State v. Monge

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Monge

508 So. 2d 450, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8452

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 450 (State v. Monge) 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. Monge, 508 So. 2d 450, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8452 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the parties have devoted considerable time and effort, here and below, in arguing whether the evidence supports the conclusion that Carlos Duque, the co-tenant with the defendant of the apartment which the police entered, consented to this entry, we find the entry to have been entirely lawful whether Duque consented to it or not. This is so because, as the defendant concedes, Duque was in the lawful custody of the police when, at his request, he was permitted to return to his apartment to retrieve documents showing his immigration status, thus enabling the officers to accompany Duque into his apartment without offending any right of Duque protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As was held in the factually indistinguishable case of Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 817, 70 L.Ed.2d 778, 785 (1982) (footnote omitted):

“[i]t is not ‘unreasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer, as a matter of routine, to monitor the movements of an arrested person, as his judgment dictates, following the arrest. The officer’s need to ensure his own safety — as well as the integrity of the arrest — -is compelling. Such surveillance is not an impermissible invasion of the privacy or personal liberty of an individual who has been arrested.”

The entry being lawful, as was therefore the subsequent arrest of the defendant upon discovery in plain view of a quantity of cocaine on a living room table, the court’s order suppressing additional cocaine found on the defendant’s person following his arrest is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the parties have devoted considerable time and effort, here and below, in arguing whether the evidence supports the conclusion that Carlos Duque, the co-tenant with the defendant of the apartment which the police entered, consented to this entry, we find the entry to have been entirely lawful whether Duque consented to it or not. This is so because, as the defendant concedes, Duque was in the lawful custody of the police when, at his request, he was permitted to return to his apartment to retrieve documents showing his immigration status, thus enabling the officers to accompany Duque into his apartment without offending any right of Duque protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As was held in the factually indistinguishable case of Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 817, 70 L.Ed.2d 778, 785 (1982) (footnote omitted):

“[i]t is not ‘unreasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer, as a matter of routine, to monitor the movements of an arrested person, as his judgment dictates, following the arrest. The officer’s need to ensure his own safety — as well as the integrity of the arrest — -is compelling. Such surveillance is not an impermissible invasion of the privacy or personal liberty of an individual who has been arrested.”

The entry being lawful, as was therefore the subsequent arrest of the defendant upon discovery in plain view of a quantity of cocaine on a living room table, the court’s order suppressing additional cocaine found on the defendant’s person following his arrest is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 450, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monge-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack