FRANCISCO EDUARDO POLANIA, APPELLANT,
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.
The court held that fingerprint evidence obtained from a prior arrest is admissible even if the arrest was illegal, provided the arrest was not for the purpose of obtaining fingerprints for the current charges.
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering based on fingerprint evidence. The fingerprints were taken from a prior arrest, which occurred before…
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 Breaking And Entering cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty upon seven informations charging breaking and entering. He was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. The controlling point presented upon this appeal urges that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence fingerprints which were the fruit of an arrest, which it is claimed was illegal. See Bynum v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465; but see Bynum v. United States, 1960, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 274 F.2d 767.
The record establishes that the fingerprint evidence was the product of a prior arrest which occurred before appellant was a suspect in the investigation of the felonies for which he now stands convicted. There is no showing that the taking of the fingerprints was the object of the alleged unlawful arrest and consequently objectionable. Therefore, Bynum v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465 is not applicable.
We reject appellant’s contention that the burden was upon the State to prove that the arrest was in fact valid. The determination of whether an arrest is valid, so as to support an incidental search, is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined advisedly by the trial court. See Urso v. State, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 810; Diaz v. State, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 351. The determination of the trial court in the instant case that the arrest was valid is supported by the record. See Reeves v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 403; Echols v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 89; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 746.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betancourt v. State, 224 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…nadmissible in evidence.” 198 So. 2d at 669. We think it follows that statements made by a defendant after an unlawful arrest are also “fruit of a poisonous tree” and hence inadmissible as evidence against him. Cf. Polania v. State, Fla.App., 1968, 208 So. 2d 624. We therefore hold that the court'erroneously denied appellant’s timely objection to the admission into evidence of the appellant’s statement concerning a package in the taxi which statement was obtained while appellant was illegally held in custody…
Authorities Cited
- Clayborne Bynum v. United States, 262 F.2d 465 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Clayborne Bynum v. United States, 274 F.2d 767 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Urso v. State, 134 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Echols v. State, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Savino Diaz v. State, 181 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- In re Est. of Rosella M. Sager, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Reeves v. State, 187 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Zorovich v. Stoller, 204 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Holland v. Scott, 204 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)