STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM BYHAM, 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence obtained from a search of the defendant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on his observations of suspicious activity and his experience as a narcotics officer, making the search incident to a lawful arrest despite the search preceding the formal arrest.
The court held that the search was lawful as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for possession of marijuana based on his observations, training, and experience, and the fact that the search preceded the arrest does not impair this conclusion.
[1] Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe an offe…
[2] An officer's prior experience and training in observing the use and concealment of marijuana can support a finding of 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 way they were passing it, the way they were holding it and the way they attempted to conceal it, as I passed, was the way that normally people would act when they're smoking or trying to conceal marijuana cigarettes.”
Officer's testimony regarding his observations that provided basis for probable cause and suspicion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 4, 1979, Officer John Thomas Irvine observed three youths standing on a sidewalk passing around what appeared to be a cigarette. Based on …
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 Possession Of Narcotics cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
The State appeals an order granting a motion to suppress. We reverse.
On December 4, 1979, John Thomas Irvine, a police officer with the Town of Palm Beach, was operating his motorcycle when he observed three youths standing on the sidewalk in a huddle-type position. As he approached and passed the youths, one of whom was appellee, he could see them passing around some type of cigarette. At the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence the officer testified:
The way they were passing it, the way they were holding it and the way they attempted to conceal it, as I passed, was the way that normally people would act when they’re smoking or trying to conceal marijuana cigarettes.
Q And in your vice training, okay, and experience, have you seen people smoking marijuana?
A Yes, sir. Q Okay. And do they usually pass it around amongst themselves?
A Yes, sir. Q Okay. Do they hold it in any particular way?
A They cup it in a manner such as the— the end that you would inhale off of is this way and the fire is this way (indicating), up in the palm of your hand.
Q Okay. And is that basically what you saw the Defendants in this little — the Defendant, and these individuals, do?
A Yes.
He further testified that as he turned his motorcycle around he saw one of the youths throw the object they had been smoking onto the sidewalk and crush it. When the officer approached the youths he observed the spot where the object had been thrown and saw a green vegetation burn stain on the white sidewalk about a foot from where the three had been standing.
At that point the officer concluded the object tossed to the ground was marijuana. He based that conclusion on his prior experience as a narcotics officer involved in sixty-seven (67) arrests for possession and sale of marijuana, cocaine, hashish and PCP, and as an observer at least one hundred times of people smoking and passing around a marijuana cigarette.
Based on his conclusion, Officer Irvine searched appellee, who was barefoot and carrying tennis shoes. In one of the shoes the officer found a small metal can which contained marijuana and a cube of hashish. Whereupon he placed appellee under arrest.
The trial court found that the search of appellee was not incident to his arrest and suppressed the evidence found in the search. We disagree. The search was incident to a lawful arrest. Prior to any search Officer Irvine, based on his observations, training and experience, had probable cause to arrest appellee for possession of marijuana. Probable cause exists “where 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.” Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla.1964).
The fact that the search preceded the arrest does not impair our conclusion that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Curtis v. State, 748 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…r’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed. See Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla.1964); McNeil v. State, 512 So. 2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Curtis contends that the facts in his case are nearly identical to Doney and require that the crack cocaine be suppressed. We disagree. Officer Winfrey’s belief that what he visualized was crack cocaine is sufficient for p…
-
Railey Cross v. State, 432 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…sonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves for a reasonable man to reach the conclusion that an offense has been committed. State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1968); Wright v. State, supra; Sands v. State, supra; State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Keen, supra; State v. Lynch, 378 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Finally, the facts constituting probable cause need not reach the standard of conclusiveness and probability required of the circumstantial facts upon whic…
-
Edwards v. State, 532 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…use to make an arrest upon the discovery of the pipe and cocaine rock on the porch immediately following the dispersal of the group, noting that the denial of the motion to suppress would have been reversed had only a "founded suspicion” existed. . 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). A motorcycle policeman observed three youths huddled on the sidewalk passing around "some type of cigarette" which they attempted to conceal as he passed, and threw down as he turned the motorcycle around. Based on his experienc…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)