Rimmer v. State
825 So. 2d 304, 2002 WL 1430739 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the plain view doctrine, police executing a valid search warrant may open and inspect a container not listed in the warrant if it is plausible that an item specified in the warrant could be located within that container. Any incriminating evidence discovered inside such a container during this lawful search is admissible.
Facts:
- On May 2, 1998, Robert Rimmer and Kevin Parker robbed the Audio Logic car stereo store.
- Rimmer, armed with a handgun, ordered employees Bradley Krause and Aaron Knight, and customers Joe Moore and Louis Rosario, to lie face down on the floor, and their hands were bound with duct tape.
- Rimmer stole personal items from the victims, including Moore's wallet, and also took a Walther PPK handgun that belonged to Knight from a desk drawer.
- After Rimmer and his accomplices loaded stereo equipment into a Ford Probe, Rimmer returned to the installation bay.
- Rimmer said to Knight, "You know me," then shot Knight in the back of the head, killing him instantly.
- Immediately after, Rimmer walked over to Krause and shot him in the back of the head; Krause later died from the wound.
- Following the crime, eyewitness Kimberly Davis Burke provided a police sketch artist with a description that led investigators to identify Rimmer, who was a former customer of the store.
- On May 10, 1998, after a high-speed car chase, police arrested Rimmer; during the chase, he threw Moore's wallet and both the murder weapon and the stolen Walther PPK from his car.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Rimmer and his codefendant were charged with two counts of first-degree murder and other felonies in a Florida trial court.
- Rimmer filed a motion to suppress physical evidence, including a day planner and stolen stereo equipment, arguing the search of his car exceeded the scope of the warrant.
- The trial court held a suppression hearing and denied Rimmer's motion.
- Following a joint trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.
- After a separate penalty phase proceeding for Rimmer, the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of nine to three.
- The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and imposed the death penalty.
- Rimmer appealed his judgment of conviction and sentence of death directly to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 the seizure and subsequent search of a day planner found in a suspect's vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment when the planner was not listed in the search warrant, but the warrant authorized a search for small items like shell casings and trace evidence that could be contained within it?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The seizure and search of the day planner did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was discovered in plain view during a lawful search, and it was plausible that the planner could contain smaller items listed in the search warrant. The court applied the three-prong test from Horton v. California, finding that: 1) officers were lawfully searching the vehicle pursuant to a valid warrant; 2) although the planner itself was not immediately incriminating, officers were authorized to open it to search for items specified in the warrant, such as shell casings or trace evidence; and 3) once opened, the lease agreement for a storage unit found inside was incriminating because police had probable cause to believe it would lead to the discovery of the large quantity of stolen stereo equipment that was still missing. Therefore, the search of the planner was within the lawful scope of the warrant, and the resulting evidence was admissible.
Concurring in result only - Lewis, J.
Concurs with affirming the conviction and sentence but disagrees with the majority's conclusion that the 'heinous, atrocious, or cruel' (HAC) aggravator was improperly found for the second victim, Krause. The opinion argues that because Krause witnessed the execution of his coworker Knight immediately before being killed himself, he experienced extreme mental anguish and an acute awareness of his impending death. This psychological terror is sufficient to support the HAC finding, consistent with precedent in cases like Farina v. State, and striking the aggravator destabilizes this area of law.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Wells, J.
Concurs with affirming the conviction but dissents from striking the HAC aggravator. This opinion argues that the trial court properly found HAC based on the fear, emotional strain, and terror experienced by both victims during the events leading up to their murders. The trial judge's finding was based on live testimony and common-sense inferences from the circumstances, which should be upheld on appeal.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Pariente, J.
Concurs with the majority's decision to strike the HAC aggravator but dissents from the affirmance of the conviction. The opinion argues that the trial court's error in admitting Detective Kelley's rebuttal testimony about his own eyesight was not harmless. The defense theory was misidentification based on Rimmer's severe visual impairment, and the officer's irrelevant testimony and courtroom reenactment were highly prejudicial and likely influenced the jury's verdict. Given this substantial error and concerns about the reliability of the eyewitness identifications, a new trial is warranted.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a search pursuant to a warrant, affirming that officers may inspect closed containers not listed in the warrant if those containers could plausibly hold items that are listed. This reinforces the principle that the object of the search, not the container, defines its scope. Additionally, the court's decision to strike the 'heinous, atrocious, or cruel' (HAC) aggravator for an execution-style shooting reaffirms the high bar for this factor, requiring evidence of prolonged suffering or torture beyond the inherent fear of a violent crime.
