PERRY LEE CHANCE, 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.
Perry Lee Chance appealed his three robbery convictions, challenging the legality of his arrest and the identification testimony obtained from it. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that the arrest had probable cause because it occurred when the officer drew his revolver and handcuffed Chance, not when the officer initially stopped the vehicle.
The arrest occurred when Officer Ritter drew his revolver and handcuffed Chance, not when he initially stopped the car, and at that moment probable cause existed. The trial court correctly denied the motions to suppress because all elements of arrest were not present until the officer drew his revolver and handcuffed Chance.
“An arrest involves the following elements: 1) the intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority, 2) an actual or constructive detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested, 3) a communication by the arresting officer to the person being arrested of his intention then and there to effect an arrest, and 4) an understanding by the person being arrested that it is the officer's intention then and there to arrest and detain him.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes an arrest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 6, 1965, Officer Ritter received a radio dispatch reporting a liquor store robbery by two tall, thin Black males. Ritter observed an automob…
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 Elements Of Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Perry Lee Chance appeals from three convictions for robbery. He was charged with the robbery of a service station and of a market on July 31, 1965, and of a liquor store on August 6, 1965. He filed motions to suppress in all three cases on the ground that his arrest was illegal because it was made without probable cause or reasonable ground on the part of the arresting officer to believe that appellant had committed a felony and because it did not otherwise meet the requirements of Fla.Stat., Sec. 901.15, F.S.A. Appellant also filed a motion to suppress the testimony at the trial identifying him as the perpetrator of the three offenses on the ground that such identification had resulted from his illegal detention and arrest. The court denied all four motions, and appellant assigns such denials as error.
*826On August 6, 1965, Officer Ritter of the St. Petersburg Police Department received a call on his radio that two tall and thin colored males had robbed a liquor store some twenty-five blocks from where he was then patrolling. He had no information concerning any automobile in which the robbers might have been riding. After proceeding a short distance, he observed an automobile containing two colored males, one of whom was appellant, and stopped it, detaining appellant and the other occupant. During this detention Officer Caswell arrived with the further information that one ■of the robbers had been wearing a white hat. Officer Caswell observed through the ■car window a white hat on the front floorboard. Officer Ritter, also looking through the car window, noticed the butt of an automatic and rolls of coins. He then drew his revolver, and the officers handcuffed the two men and searched the car.
The court ruled that the arrest took place when Officer Ritter drew his revolver and handcuffed appellant. Appellant concedes that if the court was correct in its ruling the arrest was made with probable cause. Appellant argues, however, that the arrest actually took place when Officer Ritter stopped the car, at a time when there was no probable cause. We disagree.
An arrest involves the following elements: 1) the intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority, 2) an actual or constructive detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested, 3) a communication by the arresting officer to the person being arrested of his intention then and there to effect an arrest, and 4) an understanding by the person being arrested that it is the officer’s intention then and there to arrest and detain him. City of Miami v. Nelson, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 535, 537 n.1; Romanello v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 529, 531; Range v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So. 2d 534, 536; Melton v. State, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 291, 294. The court below was correct in finding that these elements were not all present until the time Officer Ritter drew his revolver and handcuffed appellant.
Finding that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to suppress, we affirm the judgment appealed from.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, J., and KELLY, CLIFTON M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hiram Cazes Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969)…he missing shotgun stolen from the Garwoods, then its decision conflicts with the decisions cited above and with State v. Smith, Fla.App. 4th 1967, 193 So. 2d 23; Range v. State, Fla.App.2d 1963, 156 So. 2d 534; and Chance v. State, Fla.App.2d 1967, 202 So. 2d 825. In each of these cases, contraband evidence was lying in plain view of, and observed by, an officer engaged in performing his duty as a police officer, and the defendant was thereafter arrested without a warrant on a charge growing out of his posse…
-
State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…er, 9 Cir., 1966, 361 F. 2d 412; United States v. Catalano (United States v. Swiatek) 7th Cir., 1971, 450 F. 2d 985. . Gustafson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 615; State v. Padilla, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 309; Chance v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 825; Lowe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 303. . Terry v. Ohio, supra.…
-
Gustafson v. State, 243 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…operator’s license); Busby v. United States, 9 Cir.1961, 296 F. 2d 328 (routine investigation pursuant to reliable information) . Florida courts have recognized use of detentions which fall short of technical arrests. Chance v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 825 (investigation of a liquor store robbery); Lowe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 303 (investigation of robbery suspects). A license check evidently falls into this category. City of Miami v. Aronovitz, Fla. 1959,114 So. 2d 784. [*619] Although a d…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffin v. State, 474 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1985)
- Romanello v. State, 160 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Melton v. State, 75 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1954)
- Range v. State, 156 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Elbert Johnson, Jr. v. State, 186 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)