Rogers v. State (4th District Court of Appeals, April 6th, 2011)

FACTS: A neighbor called 911 about women and men arguing at a residence.  Officers responded to the residence. One heard male and female voices yelling from within the premises. The officer knocked on the door and saw a woman quickly peek outside from the window. After no one answered the door, the officer heard a male voice cursing and ordering someone not to open the door. At this point, the officer was worried about the safety of the woman, since he did not hear her voice. The officer opened the door, which happened to be unlocked.  The officers entered the residence, fearing that someone was being held hostage. Immediately upon entering the residence, the officers saw marijuana in plain view on the dining room table.

Another officer arrived at the residence and conducted a “protective sweep” of the rest of the residence at that point. Appellant and the other two individuals at the residence were either seated at the table or handcuffed on the ground.  When the officer conducting the sweep attempted to enter appellant's bedroom, he discovered the room was locked. Appellant said she always kept her bedroom door locked, and when asked by the officer, she stated she did not have the key. The officer believed appellant's answer was “fishy,” and due his concern that someone was in the room, the officer “jimmied” the lock with a knife.  After entering appellant's bedroom, the officer saw cocaine in an open dresser drawer, as well as plastic bags and other drug paraphernalia in plain view. At the hearing, the officer admitted that the bedroom was beyond the reach of appellant or the two other occupants of the residence, and the officers never asked appellant or the other occupants if anybody else was in the residence before jimmying the door.

COURT'S REASONING: As to the initial issue of whether the police officers had the authority to open the unlocked door to the house and seize the marijuana on the table in plain view, we find that the trial court correctly denied appellant's motion to suppress the marijuana. However, once the officers entered the premises and secured its occupants, the question remains whether the officers had the authority to enter appellant's locked bedroom. As a general rule, incident to arrest, police officers may as a “precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.”  However, to justify a “protective sweep” beyond those stated parameters, “there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 334. The “protective sweep” should be only a “cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found” and may last only as long as “necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.”

HOLDING: In the present case, like in Runge, no evidence indicated the need for such an intrusion or justified such a search. Further, the police intrusion went beyond merely searching the bedroom after securing the residents of the premises. Here the officer had to jimmy the lock to appellant's bedroom in order to gain entrance. Forcible entry into appellant's bedroom is impermissible by any standard. In the present case, there are no facts on the record that would justify such a search, and as such, the trial court erred in not granting appellant's motion to suppress.

NOTES:  The right to be secure in your residence is a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution.