Davis v. State

602 So. 2d 606, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7549, 1992 WL 143623
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 24, 1992·No. No. 91-03116·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine found from a search of his person after his arrest for trespass. The search was valid as having been incident to a lawful arrest. See Moreland v. State, 552 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 562 So.2d 346 (1990). An arrest need only be supported by probable cause, see, e.g., Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2254, 60 L.Ed.2d 824, 833 (1979), not necessarily a prima facie case. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, 645 (1969) (“[0]nly the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause....”) (quoted in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2330, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 546 (1983)).

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

Davis v. State, 602 So. 2d 606, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7549, 1992 WL 143623 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

602 So. 2d 606 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Pollard
625 So. 2d 968 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Jones v. State
602 So. 2d 606 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)