JERREL RAND, 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.
Appellant was arrested for resisting an officer without violence after giving police directions that allegedly contradicted a witness's statement about which direction a domestic violence suspect fled. The court reversed the denial of his motion to suppress, holding that the arrest lacked probable cause because there was no evidence appellant lied or obstructed justice.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The arrest lacked probable cause because there was no evidence that appellant lied to police or obstructed justice. The unnamed witness never testified at the suppression hearing, making it impossible to assess her credibility or determine if she was mistaken. Since appellant's conduct was consistent with noncriminal behavior, the cocaine obtained from the search following the unlawful arrest should have been suppressed.
[1] A search incident to an unlawful arrest is invalid.
[2] Probable cause to arrest for resisting an officer without violence requires evidence that the defendant lied to police or otherwise obstructed justice.
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“While it is clear that the stop of appellant's vehicle was proper, there was no evidence that proves that appellant lied to police or otherwise obstructed justice.”
Establishes that the initial vehicle stop was lawful but the subsequent arrest lacked evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a domestic violence call and identified a suspect in a vehicle driven by appellant. After the vehicle was located and the suspect …
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 Unlawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant pleaded no contest to resisting an officer without violence and possession of cocaine, reserving his right to take this appeal from the denial of his motion to sup press. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion and reverse.
Officers Phillip Cheshire and Michael Creamer of the Lakeland Police Department responded to a domestic violence call on April 24, 1997. As they were speaking with the victim, a vehicle which was driven by appellant and contained several passengers drove past. The victim told the officers that one of the passengers in the back seat of the vehicle was the perpetrator of the domestic violence. The officers conducted a warrants check and discovered that the perpetrator had an outstanding warrant. The officers then followed the vehicle, briefly losing sight of it, until one of the officers located it in a parking lot of an apartment complex. The officers pulled their cruiser into the parking lot in a manner which blocked the vehicle. Appellant got out of the vehicle, but the perpetrator was no longer there. The officers asked appellant where the perpetrator went and appellant pointed in a westwardly direction. Officer Cheshire proceeded in that direction and encountered two women, one of which allegedly told the officer that the perpetrator ran in a northerly direction. The perpetrator was never found. Appellant was arrested for resisting arrest without violence based upon the contradictory statements regarding the direction in which the perpetrator fled. After the arrest, appellant was searched, revealing the cocaine which is the subject of his motion to suppress.
At the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress, the only evidence that was presented was the officers’ testimony. The witness who allegedly provided contradictory information to the officers did not testify and only hearsay evidence of her statements was introduced. The trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress finding that appellant’s statements to law enforcement were intended to obstruct the officers in the performance of their legal duty.
Based upon the circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. While it is clear that the stop of appellant’s vehicle was proper, there was no evidence that proves that appellant lied to police or otherwise obstructed justice. Appellant voluntarily answered the officers’ questions, and while he indicated to them that the perpetrator ran in one direction and the unnamed witness indicated that he went in another, the perpetrator was never located. Furthermore, the female witness never testified at the suppression hearing so it was impossible to assess her credibility or determine whether she may have been mistaken in her statements to law enforcement. The officers testified that appellant had violated no laws and that there was no reason for the stop of appellant’s vehicle other than the fact that the perpetrator was observed inside. Since there is nothing to indicate that appellant was being untruthful, and his actions were consistent with noncriminal behavior, the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. See Angaran v. State, 681 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Consequently, the motion to suppress the contraband seized following this unlawful arrest should have been granted.
Reversed.
THREADGILL and FULMER, JJ., Concur.