STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH BLANCO, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's suppression of gambling paraphernalia seized from a defendant who entered premises being lawfully searched for lottery activities. The appellate court reverses, holding that persons entering searched premises during an active warrant search may be searched if there are reasonable grounds to suspect their connection to the unlawful activities being investigated.
The court held that a person is not immune from a search warrant simply because he was not present when the search began. Persons found on premises being lawfully searched for illegal activities may be searched when there are reasonable grounds to believe they are connected with those unlawful activities. The arrest and seizure of evidence were proper because probable cause existed to believe Blanco was committing a misdemeanor in the officer's presence.
[1] A search warrant for premises used for illegal gambling activities may authorize the search of persons found on the premises if there are reasonable grounds to suspect th…
[2] A person is not immune from the operation of a search warrant simply because they were not present on the premises when the search began.
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“where a judicial determination is made that there is probable cause to believe that the premises are being used for an illegal purpose, such as gambling that it is entirely reasonable and proper to search persons found on such premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect — that is, believe — that such persons are engaged in or connected with the unlawful activities that are the subject-matter of the search”
Establishes the legal standard from Samuel v. State allowing searches of persons on premises during lawful warrant execution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRalph Blanco entered a residence that was being lawfully searched pursuant to a valid warrant for lottery activities. Blanco was not named in the warr…
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 Lottery Paraphernalia cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant State of Florida brings this timely appeal from an order of the trial court granting appellee/defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, i. e. gambling paraphernalia. Appellee was charged by information with aiding and assisting in the conducting of a lottery.
Appellee entered a residence while it was being searched pursuant to a valid warrant issued on sufficient probable cause to believe that lottery activities were conducted on the premises. He was not named in the search warrant nor did he own or lease the premises. The arresting officer testified that appellee was a “well-known bolita man, and he’s known to carry his numbers on very thin paper in . [his] hand” and that as soon as appellee walked in he “started to bring his hand up and go for his mouth. . . . ” The officer grabbed appellee’s wrist and found three gambling bets in his hand. The trial court found that the warrant did not authorize a search of appellee’s person because he had arrived after the search had begun, that there was no probable cause to believe appellee was engaged in the commission of the felony aiding and assisting in the conducting of a lottery, and that there was probable cause to believe appellee was committing the misdemeanors gambling and possession of lottery paraphernalia.
The Supreme Court of Florida in the ease of Samuel v. State, 222 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1969) held that where a judicial determination is made that there is probable cause to believe that the premises are being used for an illegal purpose, such as gambling that it is entirely reasonable and proper to search persons found on such premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect — that is, believe — that such per sons are engaged in or connected with the unlawful activities that are the subject-matter of the search.
We know of no rule of law that a person is immune from operation of a search warrant simply because he was not present on the premises when the search began. The arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that appellant was connected with the lottery activities based on his prior knowledge of appellant. Furthermore evidence seized incident to a proper arrest is not subject to suppression. E. g., Williams v. State, 210 So. 2d 497 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). See Section 901.21, Florida Statutes. An arrest was proper in the case before us since probable cause existed to believe appellee was committing a misdemeanor in the presence of an officer. Section 901.15, Florida Statutes. The evidence at issue here is admissible in the prosecution of an offense not contemplated at the time of the arrest. See generally Brown v. State, 46 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1950); Farmer v. State, 208 So. 2d 266 (Fla.3d DCA 1968).
Accordingly we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress evidence.
REVERSED.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…r familiarity with the patterns of illegal lottery operations. Additionally, one of the arresting officers was aware of Ramon Machado’s past involvement in lottery operations, a relevant factor [*1136] in determining probable cause. State v. Blanco, 339 So. 2d 1137 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). It is appellants’ argument that the arresting officers had ample time to secure a warrant for appellants’ arrests, nevertheless, an otherwise proper arrest without a warrant is not invalidated by the fact that there may have been…
-
State v. McCORMACK, 517 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…, the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Having made a lawful arrest, the search performed incident to the arrest was lawful and the evidence seized was admissible. Sands v. State, 414 So. 2d 611, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Blanco, 339 So. 2d 1137, 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see §§ 901.15 and 901.21, Fla.Stat. (1985). At the hearing on the motion to suppress, a witness testified that she had invited the defendant to visit with her at her apartment located within the complex to celebrate his bi…
-
Diosdado Reyes Hernandez v. State, 373 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 46 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1950)
- Samuel v. State, 222 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1969)
- Farmer v. State, 208 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Williams v. State, 210 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)