VICTORIANO FRANK MARRERO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Marrero appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop that led to his arrest for aiding and assisting in conducting a lottery. The court affirms, holding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on surveillance observations linking the occupants to suspected lottery operations.
The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress because police had a well-founded suspicion that the vehicle's occupants were involved in criminal activity and had a right to stop them for reasonable investigation and interrogation. The evidence seized as a result of the stop was admissible.
[1] A well-founded suspicion of criminal activity justifies a police stop for reasonable investigation and interrogation.
[2] Evidence seized as a result of a lawful investigatory stop is admissible in court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the police had a well-founded suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle in which appellant was riding might be involved in criminal activity and that they had a right to stop them for reasonable investigation and interrogation”
Establishes the legal standard for investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted five prior surveillances of a suspected lottery drop house, observing black males making deliveries and witnessing an exchange of wha…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeal From Denial Of Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who entered a plea of nolo contendere on charges of aiding and assisting in conducting a lottery, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress all of the physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest.
It appears from the record that the officers had conducted five surveillances of what they thought to be a lottery “drop house” prior to the arrest in question. Dur ing the previous “stakeouts”, the officers had seen five black persons, two of whom they recognized from earlier lottery investigations, make deliveries of some things to this house. On one occasion, the police witnessed an exchange of what was believed to be lottery slips to some white males, thought to be Latin. Twice the police had followed vehicles from the house, but lost them because the cars were driven in an “evasive manner.” One of these vehicles was a red 1978 Chevrolet Caprice.
On the day of the arrest, the police again followed a red Caprice from the supposed “drop house”; at least one of the two men in the car was similar in appearance to a man they had seen at the house. The police followed the car for quite a while as it was being driven up and down various streets and making numerous turns. The police waited while the two men in the car stopped at a Cuban restaurant. After the men had resumed the circuitous route, the police stopped the car at a red light for fear of losing it. When the police reached the stopped vehicle, the driver and the passenger, Marrero, were busily tearing up lottery paraphernalia.
It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We do not agree. It is our conclusion that the police had a well-founded suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle in which appellant was riding might be involved in criminal activity and that they had a right to stop them for reasonable investigation and interrogation. The evidence seized as a result of the stop was admissible evidence in the trial court. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress. Machado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Van-Nostrand, 456 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ed his car, and seized the items suppressed by the court. We find that the initial stop by police was reasonable and the request for identification appropriate. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Marrero v. State, 375 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). After Van-Nostrand admitted that he had a concealed firearm on his person, the officer had probable cause to arrest him and to conduct a lawful search incident to that arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- MacHado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)