ELVIRA SANCHEZ AND EDUARDO SANCHEZ, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
T. A. BUCHANAN, JOSEPH FERNANDEZ, R. C. MULLIS, C. RUSSELL AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
Elvira Sanchez sued Dade County and sheriff's deputies for wrongful procurement of a search warrant, false arrest, excessive force, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution after deputies executed a search warrant at her duplex based on an informant's tip about bolita operations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the warrant was issued on probable cause and the arrest was lawful.
The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the affidavits, depositions, and pleadings established without issue that the warrant was issued on probable cause, was served lawfully, and the arrest was lawful under the circumstances. The court did not reach the alternative grounds of lack of notice and immunity from suit.
“our examination of the record reveals that the affidavits and depositions, together with the pleadings in the cause, establish without issue that the warrant was issued on probable cause, was served lawfully and the arrest was lawful in view of the circumstances”
The court's holding that summary judgment was properly granted because the record established the lawfulness of the warrant and arrest as a matter of 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 sheriffs investigating alleged vice and bolita operations received information from an informant that a duplex was being used as a bolita colle…
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 Breach Of The Peace cases and more on FLexlaw
The office of the Sheriff of Dade County had been investigating alleged vice and bolita operations in the County under the Sheriff’s standing orders. A Deputy Sheriff received information from an informer that a certain duplex was temporarily being used by a bolita collector where “ * * * drop-off men would drop off tickets or slips * * * and money.” The Deputy Sheriff, acting as an under-cover man, observed the duplex for several days during which time he saw cars park and the drivers go into the duplex then immediately leave and drive away. As a result of what had been observed and the reliability of the informer, the Deputy Sheriff executed an affidavit for the issuance of a search and seizure warrant for the search of the plaintiff’s home (the duplex under observation).
The warrant was served by two other deputies from the Sheriff’s office. The plaintiff, Elvira Sanchez, refused to open the door whereupon the officers broke into the duplex. The deputies physically detained the plaintiff while the premises were being searched. Certain papers and money were confiscated and the plaintiff was taken to the Sheriff’s office where charges were preferred against her.
Subsequently, a preliminary hearing was held before the Justice of the Peace Court at which time an order discharging the plaintiff was entered because it appeared no offense had been committed.
Thereafter, Elvira Sanchez, sued Metropolitan Dade County, the Sheriff of Dade County and several deputy sheriffs. She alleged that one of the deputy sheriffs wrongfully procured a search warrant and that the deputies thereafter falsely arrested her, that excessive force was used in making the arrest, that she was falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted. The trial judge entered a summary final judgment for the Sheriff and Metropolitan Dade County.
It has often been pointed out that a ruling of a trial judge should be sustained in the appellate court if it is correct even though erroneous grounds are stated for the judgment. In the instant case we do no reach the question of whether or not the grounds given by the trial judge were sufficient because our examination of the record reveals that the affidavits and depositions, together with the pleadings in the cause, establish without issue that the warrant was issued on probable cause, was served lawfully and the arrest was lawful in view of the circumstances.
In City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 435, the Supreme Court cited with approval City of Miami v. Albro, Fla. App.1960, 120 So.2d 23, indicating that in *52■establishing the standard of care to bé imposed upon municipal police officers and other city employees charged with similar responsibilities due regard should be given to the type of duty which is required to be performed in the public interest.
In City of Miami v. Albro, supra, it was pointed out:
"In considering the legality of an arrest by a municipal officer for a breach of the peace committed in his presence, the determining factor is not whether the charged person is actually guilty. The question to be determined is whether or not the officer had substantial reason to believe the plaintiff was committing a misdemeanor. If substantial reason exists the courts cannot second guess the officer in the performance of his duty. * * * ” 120 So.2d at 26. See also Weil v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1963, 158 So.2d 798.
Having reached the decision that no actionable tort was shown, we affirm and do not reach the questions of lack of notice and immunity from suit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosenberg v. State, 264 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…or is not whether the arrested person is actually guilty, but whether or not the officer hjd substantial reason to believe that such person was committing a misdemeanor. Miami v. Albro, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 23; Sanchez v. Buchanan, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 50. On this factual issue, i. e., whether the officer had substantial reason to believe that the defendant was committing a misdemeanor in the officer’s presence, we find in the record before us sufficient evidence upon which the trier of fact could r…
-
State v. Warren, 329 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…the validity of the subject arrest, our sister court of the Fourth District, in Rosenberg v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1972, 264 So. 2d 68, citing as authority City of Miami v. Albro, Fla.App. 3rd 1960, 120 So. 2d 23 and Sanches v. Buchanan, Fla.App. 3rd, 175 So. 2d 50, held that in passing upon the legality of a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor alleged to have occurred in the presence of the arresting officer “The determining factor is not whether the arrested person is actually guilty, but whether or not the…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Roce Simpson, 172 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1965)
- City OF Miami v. Albro, 120 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Lewis v. Harper, 120 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Weil v. City OF Miami Beach, 158 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)