S.A.F., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A fifteen-year-old girl was arrested during a controlled drug sale and searched, yielding marijuana and diazepam. The court reversed her delinquency adjudication, holding that police lacked legal authority to take her into custody as a dependent child and therefore the search was unconstitutional.
The search was invalid because police lacked legal justification to take appellant into custody. A fifteen-year-old left home alone during the evening does not constitute abandonment or neglect, and appellant was not in danger warranting removal from her surroundings since the threat (marijuana seller) had already been arrested.
[1] A search of a juvenile's purse is invalid if the juvenile was taken into custody without probable cause or reasonable grounds to believe the juvenile was dependent, abuse…
[2] A juvenile's presence in an apartment where a controlled sale of marijuana is occurring, without more, does not constitute abandonment, neglect, or immediate danger justi…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 state concedes that the detectives had no probable cause to arrest appellant as a delinquent child”
Establishes the state's acknowledgment that traditional arrest authority was lacking, shifting to alternative statutory ground
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a 15-year-old girl, was present in an apartment during a controlled marijuana sale monitored by detectives with a confidential informant. A…
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 Reasonable Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged with two counts of possession of controlled substances. She pled nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. The court adjudicated her delinquent and placed her under community control.
Both counsel for the state and counsel for the appellant stipulated to the following facts. At 6:30 p.m., appellant, a fifteen-year-old girl, was a guest in an apartment while a controlled sale of marijuana was taking place. Through a body bug attached to a confidential informant, detectives overheard the entire transaction. They then gained access to the apartment and arrested the seller. They never heard appellant’s voice over their listening device and no statements were made by the participants that would implicate appellant. When questioned about her identity and address, appellant truthfully told the detectives that she lived with her mother in the apartment next door. She said her mother was out for the evening. The detectives then determined to take her to the police station. Before transporting her to the station, they searched her purse and discovered the marijuana and diazepam which later became the subjects of the motion to suppress.
The state concedes that the detectives had no probable cause to arrest appellant as a delinquent child. However, the state argues that the detectives were justified in taking appellant into custody as a dependent child pursuant to section 39.401, Florida Statutes (1985). Under subsection (l)(b) of that statute, a child may be taken into custody by a law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe “that the child has been abandoned, abused, or neglected, is suffering from illness or injury, or is in immediate danger from his surroundings and that his removal is necessary to protect the child.”
The fact that a fifteen-year-old girl was left home by herself during the evening did not constitute abandonment or neglect. Appellant was not in danger because the police had already arrested the marijuana seller. The detectives could have ensured her safety by simply escorting her to her home next door. The state failed to show the urgency of the situation which would warrant taking appellant into custody as a dependent child. Therefore, the search was invalid, and the seizure of the controlled substances should have been quashed.
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.