Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
A series of burglary-rapes occurred. Police found latent fingerprints on the doorknob of the bedroom of one of the victims, fingerprints they believed belonged to D. The police also found a herringbone pattern tennis shoe print near the victim's front porch. Investigators came to consider petitioner a principal suspect based on their gut instincts. They decided to visit D's home to obtain his fingerprints or, if he was uncooperative, to arrest him. They did not seek a warrant authorizing this procedure. They spoke to D on his front porch. D did not want to voluntary come to the station for fingerprinting. D was told if he refused to come, he would be arrested. D then stated that he would rather go with the officers to the station than be arrested. They also seized a pair of herringbone pattern tennis shoes in plain view. D's prints matched those left at the scene of the crime. P was placed under formal arrest. P moved to suppress the fingerprint evidence, claiming it was the fruit of an illegal detention. The trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence without expressing a reason. P was convicted of the burglary and sexual battery committed at the scene where the latent fingerprints were found. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The court affirmed the 'consent' but expressly found that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest D until after they obtained his fingerprints. It analogized the event to the stop-and-frisk rule of Terry v. Ohio that the officers could transport petitioner to the station house and take his fingerprints on the basis of their reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the crime. The Florida Supreme Court denied review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co