CHRISTOPHER CHERUBINI, 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.
Christopher Cherubini appealed a burglary conviction entered upon a nolo contendere plea, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress fingerprint evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Cherubini voluntarily consented to fingerprinting and was lawfully detained when that consent was obtained.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the defendant voluntarily accompanied police to the station and voluntarily consented to fingerprinting. The consent was not tainted by any illegal detention because the police officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed a burglary and was therefore authorized to detain and question him.
[1] A trial court properly denies a motion to suppress evidence when the defendant voluntarily accompanied police to the station and voluntarily consented to the taking of fi…
[2] Voluntary consent to a search or seizure is not tainted by a prior illegal detention if the defendant was lawfully detained at the time consent was given.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court was entitled to find, as it did, that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the police station and voluntarily consented to the taking of his fingerprints”
Establishes the court's holding that voluntary consent to fingerprinting was present
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCherubini was charged with burglary of a structure. Police obtained his fingerprints at the police station after he accompanied them there. A latent f…
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 Tainted Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Christopher Cherubini from a final judgment of conviction and probation order for burglary of a structure. The judgment and probation order were entered below based on a nolo contendere plea in which the defendant specifically reserved for appeal the question as to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his fingerprint which was later used to link him to a latent fingerprint lifted from the scene of the charged burglary. This point, in turn, is the sole issue raised by the defendant on appeal.
We conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress because on this record the trial court was entitled to find, as it did, that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the police station and voluntarily consented to the taking of his fingerprints. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). Moreover, this consent was not tainted by a prior illegal detention of the defendant as the defendant was lawfully detained at the time the subject consent was given; the detaining police officer clearly had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed a burglary in the area and therefore was authorized to temporarily detain and question the defendant. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). The defendant’s fingerprint sought to be suppressed was therefore not, as urged, the product of an illegal detention or involuntary consent.
The final judgment of conviction and probation order under review are, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985)