THOMAS KEKIC, RAYMOND PATRICK BRENNAN AND EDWARD JOSEPH BEHUN, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Three defendants were convicted of robbery after a warrantless arrest at a hotel where a robbery was in progress. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, finding the arrest was supported by probable cause and rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of evidence and the prosecution method.
The arrest was supported by probable cause based on the prior robbery report, the suspicious circumstances observed by the officer, and the clerk's warning statement. The evidence of identification was sufficient for Brennan, and conflicting evidence regarding Behun did not require reversal. The state was privileged to prosecute by information rather than indictment.
“The trial court was eminently correct in denying the defendants' motion to suppress evidence revealed by a search of the defendants upon their arrest.”
Establishes that the warrantless search was proper because the arrest was lawful.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a report of a robbery in progress at a Miami Beach hotel at 3:30 A.M. Upon entering, an officer observed the hotel clerk in the lo…
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 Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
On trial before the court on an information charging robbery the appellants were found and adjudged guilty. Sentences of- imprisonment were imposed, three years for Behun and five years each for Brennan and Kekic. Their separate appeals were consolidated here. We have considered the several contentions of the appellants in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit.
The trial court was eminently correct in denying the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence revealed by a search of the defendants upon their arrest. The argument of the appellants that the arrest was made without probable cause is refuted by the evidence. At 3:30 A.M. on a certain date the police received a report that a robbery was in progress at a hotel on Miami Beach. A responding officer, on entering, saw the clerk walking in the lobby with three men behind him, one having a coat over his arm. The clerk told the officer “I think you ought to stick around. I think there will be a little trouble here.” The situation presented to the officer’s view, with his prior notice of a report of a robbery there, gave probable cause for arresting the men. The one with the coat on his arm was found to be shielding a pistol. Appellants’ contention that the indefinite comment by the clerk to the officer showed no probable cause for arrest, is one with which we can not agree. The clerk’s comment, in the form of an understatement instead of a direct accusation, was properly understood and evaluated by the officer with the aid of the other circumstances of the prior report of a robbery and the presence and position of the men in the lobby of the hotel' at that hour.
The actual robbery was established to have occurred in a room in the hotel where an employee had been rendered unconscious and a set of room keys taken from him. The keys were in possession of one of the appellants when arrested in the lobby.
We reject as unsound the contention that the evidence of identification of the appellant Brennan as a participant was insufficient. While the evidence of participa*489tion of the appellant Behun was in conflict, we can not fault the trier of fact for finding against Behun on that issue. The fact that Behun was not hound over on the preliminary hearing did not preclude the state from prosecuting him by .information. Palmieri v. State, Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 633, 634—635; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331, cert. den. 384 U.S. 1023, 86 S.Ct. 1955, 16 L.Ed.2d 1026. The state was privileged by law to maintain this prosecution by information rather than by a grand jury indictment. Horner v. State, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 137.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgments appealed from are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BEW v. State, 289 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…s to believe that a crime had been committed or was being committed and the person being arrested had committed it or was committing it. Fla.Stat. § 901.15(3), F.S.A.; see also State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 392; Kekic v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 487. For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, we have concluded that no error has been made to appear. Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 176 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Carmine Vincent Palmieri v. State, 198 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1967)
- Whiteside v. United States, 384 U.S. 1023 (U.S. 1966)
- Cone v. United States, 384 U.S. 1023 (U.S. 1966)
- Horner v. State, 168 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1964)