QUINCY WILLIAMS, 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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a drug case, holding that a narcotics officer had probable cause to search the defendant based on observing a furtive hand-to-hand exchange in a known drug area, even though the officer could not identify the specific items exchanged.
The trial court did not err in denying the suppression motion. The officer had probable cause to conduct the search based on the totality of circumstances: the furtive behavior, the known drug location, the appellant's history as a street person with prior arrests, the withdrawal from a concealment area, and the apparent commercial exchange, even without identification of the specific items exchanged.
[1] Probable cause for a search is based on probabilities, not certainty.
[2] An experienced narcotics officer's observation of a furtive exchange in a high drug area, involving a known street person retrieving an item from a common contraband hidi…
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“Probable cause is so named for a reason. We are talking about probabilities and not certainty.”
Establishes the standard that probable cause requires probabilities rather than certainty, allowing searches based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn experienced narcotics officer observed the appellant in a location known for drug sales activity. The officer watched the appellant look around fur…
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 Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The issue in this ease is whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence. Because we agree with the trial judge, we affirm.
An experienced narcotics officer had under observation a specific location known from previous arrests to be a site of frequent drug sales. From his vantage point, he observed appellant, a person known to the officer as one who hangs out on the streets and has been subject to various arrests, after looking around to assure himself that no one was watching, reach into his buttocks area under his pants and produce something from which he extracted something small which he handed to two persons who had approached him in exchange for something that the officer could not identify. After the exchange, appellant again looked around to see if anyone was watching and replaced his “stash” beneath his pants in his buttocks area. Based on this observation, appellant was searched and cocaine was found.
It is the position of appellant that since the officer could not testify that he could see either side of the hand-to-hand exchange well enough to identify either the drugs or the money, the officer lacked probable cause to conduct the search. Although there may be cases supporting this view, we disagree.
The officer clearly saw that a commercial exchange took place. Something was given for something else. A contract for the purchase and sale of something was consummated. It is not even necessary that the drugs have been exchanged for money. The officer saw the couple give appellant something that appellant considered acceptable in exchange for what he delivered. Did the officer have reason tó believe that what appellant exchanged was illegal contraband? Consider: an experienced narcotics officer in a high drug area sees a furtive individual, well known as a street person, reach below his pants to his buttocks area, an area that the officer recognizes as a hiding place for contraband, and withdraws something from which he takes a small object which he then exchanges for something he considers of value from two people who approach him. Even though it may be possible that appel lant was exchanging his unlisted telephone number, a number he truly wanted to keep private, for the business card of the couple, did not the officer have probable cause to believe otherwise?
Probable cause is so named for a reason. We are talking about probabilities and not certainty. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The officer need not actually see the law being violated nor must he satisfy himself beyond any reasonable doubt that a felony has been committed in order to have probable cause. See Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Here, the totality of the circumstances justified a probable cause search.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hankerson, 65 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 2011)…Officer Lucas testified that rather than making eye contact, Hankerson looked up and down the street as he interacted with three of the individuals on the porch and that Hankerson’s contact with the individuals was very brief. See Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1109, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (concluding that officer had probable cause to conduct search where in a location known for frequent drug sales, the defendant looked to see if anyone was watching before extracting a small item from the buttocks area of hi…1 / 2
-
Ronald League v. State, 778 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…hand transaction involving a known drug dealer where money was exchanged for a small object. We thus conclude that there was probable cause for appellant’s seizure. See Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). See also Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1109, 1109-10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Knox v. State, 689 So. 2d 1224, 1225-6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Affirmed. TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Glover v. State, 843 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…nce established sufficient probable cause for an experienced narcotics officer to believe that Knox was engaged in criminal conduct that justified a search for illegal drugs.” Id. at 1225. Also cited in the trial court’s order is Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), where this court again affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, based on the following facts: An experienced narcotics officer had under observation a specific location known from previous arrests to be a site o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)