CRAYTON
v.
STATE

Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. | 1977-07-13
No. AP 77-10
46 Fla. Supp. 174 Dade County Circuit Court (1977)

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.

Synopsis

A defendant was arrested for lewd conduct after a police detective engaged in sexual conduct with her while undercover at a massage parlor. The circuit court dismissed the prosecution and reversed the conviction, finding the detective's active participation in the alleged lewd conduct was so outrageous as to shock the conscience and violate due process.


Holding

The court held that the detective's active and lengthy participation in the lewd conduct was outrageous and shocked the conscience, requiring dismissal of the prosecution. The defendant could not be convicted of resisting without violence her unlawful arrest. The judgment was reversed in its entirety and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.


Headnotes

[1] Conduct by law enforcement that is so outrageous as to shock the conscience may require dismissal of charges.

[2] A conviction for resisting an unlawful arrest cannot stand.

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

Key Quotes

“the conduct of the investigating and arresting police officer in this case, especially his active and lengthy participation in the lewd conduct for which the defendant was convicted, was so outrageous as to shock the court's conscience and require that the prosecution against the defendant be dismissed”

Establishes the core holding that the detective's conduct was so egregious it violated due process.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On September 18, 1976, undercover Detective A from the Dade County vice squad rented a motel room and called a massage parlor. The defendant was dispa…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ALAN R. SCHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

ALAN R. SCHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

The court has concluded that the conduct of the investigating and arresting police officer in this case, especially his active and lengthy participation in the lewd conduct for which the defendant was convicted, was so outrageous as to shock the court’s conscience and require that the prosecution against the defendant be dismissed. See City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Couts, 239 So.2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Spencer v. State, 263 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); United States v. Kros, 296 F. Supp. 972 (E. D. Pa. 1969). Moreover, the defendant may not be convicted of resisting without *175violence her thus-unlawful arrest. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed in its entirety and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.

*****

The attorney for the appellant wrote to the editor, as follows —

This case arose on September 18, 1976 when Detectives A and B of the Dade County Public Safety Department, vice squad, rented two adjacent rooms at a motel on Collins Avenue. One of them called a local massage parlor and ordered a body rub in his room. The defendant was dispatched by the parlor to Detective A’s room. She arrived at approximately 10:45 P.M. The detective answered the door clad in his undershorts. The detective and the defendant then engaged in general conversation for approximately 25 minutes, until about 11:10 P.M. During the conversation both the defendant and the detective had at least one drink of scotch. The defendant advised the detective the price for the massage was $50, which Detective A paid her. In the conversation, the detective claimed that the defendant quoted him a price of $20 extra for a “blow job” or $30 for intercourse, A testified he decided on intercourse. He then alleged that the defendant had him remove his clothing and lie down on a bed and she started to massage his back. He states that the defendant told him to roll over, that as he rolled over, he took his penis and put it in the defendant’s mouth and allowed the defendant to suck on his penis for “3 or 4 seconds.” The detective testified he then got out of the bed on the pretense of turning off the television, and while out of the bed, he got his ID and signalled for Detective B, who was in the next room, to come in and assist him. B came into the room, grabbed the defendant; there was a short scuffle while Detective A handcuffed her. The arrest took place at 12:10 A.M., one and one-half hours after the defendant arrived at the officer’s room and one hour after they allegedly got into the bed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw