State v. Caicedo, 92-2273

• Decision Date: 10 August 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-2273,92-2273
• Citation: 622 So.2d 149
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Week. D1757 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Alexis CAICEDO, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 149

622 So.2d 149

18 Fla. L. Week. D1757

The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Alexis CAICEDO, Appellee.

No. 92-2273.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Avi J. Litwin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.

LEVY, Judge.

The State appeals a non-final order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Based upon our conclusion that the particular facts of this case, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, established probable cause to support the arrest and subsequent search of the defendant, we reverse.

On October 10, 1991, at 11:15 P.M., several City of Miami police officers were working in the area of Northwest 8th Avenue and 1st Street in Miami. One officer observed the defendant, Alexis Caicedo, handing money to another man, who took the money, and then opened his cupped hand toward the defendant. The defendant looked into the outstretched hand, hesitated for a few seconds, and then reached in and took a small item from the man's hand. Immediately thereafter, the defendant placed the item in his mouth. The officer recognized both men as having been previously arrested for drug activity. As the defendant started to walk away, he was stopped and placed under arrest by the officers for possession of cocaine. One of the arresting officers immediately instructed the defendant to open his mouth, from which the officer retrieved a rock of cocaine.

The defendant was charged with one count of possession and one count of purchasing cocaine. He pled not guilty, and filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, claiming there was insufficient probable cause to arrest him, and that the subsequent search of his mouth was, therefore, invalid. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the observing officer testified that he had made over 100 arrests for the possession of rock cocaine, had spent five years making undercover narcotics buys, and had attended specialized DEA narcotics training. The officer testified that, because of the way the defendant pinched the object while picking it up, he believed it was big enough to be rock cocaine, but too small to be gum or a lifesaver. On cross-examination, the officer admitted, however, that the object could have been a piece of gum or a lifesaver if cut into tiny pieces. The officer also testified that, in his experience, it is common for drug buyers to place cocaine rocks in their mouths immediately following a purchase, as a convenient method of carrying the non-water soluble drug. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress. The State now appeals.

These facts gave rise to probable cause of the commission of a crime sufficient to justify the warrantless arrest of the defendant. First, the officer saw the defendant hesitate prior to removing the object from the other man's hand. Such a hesitation is consistent with the selection process involved in a drug purchase. Borgis v. State, 590 So.2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Second, the officer observed the defendant place the just-acquired object immediately into his mouth, and testified that in his experience, the mouth is commonly used to carry rock cocaine. See Steele v. State, 561 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Ricks v. State, 549 So.2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Adams v. State, 523 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). An observation as to a known mode of transportation of drugs is a factor properly considered in a probable cause determination. See P.L.R. v. State, 455 So.2d 363 (Fla.1984) (fact that manila envelopes were commonly used as containers for marijuana properly considered), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1220, 105 S.Ct. 1206, 84 L.Ed.2d 349 (1985); State v. Maya, 529 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (Tupperware); Blanding v. State, 446 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (plastic bag). Third, the transaction at issue occurred late at night, on a specific street corner known for its drug activity, and both the alleged seller and the defendant were recognized by the officer as having prior drug arrests. These additional factors are also properly considered in a probable cause evaluation. Elliott v. State, 597 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Borgis, ...