Caba v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caba v. State

936 So. 2d 772, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14622, 2006 WL 2516453

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-3242

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 936 So. 2d 772 (Caba v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caba v. State, 936 So. 2d 772, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14622, 2006 WL 2516453 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

The trial court properly denied appellant, Francisco Arismendy Caba’s [“Caba”], motion to suppress. As officers were sitting in an area known for being an “open area drug market,” they observed someone drop Caba off, where he paced as if waiting for someone to approach. This behavior was consistent with previous drug transactions observed by officers. One of the officers heard Caba speaking to a resident, who told Caba to go away, that he was not a drug dealer. A second officer heard Caba ask, “Do you have anything?,” or say, “I’m looking for something,” or words to that effect. The totality of these circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion on the part of the officers that Caba was soliciting the sale of drugs.

Having a well-founded suspicion that Caba wanted to buy some form of controlled substance from a resident, the officers were entitled to approach Caba to investigate. They were also entitled to seize the crack pipe that Caba quickly “abandoned” by taking it out of his pocket and throwing it into the street. Having retrieved an item they recognized as a crack pipe, the officers then had probable cause to arrest Caba and to search him incident to his arrest.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J. and LAWSON, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, J.

The trial court properly denied appellant, Francisco Arismendy Caba’s [“Caba”], motion to suppress. As officers were sitting in an area known for being an “open area drug market,” they observed someone drop Caba off, where he paced as if waiting for someone to approach. This behavior was consistent with previous drug transactions observed by officers. One of the officers heard Caba speaking to a resident, who told Caba to go away, that he was not a drug dealer. A second officer heard Caba ask, “Do you have anything?,” or say, “I’m looking for something,” or words to that effect. The totality of these circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion on the part of the officers that Caba was soliciting the sale of drugs.

Having a well-founded suspicion that Caba wanted to buy some form of controlled substance from a resident, the officers were entitled to approach Caba to investigate. They were also entitled to seize the crack pipe that Caba quickly “abandoned” by taking it out of his pocket and throwing it into the street. Having retrieved an item they recognized as a crack pipe, the officers then had probable cause to arrest Caba and to search him incident to his arrest.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J. and LAWSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

936 So. 2d 772, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14622, 2006 WL 2516453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caba-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack