NOT
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
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.
LAMBERT, J.
In
these consolidated appeals, the State of Florida challenges
the trial court's orders entered in two cases below
granting Appellee's 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
Appellee's vehicle was parked in the curtilage of his
residence. Second, the deputy sheriff's body camera video
admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing shows that
the crack cocaine located in the interior of Appellee's
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.
FACTS-
On the
evening of February 10, 2018, two deputy sheriffs from the
Orange County Sheriff's Office separately arrived at
Appellee's 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 driver's 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 Appellee's truck and, while
standing outside, used a flashlight to illuminate the
truck's interior. This deputy would testify at the
suppression hearing that he saw a clear plastic container
"in plain sight between the driver's 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 driver's
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 COURT'S 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. See Collins v.
Virginia, 138 S.Ct. 1663, 1671 (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 person's residence to
access his vehicle without a warrant). Appellee thus asserted
that the deputy's warrantless search of his truck
situated inside the curtilage violated both his Fourth
Amendment right and his right to privacy in the items located
in his truck.
Appellee
and the deputy who seized the items from Appellee's truck
were the only two witnesses to testify at the suppression
hearing. Also introduced into evidence was the deputy's
body camera video showing the unpaved parking area where
Appellee's truck was situated and where the arrest took
place. This area was surrounded by several residences,
including Appellee's. The video also depicted the deputy
shining his flashlight into Appellee's truck, thus
illuminating what the deputy was able to observe through the
window before he ...