home without a search warrant simply because they think that they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime may be found therein.” Butler v. State, 697 So.2d 907, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see also Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). Thus, the officer’s view of drugs, drug paraphernalia, or a bullet in Mr. Castell and Mr. Vasquez’s motel rooms did not permit the officer to enter the rooms without a warrant. Similarly, although these items may have provided probable cause to arrest either occupant for possessing drugs or drug paraphernalia as they stood outside the residence, the officers could not constitutionally enter the residence unless the exigencies of the situation made it imperative that they do so prior to seeking a warrant. “If a ) (<HOLDING>). Vale recognized that there may be other
holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances