Drayton v. State, 91-02222
| Decision Date | 24 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-02222,91-02222 |
| Parties | Janice Erma DRAYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 601 So.2d 1248, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1575 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and David A. Snyder, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dell H. Edwards, Assistant Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant, who pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), argues that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress cocaine which the arresting officer forced her to spit out of her mouth. We affirm.
Cummo v. State, 581 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA1991), upon which defendant relies, is distinguishable. In Cummo, the officer merely suspected that the defendant was attempting to hide rock cocaine in his mouth before the officer forced him to spit it out. Id. at 968. The officer admitted that the object also could have been a lifesaver or a mint. Id. In the instant case, however, the officer had already seen what the officer identified as cocaine in defendant's mouth before the officer forced her to spit it out. The officer testified that defendant had voluntarily consented to opening her mouth at his request, at which point he saw the cocaine. Contrary to defendant's position, the trial court was entitled to believe the officer's testimony. Thus, it cannot be said that the officer in this case had a mere bare suspicion. He had probable cause as an eyewitness to prima facie evidence of the crime--possession of cocaine.
The officer's action regarding the cocaine can be further justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest, State v. Williams, 516 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA1987), or as an attempt to prevent the obstruction or destruction of evidence under exigent circumstances. See and compare State v. Bamber, 592 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Finally, we do not agree that the arrest in this case stemmed from an illegal stop. On the contrary, there was sufficient evidence that the arrest arose from a voluntary encounter.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coney v. State, 2D00-2099.
...have had probable cause to arrest him and to conduct a search, including of his mouth, incident to the arrest. See Drayton v. State, 601 So.2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Curtis, 748 So.2d at 374; State v. Terrell, 731 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). But the fact that Coney had an un......
-
State v. Terrell
...to hide something which the officer suspected might be cocaine. Later, the second district distinguished Cummo in Drayton v. State, 601 So.2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Drayton, the court Cummo v. State, 581 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), upon which defendant relies, is distinguishabl......
-
State v. James, 96-03240
...experience in the street crimes unit, he believed to be cocaine. These facts are more akin to those we reviewed in Drayton v. State, 601 So.2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In that case, Judge Lehan [Cummo v. State, 581 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ], upon which the defendant relies, is di......