THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTO PINOAMADOR AND RUBEN MAQUERA, APPELLEES
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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order suppressing narcotics evidence obtained by undercover Hialeah Gardens police officers who purchased drugs from defendants while not asserting their official position. The court held that the undercover purchase was lawful because the officers were not acting under color of office when they made the transaction.
The evidence is admissible and the suppression order is reversed. The 'color of office' doctrine does not exclude evidence obtained by officers who are not holding themselves out as police officers or asserting their official position, even if they are acting outside their jurisdiction or were technically without authority in other respects.
[1] Evidence procured by undercover police officers acting outside their jurisdiction is not excludable as obtained by one acting outside of his jurisdiction under color of o…
[2] A defendant cannot vicariously assert the rights of a confidential informant whose rights may have been affected by police conduct outside of their jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 police officers were not holding themselves out as police officers or in any way asserting their official position at the time they purchased the narcotics from the defendants, and the evidence so procured is not excludable as being obtained by one acting outside of his jurisdiction under color of office”
States the core principle that the 'color of office' doctrine does not apply when officers do not assert their official position
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHialeah Gardens police officers, acting in an undercover capacity, purchased narcotics from the defendants (Pinoamador and Maquera) in Miami. The offi…
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 Vicarious Assertion Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The trial court’s order suppressing certain contraband, purchased from the defendants in the City of Miami by City of Hialeah Gardens police officers while acting in an undercover capacity, is reversed.
As should be obvious, the police officers were not holding themselves out as police officers or in any way asserting their official position at the time they purchased the narcotics from the defendants, and the evidence so procured is not excludable as being obtained by one acting outside of his jurisdiction under color of office, McAnnis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Shipman, 370 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); State v. Crum, 323 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); compare Collins v. State, 143 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Assuming, arguendo, that, as the trial court found, the officers were without authority when, outside of the jurisdiction of Hialeah Gardens, and acting as officers, they met with a confidential informant who provided them information about the defendants, the only rights which could have been affected were those of the confidential informant, which cannot be vicariously asserted by these defendants. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 47, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); McKenney v. State, 388 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1980). Similarly, the fact that the plainclothes officers were “on duty” and driving an official unmarked city vehicle at the time they purchased the narcotics lends no support to the trial court’s ruling, since it is the assertion of their official position vis-a-vis the defendants that is condemned by the “color of office” doctrine. See State v. Williams, 366 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Finally, it is obviously inconsequential, again despite the trial court’s contrary finding, that after the officers completed the purchase of the contraband, they announced their identity and arrested the defendants in the City of Miami.1 The only evidence sought to be suppressed was procured by the police before the arrest occurred.
Reversed and remanded.
. The trial court also found that this arrest was unlawful under Section 901.25, Florida Statutes (1979). This statute, authorizing a municipal police officer to effect an arrest outside of his jurisdiction when in “hot pursuit,” sanctions an extraterritorial arrest made under color of office. It does not apply to municipal police officers not acting under color of office, see State v. Williams, supra (holding that while a peace officer not in hot pursuit outside of his jurisdiction could not act as a peace officer, he could nevertheless act as a private citizen), as was the case here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Phoenix, 428 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…e the arrests. The evidence upon which the arrests were based was obtained before confronting any persons in St. Lucie County and without any unlawful assertion of official authority vis-a-vis the occupants or a third party. See State v. Pinoamador, 389 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Thus, the evidence upon which the officers sought to justify the arrests was not unlawfully obtained in violation of the “under color of office” doctrine, and the trial court erred in concluding that the officers were powerl…
-
State v. Mitchell, 124 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…de-fendant’s statements implicating defendant in crime); McKenney v. State, 388 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla.1980) (finding that defendant did not have standing to object to violations of witness’s constitutional rights). As stated in State v. Pinoamador, 389 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980): Assuming, arguendo, that, as the trial court found, the officers were without authority when, outside of the jurisdiction of Hialeah Gardens, and acting as [*1048] officers, they met with a confidential informant who provid…
-
Godfrey Joseph Darby v. State, 502 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ng the evidence against the defendants not to be tainted by the arrest, even if invalid, we affirm. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); Perry v. State, 478 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Pinoamador, 389 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1969)
- Collins v. State, 143 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Maggieruth (Boram) Johnston v. Forrest Ray Boram, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- McKENNEY v. State, 388 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Shipman, 370 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- State v. Crum, 323 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Curbelo v. Uarco, 366 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)