State v. Emery

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Emery

411 So. 2d 341, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1982

DocketNo. 81-115

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 411 So. 2d 341 (State v. Emery) 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. Emery, 411 So. 2d 341, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19550 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Emery was not subjected to a sham or pretextual arrest. Moreover, it is legally certain that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for a misdemeanor¹ committed in his presence before he removed certain items protruding from the defendant’s pocket. Consequently, it is irrelevant that the officer did not announce his intent to arrest until after he removed the items. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Thomas v. State, 395 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Forbes, 353 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order suppressing evidence and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Emery was not subjected to a sham or pretextual arrest. Moreover, it is legally certain that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for a misdemeanor¹ committed in his presence before he removed certain items protruding from the defendant’s pocket. Consequently, it is irrelevant that the officer did not announce his intent to arrest until after he removed the items. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Thomas v. State, 395 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Forbes, 353 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order suppressing evidence and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 So. 2d 341, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-emery-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack