ALONZO WALKER, 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.
Alonzo Walker pleaded nolo contendere to drug possession charges but appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court reversed, finding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest Walker because the arrest was based solely on erroneous radio information about a suspended license that did not exist.
The arrest lacked probable cause and was invalid. Under the collective knowledge rule, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by reliance on erroneous radio information from a fellow officer or employee. Therefore, the evidence obtained through the search pursuant to the invalid arrest should have been suppressed.
[1] Evidence obtained through a search of a vehicle pursuant to an invalid arrest should have been suppressed.
[2] An arrest based solely on erroneous radio information from a fellow officer or employee is unlawful.
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“the testimony presented at the hearing on the appellant's motion to suppress, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, establishes that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest the appellant”
Establishes the core holding that the officer lacked probable cause regardless of how the facts are interpreted in the state's favor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was lawfully stopped for an equipment violation. He provided his name, date of birth, and vehicle registration information when unable to produ…
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 Fellow Officer Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Alonzo Walker, challenges the judgments and sentences entered after he pled nolo contendere to the charges of possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia and reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We reverse.
The testimony presented at the hearing on the appellant’s motion to suppress, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, establishes that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest the appellant. Therefore, the evidence obtained through a search of the vehicle pursuant to the invalid arrest should have been suppressed. Both the state and the appellant agree that the officer made a valid stop based on an equipment violation. Although the appellant was unable to produce a driver’s license, he provided his name and date of birth and the registration information for the vehicle which belonged to a friend. The arresting officer ran a check on both names and then arrested the appellant based on information indicating ^*at the appellant had a suspended license, After returning to the police station to complete his report, the arresting officer discovered that the appellant did not have a suspended license.
The arresting officer relied solely on information he received by radio from a fellow officer or employee, which was either miscommunicated or misinterpreted. Based on the “collective knowledge” or “fellow officer” rule, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the fact that the arresting officer relied on erroneous radio information from a fellow officer or employee. Albo v. State, 477 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Martin v. State, 424 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We note that this case does not involve an issue of mistaken identity as presented in Mayberry v. State, 561 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Neal v. State, 456 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1985).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress. Since the evidence in question was seized pursuant to an unlawful arrest, it should have been suppressed. Martin. We, accordingly, reverse the appellant’s judgments and sentences and remand with instructions to discharge the appellant as to these charges.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J. R. D. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…at should excuse the actions of the arresting officer. Just as Florida courts have long held that the knowledge of one officer may be imputed to other officers under the fellow officer rule, the same is true for their mistakes. See Walker v. State, 606 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ("Based on the 'collective knowledge' or 'fellow officer' rule, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the fact that the arresting officer relied on erroneous radio information from a fellow office…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 424 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Neal v. State, 456 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- G.S. v. State, 477 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Arsemio Albo v. State, 477 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Mayberry v. State, 561 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)