SHEILA E. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Sheila Brown appealed the denial of her motion to suppress marijuana found on her person after her arrest at a pool hall. The court reversed because the trial judge improperly delegated the credibility determination to the jury rather than making the factual findings necessary to determine whether probable cause existed for her arrest.
The court held that a motion to suppress presents issues solely for the trial judge's determination, not the jury's, and the judge must weigh evidence and determine credibility at the suppression hearing. The trial court must make a written finding as to whether the State proved probable cause existed for the arrest and subsequent search.
[1] A motion to suppress presents issues solely for determination by the trial court, and the jury plays no role in resolving those issues.
[2] At a hearing on a motion to suppress, the judge has the responsibility of weighing the evidence and determining matters of credibility.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A motion to suppress presents issues solely for determination by the trial court. The jury is to play no role in the resolution of those issues.”
Establishes that suppression motions are exclusively for the judge, not the jury, and the judge must determine credibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was arrested at a pool hall she operated when the arresting officer testified he saw her take a bag from her purse and throw it under a pool tab…
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 Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge:
This case is here for review of the denial of a motion to suppress by the appellant, Sheila Brown. We reverse.
Brown was arrested at a pool hall she operated, and a quantity of marijuana was found on her person. She moved to suppress the seized marijuana as being the product of an unlawful arrest.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the arresting officer testified that he entered the pool hall and saw Brown take a bag from her purse and throw it under a pool table. He retrieved the bag, found it contained marijuana, and arrested Brown. He then searched Brown and found more marijuana. Brown and another witness testified in contradiction to the officer’s testimony, stating in essence that Brown had nothing to do with the bag of marijuana found under the pool table. On the basis of this testimony, Brown asked the trial court to suppress the marijuana seized from her person after her arrest. The trial court denied the motion to suppress stating that it was for the jury to determine whether the police officer, or Brown and her witness, were telling the truth about the events that prompted Brown’s arrest. At one point the trial court stated that if he treated the hearing like a trial, he would have to rule in favor of Brown on the motion to suppress. At another point, he stated that he didn’t have to believe Brown and her witness.
A motion to suppress presents issues solely for determination by the trial court. The jury is to play no role in the resolution of those issues. At the hearing, the judge has the responsibility of weighing the evidence and determining matters of credibility. Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
The record in this case does not clearly show that the trial court determined whether probable cause existed for appellant’s arrest. Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for a period of 30 days with directions to make a written finding as to whether or not the State proved there was probable cause to arrest appellant and subsequently conduct a search of her person. That finding may be made upon the testimony already adduced before the trial judge or he may conduct a further hearing on the motion to suppress. Upon making the foregoing determination, the trial court is requested to furnish this court a certified copy of his findings.
DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 647 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…s to the proper standard for resolution of the motion to suppress. A motion to suppress presents issues solely for the trial court to determine and a jury has no part in the matter. Carter v. State, 428 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Moreover, when the state relies upon consent to conduct a search, it shoulders the burden of proving that the consent was freely and voluntarily given. Louis v. State, 567 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). There is no eviden-tiary p…
-
Carter v. State, 428 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…result of those procedures there exists a substantial likelihood of misidentification. A motion to suppress presents issues solely for determination by the trial court. The jury is to play no role in the resolution of those issues. Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Sheff v. State, 301 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), aff’d, 329 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1976); Kemp v. State, 271 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 904, 91 S.Ct. 220…
-
State v. Rabb, 881 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…dog tugged as he was walking along the street. At a motion to suppress hearing, it is properly the trial court's responsibility to weigh evidence and determine matters of credibility, such as resolving seemingly conflicting evidence. Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). . This Fifth Circuit decision rendered prior to the October 1, 1981 circuit split is binding precedent for the Eleventh Circuit. See United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 952 F. 2d 876, 878 (5th Cir.1992).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chaney v. State, 237 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)