Case Name: Charles LOWE, Alice Johnson, Willie Davis, Mary Jane Wells, and Fannie Mae Mack, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-11-01
Citations: 191 So. 2d 303
Docket Number: No. 64-1064
Parties: Charles LOWE, Alice Johnson, Willie Davis, Mary Jane Wells, and Fannie Mae Mack, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before CARROLL and SWANN, JJ., and BOYER, TYRIE A., Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 191
Pages: 303–307

Head Matter:
Charles LOWE, Alice Johnson, Willie Davis, Mary Jane Wells, and Fannie Mae Mack, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 64-1064.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Nov. 1, 1966.
See also, Fla.App., 180 So.2d 383 vacated by Fla.App., 184 So.2d 655.
Henry R. Carr and Alan B. Oppenheimer, Miami, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CARROLL and SWANN, JJ., and BOYER, TYRIE A., Associate Judge.

Opinion:
SWANN, Judge.
The appellants, defendants below, were tried by jury and convicted of grand larceny. The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared before the trial court.
The defendants were said to have been in Dion Tire Supply Store in Key West, Florida on May 2, 1964 at about 3:00 P.M. Approximately thirty minutes after they left the store, a television set and several radios were found to be missing. Except for two sales clerks and a customer, the defendants were the only persons to have come into the store during this time. At about 4:15 P.M. the store owner notified the Key West Sheriff's Department that the merchandise was missing, and an investigation was commenced.
The investigating officer, Sgt. Perez, of the Sheriff's Department, was given a description of the missing merchandise, as well as a' description of the defendants. The one customer who was in the store advised Sgt. Perez that she had noticed a dark, dusty, late model automobile, occupied by a colored man, on the same block as the tire supply store. Sgt. Perez learned that the suspected car had a Dade County, Florida license tag and obtained a description of the driver of the car and one of the other defendants.
A radio message was sent out from the department at about 5 :00 P.M. to all officers to be on lookout for the above described automobile, occupied by numerous colored subjects, in connection with the suspected crime. After receiving this message, Deputy Sheriff Conrady noticed and followed a car fitting this description, with a Dade County license tag, occupied by several Negroes. He stopped the automobile and asked the driver, one of the defendants, for his driver's license.
Sgt. Perez arrived on the scene and the defendants were interrogated as to certain contents which the officers had noticed in the automobile. There is evidence that the defendants submitted to the search of some of the contents and possessions in the automobile by the officers.
The defendants were then advised that they were under arrest for "investigation of larceny," and they were taken to the Sheriff's Office at about 5:30 P.M. They denied ownership of the automobile and claimed that they did not have the key to the trunk. At approximately 5:40 P.M. that day, the rear seat of the automobile was pulled back, revealing the transistor radios and a small television set in the trunk. These were identified as the merchandise taken from the tire supply store.
The defendants moved to suppress the merchandise discovered in the trunk, on the grounds that the facts indicated that the arrest, search and seizure were made without benefit of an arrest warrant, a search warrant, or consent. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress, and the merchandise was admitted into evidence. The defendants were subsequently convicted and this appeal followed.
The defendants first contend that an arrest occurred when the automobile was initially stopped by Deputy Sheriff Conrady, and rely on the case of Henry v. United States, 1959, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134. In that case, the government conceded that the arrest took place with the stopping of the automobile. In the instant case, the State does not concede that an arrest took place upon the stopping of the automobile. The mere stopping of an individual for interrogation by a police officer does not constitute an arrest. See Davis v. People of State of California, 9 Cir.1965, 341 F.2d 982; Hart v. United States, 5 Cir.1963, 316 F.2d 916; Busby v. United States, 9 Cir.1961, 296 F.2d 328; Range v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 534; City of Miami v. Aronovitz, Fla. 1959, 114 So.2d 784.
The defendants also contend that the arrest, orally announced by Deputy Conrady as an ^arrest for "investigation of larceny," was improper because there is no such charge, or cause, for arrest, and that there was, furthermore, a complete lack of probable cause for their arrest without a warrant. They rely upon the case of Preston v. United States, 1964, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777.
That case is distinguishable from the instant case, as it is apparent from the record before us that the arresting officers herein did have probable cause to arrest the defendants without an arrest warrant. They had information that a late model, dark, dusty automobile, bearing an out of town license, had been parked in the vicinity of the tire supply store at about the time the theft had occurred. Their information further indicated that a colored man had occupied the parked automobile and that several colored people were suspected of having taken the missing merchandise. A description of the driver of the automobile and one of its occupants had also been received.
Section 901.15, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony. We find that the officers in this cause had reasonable ground to believe that a felony had been committed by these persons and were justified in stopping the defendants' automobile. See Pflegl v. State, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 75. After stopping the automobile, the defendants consented to an examination of many of the articles discovered in and about the automobile. We conclude that the search of the trunk in this case was made incidental to the arrest, and was not too remote in time or place. See Crawford v. Bannan, 6 Cir.1964, 336 F.2d 505; Dolan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 185. A second search of an arrested party made as an incident to a lawful arrest has also been held proper. Dolan v. State, supra; Nixon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 620.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the lower court is therefore
Affirmed.