Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Charles YENKE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-01-25
Citations: 288 So. 2d 531
Docket Number: No. 73-358
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Charles YENKE, Appellee.
Judges: OWEN, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 288
Pages: 531–534

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Charles YENKE, Appellee.
No. 73-358.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 25, 1974.
Philip S. Shailer, State’s Atty., Thomas F. Kern, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., and H. D. Williams, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Edward M. Kay, Varón, Stahl & Kay, Hollywood, for appellee.

Opinion:
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an appeal by the State from an order suppressing evidence upon motion of the appellee.
By prearrangement with appellee, agents Bower and Riffle went to appellee's home to purchase eighty pounds of marijuana. Upon arrival they were admitted by appel-lee and led to a bedroom where appellee advised he only had twenty pounds, which he exhibited and delivered to agent Bower. After some discussion of price Bower directed Riffle to go out to the car and get the money. Riffle departed and Bower commenced weighing the individual bags. Riffle returned in a minute or two and behind him followed several police officers. Riffle went to the bedroom, found appellee and Bower as he had left them and placed both under arrest.
Prior to coming to appellee's home that evening Bower had obtained a search warrant which he delivered to the other officers who remained outside. Riffle's return to the car ostensibly to get the money was a signal for the officers to execute the search warrant. When they followed Riffle into the house they did not knock or announce their purpose. After Riffle had arrested appellee and Bower and brought them into the living room, Riggio, one of the other officers, served the search warrant, and as a result of the subsequent search other evidence was obtained and inventoried on the warrant. Said inventory did not include the box containing the twenty pounds of marijuana.
The trial court suppressed the inventoried items obtained as a result of the search warrant and also the twenty pounds of marijuana which appellee had delivered to Bower. The delivery of the twenty pounds of marijuana to Bower is the basis of the charges in question.
The state conceded at the hearing that the search warrant was not properly served and that the evidence obtained thereby was subject to suppression. However, the state maintains that the delivery of the twenty pounds of marijuana was independent of the search warrant; that Bower and Riffle were properly in the home and witnessed appellee commit the crime with which he is charged. We agree. The requirements of the knock and announce statute, 933.09, F.S.1971, F.S.A., are not involved in a determination of the validity of this arrest for delivery of the marijuana. The evidence in question was not obtained as a result of a search. It was delivered by appellee to Bower as part of a proposed sale.
Had agent Riffle been involved in executing the search warrant when he returned to the house we would have a different factual situation requiring the application of the rule of State v. Collier, Fla.App.1970, 270 So.2d 451. However, Riffle had ostensibly gone to get the money with which to pay appellee. He was impliedly invited to return and was unassociated with the search warrant. This case is much more analogous to Koptyra v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 628.
Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in suppressing the twenty pounds of marijuana as evidence in this case.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents with opinion.