Case Name: Robert Benjamin CANNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-09-07
Citations: 298 So. 2d 495
Docket Number: No. 70-724
Parties: Robert Benjamin CANNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PIERCE, J. (Ret.), concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 298
Pages: 495–503

Head Matter:
Robert Benjamin CANNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 70-724.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sept. 7, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1974.
Benjamin E. Smith, of Smith & Scheuermann, New Orleans, La.; Maynard F. Swanson, Jr., Clearwater, and Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment and sentence entered against him following a jury verdict of guilty as charged rendered September 22, 1970, in response to a Bill of Information charging appellant with "Resisting an Officer with Violence."
On April 18, 1970 an anti-Vietnam war rally was held at Straub Park in St. Peters-burg, Florida. A podium was set up with a public address system and several speeches, in addition to appellant's, were made during the course of the rally. During his speech before the gathering, appellant was quoted to have said . . bring the Goddamned war home" and to have used the phrase "the Goddamn pigs."
Appellant finsished his speech and sat down on the grass. Thereupon Officer Spivey approached him, tapped appellant on his right shoulder and said, "You are under arrest for disorderly conduct, profane language." Appellant then jumped up and yelled, "Don't let them do this to me," and "You are not going to arrest me." The crowd then began throwing bottles and sticks at the officers.
During the ensuing scuffle between Officer Spivey and appellant, appellant verbally abused the officers by directing obscenities towards them and successfully punched Officer Spivey on the right side of his face, thereby cutting the inside of his mouth. Appellant was finally placed in the paddy wagon and taken to the police station.
Appellant contends that the state is required to prove a lawful arrest as a necessary element in its prosecution for violation of F.S. § 843.01, F.S.A., Resisting Officer with Violence to his Person. Therefore, appellant submits that St. Petersburg, Fla., Code Ch. 25, § 42, as amended, Ordinance No. 213-E (1970) entitled Obscene Language is unconstitutional and any arrest thereunder was unlawful, thereby vitiating appellant's subsequent conviction for Resisting Arrest which he now appeals. We disagree.
Irrespective of the constitutionality of the city ordinance which appellant now collaterally attacks, the lawfulness of the arrest ". . . must stand or fall upon the facts and circumstances then existing." Carter v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 324, at p. 328. The legality of an arrest does not depend upon the conviction or acquittal of the accused. See Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487, cert. dismissed Fla., 121 So.2d 654, cert. den. 365 U.S. 849, 81 S.Ct. 812, 5 L.Ed.2d 813 (1961).
"In considering the legality of an arrest by a municipal officer for a breach of the peace committed in his presence, the determining factor is not whether the charged person is actually guilty. The question to be determined is whether or not the officer had substantial reason to believe the plaintiff was committing a misdemeanor. If substantial -reason exists the courts cannot second guess the officer in the performance of his duty." City of Miami v. Albro, Fla. App.1960, 120 So.2d 23, at p. 26.
Certainly after hearing appellant's speech and with the knowledge that a city ordinance, which had not been declared invalid existed which intended to protect the public at large from having to hear such offensive language, Officer Spivey had sufficient reason to arrest appellant in full compliance with § 901.15, F. S.A. - -
The judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, J. (Ret.), concurs.
MANN, C. J., dissents with opinion.
. Obscene Language.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to use profane, vulgar or indecent language in any public place; or upon the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be heard by another."
.F.S. § 901.15 When Arrest by Officer Without Warrant is Lawful.—
A peace officer may without warrant arrest a person:
(1) When the person to be arrested has committed a felony or misdemeanor in his presence. In the case of such arrest for a misdemeanor, the arrest shall be made immediately or on fresh pursuit.
(2) When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
(3) When he has reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been or is being committed and reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing it.
(4) When a warrant has been issued charging any criminal offense and has been placed in the hands of any peace officer for execution. [Subsequently amended 1970]
. Id., note 2. Also, the elements of an arrest. comprehend a purpose or intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority, the actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by the one having the present power to control him, communication by the arresting officer to the one whose arrest is sought of his intention or purpose then and there to make an arrest, and an understanding by the person who is to be arrested that it is the intention of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him. See: Melton v. State, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 291.
. A case directly in point and resulting in the same holding as the case sub judice is a Missouri case, State v. Briggs, 1968, 435 S.W.2d 361.