LARRY JOHNSON A/K/A MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS, 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 defendant's arrest was legal, and therefore the motion to suppress evidence should be denied.
Defendant was arrested for burglary of a dwelling and moved to suppress a fingerprint sample obtained during the arrest. The arrest was based on an ey…
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 Illegal Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Larry Johnson, pleaded nolo contendere to an information charging him with burglary of a dwelling. A ruling denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was reserved for appeal. The point presented urges that the motion to suppress a fingerprint sample should have been granted because the sample was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest.
It affirmatively appears from this record that the defendant’s arrest was not for the purpose of obtaining his fingerprint as in Davis v. Mississippi, 393 U.S. 821, 89 S.Ct. 149, 21 L.Ed.2d 93 (1968). Defendant’s arrest was based upon an account of an eyewitness who provided specific information of defendant’s acts and a sufficient description of the defendant to support his identification as the culprit. The fact that this witness’ testimony would not, in the absence of other evidence, have been sufficient to convict the defendant does not make the arrest illegal. See State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1968); and cf. Martin v. State, 194 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The point is without merit. See Paulson v. State, 257 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
A second point presented does not show reversible error. See Berkman v. Miami National Bank, 143 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKEE v. State, 430 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…rom a description given by a witness, he was found within two blocks of the alleged crime scene and he fled upon observing the officer. Based on these facts, we find that there was probable cause to arrest. Shriner v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, 354 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The search was therefore valid as incident to a lawful arrest. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed. . The fact that at the hearing on the motion to suppress the offic…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Barron Roofing Co., 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- Berkman v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 143 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Martin v. State, 194 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Scofield v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 393 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1968)
- Paulson v. State, 257 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)