EDWARD BAYMON, 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.
Edward Baymon challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of cocaine and marijuana. The court reversed, holding that Baymon's arrest for disorderly conduct was unlawful because the deputy did not observe conduct constituting the crime, and therefore the evidence seized in the search incident to arrest must be suppressed.
The arrest was unlawful because the deputy did not observe conduct constituting disorderly conduct. Yelling and screaming alone, without evidence of inciting an immediate breach of the peace or equivalent to shouting false statements creating clear and present danger, does not support a warrantless misdemeanor arrest. Therefore, evidence seized in any search incident to the unlawful arrest must be suppressed.
[1] A warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor is authorized only when the offense is committed in the officer's presence.
[2] Conduct constituting disorderly conduct requires more than mere yelling and screaming; it must incite an immediate breach of the peace or create a clear and present dange…
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“An officer is authorized to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only when it is committed in the officer's presence.”
Establishes the legal standard for lawful warrantless misdemeanor arrest under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Bennett responded to a call about a neighborhood disturbance. Upon arrival, Baymon walked toward the deputy aggressively with his hands in the …
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 For Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Edward Baymon challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, which he preserved for appeal when pleading guilty to possession of cocaine and marijuana and to disorderly conduct. We reverse because the contraband was seized in a search incident to an unlawful arrest.
At the suppression hearing, Deanna Es-tep testified that Baymon was irate and loud with her, so she called the police. Deputy Bennett testified that he responded to a call about a neighborhood disturbance. When he arrived, Baymon walked toward him “aggressively with his hands in the air.” Baymon then put his hands in his pockets and continued approaching. The deputy threatened to use force if Bay-mon did not stop and show his hands. The deputy then told Baymon he was being detained, and Baymon agreed to sit in the back of the patrol car. After Deputy Bennett took a statement from Estep, he arrested Baymon for disorderly conduct. Searches incident to the arrest revealed two bags of drugs.
Baymon pleaded to the charges, specifically reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The court and the State both agreed that the motion 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 breach of the peace or was yelling the equivalent of “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. See State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1976) (limiting disorderly conduct statute, when applied purely to speech, to fighting words and false words that create a clear and present danger to others); see also Miller v. State, 780 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); C.P. v. State, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Baymon’s arrest was unlawful. Therefore, the law mandated suppression of the evidence seized in any search performed incident to that arrest. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
Reversed.
KELLY, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…horized- by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure); Seabrooks v. State, 817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (same). I recognize that wé have entertained appeals from orders on motions to enforce plea agreements in the past, see, e.g., Barnett v. State, 933 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Jones v. State, 782 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), but I do not believe that we should continue to do so when there is no rule authorizing the motion. In other words, I agree with the Fourth District’s holdings in Ciehoski and…1 / 2
-
Devoid v. State, 987 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ment. The Department of Corrections may revoke gain time without being countermanded by the court, but such a forfeiture cannot thwart the terms of a plea agreement. Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). See also Barnett v. State, 933 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Mr. Devoid was, therefore, entitled to be resentenced in a manner that would have effectuated the plea agreement. Had he been properly resentenced, Mr. Devoid would have be…
-
B.G. v. State, 213 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…made incident thereto is invalid, and any evidence developed as a result thereof is inadmissible.” Johnson v. State, 395 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also Jenkins v. State, 102 So. 3d 739, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (quoting Baymon v. State, 933 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)); see generally Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (holding that evidence collected as the result of an illegal search must be suppressed during the trial). Further, when incrim…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)
- Nickell v. State, 722 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Simpson v. Parsons, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- C.P. v. State, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Miller v. State, 780 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)