MORRIS EASON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for drug possession, holding that the arresting officer had probable cause based on a reliable informant's tip and the defendant's suspicious conduct upon seeing police.
An arrest supported by probable cause based on a reliable informant's detailed tip and the suspect's evasive conduct upon police approach is lawful, and a search incident to such arrest is valid.
[1] A reliable informant's detailed personal observation of drug possession combined with the suspect's evasive conduct upon police approach provides probable cause for arres…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA reliable police informant told officers he had personally seen Eason in possession of drugs hidden in his pants and provided a description and locat…
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 Drug Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Morris Eason, was arrested by a police officer who searched him incident to the arrest and found heroin. Eason moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the arrest was without probable cause and that, therefore, the search was illegal. The trial judge denied the motion. Eason then entered a plea of nolo contendere, was found guilty and placed upon two years probation.
The evidence before the trial court was sufficient to support a holding that the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a felony had been committed by Eason. The evidence showed that the informant, who had assisted the police on many prior cases, stated to the police that he had personally seen the defendant in possession of drugs which defendant had hidden in his pants. The informant gave the officer a description of Eason’s person and apparel and stated where he could be located. The police proceeded to the area, located the person fitting the description in front o'f a pool hall and approached him shortly thereafter. Upon seeing the police officer, Eason started walking quickly to the rear of the pool hall. It was then that the arrest was made and the search carried out revealing the heroin. Upon due consideration of the record, it is our view that these circumstances meet the requirements of Florida law. See Rodriguez v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 656 and see Fla. Stat. § 901.15(3), State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 392 and the rule stated in Salas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 621, 622.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. State, 334 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…uth. Salas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 621, 622. Having examined the facts pursuant to the foregoing principles of law, we find there to be substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. See Eason v. State, Fla.App.1975, 317 So. 2d 447. Affirmed.…
-
Stubbs v. State, 339 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Walker v. State, 196 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Eason v. State, 317 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Crawford v. State, 334 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Barron Roofing Co., 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- Onelio Garcia Rodriquez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)