JOSEPH BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION, 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.
In this Fourth District appeal, Joseph Brown challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search warrant execution at the ABC Lounge. The court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that police lacked probable cause to search Brown as an individual patron when executing a premises search warrant.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The search warrant's authorization to search persons "reasonably believed to be connected with said illegal activity" was insufficient because there was nothing in the record establishing facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent person's belief that Brown was committing an offense or that police had probable cause to search him.
[1] A search warrant authorizing the search of a premises and "any persons thereon reasonably believed to be connected with said illegal activity" requires probable cause to…
[2] Evidence seized from a person on the premises must be suppressed if the record lacks facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent person's belief that the individual was…
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“There is nothing in the record which sets forth facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent man's believing that the defendant was committing an offense. Nor does the record disclose that the police had probable cause to search and seize articles of a person lawfully on the premises.”
The court's core reasoning that probable cause was lacking for searching Brown individually
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 21, 1974, a search warrant was issued to search the ABC Lounge, based on an affidavit alleging that the premises were controlled by Clifford …
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
MORROW, RUSSELL 0., Associate Judge.
The defendant-appellant was charged with possession of controlled substances, phencyclidine and cannabis, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(l)(e).
On March 21, 1974, a search warrant, pursuant to an affidavit for search warrant, was issued, to search the premises known as the “ABC Lounge” in Orlando. The warrant alleged that the premises were under the control of Clifford Barrett and that cocaine was being kept on the premises in violation of Florida Statute 893.13. On March 22, 1974, said warrant was executed and certain property was taken and inventoried.
The appellant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, a hearing was held on the motion. The only testimony presented was that of the appellant, who stated that on March 22, 1974, he was sitting at the bar in the ABC Lounge when “a guy” ran up to him with a gun and told him not to move. He was searched, nothing was found and he was told to sit down and keep his hands on the bar. About fifteen minutes to one-half hour later he was searched again and cannabis was taken from him, and he was arrested.
The search warrant directed police to search a certain ABC Lounge and “any persons thereon reasonably believed to be connected with said illegal activity.” The trial court denied the Motion to Suppress.
The question presented is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s Motion to Suppress evidence.
There is nothing in the record which sets forth facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent man’s believing that the defendant was committing an offense. Nor does the record disclose that the police had probable cause to search and seize articles of a person lawfully on the premises. Further, there is no evidence by which one could reasonably believe the defendant to be connected with the illegal activity set forth in the affidavit on which said warrant was issued, to-wit: “that there is now being kept on said premises and curtilage certain controlled substance, to-wit; cocaine in violation of Florida Statutes 893.13.” We find error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to grant the motion to suppress and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
DOWNEY, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter v. Allstate Ins. Co., 497 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…subject to the statutory defense of mischievous provocation. Additionally, two cases from the Fourth DCA have implicitly applied this defense to small children. In both Minisall v. Krysiak, 242 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), and Paskel v. Higgins, 337 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), the court recognized the existence of this defense, but reversed for the plaintiff in both eases based on insufficient proof of provocation. Appellant relies on Harris v. Moriconi, 331 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed…