You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Conner v. State

Citations: 641 So. 2d 143; 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6601; 1994 WL 316679Docket: No. 93-1366

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 6, 1994; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this judicial opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the legality of warrantless home entries for minor offenses, as established in Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984). The case arose from an incident where police entered a defendant’s home without a warrant following a 911 hang-up call, leading to charges of battery and resisting arrest. The Court reiterated the principle that warrantless home entries carry a presumption of unreasonableness, which the government must overcome by proving exigent circumstances. This presumption is especially difficult to rebut in minor offense cases, where the expectation is for arrests to be conducted with a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. In the case at hand, the court determined that the misdemeanor charges were insufficient to justify the warrantless entry. The absence of exigent circumstances or any indication that the defendant would evade capture by warrant led the court to reverse the conviction. The concurring judges agreed with the decision, reinforcing the rarity of permissible warrantless entries for minor offenses.

Legal Issues Addressed

Minor Offenses and Warrantless Home Entry

Application: The court found that the offenses involved in this case were minor and did not justify a warrantless entry into the defendant’s home.

Reasoning: This presumption is particularly hard to rebut in cases involving minor offenses, where arrests should generally be executed with a warrant based on probable cause from a neutral magistrate.

Probable Cause for Serious Crimes

Application: The court noted that probable cause alone for a serious crime does not create exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry.

Reasoning: The Court noted that the existence of probable cause for a serious crime does not itself create exigent circumstances, and warrantless entries for minor offenses, like drunken driving, should rarely be permitted.

Reversal of Conviction Due to Improper Entry

Application: The court reversed the conviction, highlighting the improper warrantless entry for a minor offense.

Reasoning: The ruling emphasized that warrantless home entries for minor offenses should be rare, leading to the decision to reverse the conviction.

Warrantless Arrest and Exigent Circumstances

Application: The court applied the principle that warrantless arrests in a home require exigent circumstances to overcome the presumption of unreasonableness, particularly for minor offenses.

Reasoning: The Court established that the government bears the burden of proving exigent circumstances to justify such an invasion, overcoming the presumption of unreasonableness associated with warrantless home entries.