K. H., A JUVENILE, 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.
K. H., a juvenile, was arrested without a warrant for grand larceny based on hearsay statements from another arrestee. The court held that the officer lacked probable cause because he failed to establish the reliability of the informant's statements, and therefore reversed the adjudication of delinquency and suppressed the statements obtained during custodial interrogation.
The court held that the warrantless arrest was unlawful because the state failed to prove the officer had probable cause to believe K. H. committed grand larceny. The state did not meet its burden of proving that information from the informant (Alexander) was sufficiently detailed and verified by the officer's personal observations to establish reliability. Consequently, K. H.'s statements made at the police station must be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest.
[1] A warrantless arrest is unlawful absent proof that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the arrestee committed the offense charged.
[2] The state bears the burden of proving that information from an informant, relied upon for an arrest, was sufficiently detailed and verified to create a reasonable inferen…
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“Absent proof that the officer had probable cause to believe that appellant had committed the offense with which he was charged, the arrest cannot be sustained under section 901.15, Florida Statutes (1979).”
Establishes the legal standard that a warrantless arrest requires probable cause that the person committed the offense charged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Heatherington arrested Joseph Alexander for traffic violations and questioned him about a theft committed the previous day. Based on Alexander…
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 Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellant K. H., a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent by the trial court. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress statements he gave police following his warrantless arrest. He contends that because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to effectuate his arrest, the statements obtained from him at the police station were tainted by the unlawful arrest. We agree and reverse.
Appellant was arrested shortly after another individual, Joseph Alexander, was arrested for traffic violations. Officer Heath-erington questioned Alexander about a theft committed the previous day. Relying on Alexander’s statements, Officer Heath-erington arrested K. H. for grand larceny of a purse without attempting to secure a warrant. Officer Heatherington then took K. H. to the police station and questioned him, eliciting the statements appellant later sought to suppress.
During the hearing on the Motion to Suppress, Officer Heatherington testified that he went with Alexander to arrest K. H. He stated:
I went out there, to identify the individuals that were involved in criminal activity, to wit, felonies in the State of Florida. And, yes, sir, if we identified them, due to the fact of the repetitious nature of the crimes that this group was committing, I felt that it was necessary to pick these individuals up, as soon as possible, to prevent the further continuance of a felony action that was on a continual basis, for approximately three weeks, prior to this.
The officer did not repeat the statements made by Alexander which led him to his conclusion that appellant was implicated in the purse snatching upon which the grand larceny charge was predicated.
Absent proof that the officer had probable cause to believe that appellant had committed the offense with which he was charged, the arrest cannot be sustained under section 901.15, Florida Statutes (1979).1 The state was required to prove that information furnished by a reliable informant was sufficiently detailed and verified by the officer’s personal observations to create a reasonable inference of reliability. State v. Doherty, 240 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The state failed to meet that burden; therefore, the warrantless arrest was unlawful.
Because appellant’s warrantless arrest constituted a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, his statements made at the police station must be suppressed as the product of his unlawful arrest. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).
Appellant’s remaining points lack merit.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. Section 901.15(2), Florida Statutes (J 979):
901.15(2) When arrest by officer without warrant is lawful. — A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when:
(2) A felony has been committed and he reasonably believes that the person committed it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1979)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975)
- State v. Doherty, 240 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)