State v. Rameriz, 73--381
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MAGER; OWEN; CROSS |
| Citation | 284 So.2d 241 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James RAMERIZ, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 73--381,73--381 |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1973 |
Page 241
v.
James RAMERIZ, Appellee.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey and Thomas M. Carney, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Richard S. Power, Asst. Public Defender, and Sherry Lefkowitz, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
MAGER, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress and motion to dismiss.
An information was filed charging defendant with two counts: Count I charged the defendant with possession of cannabis, and Count II charged defendant with resisting an officer with violence. The trial court entered an order as to Count I, suppressing the seizure of the evidence upon the finding that the Arrest which was the subject of defendant's motion was unlawful. The trial court entered a subsequent order dismissing Count II on the basis that since the arrest was found to be unlawful Count II relating to Resisting the arrest must fall.
A review of the record on appeal and particularly the transcript of testimony reflects that the trial court's finding of an unlawful arrest was predicated primarily
Page 242
upon the Time which elapsed between the date of the offense for which defendant's arrest was sought and the date the officers effectuated the arrest; and that such arrest had been accomplished Without a warrant. If the arrest Was unlawful, then the contraband found as a result of the search incident thereto was properly suppressed; and, further, the charge of resisting arrest would also have been properly dismissed.The pertinent facts, as reflected from the hearing held on defendant's motion to suppress, are as follows: Officer Calamia, employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, testified that while working in the capacity of an undercover police officer attempting to make purchases of narcotics and dangerous drugs came in contact with the defendant on June 20, 1972. On that date an incident occurred at a Royal Castle parking lot in Orange County wherein defendant allegedly attempted to expose the identity of Officer Calamia to other persons present in that lot. Apparently the defendant and the others concluded that Officer Calamia was in fact a police officer. One Anderson, who had been present, indicated that Officer Calamia would not leave the parking lot alive. At that point the said Anderson approached Officer Calamia with a bicycle chain in hand. Officer Calamia drew his gun and the crowd dispersed with the exception of Anderson and the defendant. Officer Calamia further testified that an assault was committed upon him by the defendant On that date when the defendant along with Anderson threw rocks at the vehicle in which Officer Calamia had gotten into as he sought to leave the scene. No arrest was made on June 20, as a result of the incident involving the defendant.
On October 13, 1972, Officer Calamia, accompanied by Deputy Demps and Agent Hoover, proceeded to defendant's home for the purpose of arresting the defendant and one Marino. Officer Calamia testified that he was under the impression that a warrent for the defendant's arrest would be issued on the afternoon of October 13. 1 At the time the officers went out to arrest the defendant and one Marino a warrant had Not been issued. The purpose of seeking to arrest Marino was for possession of LSD and for obstructing an officer with violence. The purpose of arresting the defendant was on the charge of aggravated assault growing out of the incident occurring at the Royal Castle parking lot on June 20.
The officers observed defendant and Marino standing at the end of the driveway of defendant's home and proceeded to circle the vicinity. They then stopped their vehicle at defendant's home and approached the defendant and Marino while they were apparently still standing in the driveway. Officer Demps produced identification stating that he had a warrant for defendant's arrest and he announced that defendant was under arrest and defendant was advised of the reason for his arrest. The defendant was alleged to have pushed Deputy Demps out of the way and when Officer Calamia attempted to grab the defendant, the defendant struck Officer Calamia in the fact. The officers drew their guns and finally apprehended the defendant who was told to lie on the ground.
Page 243
A search was then performed on the defendant after he was told to lie on the ground. During the search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kishel v. State, 73--4
...and seizure such arrest was unlawful thereby rendering defective the charge of resisting an officer. State v. Rameriz, Fla.App.1973, 284 So.2d 241; Kirby v. State, Fla.App.1969, 217 So.2d 619. See also 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § The convictions appealed from are reversed and the cause remanded to......
-
Machado v. State, s. 77-2498
...the fact that there may have been sufficient time to have obtained a warrant. State v. Perez, 277 So.2d 778 (Fla.1973); State v. Rameriz, 284 So.2d 241 (Fla.4th DCA Accordingly, appellants' arrest being predicated upon probable cause, the search incident thereto, which revealed lottery para......
-
Gunn v. State, 75--1416
...Statutes, for a valid arrest without a warrant, it is erroneous. Falcon v. State, 226 So.2d 399 (Fla.1969). See also State v. Rameriz, 284 So.2d 241 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); State v. Cannon, 317 So.2d 103 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Defendant's first contention is without Next defendant contends that ev......
-
State v. Cannon, 74--1441
...failure to obtain an arrest warrant though there was sufficient time to do so does not invalidate the arrest. See State v. Rameriz, 284 So.2d 241 (4th DCA Fla.1973). The arrest was valid and under the facts of this case the search of the automobile was a valid search incident to the The ord......