State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Byham, 394 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Joanne Baden v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2015-08-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joanne Baden v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
An officer has probable cause “where the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge and of which he had reasonable trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed.” Stone v. State, 856 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting State v. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lee
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Probable cause exists "where the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed." Stone v. State, 856 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting State v. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Probable cause has been defined as "where the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed." State v. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citing Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706, 708 (Fla.1964)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Curtis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706, 708 (Fla.1964); McNeil v. State, 512 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pringle
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Byham, 394 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Forbes, 353 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
William BYHAM, Appellee.
80-610.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Mar 11, 1981.
394 So. 2d 1142
Glickstein.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

David H. Bludworth, State Atty., and Moses Baker, Jr., Asst. State Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Gary S. Israel and Richard W. Springer of Kohl, Springer, Springer & Garrison, Palm Springs, for appellee.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

The State appeals an order granting a motion to suppress. We reverse.

On December 4, 1979, John Thomas Irvine, a police officer with the Town of Palm Beach, was operating his motorcycle when he observed three youths standing on the sidewalk in a huddle-type position. As he approached and passed the youths, one of whom was appellee, he could see them passing around some type of cigarette. At the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence the officer testified:

The way they were passing it, the way they were holding it and the way they attempted to conceal it, as I passed, was the way that normally people would act when they're smoking or trying to conceal marijuana cigarettes.
Q And in your vice training, okay, and experience, have you seen people smoking marijuana?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And do they usually pass it around amongst themselves?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Do they hold it in any particular way?
A They cup it in a manner such as the — the end that you would inhale off of is this way and the fire is this way (indicating), up in the palm of your hand.
Q Okay. And is that basically what you saw the Defendants in this little — the Defendant, and these individuals, do?
A Yes.

He further testified that as he turned his motorcycle around he saw one of the youths throw the object they had been smoking onto the sidewalk and crush it. When the officer approached the youths he observed the spot where the object had been thrown and saw a green vegetation burn stain on the white sidewalk about a foot from where the three had been standing.

At that point the officer concluded the object tossed to the ground was marijuana.[*1143] He based that conclusion on his prior experience as a narcotics officer involved in sixty-seven (67) arrests for possession and sale of marijuana, cocaine, hashish and PCP, and as an observer at least one hundred times of people smoking and passing around a marijuana cigarette.

Based on his conclusion, Officer Irvine searched appellee, who was barefoot and carrying tennis shoes. In one of the shoes the officer found a small metal can which contained marijuana and a cube of hashish. Whereupon he placed appellee under arrest.

The trial court found that the search of appellee was not incident to his arrest and suppressed the evidence found in the search. We disagree. The search was incident to a lawful arrest. Prior to any search Officer Irvine, based on his observations, training and experience, had probable cause to arrest appellee for possession of marijuana. Probable cause exists "where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed." Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706, 708 (Fla. 1964).

The fact that the search preceded the arrest does not impair our conclusion that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); State v. Forbes, 353 So.2d 638 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.