State v. Goldman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Goldman

494 So. 2d 239, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1888, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1857

StatusPublished

This text of 494 So. 2d 239 (State v. Goldman) 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. Goldman, 494 So. 2d 239, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1888, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed in all respects because it is bottomed on a factual finding unsupported by the evidence, namely, that the defendant was detained by the officer who eventually arrested him before the officer confirmed that a burglary had actually been committed. The record indisputably reveals that the initial encounter between the officer and the defendant was not a stop or detention and thus did not implicate any Fourth Amendment rights, and that when the officer later detained the defendant, he knew that, in fact, a nearby residence had been burglarized and had probable cause to believe that the defendant was guilty of burglarizing it. See State v. Varnedoe, 443 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cross v. State, 432 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McKee v. State, 430 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla.1983). Since the arrest met the standards of a valid citizen’s arrest, see Phoenix v. State, 455 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1984); Collins v. State, 143 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 280 (Fla.1962), it is irrelevant that the arrest was effected outside of the officer’s jurisdiction. This determination makes it unnecessary for us to consider the State’s alternative argument that, in light of a trail of other evidence, the seizures complained of would have inevitably been accomplished in a lawful manner by officers operating without any jurisdictional impediment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed in all respects because it is bottomed on a factual finding unsupported by the evidence, namely, that the defendant was detained by the officer who eventually arrested him before the officer confirmed that a burglary had actually been committed. The record indisputably reveals that the initial encounter between the officer and the defendant was not a stop or detention and thus did not implicate any Fourth Amendment rights, and that when the officer later detained the defendant, he knew that, in fact, a nearby residence had been burglarized and had probable cause to believe that the defendant was guilty of burglarizing it. See State v. Varnedoe, 443 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cross v. State, 432 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McKee v. State, 430 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla.1983). Since the arrest met the standards of a valid citizen’s arrest, see Phoenix v. State, 455 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1984); Collins v. State, 143 So.2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 280 (Fla.1962), it is irrelevant that the arrest was effected outside of the officer’s jurisdiction. This determination makes it unnecessary for us to consider the State’s alternative argument that, in light of a trail of other evidence, the seizures complained of would have inevitably been accomplished in a lawful manner by officers operating without any jurisdictional impediment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 So. 2d 239, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1888, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-goldman-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack