JEFFREY RUSSELL NICKELL, 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.
Jeffrey Nickell was arrested for attempted burglary based on a witness account that he broke laundry room windows with his head, leading to a search that discovered marijuana. The Florida appellate court held that the officer lacked probable cause for the felony arrest because breaking windows was equally consistent with the misdemeanor of vandalism, and thus reversed the marijuana conviction while affirming the criminal mischief conviction.
The officer lacked probable cause to arrest Nickell for attempted burglary because the conduct of breaking windows was equally consistent with the misdemeanor of vandalism. Additionally, the officer was not authorized to arrest for misdemeanor vandalism because the offense was not committed in the officer's presence. Therefore, the arrest was invalid and the marijuana evidence should have been suppressed.
[1] Probable cause for arrest does not arise when the suspect's conduct is equally consistent with activity that is not criminal.
[2] An officer lacks probable cause to arrest for a felony when the observed conduct is equally consistent with a misdemeanor offense not committed in the officer's presence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“An officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect when there are reasonable grounds to believe the suspect has committed a felony.”
Establishes the legal standard for probable cause required for felony arrests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a disturbance at an apartment complex laundry room involving broken windows. A witness told the investigating officer that Nickell…
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 Attempted Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
[*925] NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Jeffrey Russell Nickell was charged with attempted burglary and possession of cannabis. He pleaded nolo contendere to the latter, and to a reduced charge of criminal mischief, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized incident to his arrest. We affirm the criminal mischief conviction, because the suppression issue is not dispositive of that charge. However, because the circuit court should have granted Niekell’s motion to suppress, we reverse his conviction for possession of cannabis.
This case began with a call to police to report a disturbance involving broken windows at an apartment complex laundry room. At the scene, a witness told the investigating officer that he saw Nickell break the windows with his head. Based on that account, the officer arrested Nickell for attempted burglary. The officer searched Nickell incident to the arrest, and discovered marijuana in his possession.
Nickell moved to suppress the fruits of the search, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause for the arrest. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Nickell agreed to plead as described above, and was sentenced to two years’ probation.
An officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect when there are reasonable grounds to believe the suspect has committed a felony. See Shriner v. State, 386 So. 2d 525, 528 (Fla.1980). The facts from which probable cause arises do not need to meet the standard for conclusiveness and probability required of facts on which a conviction is based. See id. However, probable cause does not arise when conduct is equally consistent with activity that is not criminal. See Angaran v. State, 681 So. 2d 745, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
In order to commit the felony of burglary, a suspect must enter a conveyance or structure without consent and with intent to commit an offense inside. See Stanley v. State, 626 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In the instant case, the officer arrested Nickell for attempted burglary of a structure based on the witness’s statement that Nickell had broken the windows of the laundry room with his head. Although that conduct was consistent with an intention to enter the laundry room and commit an offense inside, it was equally consistent with a simple act of vandalism, which is a misdemeanor. See § 806.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Therefore, the officer lacked probable cause to arrest Nickell for a felony. Moreover, the officer was not authorized' to arrest Nickell for a misdemeanor because the offense was committed outside the officer’s presence. See Nesmith v. State, 608 So. 2d 96, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Because the arrest was invalid, all fruits of the search incident to that arrest should have been suppressed. See Montalvo v. State, 520 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Sanders v. State, 385 So. 2d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
We reverse Nickell’s conviction and sentence for possession of cannabis. As this would affect the point total on Nickell’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet, we reverse his sentence on the criminal mischief charge and remand for resentencing under a revised scoresheet.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 741 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…da Statutes sections 790.001 and 790.221. We cannot agree. We recognize that the circumstances which would provide probable cause to arrest need not rise to the level of conclusiveness and probability required for a conviction. See Nickell v. State, 722 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Shriner v. State, 386 So. 2d 525, 528 (Fla.1980)). Nevertheless, to establish probable cause for an arrest, the facts within the officer’s knowledge must still be sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe tha…
-
E.T.R. v. State, 873 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…the windows of a laundry room with his head. We held that “although that conduct was consistent with an intent to enter the laundry room and commit an offense inside, it was equally consistent with a simple act of vandalism .... ” Nickell v. State, 722 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We find that reasoning persuasive here. Even assuming that the evidence strongly suggests E.T.R.’s guilt of attempted burglary, it does not do so to the exclusion of all other inferences. Therefore, we reverse E.T.R.’s adju…
-
Baymon v. State, 933 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…otion was dispositive, and the State does not argue otherwise on appeal. An officer is authorized to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only when it is committed in the officer’s presence. § 901.15(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Nickell v. State, 722 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In this case, Deputy Bennett did not observe conduct constituting the crime of disorderly conduct. Although the deputy observed Baymon yelling and screaming, there was nothing to suggest that Baymon was inciting an immediate brea…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shriner v. State, 386 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1980)
- Tausinger v. Woodlawn Park Assocs., 681 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Sanders v. State, 385 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Stanley v. State, 626 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Matire v. State, 520 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Nesmith v. State, 608 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)