Thomas A. Sosnowski v. State of Florida , 245 So. 3d 885 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •            FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D16-4537
    _____________________________
    THOMAS A. SOSNOWSKI,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.
    Ross M. Goodman, Judge.
    April 17, 2018
    ROWE, J.
    Thomas Sosnowski appeals his convictions and sentences for
    battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with
    violence, contending that the trial court erred by denying his
    motion for judgment of acquittal. He argues that at the time of
    their encounter with him, the police officers were not engaged in
    the lawful performance of a legal duty and that there was neither
    probable cause nor exigent circumstances to support the officers’
    warrantless entry into his backyard. We disagree and affirm. 1
    1 Sosnowski raises three additional arguments on appeal,
    which we affirm without further comment.
    Facts
    The confrontation that ended in Sosnowski’s arrest began
    when his wife Gina Garza called the Department of Children and
    Families (DCF) because she feared for her safety and the safety of
    their five-year old son. Ordinarily, a DCF employee would respond
    to the call and perform a welfare check. However, this was not
    DCF’s first encounter with Sosnowski. Sosnowski had previously
    threatened DCF employees, and during this particular call, Garza
    reported that Sosnowski threatened to dismember DCF employees
    and to throw their body parts into a neighbor’s yard if DCF entered
    his home. Garza was concerned that if a DCF employee responded
    without backup, Sosnowski would become violent and lock the
    employee and Garza inside the home. Based on Garza’s reports,
    DCF requested assistance from the police to perform the welfare
    check.
    When the DCF employee and the police arrived at the home,
    they were unable to approach the front door. The home was a
    fortress. Sosnowski had erected a number of barriers, including a
    sharp, padlocked, picket-style fence around the front yard. He had
    equipped the home with customized locking doors and opaque,
    inoperable windows. The police officers called Sosnowski on the
    phone, and he emerged from the home with his son on his
    shoulders. The DCF employee and the officers were unable to talk
    to the child or physically assess the child for injuries because
    Sosnowski remained on the opposite side of the fence. When the
    police officers informed Sosnowski they were conducting a welfare
    check on Garza and his son, Sosnowski reentered the home with
    his son, ordered Garza to go outside, and then locked the doors
    behind him.
    As Garza exited the home and slowly approached the fence
    where the officers were standing, she appeared to be terrified. The
    officers observed fresh bruises on her face, chest, and neck. Garza
    told them that the injuries were inflicted by Sosnowski. As Garza
    spoke to the DCF employee, the officers heard a loud noise, and
    Garza exclaimed, “He just locked me out of the house. He just put
    the bar across the door.” Garza was concerned for her child’s safety
    because Sosnowski told her that she would never see her son again.
    2
    The officers attempted to reestablish contact with Sosnowski.
    But because Sosnowski had customized the windows with double-
    ply plexiglass to prevent outsiders from seeing in, the officers were
    unable to see inside the home to ascertain the child’s whereabouts.
    When it was clear to the officers that they could not safely
    enter the home, they commanded Sosnowski to come outside.
    Sosnowski refused. He also declined to answer multiple telephone
    calls. Based on Garza’s initial report, their observations of her
    injuries, their interaction with Sosnowski, Sosnowski’s retreat into
    the home, their knowledge of the home’s many fortifications, and
    Garza’s fear that she would never see her son again, the officers
    requested backup assistance from the SWAT team. When the
    team arrived, the officers briefed them on Sosnowski’s prior violent
    threats to DCF. The team learned of the domestic violence
    allegations, the home’s fortifications, Sosnowski’s access to
    weapons, and the existence of a possible hostage situation. Their
    primary objective was to ensure the five-year-old child’s safety.
    The SWAT team quickly established a perimeter around
    Sosnowski’s backyard, which was enclosed by a six-foot privacy
    fence. At this point, Sosnowski reemerged and was walking back
    and forth from inside the home to the backyard. The SWAT team
    announced their presence and commanded Sosnowski to get on the
    ground. Sosnowski refused to comply and retreated towards the
    home. After several unheeded commands to halt, one of the
    officers deployed a foam baton, striking Sosnowski. Sosnowski
    started low-crawling back towards the home to avoid the shots.
