THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RUBEN H. ROQUE, 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 of Florida appealed the trial court's suppression of fingerprint evidence and defendant's statements in a burglary case. The appellate court held that the defendant's fingerprint on a cigarette carton found in the burglarized home, combined with other circumstantial evidence, provided probable cause for arrest, making the subsequently obtained evidence admissible.
The fingerprint evidence on the cigarette carton, combined with other circumstantial evidence (dirty clothes, pizza, knowledge that owners did not smoke, and defendant's known homeless status), provided sufficient probable cause for arrest. Therefore, the motion to suppress was properly reversed, as the evidence derived from the arrest was admissible.
[1] A fingerprint match on an item found at a crime scene, combined with other circumstantial evidence, can establish sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest.
[2] Evidence derived from a lawful arrest, including statements and photographs, is admissible.
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 comparison of latent prints and known prints already on file provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest thereby rendering admissible any evidence derived as a result of such an arrest.”
Establishes the legal standard that fingerprint matching can establish probable cause for warrantless arrest and the admissibility of resulting evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Ruben Roque's fingerprint was found on a half-empty cigarette carton in a burglarized home. The homeowners' son reported the break-in and st…
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 Warrantless Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals an adverse order granting Ruben H. Roque’s (“defendant”) motion to suppress, claiming fingerprint evidence found on a cigarette carton in a burglarized home provided probable cause to arrest the defendant. We agree and reverse.
The defendant was arrested for burglary after his fingerprint was identified on a half-empty carton of cigarettes found in a burglarized home. The break-in was reported by the son of the owners who stated neither of his parents were smokers. Numerous items were missing from the ransacked home. A pile of dirty old clothes was found in the home that did not belong to the residents, and it appeared someone had been spending time in the house as evidenced by a pile of used candles and a pizza in the microwave.
Latent fingerprints retrieved from the cigarette carton found in the home were matched to the defendant. The detective assigned to the case knew the defendant was homeless, and after receiving the fingerprint information issued a BOLO. The defendant was located and thereafter arrested for the burglary. At the police station, identification technicians photographed the defendant wearing clothing allegedly taken from the house in question. The defendant signed a Miranda rights waiver form, and admitted he entered the home seeking food and shelter in both oral statements and a written statement. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the photographs and his statements to the police. The trial court granted the motion and the State now appeals.
We agree with the State’s contention that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. The comparison of latent prints and known prints already on file provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest thereby rendering admissible any evidence derived as a result of such an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla.1995); Nettles v. State, 248 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971).
Here, the defendant’s fingerprint on the cigarette carton found in the home, combined with the other evidence of the dirty clothes and pizza, the fact that the owners did not smoke, and that the defendant was known to the police as a homeless person, clearly formed sufficient probable cause for the arrest. See Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Russell, 659 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 665 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we reverse the motion to suppress entered below.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myles v. State, 54 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…his Court has held that “[t]he comparison of latent prints and known prints already on file provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest thereby rendering admissible any evidence derived as a result of such an arrest.” State v. Roque, 809 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The latent prints in Roque were obtained from a cigarette carton found within a burglarized home, thus establishing the defendant’s unauthorized presence within that home. Id. at 50. Here, analogous to the “latent prints” is…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Russell, 659 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Revels v. State, 666 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Ennis Nettles v. State, 248 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)