Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in Florida

12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sawyer v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025"Florida courts consistently have held that when closer examination of an item observed in plain view is necessary to confirm the incriminating nature of the contraband, its incriminating nature is not considered 'immediately apparent.' " Sawyer v. State, 842 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988); Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)).	1	1
Washington v. Chrismangreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 375 ; see also Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1982) ("The 'plain view' exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right 7 to be." (emphasis added)).	1	1
Jackson v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is `incidental to' or `because of' the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly thatprivate." Jackson v. State, 603 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citations omitted) (citing Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915, 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). [11] Consent is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.	1	1
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). . 2009See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). .	1	1
Smith v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009The courts will not engage in an after-the-fact analysis of whether a statement is `incidental to' or `because of' the marital relationship, because a married couple, and each of them, should be secure in the knowledge that their private communications are exactly thatprivate." Jackson v. State, 603 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citations omitted) (citing Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915, 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). [11] Consent is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.	1	1
Benson v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Benson v. State, 698 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Hetzko, 283 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).	1	1
State v. Hintongreen fladistctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990See Walker v. State, 433 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205, 1206-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).	1	1
Walker v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990See Walker v. State, 433 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205, 1206-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).	1	1
State v. Doddgreen fladistctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990See Walker v. State, 433 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205, 1206-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).	1	1
Morales v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990See Walker v. State, 433 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205, 1206-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).	1	1
New York v. Beltonred scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982). 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (19)

Case	Cited	Years
Chimel v. California red scotus · 1969 2 sentences 2011Search and Seizure Incident to Arrest — General Precedent In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the Supreme Court defined an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for searches conducted incident to arrest. 2011Search and Seizure Incident to Arrest — General Precedent In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the Supreme Court defined an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for searches conducted incident to arrest.	2	1989–2011
Carr v. State green fladistctapp · 1978 1 sentence 2025"Florida courts consistently have held that when closer examination of an item observed in plain view is necessary to confirm the incriminating nature of the contraband, its incriminating nature is not considered 'immediately apparent.' " Sawyer v. State, 842 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988); Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)).	1	2025–2025
Caplan v. State green fla · 1988 1 sentence 2025"Florida courts consistently have held that when closer examination of an item observed in plain view is necessary to confirm the incriminating nature of the contraband, its incriminating nature is not considered 'immediately apparent.' " Sawyer v. State, 842 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988); Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)).	1	2025–2025
Minnesota v. Dickerson green scotus · 1993 1 sentence 2025Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 375 ; see also Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1982) ("The 'plain view' exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right 7 to be." (emphasis added)).	1	2025–2025
Mitchell v. Wisconsin green scotus · 2019 1 sentence 2020The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide “[w]hether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” Mitchell, 139 S. Ct. at 2532 .	1	2020–2020
State v. Williams neutral fladistctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2015Following Gasset , the suppression of evidence obtained in a warrantless arrest in the defendant’s home was reversed in State v. Williams, 128 So.3d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).	1	2015–2015
United States v. Warren J. Taylor green ca11 · 2006 1 sentence 2011Any ‘knock and talk’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement did not apply to the troopers’ initial entry onto the paved area near the residence.” Id.	1	2011–2011
Ratcliff v. State green fladistctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2011Compare State v. Triana, 979 So,2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (finding no constitutional infirmity in a seizure that followed a consensual encounter where the police spoke with defendant from outside of the defendant’s gate and the defendant agreed to the search and opened gate to allow police entrance); Ratcliff v. State, 783 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding no constitutional infirmity in police accessing rear area of business that was open to the public and was not obstructed by any means).	1	2011–2011
State v. Hetzko green fladistctapp · 1973 1 sentence 2004See Benson v. State, 698 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Hetzko, 283 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).	1	2004–2004
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2004I address his position below. [8] There is precedent for an emergency-health exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and the Fifth Amendment requirement of warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2004I address his position below. [8] There is precedent for an emergency-health exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and the Fifth Amendment requirement of warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).	1	2004–2004
Illinois v. Gates green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1990"Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others," Illinois v. Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2333 . [7] It is well established that at a motion to suppress hearing, once the defendant has initially shown a warrantless search and seizure of his person, house or belongings, the burden shifts to the state to establish that the case falls within an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.	1	1990–1990
Draper v. United States green scotus · 1959 2 sentences 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982). 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982).	1	1989–1989
Savoie v. State green fla · 1982 1 sentence 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982).	1	1989–1989
United States v. Chadwick red scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982). 1989See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982).	1	1989–1989
Arango v. State green fla · 1982 1 sentence 1985Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 885 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Arango v. State, 411 So.2d 172 (Fla.1982); Zeigler v. State, 402 So.2d 365 (Fla.1981).	1	1985–1985
Mincey v. Arizona green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 1985Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 885 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Arango v. State, 411 So.2d 172 (Fla.1982); Zeigler v. State, 402 So.2d 365 (Fla.1981). 1985Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 885 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Arango v. State, 411 So.2d 172 (Fla.1982); Zeigler v. State, 402 So.2d 365 (Fla.1981).	1	1985–1985
Zeigler v. State green fla · 1981 1 sentence 1985Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 885 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Arango v. State, 411 So.2d 172 (Fla.1982); Zeigler v. State, 402 So.2d 365 (Fla.1981).	1	1985–1985
Ulesky v. State green fladistctapp · 1979 1 sentence 1980Uleski v. State, 379 So.2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).	1	1980–1980
Arkansas v. Sanders red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 1979Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979). 1979Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979).	1	1979–1979

Where else courts name it

OH 276 (1976–2025) TX 99 (1982–2026) ID 33 (1982–2026) TN 27 (1981–2026) MO 24 (1970–2025) CA 24 (1974–2024) WA 22 (1975–2022) PA 19 (1973–2025) VA 19 (1982–2026) IN 18 (1981–2025) MD 16 (1984–2022) IL 16 (1979–2025) WI 15 (1993–2024) NJ 13 (1978–2024) FL 12 (1979–2025) MI 11 (1974–2024) NY 10 (1980–2021) MS 10 (1981–2015) IA 10 (1978–2021) MN 9 (1986–2025) AZ 8 (1978–2026) DC 8 (1981–2025) AL 7 (1979–1994) OR 7 (1982–2016) UT 7 (1985–2024) CO 6 (1983–2024) SC 6 (1980–2020) OK 5 (1990–2016) ND 4 (2008–2017) NC 4 (2015–2018) WY 4 (1983–2001) SD 4 (1978–2014) MA 4 (1982–1999) CT 4 (1980–2017) KS 3 (2020–2024) HI 3 (1981–2015) RI 3 (1978–2014) NV 3 (1981–2022) MT 3 (1982–2021) NM 2 (1994–2004) ME 2 (2009–2010) LA 2 (1986–1987) WV 2 (1989–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check