STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR GENE CANNON ET AL., APPELLEES
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 State appealed the trial court's suppression of evidence seized during the arrest of drug suspects. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the warrantless arrest was lawful based on probable cause from a reliable confidential informant corroborated by officers' observations, and the search incident to arrest was valid despite the officers' failure to obtain a warrant despite having time to do so.
The warrantless arrest was lawful under Florida Statute § 901.15(3) based on probable cause established by the reliable confidential informant's tip corroborated by the officers' personal observations. The failure to obtain an arrest warrant despite having sufficient time does not invalidate a lawful arrest. The search of the automobile as a search incident to arrest was valid.
[1] An arrest without a warrant is lawful when probable cause is established by a reliable confidential informant's tip corroborated by the officers' personal observations.
[2] The failure to obtain an arrest warrant, even when there is sufficient time, does not invalidate an otherwise lawful arrest based on probable cause.
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“Appellees' arrest without a warrant was lawful under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 901.15(3) (1973), probable cause having been shown on the basis of the tip from the reliable confidential informant corroborated by the officers' personal observations made immediately preceding the arrest.”
Establishes the legal standard for lawful warrantless arrest based on probable cause from informant tip and corroboration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers received information at midnight from a reliable confidential informant that Charles Miller, a known heroin dealer, had just sold heroin and …
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 Confidential Informant Reliability cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
The State contends, and we think correctly so, that the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motions to suppress certain tangible evidence seized by the arresting officers at the time of the arrest.
Two officers of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department received information at midnight from a reliable confidential informant that one Charles Miller (whom the police officers knew to be widely reputed as a heroin dealer in Brevard County) had just sold the informant twenty-five dollars worth of heroin, and that Miller had left his residence promising to return at 6 a. m. with an additional amount of heroin. The informant also stated that Miller would be riding in a late model car. The officers set up surveillance of the residence. A few minutes after 6 a. m. a late model car arrived occupied by Charles Miller, whom one of the officers recognized. The officers approached the car. In plain view between the legs of the passenger on the front seat was a cellophane bag containing a brown powdery substance which one of the officers recognized as a type of heroin known as “Brown Mexican Mud”. Miller and the two passengers, the appellees herein, were placed under arrest. After removing all three from the car, the vehicle was searched and an additional quantity of heroin was discovered under the seat and in the glove,compartment.
The orders granting the motions to suppress reflect that they were granted solely because the court felt that-since the officers had sufficient time, between midnight and 6 a. m. the following morning, to have obtained either an arrest warrant or a search warrant, the officers failure m this respect made the search illegal. In so holding the trial court erred.
Appellees’ arrest without a warrant was lawful under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 901.15(3) (1973), probable cause having been shown on the basis of the tip from the reliable confidential informant corroborated by the officers’ personal observations made immediately preceding the arrest. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). Even if it could be said that the officers had sufficient probable cause to make an arrest based solely upon the tip from the reliable informant (without the corroboration from their personal observations), the officers’ failure to obtain an arrest warrant though there was sufficient time to do so does not invalidate the arrest. See State v. Rameriz, 284 So. 2d 241 (4th DCA Fla. 1973). The arrest was valid and under the facts of this case the search of the automobile was a valid search incident to the arrest.
The orders granting the motions to suppress are reversed.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Artis Gunn v. State, 336 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…requirements other than those set out in Chapter 901, Florida Statutes, for a valid arrest without a warrant, it is erroneous. Falcon v. State, 226 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1969). See also State v. Rameriz, 284 So. 2d 241 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); State v. Cannon, 317 So. 2d 103 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Defendant’s first contention is without merit. Next defendant contends that even if his arrest was valid the inventory search of his automobile was not. We agree. Defendant testified that after his arrest he asked the arresting…
Authorities Cited
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1959)
- State v. Rameriz, 284 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)