State v. Carson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Carson

374 So. 2d 621, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15347

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 1979

DocketNo. 78-2072

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 374 So. 2d 621 (State v. Carson) 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

State v. Carson, 374 So. 2d 621, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15347 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that an illegal arrest preceded the search and seizure. The arrest was made by a municipal police officer outside of his territorial jurisdiction and we find that the state has waived any claim that the arrest was proper as a citizen’s arrest. State v. Shipman, 370 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Nevertheless, the state contends the arrest was lawful because the municipal officer had previously been attached to the county sheriff’s office in a special capacity and was then issued an identification card granting him the authority of a deputy sheriff “when assigned to specific duties.” See Section 30.09(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1977). The officer’s attachment to the sheriff’s office had terminated well before the arrest in question, and the arrest was not made pursuant to any assignment by the sheriff. We believe the evidence supports the trial court’s ruling that the officer was not authorized to make the arrest by reason of his status as a special deputy, since the arrest did not occur while the officer was “assigned to specific duties.”

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., ANSTEAD, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that an illegal arrest preceded the search and seizure. The arrest was made by a municipal police officer outside of his territorial jurisdiction and we find that the state has waived any claim that the arrest was proper as a citizen’s arrest. State v. Shipman, 370 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Nevertheless, the state contends the arrest was lawful because the municipal officer had previously been attached to the county sheriff’s office in a special capacity and was then issued an identification card granting him the authority of a deputy sheriff “when assigned to specific duties.” See Section 30.09(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1977). The officer’s attachment to the sheriff’s office had terminated well before the arrest in question, and the arrest was not made pursuant to any assignment by the sheriff. We believe the evidence supports the trial court’s ruling that the officer was not authorized to make the arrest by reason of his status as a special deputy, since the arrest did not occur while the officer was “assigned to specific duties.”

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., ANSTEAD, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 So. 2d 621, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carson-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack