JOSE IRIZARY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jose Irizary appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the seized cocaine on Fourth Amendment grounds. The court affirmed, holding that police had probable cause and lawfully accessed the property where the defendant was observed conducting a drug sale.
The court held that: (1) police had probable cause to believe an illegal chop shop was being operated; (2) police reasonably believed the dirt road led to the chop shop which was open to the public; (3) police lawfully drove onto the dirt road and lawfully arrested the defendant upon observing him in a drug sale; and (4) the cocaine was properly seized as incident to a lawful arrest, so the motion to suppress was properly denied.
[1] Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is bein…
[2] Police may lawfully enter private property to investigate suspected criminal activity if they reasonably believe the property provides access to the location of the crime…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the police had probable cause to believe that an illegal "chop shop" was being operated in the rear of a private residence in which alleged stolen vehicles were being stripped down”
Establishes the first basis for the court's holding—that police had probable cause for their actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice had information suggesting an illegal "chop shop" was being operated in the rear of a private residence where stolen vehicles were being stripp…
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 Reasonable Belief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Jose Irizary from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine which was entered below based on a nolo contendere plea; the defendant specifically reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the subject cocaine based on Fourth Amendment grounds. We affirm based on a holding that (1) the police had probable cause to believe that an illegal “chop shop” was being operated in the rear of a private residence in which alleged stolen vehicles were being stripped down, see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2329, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 545 (1983); Bush v. State, 369 So. 2d 674, 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), (2) the police reasonably believed that a certain private dirt road led from the public street around back to the “chop shop” which was otherwise open to the public, see State v. Batista, 524 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Diehl v. State, 461 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791, 793-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 112 (Fla.1971), (3) the police therefore lawfully drove their police vehicle onto the dirt road [which, in fact, led past the defendant’s residence on the way to the “chop shop”] and in so doing saw the defendant outside his residence in the midst of a drug sale with a codefendant, lawfully arrested the defendant for this offense, and thereafter seized the suspect cocaine as incident to this lawful arrest, State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971); Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Garcia, 374 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and (4) the trial court therefore properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Perseo v. State, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 246 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Garcia, 374 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Mavis L. Harris v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Dixon v. State, 369 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Diehl v. State, 461 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Batista, 524 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)