STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH RAMER, 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 decision to suppress evidence obtained during a search conducted by a city police officer acting as a special deputy sheriff outside his municipal limits. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statutory exceptions to a special deputy's jurisdiction do not restrict a deputy's activities solely to those listed, and that the search itself was constitutional under New York v. Class.
The court held that the statutory exceptions to special deputy jurisdiction do not restrict a deputy's activities solely to those listed circumstances, and therefore the officer had authority to conduct the search. Additionally, under New York v. Class, the agent's conduct in obtaining the confidential VIN did not violate constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures under the facts presented.
[1] A city police officer, acting as a duly sworn special deputy sheriff, may conduct a lawful search outside of municipal limits.
[2] Statutory exceptions to bond and surety provisions for special deputies do not restrict the scope of their activities.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 our opinion, exceptions (a) through (g) merely list the circumstances under which the provisions for bonds and sureties etc. of section 30.09 are not applicable. Such exceptions do not restrict the activities of a special deputy solely to those listed.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the statutory exceptions as not limiting a special deputy's jurisdiction to only those enumerated circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA city police officer, who was also a duly sworn special deputy sheriff, conducted a search in an unincorporated area of the county outside his munici…
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 Unreasonable Searches And Seizures cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The issue before us is whether the fruits of a search and seizure should be suppressed because the city police officer who conducted the search was outside his municipal limits when he did so. The trial court granted the motion to suppress. We disagree and reverse.
The city officer, who conducted the search in an unincorporated area of the county, was also a duly sworn and properly appointed special deputy sheriff. Nonetheless, the trial court found he had no authority to act outside of his municipal jurisdiction and was prohibited from so doing under section 30.09(4), Florida Statutes (1985). The state argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that section 30.-09(4) lists all of the circumstances under which special deputies can act and ruling that because the city officer'was not performing any of the items listed under paragraphs (a) to (g) of that section of the statute, the officer was acting outside of his jurisdiction. We agree with the State.
In our opinion, exceptions (a) through (g) merely list the circumstances under which the provisions for bonds and sureties etc. of section 30.09 are not applicable. Such exceptions do not restrict the activities of a special deputy solely to those listed. See State v. Campbell, 427 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Another aspect of this cause centers on a police agent who crawled under the stolen vehicle to obtain the confidential VIN (vehicle identification number). The trial judge, in the case before us, did not, at the time he ruled that the agent’s action was an illegal search without a warrant, have the benefit of the later decided United States Supreme Court case of New York v. Class, 575 U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 960, 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986). Class clearly controls the outcome here (as the trial judge has recognized in a companion case) and stands for the proposition that the agent’s conduct in obtaining the confidential VIN did not, under the facts of this particular case, violate constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Accordingly, we reverse on both grounds and remand for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramer v. State, 530 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1988)…OVERTON, Judge. This is a petition to review State v. Ranter, 501 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The major issue concerns the authority of a municipal police officer to conduct a search and seizure outside the city limits without knowledge or specific direction by the sheriff. The district court held that section 30.09(4),…
-
Clark A. Caplan v. State, 515 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…s about to be towed, and the driver was not the registered owner. Entry for similar purposes has not been considered to be restricted by the Fourth Amendment. See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 106 S.Ct. 960, 89 L.Ed. 2d 81 (1986); State v. Ramer, 501 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Eaton, 498 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). DELL, J., concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1986)
- Shorter v. State, 427 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)