ANDREW THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Thomas challenged his burglary conviction, arguing that the search of his person was unconstitutional because officers arrested him on a loitering and prowling charge rather than burglary. The court affirmed, holding that when probable cause exists for one offense, the validity of an arrest and subsequent search does not depend on which charge was actually used.
The court held that where probable cause to arrest for a certain offense exists by objective standards, the validity of an arrest does not turn on whether the arrest was effected on another charge. Consequently, the search was valid because probable cause to arrest for burglary existed, regardless that the officers arrested on a different charge.
[1] Where objective standards establish probable cause to arrest for a specific offense, the validity of an arrest is not undermined by the fact that the arrest was effectuat…
[2] A search incident to a lawful arrest is valid even if the search precedes the formal arrest, provided probable cause to arrest existed at the time of the search.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Where, by objective standards, probable cause to arrest for a certain offense exists, the validity of an arrest does not turn on the fact that an arrest was effected on another charge.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the charge used for arrest is immaterial when probable cause for another offense existed objectively.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers stopped Thomas and, believing circumstances justified an arrest for loitering and prowling, conducted a search of his person incident to that…
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 Loitering And Prowling cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We affirm Thomas’ conviction. The trial court correctly denied Thomas’ motion to suppress the fruits of a burglary found during a search of Thomas’ person.
The arresting officers believed that the circumstances, at most, justified an arrest for loitering and prowling and, incident to an arrest on that charge, conducted a search of Thomas. Even if, as Thomas suggests, an arrest on that charge was unlawful because the officers immediately upon stopping Thomas gave him Miranda warnings, which arguably inhibited him from dispelling the officers’ concern, see Section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1977); State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla.), cert. denied sub nom., Bell v. Florida, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975), there existed, notwithstanding the officers’ mistaken and contrary belief, probable cause to arrest Thomas on a charge of burglary. See, e. g., Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
Where, by objective standards, probable cause to arrest for a certain offense exists, the validity of an arrest does not turn on the fact that an arrest was effected on another charge. Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 904, 91 S.Ct. 2205, 29 L.Ed.2d 680 (1971); United States v. Ullrich, 580 F. 2d 765 (5th Cir. 1978).
Moreover, given the existence of probable cause to arrest Thomas for the offense of burglary, the validity of the search of Thomas is unaffected by the fact that the search preceded his formal arrest on that charge. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345, 1347 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Palmer v. State, 467 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…authorized to seize gun after consensual view of firearm revealed that gun was contraband); W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.1 n. 75.2 (Supp.1985). This is true even though the actual arrest was formally effected after the search. Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Abislaiman, 437 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 123, 83 L.Ed.2d 65 (1984). Second, the initial consent to search the tote bW is pr…
-
Robinson v. State, 556 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ving and attempting to elude a police officer. The court stated: The fact that they did not arrest Gasset on these charges is of no moment; the propriety of an arrest does not turn on the charges upon which the arrest was effected. Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 242 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 904, 91 S.Ct. 2205, 29 L.Ed.2d 680 (1971). Nor can it turn on the charges ultimately filed. Id. at 98. Thus, in Gass…
-
State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); and (2) contrary to the trial court’s belief, the validity of the search as incident to the arrest is unaffected by the fact that the police officers classified their actions as an inventory search, cf. Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (where, by objective standards, probable cause to arrest for a certain offense exists, the validity of an arrest does not turn on the fact that an arguably unsupportable arrest was made on another charge). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980)
- State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Hicks v. Virginia, 423 U.S. 1019 (U.S. 1975)
- Rivera v. United States, 423 U.S. 1019 (U.S. 1975)
- Dies v. Carter, 403 U.S. 904 (U.S. 1971)
- Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- United States v. Ullrich, 580 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United Transp. Union v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 403 U.S. 904 (U.S. 1971)