MAURICE CHEVALIER MCCOY, 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.
Maurice Chevalier McCoy challenges the suppression of cocaine evidence obtained following his arrest after a police stop. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's denial of McCoy's motion to suppress, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest him despite the object retrieved before arrest testing negative for cocaine.
The officer had probable cause to arrest McCoy. Probable cause is evaluated from the viewpoint of a prudent cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest, and hindsight may not be employed in determining whether an arrest was made upon probable cause. An otherwise valid arrest is not rendered illegal by the fact that it turns out the arrestee is innocent.
[1] A police officer may lawfully arrest a suspect when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime, even if the suspect is later found to be…
[2] Probable cause for an arrest is evaluated from the perspective of a prudent police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest, without the benefit of hindsight.
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“Probable cause is evaluated from the viewpoint of a prudent cautious police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest.”
Establishes the objective standard for evaluating probable cause at the moment of arrest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed McCoy and several other persons standing in an area known for drug transactions. The officer had personally made 40 to 50 dr…
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 Incident To Lawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine found after a stop, arrest, and search of defendant.
Defendant was arrested after a police officer observed him and several other persons standing together in an area known by the officer for drug transactions. The officer had personally made 40 to 50 drug arrests in that area. As the officer approached, defendant and the other per sons fled. As defendant fled, the officer saw him drop an object which, from its size and color, appeared to be rock cocaine. The officer, having been involved in a prior narcotics arrest of defendant, stopped defendant and retrieved the object. He then arrested defendant. The officer did not have with him the means by which to test whether the object was actually cocaine.
Defendant was searched at the police station after his arrest. A plastic bag taken from his right shoe contained residue which tested positive for cocaine. The object the officer retrieved prior to defendant’s arrest tested negative for cocaine.
Defendant properly concedes that the officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which justified an investigatory stop. See State v. Pye, 551 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). However, defendant argues that the officer did not have probable cause for the arrest and that therefore the search incident to his arrest was unlawful. We disagree and conclude that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant.
“Probable cause is evaluated from the viewpoint of a prudent cautious police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest.” State v. Riehl, 504 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1987). “It is axiomatic that hindsight may not be employed in determining whether a prior arrest or search was made upon probable cause.” 1 W.R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.2(d) (2d ed.1987). “An otherwise valid arrest or search is not rendered illegal by the fact that it turns out that the arrestee is innocent....” Id. See also United States v. Covelli, 738 F. 2d 847 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 867, 105 S.Ct. 211, 83 L.Ed.2d 141 (1984) (arrest for passing counterfeit bill lawful notwithstanding bill turned out to be legitimate).
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CLAIRE K. LUTEN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. & Sergeant Patricia Sedano v. Ahmed Asad, 78 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…e at the time of the arrest.” State v. Riehl, 504 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (emphasis added). “It is axiomatic that hindsight may not be employed in determining whether a prior arrest or search was made upon probable cause.” McCoy v. State, 565 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (emphasis added) (quoting 1 W.R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.2(d) (2d ed. 1987)). Events that occur subsequent to the arrest are irrelevant in a false arrest claim because whether the plaintiff was falsely arrested turns o…
-
State v. Brown, 616 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…d the baggie which appeared to these trained officers to contain crack cocaine. See Cross v. State, 560 So. 2d 228 (Fla.1990); P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1984); State v. Ellison, 455 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also, McCoy v. State, 565 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (probable cause found in similar circumstances even though object believed to be cocaine later tested negative). In summary, because there was founded suspicion grounding the original stop at the police cruiser and the following…
-
Fla. Game & Freshwater Fish Comm'n & the Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Denzel Dockery, 676 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…r learned the wrong tests had been run on the samples does not mean that probable cause did not exist at the time of the arrest. Hindsight should not be used to determine whether a prior arrest or search was made with probable cause. McCoy v. State, 565 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Events that occur subsequent to the arrest cannot remove the probable cause that existed at the time of the arrest. Dodds v. State, 434 So. 2d 940, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). [*475] Because we have determined that probable cau…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Covelli, 738 F.2d 847 (7th Cir. 1984)
- State v. PYE, 551 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- State v. Riehl, 504 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. United States, 469 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1984)
- Hawks v. United States, 469 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1984)