Page 925
Appeal
from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Gail A. Adams,
Judge.
Ashley
Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James
S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Mark Alexander Williams,
Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
OPINION
LAMBERT,
J.
In
these consolidated appeals, the State of Florida challenges
the trial courts orders entered in two cases below granting
Appellees motion to suppress a firearm, certain illicit
drugs, and drug paraphernalia that were confiscated by law
enforcement following a warrantless search of his truck. As
we explain below, we reverse the suppression orders for two
reasons. First, the trial court erred in finding that
Appellees vehicle was parked in the curtilage of his
residence. Second, the deputy sheriffs body camera video
admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing shows that
the crack cocaine located in the interior of Appellees truck
was plainly and openly observable. Thus, the deputy had
probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the truck
under the "automobile exception" to the warrant
requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution[1] and to seize the crack cocaine, as
well as the firearm and other contraband he also found during
the course of his search.
Page 926
FACTS
On the
evening of February 10, 2018, two deputy sheriffs from the
Orange County Sheriffs Office separately arrived at
Appellees residence to arrest him for aggravated assault
with a firearm pursuant to a warrant that had been executed
earlier that day by a circuit judge. The deputies knocked on
the front door of the home. A woman opened the door and, in
response to their inquiry, advised the deputies that Appellee
did not live there.
As the
deputies prepared to leave, a truck pulled into an open lot
by the residence. One of the deputies noted that the truck
matched the description in the arrest warrant given by the
victim of the aggravated assault. The other deputy recognized
Appellee from his picture on the warrant. There were no other
persons in the truck. Based upon the nature of the crime
charged in the arrest warrant, the deputies ordered Appellee
out of his truck at gunpoint. One of the deputies would later
testify that, prior to exiting the truck, Appellee began
making furtive movements as if he was trying to conceal
something under the drivers seat. When Appellee stepped out
of his vehicle, he was secured in handcuffs and placed in the
back of one of the patrol cars.
One of
the deputies then returned to Appellees truck and, while
standing outside, used a flashlight to illuminate the trucks
interior. This deputy would testify at the suppression
hearing that he saw a clear plastic container "in plain
sight between the drivers seat and the center console."
Inside this container was a white, rock-like substance
partially cut into bars or chunks that was visible through
the clear container. The deputy testified that, from his
training and experience, he recognized the contents of the
container to be crack cocaine.
Based
on this observation, the deputy opened the door to the truck
and seized the container. He then searched the remainder of
the vehicle and found a loaded firearm under the drivers
seat, more crack cocaine in a sandwich bag in the center
console, and a small amount of marijuana. Appellee was
subsequently charged with possession of cocaine, possession
of twenty grams or less of marijuana, and possession of drug
paraphernalia.[2] He was charged in a second case with
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession
of ammunition by a convicted felon.
THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND THE TRIAL COURTS RULING—
Appellee
filed a motion to suppress the firearm and the contraband
seized from his truck. He first argued that his truck was
parked on the curtilage of his residence, which is afforded
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures under the Fourth Amendment. SeeCollins
v. Virginia, __ U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1663, 1671, 201
L.Ed.2d 9 (2018) (holding that the automobile exception to
the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment does not
give a law enforcement officer the right to enter the
curtilage of a persons residence to access his vehicle
without a warrant). Appellee thus asserted that the ...