THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BOBBY LLOYD JACKSON, 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence of marijuana found in an abandoned paper bag. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant's abandonment of the bag while in the officer's view did not constitute an illegal search or seizure, and therefore the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine did not apply.
The evidence was properly admitted and the suppression order was reversed. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not apply because there was no illegal arrest or unlawful police conduct prior to the defendant's abandonment of the bag. The defendant's abandonment of the contraband in the officer's view constituted a voluntary divestment of possession, giving the officer probable cause to investigate the abandoned property.
[1] A police officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant after observing the defendant abandon contraband in the officer's view.
[2] The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not apply when a defendant abandons contraband prior to an illegal arrest.
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“the evidence is suppressed because the arresting officer had no probable cause to arrest the defendant”
The trial court's stated reason for suppressing the evidence, applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn arresting officer observed the defendant standing on the street with several other young men. When the officer approached, the other men left. The …
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 Abandonment Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal by the State of Florida is taken pursuant to § 924.071(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which permits interlocutory appeals by the state from orders granting a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The *89order entered by the trial judge set forth full findings of fact as follows:
“1. That the arresting officer observed the defendant standing on the street with four or five young men.
“2. That the other young men left the area when the arresting officer approached.
“3. That the defendant was not committing any criminal offense when the arresting officer approached.
“4. That the arresting officer observed the defendant drop a brown' paper bag.
“5. That the arresting officer picked the bag off the ground and observed inside the bag a substance which he believed to be marijuana.
“6. That the arresting officer recognized the defendant from several years ago.
“7. That the arresting officer arrested the defendant after observing the substance in the bag.”
The trial judge concluded “the evidence is suppressed because the arresting officer had no probable cause to arrest the defendant. Fletcher v. Wainwright, 399 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1968).” In the cited case the federal court applied the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” It held that where police officers had illegally broken into a room and later discovered contraband which had been tossed out of the window because of the illegal entry, the discovery of the contraband was a direct result of the improper initial entry, and therefore could not be used in evidence against the defendant, occupant of the premises illegally entered.
The trial judge in the instant case has found, as a finder of fact, that the police officer did not arrest the defendant until after he had discovered the contraband. Therefore there was no illegal arrest and no unlawful act committed by the officer prior to the evidence being abandoned. The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” is not applicable since there was no illegal conduct by the officer prior to the arrest. Mitchell v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 726. The trial judge found and the evidence sustains his finding that the defendant had possession of a bag, and that he divested himself of the possession in the view of the police officer. The actions of the defendant constituted an abandonment of the contraband which the police officer had observed in his possession; therefore, it was both reasonable and proper for the police officer to investigate the abandoned sack which was found to contain contraband. Thereupon the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant. State v. Padilla, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 309. The order suppressing the evidence is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of an order in accordance with this holding and for the further prosecution of the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…United States, 265 U.S. 57,44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924), or (b) in the public street either prior to an attempted police stop, Mitchell v. State, 60 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1952); Holliday v. State, 104 So. 2d 137 (Fla.1st DCA 1958); State v. Jackson, 240 So. 2d 88 (Fla.3d DCA 1970), or after such a stop has been attempted or completed, State v. Nittolo, 317 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1975); State v. Padilla, 235 So. 2d 309 (Fla.3d DCA 1970), or (c) in a hotel room or shack which has been vacated, Abel v. United States,…
-
State v. Nittolo, 317 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1975)…Fourth District, in State of Florida v. Nittolo, Hover and McKinnon, 303 So. 2d 690 (Fla.App., 1974), which conflicts with State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972), affirmed 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973), and State v. Jackson, 240 So. 2d 88 (Fla.App. 3, 1970). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1973). [*749] Respondents were charged by information with possession of marijuana in excess of five grams. They moved to suppress the evidence to…1 / 2
-
Riley v. State, 266 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…the vial and throwing it into the adjacent waterway was clearly an abandonment of possession. We affirm on the authority of Mitchell v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 726; State v. Padilla, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 309; State v. Jackson, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 88. Affirmed. REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Padilla, 235 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Fletcher v. Louie L. Wainwright, 399 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Mitchell v. State, 60 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1952)