collecting cases and defining an issue of exceptional importance as when an opinion conflicts with a rule of law, when a case is important to the jurisprudence of the entire state, when a case has an issue that impacts a large portion of the community, or when the outcome of a case could negatively impact "the public's perception of the judiciary's ability to render meaningful justice" (quoting Univ. of Miami v. Wilson, 948 So. 2d 774, 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006))
How later courts described this case
- collecting cases and defining an issue of exceptional importance as when an opinion conflicts with a rule of law, when a case is important to the jurisprudence of the entire state, when a case has an issue that impacts a large portion of the community, or when the outcome of a case could negatively impact "the public's perception of the judiciary's ability to render meaningful justice" (quoting Univ. of Miami v. Wilson, 948 So. 2d 774, 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006))
- observing that “[cjaretaking functions are performed by police officers because we expect them to take those steps that are necessary to ‘ensure the safety and welfare of the citizenry at large’ ” (quoting 3 La-Fave, Search & Seizure (4th ed.2004), § 5.4(c), pp. 201-02)
- observing that "[c]aretaking functions are performed by police officers because we expect them to take those steps that are necessary to `ensure the safety and welfare of the citizenry at large'" (quoting 3 LaFave, Search & Seizure (4th ed.2004), § 5.4(c), pp. 201-02)
- case which “fleshe[d] out the borders of both the ‘feared medical emergency’ exception to the warrant requirement . . . and the now well-recognized community caretaking function of police officers” found to be exceptionally important where original panel decision had “potentially far-reaching negative effects on the actions of law enforcement officers in fulfilling this function”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EVANDER, J.,
dissenting.
There were two motivations behind the officer’s initial entry into the Ortiz residence — (1) the desire to reunify the child with his parents, and (2) a belief that someone in the child’s home might be in need of medical assistance. For the reasons set forth in Judge Orfinger’s dissent, I conclude that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was a “feared medical emergency.” Thus, the issue is what weight, if any, should be given to the officer’s desire to reunite the child with his parents. 15 If the community caretaker exception was found to be applicable to residences, then the State’s interest in seeking prompt reunification of the young child with his parents should be given significant weight and the majority’s position might be well taken. However, if the community caretaker exception is inapplicable, then this factor should be given little weight and the State’s argument must fail. Because I believe that in Riggs v. State, 918 So.2d 274 (Fla.2005) our supreme court implicitly rejected application of the community caretaker exception with regard to residences, I respectfully dissent.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
. Indeed, the officer's only viable option to seeking to locate the child’s parents was to place the child in the custody of the Department of Children and Families — a “solution” that comes with its own set of potential adverse consequences.