IN THE INTEREST OF P. L. W., A JUVENILE, 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent based on possession of marijuana seized during an arrest. The appellate court reversed because the state failed to establish the validity of the arrest, making the search and seizure illegal and the evidence inadmissible.
The admission of the marijuana was error because the state failed to establish a valid arrest, making the search and seizure illegal. Therefore, the marijuana was inadmissible, and the adjudication of delinquency must be reversed.
[1] A search and seizure conducted pursuant to an illegal arrest is invalid, and any evidence obtained as a result is inadmissible.
[2] The state bears the burden of establishing the validity of an arrest when challenged by the respondent.
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“This appeal presents one of those rare instances in which the state confesses error in that it admits it failed in its burden of establishing the validity of the arrest upon this challenge being raised by the respondent-appellant.”
Establishes that the state conceded it could not prove the arrest was valid, shifting the outcome of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP.L.W. was charged with resisting arrest, possession of marijuana, possession of a stolen vehicle, and buying/receiving stolen property. The trial cou…
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 Resisting Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A petition of delinquency was filed wherein the appellant was charged with (1) resisting arrest, (2) possession of marijuana, (3) possession of a stolen vehicle, and (4) buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. Respondent-appellant entered a plea of denial and a trial was held. The juvenile court judge dismissed charges 1, 3 and 4 and cited hereinabove. Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the possession of marijuana was denied, and thereupon appellant was adjudicated a delinquent child and placed temporarily in the custody of his mother under the supervision of the Division of Youth Services. This appeal followed.
Respondent-appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the seized marijuana and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal in that the failure to introduce the arrest warrant, pursuant to which respondent was arrested, constituted a failure to establish probable cause for the arrest thus invalidating the subsequent search and seizure of the marijuana introduced at the trial.
This appeal presents one of those rare instances in which the state confesses error in that it admits it failed in its burden of establishing the validity of the arrest upon this challenge being raised by the respondent-appellant. See Earman v. State, Fla.1972, 265 So. 2d 695. Thus, there being a total absence of evidence with respect thereto, the entry was illegal and the marijuana seized as a result of the search was inadmissable since it was obtained illegally. See Earman v. State, supra and Moreno v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 81. Accordingly, we find that the juvenile court judge erred in failing to suppress the marijuana seized as a result of an invalidly effectuated arrest. Therefore, the adjudication of delinquency is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Earman v. State, 265 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1972)
- Moreno v. State, 277 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)