Opinion ID: 1657165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the primacy of the florida constitution and caselaw

Text: Our holding in Grubbs was expressly predicated upon the protections afforded our citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures set out in the Florida Constitution. The State contends that our ruling in Grubbs has been superseded by the holdings of the United States Supreme Court and an amendment to our state constitution requiring us to apply U.S. Supreme Court decisions to Florida search and seizure issues. In 1982, article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, relating to search and seizure, was amended to read: Searches and seizures.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The underlined portions above constitute the 1982 amendment. However, in the absence of a controlling U.S. Supreme Court decision, Florida courts are still free to provide its citizens with a higher standard of protection from governmental intrusion than that afforded by the Federal Constitution. State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla.1983); see also Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1992) (affirming the rule of primacy of Florida's constitution). With the conformity clause amendment, we are bound to follow the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the Fourth Amendment and provide to Florida citizens no greater protection than those interpretations. Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 990-91 (Fla.1988). However, when the United States Supreme Court has not previously addressed a particular search and seizure issue which comes before us for review, we will look to our own precedent for guidance. See Traylor; State v. Cross, 487 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Fla.), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 805, 107 S.Ct. 248, 93 L.Ed.2d 172 (1986). We find no controlling U.S. Supreme Court decision on point to overrule our holding in Grubbs. The State argues that the issue is controlled by United States Supreme Court decisions in Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 239, 80 S.Ct. 683, 697, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960) (holding items of evidence seized as result of arrest by immigration officials acting under administrative warrant were admissible against defendant in prosecution for espionage); New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 716, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 2651, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987) (holding that discovery of evidence of crimes in course of otherwise proper administrative inspection of closely regulated business does not render that search illegal or administrative scheme suspect); and Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 312, 41 S.Ct. 261, 266, 65 L.Ed. 647 (1921) (noting that when property was seized pursuant to legally sufficient search warrant, it could be used as evidence to prove any crime against accused so long as it was relevant). We disagree. While we recognize that these cases deal with instances where a defendant's property was searched for one purpose and the evidence discovered was then admissible against the defendant for other purposes, none of them address the precise issue before us. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has not specifically decided the issue in this case, we reject the State's contention that Grubbs has been effectively overruled under the conformity clause amendment to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution. Likewise, we reject the State's argument, as well as the district court's conclusion, that Florida's statutory scheme regulating probation supervision, sections 948.03 and 948.06, Florida Statutes (1995), is sufficiently analogous to the Wisconsin regulation at issue in Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), so as to make the holding in Griffin controlling here. In Griffin, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a search of a probationer's residence, stating, The search of Griffin's residence was `reasonable' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted pursuant to [Wisconsin's] valid regulation governing probationers. Id. at 880, 107 S.Ct. at 3172. The Wisconsin law in question there put probationers in the legal custody of the State Department of Health and Social Services and specifically rendered them subject... to ... conditions set by the court and rules and regulations established by the department. Wis.Stat. § 973.10(1) (1985-86). One of the Department's regulations explicitly permitted any probation officer to search a probationer's home without a warrant as long as his supervisor approved and as long as there were reasonable grounds to believe contraband was presentincluding any item that the probationer was not allowed to possess under the probation conditions. Wis.Admin.Code HSS §§ 328.21(4), 328.16(1) (Dec. 1981). Wisconsin's rule provided that the officer should consider a variety of factors in determining whether reasonable grounds existed, among which were information provided by an informant, the reliability and specificity of that information, the reliability of the informant (including whether the informant had any incentive to supply inaccurate information), the officer's own experience with the probationer, and the need to verify compliance with rules of supervision and state and federal law. Id. § 328.21(7). Another regulation made it a violation of the terms of probation to refuse to consent to a home search. Griffin, 483 U.S. at 870-71, 107 S.Ct. at 3167. Unlike Wisconsin's statutory scheme, see Wis.Admin.Code HSS §§ 328.21(4), 328.16(1) (Dec. 1981), Florida's statutes contain no scheme expressly authorizing or regulating the authority of probation officers or supervisors to conduct a probationary search when it is supported by reasonable grounds. Rather, a probation officer's right to search is based on our holding in Grubbs, wherein we expressly limited the use of the fruits of such a search to probation proceedings. Accordingly, we find that the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Griffin, and under Grubbs the evidence obtained in the probationary search of Soca's trailer is not admissible against him in a new criminal proceeding. [3] As this case illustrates, the Grubbs rule regulating probationary searches and the admissibility of evidence discovered therein has served as a workable framework for the DOC for over sixteen years, and we believe it remains a sound policy today. There has been no demonstration that our decision in Grubbs does not represent a proper balancing of the need to maintain effective supervision and control over probationers with the long-held constitutional right of each citizen to be free from searches and seizures which violate the principles of article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution. The Grubbs rule gives the State considerable leeway in investigating and monitoring probationers. When the State believes that a probationer is engaging in criminal behavior, the State may choose to inform probation officials of his alleged criminal conduct and place further responsibility for investigating his conduct with those officials. Apprised of this information, the probation supervisor may exercise his or her authority to search the probationer's person or residence for evidence that the probationer is violating the terms of his probation. Should the probation supervisor discover such evidence, it can be used against the probationer in a probation revocation proceeding. On the other hand, the State may choose to continue its investigation and attempt to secure a warrant to search the probationer's residence in compliance with traditional search and seizure standards under article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution. The State may also utilize the fact that the subject of its investigation is on probation as part of the circumstances establishing the probable cause necessary to secure a warrant.