HENRY GLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1985-02-20
No. 84-1543
Glickstein, J., Dell, J., Walden, J.
463 So. 2d 590 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1985)

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that a person may be taken into custody for investigatory detention to obtain physical evidence such as a hair sample when there is probable cause and the intrusion is limited to preserve ephemeral evidence.


Holding

A person may be taken into custody for investigatory detention to remove physical evidence from the body when there is probable cause and the intrusion is limited to preserve ephemeral evidence.


Headnotes

[1] A person may be taken into custody for investigatory detention to obtain physical evidence such as a hair sample when there is probable cause and the intrusion is limited…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was taken to the police station where he voluntarily accompanied an officer and cooperated in the removal of hair from his head with a c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The public defender’s motion to withdraw is granted and judgment and sentence are affirmed.

The assistant public defender accurately identified the arguable point on appeal to be whether a person may be taken into custody for an investigatory detention in order to remove physical evidence from the person’s body, namely a hair sample. She pointed out there was competent substantial evidence in the record of this case that appellant voluntarily accompanied an officer to the police station and cooperated in the removal of hair from his head with a comb. Alternatively, drawing legal support from Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973), and Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), she showed there was probable cause to detain the appellant and to intrude upon his body in a limited manner in order to preserve ephemeral evidence. Considering the facts of this case and the pertinent case law, it is clear that appellant could not prevail.

We remind all counsel for criminal defendants that defense counsel’s role in an appeal is that of defendant’s active advocate, not amicus curiae, and that defendant is entitled to the representation unless the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Where there are legal points arguable on the merits, defense counsel should prepare a conventional appellate brief, not an Anders brief.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw