STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FAYE BOOKER, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. JAMES A. BRYANT, 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.
The State of Florida appealed the suppression of heroin evidence in two drug possession cases. The trial court found insufficient probable cause for the arrests of Booker and Bryant based on a police informer's observations of foil packets. The appellate court reversed, holding that the combination of the informer's observations and Bryant's statements to the informer established probable cause for the arrests.
The appellate court held that probable cause existed to arrest Booker and Bryant. The combination of Coleman's observation of foil packets commonly used to package heroin and Bryant's explicit statement that they had heroin for sale established probable cause. The arrests were therefore valid, and the evidence obtained from the search incident to the lawful arrests was admissible.
[1] Probable cause for an arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information ar…
[2] An experienced police narcotics purchaser's observation of foil packets, commonly used to package heroin, combined with a suspect's statement that they had heroin for sal…
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“We hold that there was probable cause to arrest Booker and Bryant.”
The court's central holding establishing that probable cause existed based on the informer's observations and Bryant's statements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 22, 1979, Booker and Bryant approached Sam Coleman, a police narcotics purchaser and informer. Bryant told Coleman they had heroin for sal…
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 Standing To Contest Search cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Faye Booker and James A. Bryant were charged with possession of heroin by an information filed in the Pinellas County Circuit Court. Booker and Bryant both pleaded not guilty and filed motions to suppress, which were granted by the trial court. The state appeals contending that the trial court erred in finding no probable cause for the arrests of Booker and Bryant. We agree and reverse.
On February 22,1979, Booker and Bryant approached Sam Coleman, a police narcotics purchaser and informer. Bryant told Coleman that they had some heroin and inquired whether Coleman was interested in purchasing some of it. Bryant showed Coleman a yellowish-brown envelope containing numerous foil packets, which Bryant then gave to Booker. Coleman knew from his experience as a narcotics purchaser that heroin was commonly packaged in such foil packets and he informed his contact with the St. Petersburg Police Department that Booker and Bryant were in possession of heroin. On the basis of Coleman’s observation, the police arrested Booker and Bryant. Heroin was found on Booker during a search incident to the arrest.
The trial court determined that Coleman’s observation of the foil packets was insufficient to establish the necessary probable cause to support the arrests and granted both motions to suppress. The court reasoned that if the arrests were invalid, the searches of the defendants incident to those arrests had to be invalid as well.
We hold that there was probable cause to arrest Booker and Bryant. First, the trial court was incorrect in ruling that Coleman’s observation of the foil packets was insufficient to establish probable cause. See State v. Redding, 362 So. 2d 170 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Second, the court failed to take into consideration Bryant’s statement to Coleman that they had “boy” for sale, “boy” being the common street term for heroin. The combination of Coleman’s observation and Bryant’s statement to Coleman gave the police probable cause to make the arrests. The arrests were therefore valid. Since the heroin was discovered during the course of a search incident to a lawful arrest, the trial court erred in granting the motions to suppress.
In light of this opinion, we find it unnecessary to consider the state’s argument that Bryant had no standing to contest the search of Booker. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ellison, 455 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…vior and the peculiar location of the tinfoil packets within the defendant’s shoes as well as the likelihood that the drugs would be quickly disposed of upon reoeeupancy and departure of the vehicle and driver. Similarly, we held in State v. Booker, 380 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), that a police informant’s observation of an envelope in defendant’s possession containing numerous tinfoil packets commonly used to package heroin, and defendant’s statement to the informant that he and his co-defendant had “boy”…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Redding, 362 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)