State v. Price

589 So. 2d 1009, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11463, 1991 WL 240064
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 20, 1991
DocketNo. 90-2464
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 589 So. 2d 1009 (State v. Price) 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. Price, 589 So. 2d 1009, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11463, 1991 WL 240064 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s order that granted appellee’s motion to suppress. [1010]*1010The trial judge found that “at no time did the ... investigation originate, occurr [sic], or terminate within the city limits of Fort Lauderdale” and suppressed all the evidence because the Fort Lauderdale police acted outside their jurisdiction when they conducted their investigation of appellee. We reverse.

The record established that the investigation of appellee originated in the City of Fort Lauderdale, the territorial jurisdiction of the investigating officer, and therefore, the trial judge should not have granted appellee’s motion to suppress. See Goodman v. State, 399 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (municipal police officer has authority to conduct investigation outside jurisdiction if subject matter of investigation originated within his or her own jurisdiction). The confidential informant [Cl] had been convicted as the result of an arrest by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. He contacted a Fort Lauderdale police officer because of the obligations of that conviction. That officer opened a file on the Cl and began an investigation. He had the Cl informer contact appellee by telephone, which the officer recorded on a telephone located at the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Other phone calls were also recorded. When the Cl completed the plans for a drug deal to take place outside of Fort Lauderdale, the officer contacted a Broward Sheriff’s Department deputy, who took over the investigation which led to appellee’s arrest and the search of his residence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion.

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

Related

STATE OF FLORIDA v. BRYAN ALLEN REPPLE
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
STATE OF FLORIDA v. LEWIS STOUFFER, CLARK JEFFREY THOMPSON and CRAIG TURTURO
248 So. 3d 1165 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Knight v. State
154 So. 3d 1157 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Nunn v. State
121 So. 3d 566 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. McClane
891 So. 2d 596 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
State v. Sills
852 So. 2d 390 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
589 So. 2d 1009, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11463, 1991 WL 240064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-price-fladistctapp-1991.