Porter v. State
2000 WL 1189961, 765 So. 2d 76 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The "fresh pursuit" doctrine allows police officers to make a valid arrest outside their jurisdiction even if they first locate the suspect's vehicle after crossing jurisdictional lines, provided the police act without unnecessary delay, the pursuit is continuous and uninterrupted, and there is a close temporal relationship between the crime, the start of the pursuit, and the apprehension.
Facts:
- At 10:59 p.m. on May 17, 1998, an armed robbery occurred in Pompano Beach, Florida, allegedly perpetrated by four black males.
- The perpetrators fled the scene in a white, four-door older model Cadillac, reportedly heading west toward I-95.
- Pompano Beach police officers Romb and Fletcher received a BOLO with this information and learned from an off-duty officer that a matching car was seen entering I-95 southbound.
- Officers Romb and Fletcher immediately drove to I-95 and proceeded south, crossing from Pompano Beach into the city of Fort Lauderdale.
- Within approximately three and a half minutes of receiving the BOLO, while in Fort Lauderdale, the officers spotted a white, four-door Cadillac matching the description approaching from behind at a high speed.
- As the Cadillac passed, the officers confirmed it contained at least four black males and began to follow it.
- After following the vehicle for about one and a half miles, the officers activated their lights, but the Cadillac continued for another mile before exiting the highway and pulling into an apartment complex, still within Fort Lauderdale.
- The four occupants, including Jerry Porter, attempted to flee on foot but were detained by the officers, who then saw items matching those taken in the robbery in plain view inside the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Porter was arrested and charged with robbery with a weapon.
- In the trial court, Porter filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing the Pompano Beach police officers unlawfully arrested him outside their jurisdiction in Fort Lauderdale.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the officers were in "fresh pursuit" as defined by Florida statute.
- Following the denial of his motion, Porter was convicted and sentenced.
- Porter (Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with the State of Florida as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the "fresh pursuit" doctrine, under Florida Statutes section 901.25, permit a police officer to make an arrest outside their jurisdiction when the pursuit begins in response to a BOLO but the officer does not visually identify the suspect's vehicle until after crossing jurisdictional lines?
Opinions:
Majority - Hazouri, J.
Yes, the "fresh pursuit" doctrine permits an arrest under these circumstances. The doctrine does not require officers to visually identify a suspect's vehicle within their own jurisdiction before a pursuit can be considered to have commenced. The court adopts a three-part test focusing on the overall police action: 1) the police must act without unnecessary delay; 2) the pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted; and 3) there must be a close temporal relationship between the offense, the start of pursuit, and the apprehension. In this case, the officers responded to the BOLO immediately, their search for the vehicle was continuous and uninterrupted, and they apprehended the suspects within minutes of the robbery. Therefore, their actions constituted a valid fresh pursuit, making the extra-jurisdictional arrest and subsequent seizure of evidence lawful. This holding recedes from State v. Greer to the extent it conflicts.
Concurring - Warner, C.J.
Yes, the arrest was valid under the common law definition of "fresh pursuit," but the majority's test is incomplete and receding from Greer is unnecessary. Common law fresh pursuit requires more than an investigatory search; it requires a chase based on information about the fleeing suspect's direction of travel, which distinguishes a true pursuit from a mere hunch. Here, the officers were not on a meandering investigation; they had specific information that the suspects were traveling south on I-95. This fact makes their action a legitimate pursuit and distinguishes this case from Greer, where no such directional information was present. Therefore, the arrest was lawful without needing to create a new test or overrule prior precedent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and expands the "fresh pursuit" doctrine in Florida, particularly in urbanized areas with many adjoining municipalities. By rejecting a strict requirement that officers must sight a suspect within their own jurisdiction, the court created a more flexible, reality-based standard. The adoption of the three-part test focusing on timeliness and continuity provides lower courts with a clear framework and gives law enforcement greater authority to pursue suspects across jurisdictional lines, reflecting the realities of modern transportation and policing in a 'megalopolis' setting. The holding favors effective law enforcement over rigid geographical boundaries when officers act swiftly and continuously in response to a reported felony.
