Wooten v. State, SS-155
| Citation | 385 So.2d 146 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. SS-155,SS-155 |
| Parties | Clarence Alvan WOOTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Joseph S. Farley, Jr. of Mahon, Mahon & Farley, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The trial court denied Wooten's motion to suppress on the grounds that the police officers had probable cause to make the arrest and a warrant was not required, thus, the search incident to the arrest was proper and the fruits of the search need not be suppressed. Wooten challenges this determination and we affirm.
The relevant facts are that a confidential informant called the police station and told Detective Clayton that Wooten would be at the courthouse that morning, that he would be back at his place of business around noon, and that he would have heroin and cocaine hidden in his crotch. Clayton had successfully used information from the informant before and had heard "street talk" that Wooten was dealing in drugs. Around noon the informant called back and told the officer taking the call that Wooten was at his place of business and had drugs on him. He described Wooten's clothing and his car which would be parked nearby. The information was relayed to Clayton who with the aid of other officers went to the described location, saw Wooten who was dressed as they had been told, arrested him for possession of a controlled substance, and searched him. The search revealed two leather pouches of heroin and cocaine secreted in the crotch of his pants.
In his motion to suppress, Wooten contended that the contraband seized should be suppressed because the search was executed without warrant, was not incident to a lawful arrest, and was without probable cause. In his accompanying memorandum of law and in his brief before this Court, he focused on the lawfulness of the arrest and on probable cause:
"Where a person suspected of criminal conduct is arrested without a warrant, the constitutional validity of a subsequent search of his person or premises must depend upon the constitutional validity of the arrest, and whether that arrest was constitutionally valid depends, in turn, upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it . . . ." 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law, § 178 (See also 15 Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 510.)
In State v. Adams, 355 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, Fla., 359...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State, 92-3090
...in the spot indicated by the CI was insufficient to corroborate that it was involved in any illegal activity. Id. But see Wooten v. State, 385 So.2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1381 (Fla.1980) (sufficient probable cause found where court inferred CI's personal knowledge of th......
-
State v. Scotti, 81-1522
...is so because: A. The officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle. State v. Hunt, 391 So.2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Wooten v. State, 385 So.2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). B. The methadone was lawfully seized from within the car because it was within the officer's plain view. State v. Hughe......
-
McKee v. State
...are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed. Wooten v. State, 385 So.2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The facts constituting probable cause need not meet the standard of conclusiveness required of the circumstantial facts upon......
- Clarence Alvan Wooten v. State