THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY FORBES, 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 reversed suppression order, holding that a search incident to arrest for narcotics possession is lawful where the officer had probable cause to arrest, even if the search preceded the formal arrest.
A search of a person is lawful as a search incident to arrest where the officer had probable cause to believe the person was committing a narcotics offense, regardless of whether the search technically preceded the formal arrest.
[1] A search of a person is lawful as incident to arrest where the officer possessed probable cause to arrest for a narcotics offense, even if the search preceded the formal…
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 intelligence“a search of a defendant is not unlawful where it is pursuant to the establishment of probable cause to the arrest”
The court's statement of the legal principle adopted from Dixon v. State regarding the validity of searches based on probable cause.
A police officer observed what appeared to be a narcotics sale on a street corner. The officer apprehended the defendant, searched his person, and dis…
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 Fourth Amendment Protections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress .evidence the State maintains was seized from the person of the defendant incident to his arrest for possession of narcotics. A police officer observed what appeared to be a sale of narcotics. He then apprehended defendant and searched his person, discovering contraband. He then arrested defendant for possession of narcotics. We reverse on authority of Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), holding that the search was incident to the arrest even though the arrest occurred after the search. In the well-reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Boardman, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, held that a search of a defendant is not unlawful where it is pursuant to the establishment of probable cause to the arrest. We need not repeat the reasoning set forth in Dixon, nor need we cite the persuasive authorities therein. We think, however, that it is only fair to note that the opinion in Dixon had not been published at the time of the ruling of the trial court in the present case.
It is clear that the police officer in the present case had probable cause to believe that the defendant was in possession of narcotics and was actually selling them on the street corner. With such knowledge, the police officer was authorized to arrest and search the defendant as an incident to that arrest. Therefore, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…d.” Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla.1964). The fact that the search preceded the arrest does not impair our conclusion that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Pringle, 499 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ial court’s refusal to suppress evidence seized from the defendant, because at the time of the search there existed ample cause to arrest him for possession of marijuana. See also State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the suppression order and remand this case for further proceedings. RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.…
-
Vera-Nunez v. State, 368 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Forbes, 353 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Whisnant v. State, 315 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Russell v. State, 266 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)