Blanco v. State, 438 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Blanco v. State, 438 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Omar Blanco v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (ca11, 2012-07-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Omar Blanco v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State, 438 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Davis (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1999 · confidence medium
See United States v. Warner , 843 F.2d 401, 403 (9 th Cir.1988)(even if landlord could enter to make repairs, he could not consent to police search); State v. Hodges , 287 N.W.2d 413, 415 (Minn.1979)(even though lease permitted landlord to retain key and to enter premises to make repairs and show to prospective tenants, landlord could *952 not consent to search premises); Blanco v. State , 438 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla.App.1983) (landlord's right to enter premises to inspect and spray for insect infestations does not authorize him to let police into apartment). [2] ¶ 14 Although Mr. Taylor had the …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Coyle (2×)
N.J. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Chapman v. United States, supra, 365 U.S. at 616 , 81 S.Ct. 776 , 5 L.Ed. 2d at 833 (right to enter rented house "to view waste" does not give landlord authority to consent to search); Blanco v. State, 438 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla.App. 1983) (landlord's right to enter for "inspection purposes and in order to spray for infestations" did not authorize him to let police into apartment); State v. Hodges, supra, 287 N.W. 2d at 414 (landlord did not have authority to consent to search of premises even though "[u]nder the terms of the written agreement, [he] * * * specifically retained the right to e…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blanco v. Dugger
S.D. Fla. · 1988 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State of Florida, 438 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Young
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Blanco v. State, 438 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (noting that a landlord's personal right to enter an apartment was distinct from a right to invite police in to search the apartment).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Noble v. Tooley
M.D. Fla. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616 , 81 S.Ct. 776, 779 , 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961) (rejecting landlords’ argument that he had absolute right to enter rented premises to “view waste” and bring officers with him on grounds that the purpose in entering was not to view waste but to search for evidence of illegal activity and because upholding such an entry and search without a warrant would reduce the Fourth Amendment to a nullity and leave tenants’ homes secure only in the discretion of landlords) and Blanco v. Florida, 438 So.2d 404, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (Finding that s…
Omar BLANCO and Enrique Gonzalez, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
82-1095, 82-1336.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug 31, 1983.
438 So. 2d 404
Letts.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

The defendants appeal their convictions for armed robbery and armed burglary claiming that they were denied their right to "backstrike" a juror and that their apartment was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. We agree on both counts and reverse.

Challenges to jurors may be exercised at any time before the jury is sworn Denham v. State, 421 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and it matters not whether this right is exercised by backstriking. We are[*405] fully aware that trial judges dislike this practice and we sympathize with them. However, the law is clear.

As to the search and seizure of contraband in the apartment without a warrant, the police were given permission to enter by the landlord. However, the two defendant tenants had executed a series of written agreements which, when taken together, were tantamount to a year's lease still in force and effect.[1]

The State argues that under the terms of the agreement the landlord had the right to enter. We agree, but that right was for reasonable access for inspection purposes and in order to spray for infestations. Inviting the police to enter and search the apartment is another matter altogether.

Nor are we impressed with the State's insistence that the defendants had been orally told to deliver up the premises. First of all, we question the landlord's right to evict them and second, no written notice was given as required under the Landlord Tenant Law. The State's final argument that the defendants were three days late on their monthly rent also falls short of the kind of occurrence that would permit the landlord to invite the police to search.

In short, a warrant should have been obtained and we reverse the trial judge's denial of the motion to suppress the fruits of that search. See Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) and Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 81 S.Ct. 776, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961).

We either find no merit in or see no need to address the remaining points on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

1 We do not share the public defender's confidence that the "rental agreement" was a valid one year lease. However, that agreement taken in pari materia with the application form and the deposit receipt, did have that effect.