ERIC BERNARD MCCRIMMON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Municipal Ordinance Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Eric Bernard McCrimmon appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence which was seized when McCrimmon was arrested for the violation of a municipal ordinance. McCrimmon contends that the municipal ordinance was invalid, and thus the arrest was illegal and the items seized as a result of that arrest should have been suppressed. We disagree for two reasons.
First, the municipal ordinance, which prohibited the riding of bicycles on sidewalks in the City of Orlando, was a valid exercise of municipal authority. See §§ 316.002 and 316.008(l)(h), Fla.Stat. Second, even if the municipal ordinance were held to be invalid, evidence which is seized incident to an arrest concerning a municipal ordinance which is subsequently declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, is still admissible. See Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). For these reasons, the decision of the lower court is
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Smith, 584 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ee that the local ordinance did not, as a matter of law, authorize an arrest in this case, our decision does not require the suppression of the evidence. See DeFillippo. See also State v. Joyce, 529 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McCrimmon v. State, 505 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This ordinance had been duly promulgated and was presumptively valid at the time of this arrest. As the United States Supreme Court has observed: Police are charged to enfo…
-
State v. Joyce, 529 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…1979)) (evidence seized incident to an arrest under presumptively valid ordinance is admissible), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 39, 98 L.Ed.2d 170 (1987); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (same); see also McCrimmon v. State, 505 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). There was no basis for suppressing the evidence obtained. We need not reach the remaining arguments raised by the State. Reversed and remanded. . The trial court did not address the defendant’s attack on the constitutionality…
-
State v. Calloway, 589 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…higan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979). See also Muehleman v. State, 503 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1987); State v. Smith, 584 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Joyce, 529 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McCrimmon v. State, 505 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the Melbourne loitering ordinance had not been declared unconstitutional at the time of defendant’s arrest by any controlling precedent, the police officer acted in…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Michigan v. DeFILLIPPO, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979)
- Reuben Lavern Williams v. State, 491 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)