THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CELESTINO GONZALEZ, 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 appeals a trial court's order suppressing all evidence obtained from searches, seizures, and interrogation of Gonzalez in a drug trafficking case. The trial court found the Miami Police Department lacked jurisdiction to conduct searches outside city limits and violated Miranda rights. The appellate court affirmed the suppression order.
The appellate court affirmed the suppression order, finding the trial judge had an evidentiary basis for his findings and conclusions that the searches, seizures, and interrogation should be suppressed.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion to suppress are presumed correct on appeal.
[2] When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, evidence and reasonable inferences must be interpreted in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial…
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“In reviewing the ruling of a trial judge on a motion to suppress, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law come to this court with a presumption of correctness and, in testing the accuracy of the trial judge's conclusions we should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to sustain these conclusions.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applicable to suppression orders and requires appellate courts to presume trial court findings are correct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiami Police Department officers conducted searches and seizures of Gonzalez at Westchester Shopping Center, located outside the City of Miami, in con…
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 Standard Of Review For Suppression Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an appeal by the state from an order of the Circuit Court for Dade County suppressing all evidence obtained as the fruits of several searches and seizures and an interrogation in connection with the arrest of appellee for trafficking in illegal drugs.
The searches and seizures were made by officers of the City of Miami Police Department at the Westchester'Shopping Center which is located outside of the City of Miami.
After an extensive evidentiary hearing the trial court entered the order under review. It is the state’s contention that the suppression order was erroneous and should be reversed. We cannot agree, and affirm.
The order of suppression was unusually long and contained detailed findings of fact. The order stated, inter alia, that all of the evidence obtained by the searches and seizures and by interrogation in connection with appellee’s arrest should be suppressed because there was no connection between the subject matter of the investigation and the City of Miami, and all of the activity occurred outside of the City of Miami; that the investigation was strictly supervised and conducted by the City of Miami Police Department; that the Miami police officers had no jurisdiction to act as police officers outside of the City of Miami; that the appellee did not receive his Miranda warnings; and that all of the witnesses presented during the suppression hearing were police officers whose memories were tainted by selective recall. The court further stated in the order that he had paid careful attention to the demeanor of each witness and to the contradictions in their testimony.
In reviewing the ruling of a trial judge on a motion to suppress, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to this court with a presumption of correctness and, in testing the accuracy of the trial judge’s conclusions we should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to sustain these conclusions. Shapiro v. State, 390 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 982, 101 S.Ct. 1519, 67 L.Ed.2d 818 (1981); State v. Parker, 399 So. 2d 24, 27 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981); Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587, 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Our review of the record convinces us that the trial judge had an evidentiary-basis for his findings and conclusions on the motion to suppress. Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rodriguez, 477 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…pplying a presumption of correctness and viewing the evidence in a manner most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984); State v. Gonzalez, 447 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 3d [*1026] DCA 1984), we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order on the consent issue. We reject the state’s probable cause contention on a finding that Rodriguez’s nervousness and the feeling of a soft…
-
State v. Griffis, 502 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…le here, a municipal police officer has no power to act as a police officer outside the territorial limits of his municipality. See, e.g., State v. Phoenix, 428 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), affirmed, 455 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1984); State v. Gonzalez, 447 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), where the court affirmed a trial court order suppressing evidence seized by City of Miami police officers out [*1358] side the limits of the City of Miami. See also 70 Am.Jur.2d Sheriffs, Police and Constables § 57 (1987). Theref…
-
State v. Sanchez, 465 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ence. The court ruled that the Hialeah police officers acted beyond their jurisdiction and that the arrests and seizure of the cocaine were, therefore, illegal. In the order suppressing the evidence, the trial court concluded that State v. Gonzalez, 447 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 8d DCA 1984) was determinative of the issues in this cause. We disagree. Gonzalez does not answer the questions before us. Here, the arrests were made by an investigator assigned to the Dade County State Attorney’s' office. His powers to arres…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shapiro v. State, 390 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1980)
- Sautter v. Victory Auto Rental Corp., 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Hanigan v. United States, 450 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1981)
- Spencer v. Howe Richardson Scale Co., 450 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Parker, 399 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)