Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 25 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 97-3169,97-3239,s. 97-3169 |
| Citation | 717 So.2d 1109 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2213 Quincy WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Stephanie H. Park, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Simone P. Firley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence. Because we agree with the trial judge, we affirm.
An experienced narcotics officer had under observation a specific location known from previous arrests to be a site of frequent drug sales. From his vantage point, he observed appellant, a person known to the officer as one who hangs out on the streets and has been subject to various arrests, after looking around to assure himself that no one was watching, reach into his buttocks area under his pants and produce something from which he extracted something small which he handed to two persons who had approached him in exchange for something that the officer could not identify. After the exchange, appellant again looked around to see if anyone was watching and replaced his "stash" beneath his pants in his buttocks area. Based on this observation, appellant was searched and cocaine was found.
It is the position of appellant that since the officer could not testify that he could see either side of the hand-to-hand exchange well enough to identify either the drugs or the money, the officer lacked probable cause to conduct the search. Although there may be cases supporting this view, we disagree.
The officer clearly saw that a commercial exchange took place. Something was given for something else. A contract for the purchase and sale of something was consummated. It is not even necessary that the drugs have been exchanged for money. The officer saw the couple give appellant something that appellant considered acceptable in exchange for what he delivered. Did the officer have reason to believe that what appellant exchanged was illegal contraband? Consider: an experienced narcotics officer in a high drug area sees a furtive individual, well known as a street person, reach below his pants to his buttocks area, an area that the officer recognizes as a hiding place for contraband, and withdraws something from which he takes a small object which he then exchanges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hankerson
...with three of the individuals on the porch and that Hankerson's contact with the individuals was very brief. See Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1109, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (concluding that officer had probable cause to conduct search where in a location known for frequent drug sales, the d......
-
Morgan v. United States
...common knowledge, that a handgun is often carried in the waistband.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1109, 1109–10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (officer in high-drug area had probable cause where suspect, who was “well known as a street person” and had previously......
-
State v. Hankerson
...with three of the individuals on the porch and that Hankerson's contact with the individuals was very brief. See Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1109, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (concluding that officer had probable cause to conduct search where in a location known for frequent drug sales, the ......
-
State v. M.R.
...upon other circumstances and factors, even where the officer observes neither drugs nor money exchanged. See e.g., Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 7. M.R. asserts that Officer James' experience should not be considered because he was not part of a specialized drug uni......