IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
THE STATE OF
Appeal No. CRC 03-25 APANO
Opinion filed ________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the lower court in the Sixth
Judge Phillip Federico
Jean Higham, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
Cheryl Hoover, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the trial court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.1
The defendant pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana charges,
reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s decision to deny his motion
to suppress. The defendant claims that the warrant was improperly executed,
and that there was an insufficient basis for the warrant. The standard of
review for the denial of the motion to suppress is de novo. Simpson v.
State, 835 So.2d 394 (
The warrant was not improperly executed. In the case at bar the police
knocked on the door and someone in the house opened the door. The police then
entered the house, contemporaneously announcing that they were police officers
with a warrant. This behavior did not violate the “knock and announce” rule
that requires the police to knock and announce their purpose before they break
into a house. Once the person inside the house opened the door, there was
Second, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in not allowing
him to present evidence to challenge the information used to issue the warrant
in the first place. As the State points out, however, the evidence proffered
by the defendant did not really contradict the essential information used
by the police to obtain the warrant. Instead, the defendant appeared to be
arguing against the sufficiency of the evidence. The essential evidence ---
three trash pulls within a one-week period all containing evidence of marijuana
--- was sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial court was correct to deny the
defendant’s motion to suppress, and the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at
James R. Case
_________________________ John A. Schaefer
cc: State Attorney
1 Judge Ley did not participate in the review of this appeal.