STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TRAVIS WILLIAM POLLARD, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of charges against an inmate for possession of contraband in violation of section 944.47. The court holds that the statute prohibits inmates from possessing contraband anywhere, not just at the correctional facility, and reverses the trial court's dismissal.
Section 944.47 applies to inmates in possession of contraband anywhere, not just on correctional facility grounds. The trial court's dismissal of the contraband charges is reversed because Pollard's off-premises possession while on work release falls within the statute's scope.
[1] A correctional institution inmate in possession of contraband outside the physical grounds of the institution can be charged with possession of contraband as an inmate.
[2] Section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), applies to inmates in possession of contraband anywhere, not solely within the confines of the correctional facility.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“section 944.47(l)(c) 'alternatively applies to inmates in possession of contraband anywhere, 'or' other persons while on the grounds of correctional institutions.'”
Establishes the statutory language and interpretation that inmates can be prosecuted for contraband possession anywhere, not just on facility grounds.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePollard, an inmate at Bartow Community Correctional Center on a work release program, was arrested in a lounge parking lot on November 25, 1988, for p…
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.
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The state appeals the dismissal of charges against Mr. Pollard for possession of contraband as an inmate. We reverse.
On November 25, 1988, Mr. Pollard was arrested in the parking lot of a lounge for possession of methadone, cocaine and drug paraphernalia. At the time of the arrest, Mr. Pollard was an inmate at the Bartow Community Correctional Center, but he was off the premises pursuant to his work release program. He was supposed to be at work and to return to the prison later that same day. Mr. Pollard was charged with two counts of possession of contraband as an inmate in violation of section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), as well as possession of methadone, cocaine and drug paraphernalia. He filed a motion to dismiss the two counts of possession of contraband as an inmate, and the trial court granted his motion on the grounds that the alleged possession did not occur at the correctional facility itself.
The First District has clearly held that section 944.47(l)(c) “alternatively applies to inmates in possession of contraband anywhere, ‘or’ other persons while on the grounds of correctional institutions.” Brooks v. State, 529 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); § 944.47(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). The circuit court declined to follow Brooks, even though it was obligated to do so in the absence of conflicting precedent from this district court or another district court. Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We agree with the First District’s analysis in Brooks and reverse the trial court’s order dismissing these charges. For the purposes of section 944.47, Florida Statutes (1987), it does not matter whether the inmate was on or off the premises while in possession of this type of illegal contraband. The statute is designed to prevent the introduction of illegal contraband into a prison facility, A prisoner in a work release program has a daily opportunity to introduce contraband into the prison, and the state has every reason to create additional criminal sanctions to discourage the exercise of that opportunity.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. Pinellas Cnty., 423 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Brooks v. State, 529 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)