STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STACEY SAMS, 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.
The State appealed a trial court's suppression of blood alcohol test results obtained from Stacey Sams following a fatal automobile accident. The appellate court vacated the suppression order, holding that under the 'fellow officer rule,' it is sufficient that the officer who ordered the test had probable cause, even if the officer who carried it out lacked independent knowledge of the facts supporting that probable cause.
Under the 'fellow officer rule,' if the officer initiating a search or arrest is ultimately found to have had probable cause, it does not matter whether the officer who carried out the directive had an independent basis to determine probable cause existed. No 'magic words' are required when one officer with knowledge of probable cause instructs another officer to execute the directive.
[1] Under the "fellow officer rule," if the officer initiating an arrest or search has probable cause, it is immaterial whether the officer who carries out the directive of t…
[2] A trial court errs by requiring the officer executing a directive to have independent knowledge of facts supporting probable cause when the directing officer already poss…
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“Under this rule, if the officer initiating an arrest is ultimately found by a court to have had probable cause to make an arrest or search, it does not matter whether the officer who carried out the directive of the initiating officer had, on his own, a basis to determine that probable cause existed.”
Establishes the core holding of the fellow officer rule that permits reliance on another officer's probable cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Bonnie Rinck was instructed by her supervisor to accompany Sams in an ambulance to the hospital following a fatal accident and to have a blood…
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
PETERSON, Chief Judge.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order suppressing the results of a blood alcohol test following an automobile accident involving a death. Stacey Sams, from whom the blood sample was drawn, was charged with DUI manslaughter.1 We vacate the order of suppression and remand for further proceedings.
Officer Bonnie Rinck was asked by her supervisor to accompany Sams in an ambulance as he was transported from the accident scene to the hospital. The supervisor also instructed Rinck to have a blood alcohol test performed on Sams and she complied. Sams moved to suppress the results on the grounds that Rinck had no independent suspicion that Sams was intoxicated and on the grounds that Rinck’s supervisor failed to communicate to Rinck his observations warranting the test.
The trial court found that the supervisor did have probable cause to order the test. However, it mistakenly believed that it was Rinck who must personally have sufficient knowledge of the facts in order to require the test. In doing so, the trial court failed to apply the “fellow officer rule” described in Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Under this rule, if the officer initiating an arrest is ultimately found by a court to have had probable cause to make an arrest or search, it does not matter whether the officer who carried out the directive of the initiating officer had, on his own, a basis to determine that probable cause existed. We note additionally that there is no hyper-technical requirement that certain “magic words” be used by one officer with knowledge of facts supporting probable cause when instructing another officer who ultimately carries out the direction. Id. at 260.
The trial court’s reliance on State v. Cooley, 457 A. 2d 352 (Del.1983), to support its decision to suppress, is misplaced. In Cooley, the only officer who had sufficient knowledge of facts supporting probable cause did not order the search. In the instant case, in contrast, an officer who had the necessary probable cause, ordered the search.
ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 316.193(3)(c)3, Fla. Stat. (1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dewberry v. State, 905 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…a suspect. In broad terms, the collective knowledge of police investigating a crime is imputed to each member under a rule of law often called the ‘fellow officer rule’ or ‘collective knowledge doctrine.’ ”) (footnote omitted); Smith; State v. Sams, 676 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Moreover, when applying the fellow officer rule, there is no requirement that the officers with knowledge of the facts establishing probable cause exchange information among themselves or with other officers with “magic words”…
-
Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ed in Ragsdale, it would be hypertechnieal under these set of facts to insist on bifurcating the [*1025] knowledge of the officers and isolating Colan-gelo from the “realities of the existing situation”, that Smith had a gun. See also State v. Sams, 676 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(if the officer initiating an arrest is ultimately found by a court to have had probable cause to make an arrest or search, it does not matter whether the officer who carried out the directive of the initiating officer had on his…
-
State v. Bagley, 844 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…agley had committed a felony. We agree. “The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers.” Voorhees v. State, 699 So. 2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997); State v. Sams, 676 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(concluding that if the officer initiating an arrest is ultimately found by a court to have had probable cause to make an arrest or search, it does not matter whether the officer who carried out the directive of the initiating off…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)