Florida Search Requirements for Homes vs. Automobiles

May 30, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, homes and vehicles are often the subject of police searches and seizures. But the legal standard officers must meet before searching an automobile for evidence relating to a criminal activity, differs from the standard that must be met to search a residence. 

This article will discuss the laws police must abide by if seeking to search a home or a vehicle for evidence relating to criminal activity, what qualifies as a residence and what qualifies as an automobile under Florida law, and potential legal remedies if these procedures are violated.

The right to be free of unreasonable police searches and seizures is codified by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. To search a residence, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a search warrant is generally required, unless exigent circumstances arise allowing for a search or seizure to occur without officers first obtaining a search warrant. Such circumstances may include:

• Officers develop a reasonable belief that evidence is actively being destroyed inside the residence. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). 
• Officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that someone inside the home is seriously injured, dying, or imminently threatened with such injury. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006)
• Hot pursuit of a suspect attempting to flee from the home, who is being arrested for a felony offense. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)

Unless there are exigent circumstances, courts generally require that law enforcement obtain a warrant before a residence can be searched or evidence from within it seized. Probable cause of criminal activity alone is insufficient. 

Note: In Florida, a “residence” is a place where a person actually lives, even temporarily, and can include homes, apartments, or even hotel rooms. Fourth Amendment warrant requirements for searching a home (permanent residence) apply even when the residence is temporary, such as a hotel room – so long as the person has lawful control over the space. (Robinson v. State)

When law enforcement wishes to search or seize potential evidence from a home, the warrant they obtain must meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and the Florida Constitution. These include:

• A sworn declaration before a magistrate that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and evidence, contraband, or persons involved are located at the residence (Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983))
• A particular description of the place to be searched (address, apartment number, distinctive features if applicable) and the items or persons to be seized (Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004))
• The review and approval of a neutral and detached magistrate (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971))
• Execution within 10 days of issuance (Fla. Stat. Section 933.05), in accordance with Florida’s knock-and-announce rule

If officers do not abide by these legal requirements when searching or seizing evidence from a residence, the proper remedy is suppression of the recovered evidence. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). 

However, if officers execute a warrant in good faith that is later found to be defective, the evidence remains admissible under the U.S. Supreme Court’s “good faith exception” to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). A warrant found to be defective may include:

• A warrant later found to lack specific facts sufficient to establish probable cause, which was approved anyway
• Overbroad or vague descriptions 
• Issued by a non-neutral magistrate

In spite of Leon, good faith does not automatically mean the fruits of a defective warrant’s execution are admissible as evidence. Leon also specifies that for the evidence to be admissible under the good faith exception, the warrant’s defect must have not been so obvious that a reasonable officer would have recognized it. Id.

Under certain circumstances, officers may seize evidence from a home that is not mentioned in the search warrant if that evidence is in plain view. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). For evidence to be seized under the “plain view” doctrine, the following requirements must be met:

• Officers must be legally present inside the home as a result of 1) obtaining a valid warrant 2) consent 3) a lawful arrest or 4) exigent circumstances permitting entry
• Officers must have a legal right to access and seize the object (can’t open drawers, containers or move items without a separate legal justification, or go into part of the home they are not authorized to enter)
• The criminality or evidentiary value of the item must be obvious without further investigation (Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)) 

In contrast to homes, which generally require the issuance of a warrant before they can be searched, only probable cause is needed for officers to search an automobile. This is the result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation of the “automobile exception” in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

Carroll carved out the automobile exception by noting that vehicles are inherently mobile, unlike homes. The decision also observed there is a diminished expectation of privacy in vehicles (due to their operation in public) compared to the expectation of privacy in homes.

According to Carroll, probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within a police officer’s knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, support the following conclusions by a person of reasonable caution:

• A crime has been, is being, or about to be committed
• The person or place to be searched is connected with the criminal activity

Despite the lack of a warrant requirement to search an automobile, officers cannot simply develop a “hunch” that evidence of criminal activity exists within a vehicle. Probable cause requires a “fair probability” that evidence will be found in a particular place. State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2002); Voorhees v. State, 699 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1997).

The automobile exception applies to any of the following:

• Cars and pickup trucks
• Vans and SUVs 
• Commercial trucks
• Motorcycles 
• RVs and motorhomes
• Rental cars
• Borrowed vehicles
• Trailers (if attached to another vehicle and mobile)

If an officer develops probable cause to search a qualifying automobile under the exception, that officer may search any compartment, trunk, or container in the vehicle or in any part of the vehicle, regardless of if the contents are in plain view. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999).

Unlike searching a home, law enforcement may immediately begin searching a vehicle upon developing probable cause. They do not have to first weigh if exigent circumstances exist (the potential immediate destruction of evidence) or whether it is possible to first obtain a search warrant. U.S. v. Watts, 329 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) 

In sum, the legal requirements for searching residences and automobiles differ under Florida law. To search or seize evidence from a permanent or temporary residence, law enforcement must typically obtain a Fourth Amendment-compliant warrant – absent exigent circumstances that allow for warrantless entry or seizure. By contrast, an automobile can be searched if an officer develops probable cause of criminal activity.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with an offense involving evidence seized from a vehicle or home, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share