JOE COUNCIL, 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.
Council was arrested after police observed him taking white capsules from a mailbox and concealing them in his pants while denying possession. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the officer had probable cause to search Council's person based on his suspicious conduct, and the warrantless search was constitutionally permissible.
The court held that Council's conduct established probable cause for the officer to believe he was in possession of a controlled substance, and therefore the warrantless search of his person was constitutionally permissible.
[1] A police officer has probable cause to believe a person possesses a controlled substance when observing them retrieve white capsules from a mailbox, which appear to be "s…
[2] A warrantless search of a person's person is constitutionally permissible when probable cause exists to believe the person is in possession of a controlled substance.
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“In broad daylight, Council took from a mailbox some all-white capsules which appeared to the experienced officer who was watching him to contain "suspect cocaine;" he put them in a towel which he "stuck down in his pants;" and then told the policeman that he had "nothing in the towel."”
Court's summary of the facts establishing Council's suspicious conduct that gave rise to probable cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn broad daylight, Council took all-white capsules from a mailbox that an experienced officer believed contained cocaine. Council then placed the caps…
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 A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
In broad daylight, Council took from a mailbox some all-white capsules which appeared to the experienced officer who was watching him to contain “suspect cocaine;” he put them in a towel which he “stuck down in his pants;” and then told the policeman that he had “nothing in the towel.” We agree with the trial court that his conduct established probable cause for the officer to believe that the defendant was in possession of a controlled substance. Albo v. State, 379 So. 2d 648 (Fla.1980); In the Interest of P.L.R., 435 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Foxx v. State, 392 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Bush v. State, 369 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).1 The warrantless search of Council’s person which secured what indeed turned out to have been cocaine was therefore constitutionally permissible. Acosta v. State, 431 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
. Like P.L.R., we do not agree with Thompson v. State, 405 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); and Harris v. State, 352 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We think that these decisions, as well as Kelly v. State, 407 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which is contrary to our opinion in Foxx; Brown v. State, 313 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976); and Brown v. State, 330 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) embody a highly legalistic, indeed myopic, approach to the probable cause issue in these situations which cannot pass muster under the applicable tests of common sense and reality. See Illinois v. Gates, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Palmer v. State, 467 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…tinctively wrapped, shaped, and sized packages, there was, as they testified and as the trial court specifically and correctly held, probable cause to believe that narcotics were present. P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1984); Council v. State, 442 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). On that basis the officers were thereafter permitted to seize and examine the packages as incident to the arrest of Palmer on that charge. See Flanagan v. State, 440 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 450 So.…
-
State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…f, as may be less clear, their observations were not enough, but see P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1220, 105 S.Ct. 1206, 84 L.Ed.2d 349 (1985); State v. James, 526 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Council v. State, 442 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), together they made the case. In a manner of speaking, the two elements of probable cause were in a synergistic relationship with each other, with the features of each validating the reliability of the other, see Illinois v. Gates…
-
Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Amendment level of probable cause.” 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.6(e) at 669 (1978) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) This legal analysis, in turn, is fully consistent with the comparable Florida law on the subject. See Council v. State, 442 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bush v. State, 369 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The trial court therefore properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress below. The conviction under review is accordingl…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (18 total)
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Albo v. State, 379 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1980)
- Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Marshall v. State, 352 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Torin D. Thompson v. State, 405 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Brown v. State, 330 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Mavis L. Harris v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)