STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIUS PRINGLE, 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 appealed a trial court's order suppressing cocaine evidence obtained from Julius Pringle during a pat-down search. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle before conducting the search, making the search valid as a search incident to arrest even though the search preceded the formal arrest.
The Court held that the search was valid as a search incident to arrest because the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle before conducting the search based on observing the wad of money in Pringle's hand and cocaine on the car seat. A valid search incident to arrest may occur even when the search precedes the formal arrest if probable cause existed at the time of the search.
[1] A search incident to a lawful arrest is permissible even if the search precedes the formal arrest, provided probable cause to arrest existed at the time of the search.
[2] Probable cause to arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.
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“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner's person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa.”
Establishes the legal principle that the temporal sequence of search and arrest is not constitutionally significant when probable cause existed at the time of the search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA reliable informant tipped police that a man named Sam Schueler with cocaine would be near a specific parked car. Officers found a car with a similar…
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 Terry Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Julius Pringle was charged with possession of cocaine, pleaded not guilty and, prior to trial, moved to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to an allegedly illegal “pat-down” search. The state has appealed from the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence. We reverse.
A Sarasota Police Department patrolman received a tip from a reliable informant that a black man named Sam Schueler could be found at or near an automobile with tag number 418-DAJ, which was parked at the town hall. The informant relayed that Schueler would have a three-inch glass vial containing cocaine rocks. This information was relayed to Officer Etheridge who responded to the scene described by the informant. There he and several other officers found a car bearing Florida tag 418-DAZ. Two black males were in the car. The driver, holding a wad of money, identified himself as Julius Prin-gle and stated that he did not know the identity of the passenger who had just entered the car. The passenger exited from the car. As he talked to Officer Waugh, who had accompanied Officer Etheridge, Officer Waugh noticed a bag of cocaine on the seat of the car, close to the passenger’s side. Officer Waugh then arrested the passenger. Officer Etheridge testified at the suppression hearing that he thought he had observed a narcotics deal and that he believed, based upon past experience, it was probable that Pringle was armed. He conducted a pat-down search of the defendant, felt what appeared to be a three-inch vial, and pulled it from Pringle’s pocket. A presumptive field test supported the suspicion that the vial contained cocaine.
Etheridge stated that he patted the suspect down for weapons, but at the moment when he extracted the vial from Pringle’s pocket he was not under the impression that it was a gun or a knife.
The trial court suppressed the evidence obtained from Pringle’s pocket on the basis that the officer had conducted an illegal search; by removing the vial from Prin-gle’s pocket, Etheridge had gone beyond the scope of a permissible pat-down under the principles outlined in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Terry permits a stop of an individual based upon a police officer’s reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring; incident to that stop the officer may conduct a limited pat-down for the purpose of discovering weapons. In ruling that the evidence should be suppressed, the trial court nonetheless noted that Etheridge had probable cause to believe that he had discovered Pringle in the middle of a narcotics transaction. As the trial court viewed the sequence of events, however, Etheridge’s conduct went beyond the limits of a permissible search and seizure because the officer searched Pringle before he arrested him.
Etheridge had probable cause to arrest Pringle when he observed both the wad of money in Pringle’s hand and the cocaine on the passenger’s side of the car. Given the existence of probable cause to arrest before the actual search, Etheridge’s conduct fell within an acceptable constitutional boundary. A valid search of a person may occur incident to a valid arrest, even when the search precedes the arrest. “Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa.” Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 112, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2565, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). In Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), this court recognized the Rawlings principle in a factual setting quite similar to the one before us. We upheld the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence seized from the defendant, because at the time of the search there existed ample cause to arrest him for possession of marijuana. See also State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the suppression order and remand this case for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreland v. State, 552 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…of the car’s passenger. After the officers had probable cause to arrest one of the ear’s occupants for that crime, the search of the inside of the car and of containers therein was justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Pringle, 499 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Shaw v. State, 449 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). A valid search may occur incident to a valid arrest even when, as apparently here, the search precedes the arrest. Pringle, 499 So. 2d at 76. Also, we conclude under the circums…
-
State v. Whitley, 846 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…659 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 665 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1995); Butler v. State, 634 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), quashed on other grounds, 655 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.1995); State v. Boulia, 522 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Pringle, 499 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. Diaz, 474 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Wright v. State, 418 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 426 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1983); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see also Rawlings…
-
State v. Earnest James, 526 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…he fact that the search comes before the arrest. E.g., Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); [*191] McNeil v. State, 512 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1988); State v. Pringle, 499 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Acosta v. State, 431 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Emery, 411 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. King, 405 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Dixon v. State, 343 So…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980)
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)