DOUGLAS LAVERNE ADAMS, APELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Adams appealed his marijuana possession conviction obtained via nolo contendere plea, challenging the warrantless arrest for lack of probable cause. The court affirmed, finding that the officer had sufficient probable cause based on the circumstances observed, including the apparent marijuana cigarettes partially visible in the defendant's sweater pouch in a high-crime area.
The court held that the officer had probable cause to believe an offense was being committed, and the warrantless arrest was lawful. The officer did not need to actually see the marijuana before forming a reasonable belief that Adams was in possession of it; the facts and circumstances were sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in such a belief.
[1] Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable…
[2] An officer's experience and knowledge of a particular area's crime rate and common criminal activities are relevant factors in determining probable cause.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The test to determine probable cause is whether the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed.”
This articulates the legal standard for probable cause that the court applied to evaluate whether the officer's warrantless arrest was justified.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Durden conducted a premise check at a pool hall at 1:50 a.m. when he observed half of a plastic baggie containing hand-rolled cigarettes protr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Warrantless Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
[*639] PER CURIAM.
Adams appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana entered pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Adams alleges the marijuana was seized illegally because there was no probable cause to support the warrantless arrest. We affirm.
Officer Durden, while conducting a premise check at Champ’s pool hall at about 1:50 a. m., observed half of a plastic baggie containing a number of small hand-rolled cigarettes protruding from appellant’s sweater pouch. Durden promptly arrested appellant and retrieved the cigarettes while taking Adams to the patrol car. The officer testified that the area was a high crime area; it was uncommon to find hand-rolled cigarettes not to be marijuana in that area; it was common to find marijuana cigarettes carried in baggies; and that from his experience, the cigarettes looked like marijuana cigarettes because of the way they were rolled. Durden had been patrolling the area for three years and had made from 50 to 100 narcotic arrests.
Appellant urges reversal on the authority of Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In Carr, the court found an illegal seizure of marijuana cigarettes where the officer stated “he ‘knew’ they were marijuana cigarettes because they were unevenly rolled and twisted at the end.” The court held the search and seizure was not incident to a lawful arrest because the hard facts of the case did not meet the standard enunciated below:
“The test to determine probable cause is whether the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed.”
Although we agree with the foregoing principle, we decline to follow Carr in finding that the facts here, as there, do not meet this standard. We think the hard facts as testified to by Officer Durden gave him probable cause to believe that an offense was being committed in his presence. Under the facts and circumstances presented to him here, the officer did not have to actually see the marijuana before forming the reasonable belief that appellant was in possession of marijuana. AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.