PETER WILLIAM LINTS, 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.
In this appeal of a Seminole County conviction, the court addressed whether evidence seized during a Volusia County arrest could be suppressed in a separate prosecution and whether double jeopardy principles barred prosecution for continuous firearm possession in two counties. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted because the batteries committed during the search validated it, but reversed the firearm possession conviction due to double jeopardy concerns.
The court held that the evidence was properly admitted because any improper detention was validated by the batteries that occurred during the search, making the search lawful. However, the court reversed the firearm possession conviction in Seminole County because possession of a firearm is a continuing offense and a plea to possession of the same firearm in Volusia County bars subsequent conviction for prior possession of that same firearm in Seminole County.
[1] A search conducted after an arrest for battery on a police officer is validated by the arrest, even if the initial detention leading to the arrest was improper.
[2] Statements made to authorities that are the direct result of illegally seized evidence are considered "fruits of the poisonous tree" and may be suppressed.
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 fact that Lints may have been improperly detained before this is to no avail. The batteries validated the search.”
Establishes that the court upheld the search because the batteries committed during the search justified it, rejecting the suppression argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLints was parked in front of a closed business in Volusia County at 3 a.m. when approached by a police officer. After Lints appeared nervous, the offi…
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 Unlawful Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
The issues of this appeal concern the failure to suppress evidence allegedly illegally seized during an arrest involving charges in another county and whether principles' of double jeopardy bar a second prosecution for continuous possession of a firearm in two separate counties by a convicted felon.
Although the commission of the offenses involved in this appeal from Peter William Lints’ conviction in Seminole County predate the events that transpired during his arrest in Volusia County, it is the Volusia County arrest and conviction that forms the factual basis for the present appeal.
Lints, who was parked in front of a closed business in Volusia County at three o’clock in the morning, was approached by an officer of the South Daytona Police Department. Because Lints appeared “extremely nervous” and gave inappropriate answers to the officer’s questions, the officer became suspicious and, after taking Lints’ driver’s license, called for backup. When additional officers arrived, a search of Lints’ vehicle (by consent, according to the officers; without consent, according to Lints) was commenced.
The search turned up, among other items, a loaded handgun hidden under the driver’s seat. This gun was traced to a burglary (the subject of this appeal) in Seminole County. When Seminole County officers interviewed Lints in jail in Volusia County, he made statements implicating himself in the Seminole County burglary.
Lints pled nolo contendere in Volusia County to three counts of battery on a police officer and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. He never challenged the search in that case nor appealed his conviction. However, in this Seminole County action he moved to suppress his statements and the firearm because he now claims the Volu-sia County search was illegal and that the statements to the Seminole County authorities, which resulted because of the improper discovery of the firearm, were fruits of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The court rejected this argument and Lints pled nolo contendere to armed burglary, grand theft, petit theft and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 He reserved his right to appeal.
Lints contends that since the arresting officers started their improper search before he committed the batteries, the challenged evidence should be suppressed. It is clear from the record, however, that the firearm which led to the Seminole County involvement was not found until after Lints was arrested for the batteries. The fact that Lints may have been improperly detained before this is to no avail. The batteries validated the search. Jones v. State, 570 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Reed v. State, 606 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Bradford v. State, 567 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1991).
We agree with Lints, however, that his possession of the firearm was a continuing offense and, unless the possession was shown to be somehow interrupted, constitutes but a single offense. See Bailey v. State, 637 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). There was no such showing in this case. The plea to the possession of the same firearm in Volusia County prevents a subsequent conviction of a prior possession of that same firearm in Seminole County. That conviction is reversed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion.
DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The trial court rejected his claim of double jeopardy as to the possession of firearms count.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Roux, 702 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ely, justify that action). There is no right to commit a battery upon a law enforcement officer. Even if the agent had illegally detained Roux, a battery committed on the agent does not vitiate the illegality of Roux’s behavior. See Lints v. State, 643 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Reed v. State, 606 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Roux could not commit a battery with impunity. Thus, there was probable cause for arrest, not for drug dealing, but for the illegal acts of battery and battery on a law enforce…
-
Franizy Jean-Marie v. State, 947 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…while he was running away prior to entering the backyard; he continued to intend to conceal it when jumping over the fence to enter the property; and the intent remained with him until he overtly raised his arm to let go of the gun. Lints v. State, 643 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(possession of firearm continuing offense); Bailey v. State, 637 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(same). We find that sufficient evidence of intent was presented to constitute the offense of carrying a concealed firearm, and as such,…
-
Jacobs v. State, 715 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…t a high rate of speed; Marion County charged subsection (3) relating to fleeing in disregard of an officer’s instruction to stop following an accident.1 Does each county through which a chase occurs represent a separate offense? See Lints v. State, 643 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (defendant’s possession of firearm during his travel across county line constituted a single offense where it was not shown that the possession was somehow interrupted); Michie v. State, 632 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (traffi…
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
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Bradford v. State, 567 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Jones v. State, 570 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Reed v. State, 606 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Bailey v. State, 637 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)