STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC TRAMINE BROWN, 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 a trial court's suppression of cocaine found during a strip search of the defendant prior to formal arrest. The appellate court reverses, holding that a formal arrest declaration is not necessary when police have probable cause and the suspect is lawfully seized and in custody.
A formal declaration of arrest is not necessary before searching a seized suspect when police have reliable, detailed information providing probable cause for arrest under the totality of circumstances. The search was valid despite the lack of formal arrest declaration.
[1] A search conducted incident to a lawful arrest is a valid exception to the warrant requirement.
[2] Probable cause for arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances furnishes reliable, detailed information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that a crime ha…
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“it was not necessary that a formal declaration of "arrest" be made before searching the appellee, seized and in custody, for the evidence that the police knew he was hiding”
Establishes the core holding that formal arrest declaration is not prerequisite to conducting a lawful search when probable cause exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA reliable informant, equipped with a body transmitter, advised officers that the appellee was selling drugs. The officers witnessed the appellee sell…
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 Body Cavity Search cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse the trial court order suppressing cocaine seized in a strip search of appellee conducted prior to a formal “arrest.”
A reliable informant-agent assisted the authorities in targeting an area known for drug traffic. The officers “wired” the informant with a body transmitting device to monitor his comments and conversations from a nearby vehicle. The informant, over the wire, advised the officers that he saw the appellee selling drugs. The appel-lee then sold cocaine to the informant. The officers “moved in” and seized the appel-lee. An initial pat down search uncovered nothing, at which time the informant advised the officers that he saw the appellee hide the drugs inside his pants.
With the consent of their supervisor, the officers took appellee to a nearby bathroom where the plastic bag containing the cocaine rocks were found, by observation, between his buttocks. There was testimony that this is a common manner of concealing cocaine.1 Although the officers believed that they had probable cause to arrest the appellee2 for the sale to the informant, they planned to arrest him only for possession of the cocaine in order to protect the identity of the informant.
The trial court concluded that the search must fail because it was not conducted incident to a completed arrest, specifically relying on Nicholo v. State, 379 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1980). In Nicholo, this court de- termmed that the evidence, uncovered in a search resulting from an informant’s tip that Nicholo possessed stolen credit cards, must be suppressed because the search was not incident to a lawful arrest or any other exception to the warrant requirement. In Nicholo, however, it does not appear that the informant provided any factual basis for the information to support a valid arrest on the tip alone. Here, on the other hand, the police had reliable detailed information which under the totality of the circumstances was sufficient to furnish probable cause for arrest. Therefore, it was not necessary that a formal declaration of “arrest” be made before searching the appellee, seized and in custody, for the evidence that the police knew he was hiding. Cf. State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Adams v. State, 523 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, reh’g. denied, 396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 36, 24 L.Ed.2d 124 (1969); Council v. State, 442 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Toro, 422 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We note that appellee does not assert that the strip search would have been invalid if he had been formally arrested, for the sale, prior to the search. See generally Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Gonzalez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We also note that the appellee was not simply one suspect among many, or the object of an anonymous tip, or a misdemeanant. Rather, the police had direct evidence that he committed the felony prior to taking him into custody. Therefore, the order granting the motion to suppress is reversed.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur. . We note that there is no evidence of invasion of the body cavity by the officers.
. This is not disputed on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Augustine, 724 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ion of four factors in determining the reasonableness of a search: namely, the scope of the intrusion; the manner in which the search was conducted; the justification for initiating it; and the place where it was conducted); see also State v. Brown, 586 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(The Fourth District reversed the suppression of evidence seized in a strip search, though the defendant was not technically under arrest. The fact that there was probable cause to arrest was found to be sufficient to support the…
-
State v. Fountain, 589 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…n involving a potential cocaine sale through the monitoring device carried by the confidential source. This not only corroborated the confidential source’s story, but also added to the circumstances giving rise to probable cause. See State v. Brown, 586 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). While corroboration is an important element in a case such as this, the totality of the circumstances analysis adopted by Gates1 adopts a common sense approach in determining whether probable cause exists to believe that evidenc…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- In re Skolnick v. United States, 396 U.S. 869 (U.S. 1969)
- Adams v. State, 523 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Joe Council v. State, 442 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Gonzalez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- MAY v. State, 379 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)