    The officers again commanded Sosnowski to stop, but to no avail.
    The officers then scaled the fence to prevent Sosnowski from
    reentering the home. Sosnowski physically fought with the officers
    before they were able to detain him. As two officers secured
    Sosnowski, another officer rushed inside the home and brought the
    child out to safety. After a jury trial, Sosnowski was convicted of
    battery on a law enforcement officer 2 and resisting an officer with
    violence.
    2  Sosnowski was charged by information with two counts of
    battery on a law enforcement officer, but the jury found him guilty
    of only one count.
    3
    Analysis
    We review a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of
    acquittal de novo to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient
    to sustain a conviction. Jones v. State, 
    790 So. 2d 1194
    , 1196 (Fla.
    1st DCA 2001). “If, after viewing the evidence in a light most
    favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the
    existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,
    sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.” Pagan v. State,
    
    830 So. 2d 792
    , 803 (Fla. 2002). There must be competent,
    substantial evidence to support the elements of the crime and to
    support the verdict and judgment. Tibbs v. State, 
    397 So. 2d 1120
    ,
    1123 (Fla. 1981).
    A conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer and
    resisting an officer with violence requires proof that the officers
    were engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty at the time
    of the charged conduct. §§ 784.07(2)(b) & 843.01, Fla. Stat. (2015);
    see also Espiet v. State, 
    797 So. 2d 598
    , 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
    Sosnowski argues that the charges against him should have been
    dismissed because the police officers had no authority to enter his
    backyard and home without a warrant and thus were not engaged
    in the lawful performance of their duties at the time of the charged
    offenses. The State argues that the officers were engaged in the
    performance of a lawful duty at the time of their encounter with
    Sosnowski because the officers had probable cause to arrest
    Sosnowski for domestic violence. The State also contends that
    exigent circumstances existed to allow them to enter the backyard
    and home without a warrant in order to secure the child’s safety.
    Probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest exists “where the
    facts and circumstances, as analyzed from the officer's knowledge,
    special training and practical experience, and of which he has
    reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves
    for a reasonable man to reach the conclusion that an offense has
    been committed.” Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v.
    Favino, 
    667 So. 2d 305
    , 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). A law
    enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant when
    there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed
    an act of domestic violence. See § 901.15(7), Fla. Stat. (2015). The
    officers in this case were informed that Garza called DCF because
    4
    she feared Sosnowski. When the officers arrived, they observed
    fresh bruises on Garza’s face, chest, and neck. Garza indicated
    that the bruises were inflicted by Sosnowski. Viewed in the light
    most favorable to the State, the facts support the trial court’s
    findings that the officers had probable cause to arrest Sosnowski.
    But, while the evidence of Garza’s abuse provided the officers
    sufficient probable cause to arrest Sosnowski without a warrant,
    the evidence of abuse alone is not enough to support a warrantless
    entry into his backyard. See State v. Markus, 
    211 So. 3d 894
    , 909
    (Fla. 2017) (“Florida courts have [] found probable cause for minor
    offenses insufficient to justify warrantless home searches and
    arrests.”); Espiet, 
    797 So. 2d at 602
     (“The courts generally agree
    that a law enforcement officer may not make a warrantless entry
    into a person's home to arrest the person for a misdemeanor
    offense.”). However, where exigent circumstances for the entry are
    present, a police officer may enter a private home without a
    warrant. See Payton v. New York, 
    445 U.S. 573
    , 576 (1980).
    Exigent circumstances were present here. At the time the officers
    entered Sosnowski’s backyard and home, they had an objectively
    reasonable belief that a five-year-old child was in danger.
    Public safety has long been recognized as an exigent
    circumstance permitting warrantless entry into a residence. See
    Riggs v. State, 
    918 So. 2d 274
    , 279 (Fla. 2005) (“The kinds of
    exigencies or emergencies that may support a warrantless entry
    include those related to the safety of persons or property, as well
    as the safety of police.”) (citing Rolling v. State, 
    695 So. 2d 278
    , 293
    (Fla. 1997)); Markus v. State, 
    160 So. 3d 488
    , 492 (Fla. 1st DCA
    2015) (stating “[t]o rebut the presumed illegality of warrantless
    entry by police officers, the exigent circumstance must involve a
    threat to the safety of the public, property, or police which required
    immediate action by officers with no time to obtain a warrant”).
