Martin v. State, 82-1300
| Decision Date | 12 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1300,82-1300 |
| Citation | 424 So.2d 994 |
| Parties | Kevin MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah A. Adamson, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Kevin Martin appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of heroin, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We reverse.
On December 4, 1980, the state charged appellant with possession of heroin contrary to section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1979). Appellant filed a motion to suppress which was denied by the trial court after a hearing on the motion. Appellant pled nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The court sentenced appellant to three years probation.
On November 3, 1980, Officer Vaney observed a vehicle run a red light. The officer stopped the vehicle. The driver was unable to produce a driver's license and was thereupon arrested. The officer requested appellant, who was a passenger in the car, for identification. Appellant voluntarily gave the officer his driver's license. The officer called for a computer check on the appellant which indicated an outstanding warrant for appellant's arrest under an Alabama charge. The officer arrested appellant based upon the warrant. The officer then searched appellant and took a brown pouch from his pants pocket. The pouch contained minute particles of residue which subsequently were established as a mixture of cocaine and heroin.
At the suppression hearing, the state conceded all the foregoing facts and that the warrant had been served on appellant on February 6, 1980; that appellant had been incarcerated in Alabama and released on October 16, 1980. The warrant, however, was not removed from the Tampa police computer until the day after appellant was stopped by Officer Vaney and a check of appellant's story proved accurate.
We hold that the trial court improperly denied appellant's motion to suppress. Officer Vaney did not have independent probable cause to arrest appellant. The officer relied solely on erroneous information received by radio that there was an outstanding Alabama warrant for appellant's arrest. The warrant was void at the time appellant was arrested. An otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gifford
...was never dissipated. We reverse. A void or nonexistent warrant may not be the basis for a legal arrest and search. Martin v. State, 424 So.2d 994, 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pesci v. State, 420 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Therefore, the fact that the arresting officers did not discover......
-
Carroll v. State
...under the settled law that a void or nonexistent warrant may not be the basis for a legal arrest and search. See Martin v. State, 424 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pesci v. State, 420 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The defendant's argument, however, misses the mark. The state here is not rel......
-
Albo v. State
...warrant, other than the officer's telling appellant that the police records showed an outstanding warrant. As said in Martin v. State, 424 So.2d 994, 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), "An otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the fact that the executing officer relied on erro......
-
McGee v. State
...the evidence. Whiteley v. Warden of Wyoming Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); and see Martin v. State, 424 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983) (evidence suppressed where arresting officer had no independent probable cause, but arrested appellant on an Alabama warra......