JUAN SKELTON, 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.
The court held that the warrantless search incident to arrest was based on probable cause, not mere suspicion.
[1] Probable cause to arrest exists when a reasonable person, with the specialized training of a police officer, would conclude from the facts known prior to the arrest that…
[2] An experienced officer's knowledge of a neighborhood and common drug distribution methods can be considered in determining probable cause for a narcotics arrest.
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 intelligenceAn experienced officer observed the defendant receive small brown packets from another individual and place them in his jacket. The officer, believing…
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 Unlawful Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Juan Skelton, appeals his conviction of unlawful possession of cannabis and sentence to six months in the county jail.
Defendant for his sole point on appeal contends the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress, alleging that the warrantless search incident to his arrest was based upon mere suspicion and not the required probable cause. We cannot agree.
Probable cause to arrest exists where a reasonable man, having the specialized training of a police officer, in reviewing facts known to the arresting officer prior to the actual time of arrest, would come to the conclusion that a felony is being or has been committed by the person to be arrested. State v. Profera, 239 So. 2d 867 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); see also Russell v. State, 266 So. 2d 92 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); State v. Knapp, 294 So. 2d 338 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).
In the instant case Officer Cantillo, the arresting officer, was highly experienced and often involved in drug related arrests. He was well acquainted with the neighborhood in which the arrest took place. He testified that on the date in question he observed a young man walk up to the defendant, who was standing on the corner of West Flagler Street and Seventh Avenue, and hand him (the defendant) a stack of small brown packets, each packet being 2" by 3" in size. The defendant placed the packets, secured by rubber bands, into his jacket pocket. Officer Can-tillo exited from his patrol car, retrieved the packets from the defendant’s pocket and placed him under arrest. Cantillo further testified that cannabis is often distributed in packets similar to those he had taken from the defendant and he believed a drug sale was in progress.
Under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Cantillo had probable cause to believe that the packets contained cannabis (marijuana) and a narcotics sale was in progress. Thus, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion to suppress. Cf. U. S. v. Allen, 472 F. 2d 145 (5th Cir. 1973); Trivette v. State, 244 So. 2d 173 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); Russell v. State, supra; State v. Knapp, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…disagree with both rulings. II. Of course, the primary issue in this case is the existence of probable cause [*1285] to believe that there were or had been drugs in the defendants’ possession upon which to base their arrest.3 In Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), we restated the familiar generalized standard for making that determination in a case such as this: Probable cause to arrest exists where a reasonable man, having the specialized training of a police officer, in reviewing f…
-
Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…mitted) (emphasis added) This legal analysis, in turn, is fully consistent with the comparable Florida law on the subject. See Council v. State, 442 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bush v. State, 369 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The trial court therefore properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress below. The conviction under review is accordingly Affirmed.…
-
Lachs v. State, 366 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ontain marijuana. Nevertheless under the totality of the circumstances, commencing with the BOLO and escalating therefrom, the officer had probable cause to believe the envelope contained cannabis and we agree with the reasoning of Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) wherein the court said: In the instant case Officer Cantillo, the arresting officer, was highly experienced and often involved in drug related arrests. He was well acquainted with the neighborhood in which the arrest took place.…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Profera, 239 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Russell v. State, 266 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- State v. Knapp, 294 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- United States v. Allen, 472 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Hudson v. State, 244 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Trivette v. State, 244 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)