State v. Riehl, 86-2106
| Citation | 504 So.2d 798,12 Fla. L. Weekly 923 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2106,86-2106 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 923 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James D. RIEHL, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The state appeals a trial court order granting defendant James D. Riehl's motion to suppress certain evidence seized from him and statements he made following his arrest. The trial court granted the motion based upon its finding of lack of probable cause for defendant's arrest. We find that the facts and circumstances leading up to, and surrounding, the defendant's arrest provided probable cause to believe that the defendant was committing, or had committed, a crime. We, accordingly, reverse.
The defendant was charged by information with trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985) and with use or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147, Florida Statutes (1985). After entering a plea of not guilty to the charges, the defendant filed a motion to suppress all tangible items of property seized from him and all statements made by him following his arrest. The motion alleged that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant for possession of drug paraphernalia and that, therefore, the subsequent search of his person which produced forty-three grams of cocaine was not incident to a lawful arrest. The defendant also contended that any statements he made subsequent to his arrest were not freely and voluntarily given.
The only evidence presented at the hearing on defendant's motion was the testimony of the two arresting officers, Sarasota County Sheriff Deputies Jack Ellis and Shawn Snyder. Their testimony indicated that Deputy Ellis responded to a call from a night clerk at a gas station. He was informed that a subject had been inside the women's rest room for over an hour and had aroused the suspicions of the night clerk. Upon Deputy Ellis's arrival at the station, the clerk told him that he had knocked on the rest room door, but did not get a response. Deputy Ellis then knocked "loudly" on the door several times, identified himself, but also did not get a response. Deputy Ellis did, however, hear a "commotion" going on inside. When Deputy Snyder arrived shortly thereafter, Deputy Ellis knocked on the door again and said, "Open up." The defendant came out wearing a pair of running shorts. He was sweating profusely and was glassy eyed. Deputy Ellis testified that in his opinion, after twenty-nine years of law enforcement, the defendant was on a drug. Deputy Snyder agreed that the defendant's appearance upon exiting the rest room suggested that the defendant was under the influence of something.
Deputy Ellis then checked inside the rest room and found wet paper towels, four syringes, and a spoon in the trash. One syringe contained uncoagulated blood, another contained a yellowish liquid which had not evaporated, another syringe was empty, and the fourth one was not used and had a cap on it. Deputy Ellis at that time believed the defendant was in possession of drug paraphernalia and instructed Deputy Snyder to handcuff the defendant. Ellis then advised the defendant of his rights and asked him what he was doing there. The defendant responded that he was doing coke by injecting it into his wrist. The defendant was subsequently searched, and forty-three grams of cocaine were found in the crotch of his running shorts.
On cross-examination, Ellis acknowledged that he did not know how long it had been since the rest room had been cleaned, that no examination of the contents of the syringes was made prior to the defendant's arrest, and that he did not know whether anyone had examined the syringes for fingerprints. The officers noted that they found no insulin or any other substance which would suggest the syringes possibly had been used to administer a legal medication.
After argument of counsel, the trial court made the following comment:
Hindsight is almost better than foresight, but Mr. Riehl wasn't arrested for trespass nor for disorderly conduct nor for criminal mischief, but he was arrested according to the officer for possession of paraphernalia, narcotic paraphernalia, syringes found in the waste basket.
There is no way at this time we can say these weren't placed there by someone else and at what point in time.
Corporal Ellis did not say he was an expert, but I will give him a little leeway as to why he would expect blood to be present as late as two or four hours or as long as the defendant was in the bathroom, which was an hour, and we have no evidence when the last time was that the bath room was cleaned nor when the waste...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heib v. Lehrkamp
...the probable cause necessary to make a valid arrest, . . . it is not necessary to eliminate all possible defenses." State v. Riehl, 504 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1987). Once an officer makes an arrest based upon probable cause, the officer "need not `investigate independently every c......
-
Department of Highway Safety v. Roberts, 5D05-3001.
...So.2d 30, 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Favino, 667 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); State v. Riehl, 504 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 513 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1987). When determining whether probable cause is supported by substantial competent ......
-
Rogers v. State
...was the one who committed it. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158-59, 45 S.Ct. 280, 287, 69 L.Ed. 543, 554 (1925); State v. Riehl, 504 So.2d 798 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 513 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1987); see also 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure--A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment Sec. ......
-
Thomas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...cause is evaluated from the viewpoint of a prudent cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest." State v. Riehl, 504 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The issue is not whether the traffic violation actually occurred, but whether the officer had probable cause to believe tha......
-
When the king does wrong: failing to fulfill implied duties.
...in construction litigation until the decision in Southern Roadbuilders v. Lee County, 495 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1987), when the Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a contractor's claim for payment denied recovery and somberly announced: "The a......