STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND MOONIE AND ROSEANNE BALLARD, APPELLEES
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 a suppression order entered by the trial court based on the argument that Hollywood police officers lacked jurisdiction to arrest defendants in Dania. The appellate court reverses, holding that police officers may make citizen's arrests outside their jurisdiction for felonies committed in their presence or with probable cause, provided they do not act under color of office.
The order suppressing evidence is reversed. Police officers may make citizen's arrests in another jurisdiction where a felony is committed in their presence or where they know a felony has been committed and have probable cause to believe the arrested person perpetrated it, provided they do not act under color of office to observe criminal activity or gain access to evidence unavailable to a private citizen.
[1] A police officer may make a citizen's arrest in another jurisdiction where a felony is committed in their presence or where they have probable cause to believe a felony h…
[2] A police officer acting outside their jurisdiction may not use the power of their office to observe criminal activity or gain access to evidence unavailable to a private…
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“a police officer is entitled to make a citizen's arrest in another jurisdiction where a felony is committed in his presence or where he knows a felony has been committed and has probable cause to believe, and does believe, that the person arrested perpetrated the felony.”
Establishes the core holding that officers may arrest outside their jurisdiction under citizen's arrest authority
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollywood police officers conducted an undercover investigation and made several controlled buys of cocaine from Ballard. They planned a cocaine deal …
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 Acting Under Color Of Office cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals from an order suppressing evidence because it was obtained by City of Hollywood police officers as a result of an arrest outside their jurisdiction in the City of Dania.
As a result of an ongoing undercover investigation, City of Hollywood police officers were able, on several occasions, to buy packets of cocaine from appellee, Ballard. This led to the planning of a cocaine deal at Ballard’s home in Dania on November 23, 1984. The Hollywood officers notified City of Dania Detective Rickmeyer of the planned affair. On the date in question, the two undercover Hollywood officers arrived at Ballard’s home after other officers and Rickmeyer were in place surveilling the house. When the deal took place in the house, upon signal from one of the undercover agents inside, the surveillance unit converged and arrested appellees.
After being charged with trafficking, conspiracy to traffic and possession of cocaine, appellants moved to suppress the evidence. The trial judge granted the motion on the grounds that the arresting officers had no jurisdiction to act at the location of the arrest, and that they were Hollywood officers not in fresh pursuit making an arrest in Dania under color of office.
The record presented does not support the trial judge’s conclusions. True, we are dealing with an arrest in Dania by Hollywood police officers who were not in fresh pursuit. However, as held in Phoenix v. State, 455 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1984), a police officer is entitled to make a citizen’s arrest in another jurisdiction where a felony is committed in his presence or where he knows a felony has been committed and has probable cause to believe, and does believe, that the person arrested perpetrated the felony. The only limitation on that rule, which was not present in this case, is that the officer must not use the power of his office to observe criminal activity or to gain access to evidence not available to a private citizen; i.e., he must not be acting under color of his office.
Accordingly, upon authority of Phoenix the order of suppression appealed from is reversed.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.