DAVID M. KRAJNAK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained after an arrest lacking probable cause.
A police officer observed the defendant in a parked car, approached him, and arrested him after the defendant discarded a cigarette. A subsequent sear…
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 Search Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his convictions for grand theft and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). We conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, to wit, marijuana and a fire extinguisher found in defendant’s automobile after his arrest, as well as certain statements of the defendant. We therefore reverse.
The arrest arose under the following circumstances. A police officer, located approximately twenty feet from the defendant who was seated in a parked car, saw the defendant put a cigarette into his mouth. It was late at night. The officer testified that the cigarette could have been simply a tobacco cigarette. The officer approached the car and asked what defendant was smoking. Defendant thereupon tossed the cigarette aside. After the defendant was told to get out of the car, he was arrested. Following the arrest the officer searched the car and discovered a marijuana cigarette, rolling papers and a fire extinguisher. The defendant told the officer that he had taken the fire extinguisher from a residence.
There was no probable cause for the arrest. See Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1984); State v. Ellison, 455 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Thompson v. State, 405 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The evidence became the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See State v. Neri, 290 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). There was no applicable exception to the search warrant requirement.
The convictions are reversed. Defendant shall be discharged.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1984)
- Carr v. State, 353 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Ellison, 455 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Torin D. Thompson v. State, 405 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Katharine T. Fulton v. The N. Tr. Co., 290 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)