State v. Emery, 81-115
| Citation | 411 So.2d 341 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-115,81-115 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Steven William EMERY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Laura R. Morrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant Emery was not subjected to a sham or pretextual arrest. Moreover, it is legally certain that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for a misdemeanor 1 committed in his presence before he removed certain items protruding from the defendant's pocket. Consequently, it is irrelevant that the officer did not announce his intent to arrest until after he removed the items. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Thomas v. State, 395 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Forbes, 353 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order suppressing evidence and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gifford
...was not informed of the carnal knowledge arrest until after receiving Miranda warnings and giving his confession. State v. Emery, 411 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Dunaway, the Supreme Court clearly stated that application of the fourth amendment's requirement of probable cause does not......
- Gillion v. State, 81-257