STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARYLL DAYS, 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 order suppressing cocaine seized from Daryll Days during a warrantless search. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the police conducted a seizure of evidence, not a strip search prohibited by Florida statute, because the officers did not require Days to remove or arrange his clothing to inspect his genitals.
The court held that the police conducted a seizure of evidence, not a strip search as defined by section 901.211, and therefore the statute does not apply. A seizure of contraband is distinguishable from a strip search, which requires the arrested person to remove or arrange clothing to permit visual or manual inspection of genitals, buttocks, anus, breasts, or undergarments.
[1] A "strip search" involves an arrested person removing or arranging clothing to permit a visual or manual inspection of specific body areas or undergarments.
[2] The act of seizing contraband from an arrested person's clothing does not constitute a "strip search" if the person is not required to remove or arrange clothing for insp…
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“Subsection 901.211(1) defines a "strip search" as "having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or undergarments of a person."”
Establishes the statutory definition of strip search that must be satisfied for section 901.211 to apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 13, 1998, St. Petersburg Police conducted narcotics surveillance and observed Days engage in two apparent cocaine sales, pulling a plastic bag …
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.
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing cocaine seized from Daryll Days’ person. At the suppression hearing, Days argued that the police violated section 901.211, Florida Statutes (1997), which regulates strip searches of arrested persons, because the police allegedly conducted the search within public view, and because the officers did not get prior written approval from the supervising officer. We reverse.
On May 13, 1998, Sergeant Charles Schwimbly and several other officers of the St. Petersburg Police Department conducted neighborhood surveillance for any illegal or suspicious activities involving narcotics. During his surveillance, Sergeant Schwimbly saw Days talk with an unidentified male subject. This unidentified male gave Days some paper currency. Days pulled a plastic bag, containing several white objects, from his crotch area. Sergeant Schwimbly believed the objects were crack cocaine. After completing this apparent sale of cocaine, Days returned the plastic bag to his crotch area. Days did not unfasten his pants during the transaction.
After Sergeant Schwimbly witnessed Days conduct another apparent sale, he directed other officers to make contact with Days because they had probable cause to make an arrest. An officer handcuffed Days and started to reach into Days’ pants to retrieve the plastic bag. Days complained to the officer. The officer walked Days to the side of a building, pulled the top of Days’ pants toward him, and seized the plastic bag.
At the suppression hearing, the officers testified that they did not pull down Days’ pants or expose his genital area to bystanders. In contrast, Days testified that the officers pulled down his pants, and bystanders could see his crotch.
The State argues that the police conducted only a seizure, and not a strip search. We agree. Subsection 901.211(1) defines a “strip search” as “having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual or manual inspection of the genitals; buttocks; anus; breasts, in the case of a female; or undergarments of a person.” We distinguish a “strip search” from a mere seizure of the evidence. “A search is generally accepted to be an inspection or examination of places closed from public or general view, and requires some measure of force or intrusion. A seizure is the act of taking custody of evidence or contraband.” State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla.1971) (emphasis added).
Here, the officers testified that they did not have Days remove or arrange his clothing to conduct an inspection or examination of Days’ crotch area. Rather, the police saw Days put the contraband down the front of his pants, and merely took steps to seize that evidence. Consequently, we believe section 901.211 does not apply. We reverse the trial court’s suppression order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.