people were in the house ... cannot justify entry into the house.” Id. at 450 (emphasis supplied).

This Court found that no evidence was adduced to establish the required “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that these individuals posed a danger and might jeopardize the officers' safety or destroy evidence. The officers testified only about their general safety concerns with narcotics investigations. Their testimony suggests that they entered the residence as part of a routine practice, rather than on the basis of any articulable facts which would warrant a reasonable belief that the occupants posed a threat to officer safety.  Thus, all evidence was thrown out and the case dismissed.