MATTHEW SANGUINE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Matthew Sanguine pleaded nolo contendere to trafficking in cannabis while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court affirmed the validity of the consent to search, holding that even though a Fort Lauderdale officer requested the search outside his territorial jurisdiction, the consent was lawful because he was acting jointly with DEA agents who possessed territorial jurisdiction and were actively present.
The consent to search was valid. Although the Fort Lauderdale officer was outside his territorial jurisdiction, he was acting jointly with and in the presence of DEA Agent Mihock, who was within his territorial jurisdiction and actively present during the consent request.
[1] A consent to search is valid when obtained by an officer acting jointly with and in the presence of officers who are within their territorial jurisdiction.
[2] An officer acting outside of their territorial jurisdiction may lawfully request consent to search if they are cooperating with and in the presence of officers who are wi…
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 DEA agents were the ones who had detained the defendant. Although the Fort Lauderdale officer was outside of his territorial jurisdiction, he was in the presence of, and cooperating with, DEA Agent Mihock. The DEA agents were within their territorial jurisdiction and were present and active.”
Establishes the key reasoning that justifies the validity of the consent despite the Fort Lauderdale officer's lack of territorial jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDEA agents and Fort Lauderdale police conducted a joint narcotics investigation and obtained information that Sanguine had placed illegal drugs in a w…
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 Territorial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Matthew Sanguine entered into a plea bargain wherein he pled nolo contendere to the charge of trafficking in cannabis, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The question is whether the consent to search by defendant-appellant Sanguine was validly obtained. We conclude that it was.
Officers from the Fort Lauderdale Police Department and the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) participated in a joint narcotics investigation. They obtained information that the defendant had placed illegal drugs in a warehouse in northern Miami-Dade County. This was within the territorial jurisdiction of the DEA agents but outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Fort Lauderdale officers.
DEA agents detained the defendant at the warehouse. Fort Lauderdale Detective Smith and a DEA agent, Agent Mi-hock, came to that location. The Fort Lauderdale officer and DEA Agent Mi-hock met with the defendant. The Fort Lauderdale officer asked the defendant to consent to a search of his warehouse. When he agreed, the Fort Lauderdale officer asked the defendant to sign the DEA consent-to-search form. The defendant signed the form. A search followed, in which a large quantity of marijuana was seized.
The defendant argues that the consent to search was invalid because the Fort Lauderdale officer was the one who asked the defendant for the consent, and the Fort Lauderdale officer was outside of his territorial jurisdiction. We reject that argument.
The DEA agents were the ones who had detained the defendant. Although the Fort Lauderdale officer was outside of his territorial jurisdiction, he was in the presence of, and cooperating with, DEA Agent Mihock. The DEA agents were within their territorial jurisdiction and were present and active. See State v. Vargas, 667 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla.1995). The defendant’s consent to search was lawfully obtained, and the trial court correctly so concluded.
The defendant relies on State v. Sills, 852 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), but that ease is not on point. In that case officers of the city of Coconut Creek left the city and conducted a search within the city of Lauderdale Lakes, without the participation of any Lauderdale Lakes officer. Here, by contrast, the Fort Lauderdale officer was acting jointly with DEA agents who were operating within their territorial jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moncrieffe v. State, 55 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…here.2 The state argues that the Lauderhill police were authorized to take the defendant into custody outside their jurisdiction because officers from the different agencies were cooperating across jurisdictional lines. Relying on Sanguine v. State, 895 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), the state argued that the defendant could properly be transported from one jurisdiction to another based on the cooperative efforts of the officers from different jurisdictions during the investigation. However, at the evidentiar…
-
Alfonso v. Orna Sec. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 903 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…hat he was discharged for misconduct, we must affirm the denial of benefits below because the appellant failed timely to appeal that ruling to the Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Appeals. See Maldonado v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 895 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Levert v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals, 868 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Affirmed.…
-
Rosenblatt v. State, 35 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Sanguine v. State, 895 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). POLEN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Vargas, 667 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Sills, 852 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)