About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


118 Yale L. J. 177 (2008-2009)
Discovering Arrest Warrants: Intervening Police Conduct and Foreseeability

handle is hein.journals/ylr118 and id is 179 raw text is: COMMENT Discovering Arrest Warrants: Intervening Police Conduct and Foreseeability On July 8, 2001 in Lake Park, Florida, Anthony Frierson was sitting in his .1981 Plymouth sedan on Old Dixie Highway waiting for the light to turn green. Once the green turn arrow appeared, he turned left without using his signal. Although turning without a signal does not violate Florida traffic laws,' Officer Steven Miller observed Frierson making the turn and pulled him over illegally.2 When asked, Frierson provided the officer with his license, which Miller used to run a warrants check. The check revealed an outstanding warrant for Frierson's arrest for failure to appear in traffic court. On the basis of that warrant, Officer Miller arrested Frierson and conducted a search incident to arrest. That search revealed an illegal firearm, for which Frierson was charged and later convicted.3 In State v. Frierson, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, permitting entry of the firearm into evidence. The court reasoned that the outstanding arrest warrant was a judicial order directing the arrest of respondent whenever the respondent was located, and thus the search was incident to the outstanding warrant and not incident to the illegal stop.4 Although the suspicionless traffic stop violated the Federal Constitution, the 1. State v. Riley, 638 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1994). 2. A traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment if the officer lacks probable cause or reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity 'may be afoot.' United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). 3. State v. Frierson, 926 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2006). 4. Id. at 1144. 177