Lexplug logoLexplug

Bernie v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
524 So. 2d 988 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An anticipatory search warrant issued for a private dwelling does not violate a state statute requiring a drug law to be currently violated therein, when the contraband has already been lawfully discovered by authorities and is in the process of a controlled delivery to that dwelling. Additionally, the search and seizure provision of the Florida Constitution must be construed in conformity with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, including decisions rendered after the state constitutional amendment was adopted.


Facts:

  • An envelope addressed to petitioner Vickie Bernie was received by Emery Air Freight.
  • During transit, the envelope broke open, revealing a suspicious substance.
  • Emery notified a drug enforcement agent, who tested the substance and confirmed it was cocaine.
  • The agent's office then informed the Sarasota County sheriff's office of the finding.
  • Petitioner Bruce Bernie contacted Emery's office to inquire about the status of the package.
  • Emery employees, in coordination with law enforcement, advised Bruce Bernie that the package would be delivered to the Bernies' residence the following day.

Procedural Posture:

  • Vickie and Bruce Bernie were charged with possession of cocaine in the trial court.
  • The Bernies filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant was invalid under Florida Statute § 933.18.
  • The trial court granted the Bernies' motion to suppress the evidence.
  • The State of Florida, as appellant, appealed the suppression order to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
  • The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the evidence was admissible under the 'good faith' exception established in United States v. Leon.
  • The Bernies, as petitioners, then sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a search warrant issued for a private residence before contraband has arrived, in anticipation of a controlled delivery, violate Florida Statute § 933.18's requirement that a drug law 'is being violated therein'?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A search warrant issued in anticipation of a controlled delivery does not violate Florida Statute § 933.18. The court held that while the statute requires a drug law to be 'being violated therein,' a reasonable construction of this language permits an anticipatory warrant under these specific circumstances. Because law enforcement had already lawfully discovered the cocaine and retained constructive possession of it during the controlled delivery, the violation was considered to be in progress. The Bernies had no remaining expectation of privacy in the contraband package itself. The court found this type of anticipatory warrant is constitutionally permissible and decided the case on statutory construction grounds, making it unnecessary to apply the good-faith exception from United States v. Leon. The court also held that the 1982 amendment to Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution requires Florida courts to follow all U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decisions, regardless of whether they were rendered before or after the amendment's adoption.


Concurring - Ehrlich, J.

Justice Ehrlich concurred to emphasize that the 1982 amendment to Article I, Section 12 was a clear mandate from the electorate to tie Florida's search and seizure jurisprudence to that of the U.S. Supreme Court. He stated that the amendment makes the U.S. Supreme Court the 'ultimate arbiter' of search and seizure protections under the Florida Constitution, and to hold that it does not apply to future decisions would be 'an affront to the voters of this State.'


Concurring in judgment - Overton, J.

Justice Overton concurred with the result that the search was valid but disagreed with the majority's conclusion that Florida is bound by future, unknown U.S. Supreme Court decisions. He argued that such a 'forced linkage' is contrary to the purpose of a constitution and amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of power, allowing a non-Florida entity to amend the Florida Constitution. He would treat post-1982 U.S. Supreme Court decisions as persuasive, not binding, authority.


Dissenting in part - Kogan, J.

Justice Kogan dissented from the majority's holding on the warrant's validity. He argued that the warrant was patently invalid under the plain language of section 933.18, which requires a present violation, not a future one. He criticized the majority for misapplying Illinois v. Andreas, which involved a warrantless search of a package outside a home, not a warranted entry into a private residence. He would have suppressed the evidence, arguing the 'good faith' exception should not apply when police fail to follow clear statutory requirements.


Dissenting - Barkett, J.

Justice Barkett dissented, arguing the evidence was illegally obtained under the plain meaning of section 933.18 and should have been suppressed. She found the majority’s reliance on Illinois v. Andreas 'totally inapplicable' because that case did not involve a search of a home or the interpretation of a state statute governing warrants. She also argued that the 1982 constitutional amendment should only incorporate U.S. Supreme Court decisions that existed at the time of its passage to avoid conflicts with other provisions of the Florida Constitution.



Analysis:

This decision significantly impacts Florida search and seizure law by solidifying two key principles. First, it confirms that the 1982 'conformity amendment' to the Florida Constitution binds state courts to follow both past and future U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment precedent, effectively limiting the ability of Florida courts to provide greater protections. Second, it creates a crucial judicial interpretation of Florida Statute § 933.18, legitimizing the use of 'anticipatory' search warrants in controlled delivery situations. This ruling provides law enforcement with a clear legal basis for a common investigative technique while arguably weakening the strict statutory protections for private dwellings that the legislature had enacted.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bernie v. State (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"