Hatcher v. State
| Decision Date | 12 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D08-5750.,1D08-5750. |
| Citation | 15 So.3d 929 |
| Parties | Terrance Cornelius HATCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Terrance Cornelius Hatcher appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Because the evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant had constructive possession of the baggie containing cocaine, the appellant's detention and arrest, and the search incident to the arrest, were unlawful. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and moved to suppress physical evidence seized as well as statements made by him following his warrantless arrest. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying suppression. In this order, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
On November 7, 2007, in conjunction with special drug interdiction operations in the community of Brownville in Pensacola, Florida, Escambia County Sheriffs deputies drove past 20 Loretta Street, known to be a high narcotics area. Four (4) Escambia County Sheriff's deputies were in an unmarked patrol vehicle. Outside of the fence in front of the house at 20 Loretta Street, a table is located between the fence and the street. The Defendant and another individual were at the table.
Officer Milstead and the other deputies jumped out of the patrol car. They observed a "small corner bag" sitting on top of the table within twelve (12) to eighteen (18) inches of the Defendant and closest to Mr. Hatcher. Based upon his immediate proximity to the corner bag, Mr. Hatcher was detained. A cobalt test was conducted on the bag, which tested positive. Mr. Hatcher was thereafter searched, and a quantity of a controlled substance was found on the Defendant's person.
After being arrested, Deputy Levenseller transported the Defendant to the county jail. During transport, the Defendant made certain admissions to possession of some of the seized material and denying possession of the other.
The Defendant testified and contradicted the testimony of Deputy Milstead. The Court finds that the credible substantial evidence establishes that Mr. Hatcher was in control of the "small corner bag" observed within twelve (12) to eighteen (18) inches of his person. While the observation was made at night, there was adequate light to make the relevant observations.
A trial judge's ruling on a motion to suppress is clothed with a presumption of correctness with regard to determinations of fact and a trial court's resolution of conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal if that determination is supported by substantial, competent evidence. Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 513 (Fla.2005). This court is to review de novo whether the trial court's application of the law to the historical facts establishes an adequate basis for the trial court's ruling. Id.
Probable cause for arrest exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person being arrested. Chavez v. State, 832 So.2d 730, 747 (Fla.2002). As this court explained in Edwards v. State, 532 So.2d 1311, 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), "[m]ere proximity to contraband found in a public place and in the vicinity of several other people does not warrant a finding that the police officer had probable cause to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Rand
-
J.J. v. State
...probable cause to believe that the person or persons closest to the contraband possessed it.") (citations omitted); Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (same)2; Thompson v. State, 551 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) ("Although we find that Officer Beckman had a re......
-
State v. J.C.
...to get the -- elicit the statements and seize the marijuana because of the proximity issue that has been laid out in Hatcher[ v. State, 15 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ].The trial court ultimately concluded that there was "not reasonable suspicion to make the arrest and seize the marijuan......
-
J.J. v. State
...merely focused on his location in the "small space" of the cabin with five others where the drugs were found).3 Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (involving a bag of cocaine between two men on a table located next to the street and outside the front fence of a house);......
-
Search and seizure
...was closest to it does not establish constructive possession, and the officer lacked probable cause to make the arrest. Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) LEOs learned that defendant might be manufacturing methamphetamine, and members of a drug task force went to his house.......
-
Crimes
...of the baggie on the table. The mere fact that he was closest to it does not establish constructive possession. Hatcher v. State, 15 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) Defendant was in the back seat of a car with two persons in the front seats. A baggie of cocaine was found in plain view on the......