JOHN L. SMITH, 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.
John Smith appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search incident to arrest for violating the open container ordinance. The trial court found probable cause for the arrest based on the officer's observations of Smith drinking from a cup in public and smelling alcohol. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the officer had probable cause despite briefly losing sight of Smith.
The trial court did not err in determining that the officer had probable cause to believe the beverage contained alcohol in violation of the open container law. It was not unreasonable for the officer to believe the beverage contained alcohol the entire time, notwithstanding the brief loss of sight when Smith walked behind the stairwell. The motion to suppress was properly denied.
[1] Probable cause for an arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe tha…
[2] An officer has probable cause to arrest for violating an open container ordinance when the officer observes a person with a cup emitting the odor of alcohol on a public s…
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“Although the officer briefly lost sight of Smith when he walked behind the stairwell, it was not unreasonable for the officer to believe that the beverage in the cup contained alcohol the entire time and that he did not add alcohol to the beverage after stepping behind the stairwell.”
Establishes that a brief loss of sight does not negate probable cause when reasonable inferences support the officer's initial observations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed Smith walk out onto a public sidewalk with a plastic cup, take a couple of sips, then walk behind an apartment stairwell app…
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 Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal emanates from a search incident to an arrest in which John L. Smith was found to have cocaine in his possession ultimately leading to the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school. Smith filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that there was no probable cause to arrest him for violating the open container ordinance. The trial court denied the motion, after which Smith entered a no contest plea to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
In this case, the officer observed Smith walk out onto a public sidewalk with a plastic cup in hand, take a couple of sips, and then walk back behind an apartment *774stairwell approximately four times. The officer testified that he briefly lost sight of Smith when he disappeared behind the stairwell. After observing this behavior, the officer decided to approach Smith. When he approached, he could smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating both from Smith and his cup. He then placed Smith under arrest for violating the open container ordinance. During the police officer’s search of Smith incident to his arrest, the contraband leading to the drug charge was discovered.
Based on this evidence, the trial court did not err in determining that the officer had probable cause to believe that there was alcohol in the beverage at the time he stepped on the public sidewalk in violation of the open container law. Although the officer briefly lost sight of Smith when he walked behind the stairwell, it was not unreasonable for the officer to believe that the beverage in the cup contained alcohol the entire time and that he did not add alcohol to the beverage after stepping behind the stairwell. See Curtis v. State, 748 So.2d 370, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“A finding of probable cause does not require absolute certitude. The test for probable cause is whether the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed.”). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.