State v. Toro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Toro

422 So. 2d 1084, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21802

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2762

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 1084 (State v. Toro) 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. Toro, 422 So. 2d 1084, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21802 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order under review suppressing evidence seized from the defendants is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that: (1) the discovery of cocaine on the defendants’ persons was justified as a search incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause conferred by a trained narcotics dog’s “alert” on their luggage, State v. Foster, 390 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Goodley, 381 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Mata v. State, 380 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 389 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1980); and (2) given the existence of probable cause to arrest the defendants for narcotics violations, the fact that the search preceded their formal arrest does not vitiate the search, 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. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order under review suppressing evidence seized from the defendants is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that: (1) the discovery of cocaine on the defendants’ persons was justified as a search incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause conferred by a trained narcotics dog’s “alert” on their luggage, State v. Foster, 390 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Goodley, 381 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Mata v. State, 380 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 389 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1980); and (2) given the existence of probable cause to arrest the defendants for narcotics violations, the fact that the search preceded their formal arrest does not vitiate the search, 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. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 1084, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-toro-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack