THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL JORDAN, 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.
The State appeals from a suppression order, arguing that police had probable cause to search Jordan's pocket based on his possession of a manila envelope commonly used in drug transactions in a high-crime area and his observed receipt of money. The appellate court reverses, finding the officers had probable cause under controlling precedent.
The court held that the officers had probable cause to search Jordan's pocket. Under P.L.R. v. State, an officer observing an envelope of a type used exclusively in narcotics transactions at a narcotics transaction site has probable cause to make an arrest and conduct a search. Jordan's case presented identical facts plus the additional observation that he received money and placed the envelope in his pocket.
[1] Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer would warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect had committed…
[2] A police officer has probable cause to arrest for a drug offense when observing an envelope of a type exclusively used in narcotics transactions in the suspect's pocket a…
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“a police officer at a narcotics transaction site, making an unrelated narcotics arrest, had probable cause to arrest the juvenile when he observed in the juvenile's pocket an envelope of a type only used in narcotics transactions”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from P.L.R. v. State that probable cause exists when an officer observes an envelope type used exclusively in narcotics transactions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers observed Jordan accepting money from another person and then placing a small manila envelope in his right rear pocket. When approached…
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 Probable Cause For Warrantless Search cases and more on FLexlaw
[*831] PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals from a final order granting appellee’s motion to suppress physical evidence. We reverse.
Appellee was observed accepting money from another person and then placing a small manila envelope in his right rear pocket. The two plain clothed police officers then approached appellee, told him that they suspected that he was involved in a drug transaction and asked him to remove his right hand from his right rear pocket. One officer testified that there was an open manila envelope in appellee’s hand. He looked into the envelope and saw several wrapped pieces of a substance which appeared to be cocaine. Thereafter, appellee was arrested and, as he was being placed in the police car, the officers observed another manila envelope in appel-lee’s rear pocket. Upon examining the envelope, the officers discovered heroin.
At the suppression hearing the officers testified that this area of Coconut Grove had a history of drug transactions and that the area had been targeted for special attention because of citizen complaints about the amount of drugs sold there. Both officers testified that in their experience the type of manila envelope which they observed in appellee’s possession was used in almost all of the drug transactions in this area. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because, while it accepted the police officers’ testimony as true, neither officer observed appellee pass anything to the other person in exchange for the money received. Thus, it found that the officers had no probable cause to conduct a war-rantless search of appellee.
We find that our reversal is compelled by P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1984), in which the Florida Supreme Court found that a police officer at a narcotics transaction site, making an unrelated narcotics arrest, had probable cause to arrest the juvenile when he observed in the juvenile’s pocket an envelope of a type only used in narcotics transactions. The facts herein are identical to those in P.L.R., with the additional fact that appellee was observed accepting money from another person and then placing the manila envelope in his pocket.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of J.H., 580 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…es v. Green, 670 F. 2d 1148 (D.C.Cir.1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205, 421 A. 2d 684 (1980). All the cases cited by the State included additional factors such as packaging distinctly common in the illegal drugs trade, State v. Jordan, 458 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); a tip from a reliable informant, State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); or a plain view of the contraband after the initial reasonable suspicion stop in an area known for drug transactions. Johnson v. State, 540 So. 2…
-
Johnson v. State, 565 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…es v. Green, 670 F. 2d 1148 (D.C.Cir.1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205, 421 A. 2d 684 (1980). All the cases cited by the State included additional factors such as packaging distinctly common in the illegal drugs trade, State v. Jordan, 458 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); a tip from a reliable informant, State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); or a plain view of the contraband after the initial reasonable suspicion stop in an area known for drug transactions. Johnson v. State, 540 So. 2…
-
Johnson v. State, 683 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Jordan, 458 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1984)