Darby v. State

502 So. 2d 1358, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 631, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6982
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 26, 1987·No. Nos. 86-1143, 86-1144 and 86-1794·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants filed motions to suppress and dismiss the information filed against them on the grounds that the arresting officers were acting outside their territorial jurisdiction. Appellants pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss. The validity of an arrest has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of an accused and is not necessary to the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case. The invalidity of a given arrest, even if establishable, may not suffice to defeat a prosecution where there is sufficient evidence of the offense independent of the arrest. Appellants do not argue that the invalidity of the arrest affects evidence procured by the police after the arrest, but rather the evidence procured by the police in a “reverse sting” operation which occurred before the arrest. Finding the evidence against the defendants not to be tainted by the arrest, even if invalid, we affirm. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); Perry v. State, 478 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Pinoamador, 389 So.2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

Darby v. State, 502 So. 2d 1358, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 631, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6982 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

502 So. 2d 1358 (Darby v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conley v. State
226 So. 3d 358 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
State v. Phelps
953 P.2d 999 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1998)
State v. Filoso
613 So. 2d 69 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
State v. Ostrow
579 So. 2d 292 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)