    “To justify an emergency entry into a home by police officers, the
    State must demonstrate that ‘an objectively reasonable basis
    exist[ed] for the officer to believe that there is an immediate need
    for police assistance for the protection of life . . . .” Durham v. State,
    
    174 So. 3d 1074
    , 1075-76 (quoting Seibert v. State, 
    923 So. 2d 460
    ,
    468 (Fla. 2006)).
    5
    Immediate entry into Sosnowski’s backyard and home was
    necessary for the officers to ensure the safety of a five-year-old
    child. The sole purpose of the officers’ presence at the home was
    to conduct a welfare check of Garza and the child and to determine
    whether they were in danger. See § 39.301, Fla. Stat. (2015)
    (outlining the procedure for initiating protective investigations).
    Upon arriving, Garza presented with “fresh” bruises and identified
    Sosnowski as her abuser. Moments later, Garza heard Sosnowski
    lock a bar across the front door, her son still inside. Garza
    indicated to the officers that Sosnowski told her she would not see
    her son again. The officers also learned about the unique layout of
    the home, including the custom locks, windows, and doors that
    made the home nearly impenetrable. They knew Sosnowski had
    several bladed weapons hidden around the home and purposely
    placed in the yard. They had no way to ascertain the child’s
    whereabouts inside the fortress.         The officers also knew
    Sosnowski’s history of violent threats towards DCF’s employees,
    one reported that very day. Sosnowski refused to exit the home
    after the officers made several attempts to contact him. The
    uncertainty of the child’s location coupled with Sosnowski’s
    evasiveness provided an objectively reasonable basis for the
    officers to believe that the child was in danger and to enter the
    home without a warrant to secure the child’s safety.
    Notwithstanding these circumstances, Sosnowski argues that
    because the officers had observed the child on Sosnowski’s
    shoulders from across the fence early in the encounter, there was
    no reason to believe the child continued to be in danger when
    Sosnowski exited the home into the backyard, leaving the child
    inside the house. However, as we observed in C.L.L. v. State,
    It is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed in
    the residence; only the reasonableness of the officer's
    belief at the time of entry is considered on review. The
    inquiry must be undertaken in light of the totality of the
    circumstances confronting the officers, including, in
    many cases, a need for an on-the-spot judgment based on
    incomplete information and sometimes ambiguous facts
    bearing upon the potential for serious consequences.
    6
    
    115 So. 3d 1114
    , 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (internal citations and
    quotations omitted).
    Although the officers had indeed observed the child earlier,
    Sosnowski had taken the child back into the home, where the
    officers could no longer observe him. At the time the officers
    entered the backyard, they had no knowledge of whether the child
    was safe.     The officers’ common-sense interpretation of an
    increasingly dangerous situation prompted certain action and that
    action fit squarely within the boundaries of the Fourth
    Amendment. Allowing a five-year-old child to remain in a fortified
    home with a hostile and potentially violent aggressor with access
    to multiple weapons has “the potential for serious consequences”
    prompting the “need for an on-the-spot judgment based on
    incomplete information . . . .” 
    Id.
     The officers in this case made
    precisely such a judgment. “The resulting invasion of privacy is
    one that prudent, law-abiding citizens can accept as the fair and
    necessary price of having the police available as a safety net in
    emergencies.” Ortiz v. State, 
    24 So. 3d 596
    , 602 (Fla. 5th DCA
    2009) (citing Riggs, 
    918 So. 2d at 282-83
    ).
    Because they had probable cause to arrest Sosnowski for
    domestic violence and exigent circumstances existed, the officers
    were lawfully executing a legal duty at the time of their encounter
    with Sosnowski. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court properly
    denied judgment of acquittal and affirm Sosnowski’s convictions
    for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer
    with violence.
    ROBERTS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public
    Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    7
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    8