Charges against Purifoy dropped

[stjohnsgator]

Per Robbie Andreu. I kinda figured that would happen. Dunker case still being looked at.

[PIMking]

too bad the state attorney doesn't do anything about these questionable arrests

[samit23]

The arrests are not questionable. The officer is working under a probable cause standard. The prosecutor is looking at likelihood of success at trial. These are 2 different things, The system works best when cops do cop jobs and lawyers do lawyer jobs. This was absolutely the right result.

[hgators]

Where is everyone who had him suspended, demoted, worried about who would play CB, ST's and our freshman having to pick up the slack at WR.

Our ready, shoot, aim fanbase is ridiculous.

[supagator]

Thank Goodness!

[Claygator]

The arrests are not questionable. The officer is working under a probable cause standard. The prosecutor is looking at likelihood of success at trial. These are 2 different things, The system works best when cops do cop jobs and lawyers do lawyer jobs. This was absolutely the right result.

It was the right result, because Purifoy had committed no crime and the arrest report made that clear. The officer had no probable cause to arrest him for anything, and shouldn't have done so.

[your_perfect_enemy]

The arrests are not questionable. The officer is working under a probable cause standard. The prosecutor is looking at likelihood of success at trial. These are 2 different things, The system works best when cops do cop jobs and lawyers do lawyer jobs. This was absolutely the right result.

being in the back seat of a car with weed that is in the front seat is probably cause?


I assume this scrolling across the bottom of espn to clear his name right?:roll:

[RepubliGator84]

Thank you Huntley (as always you're a true hero to the Gator Nation)

[Jaggator]

So does this mean he has to live with a police record where it asks sometimes on a job application have you ever been arrested?

Is it removed from the record if charges are dropped?

[Nicho]

Thank you Huntley (as always you're a true hero to the Gator Nation)

At this point, Huntley should be in the Ring of Honor.

[samit23]

The officer had no probable cause to arrest him for anything, and shouldn't have done so.

Read the report. Weed in plain sight, joint being tossed out window, weed on clothes, car smelled of weed smoke. The officer clearly had PC to stop the car and arrest all occupants.

If you don't think this is PC then you simply don't understand the legal concept. Plus, you don't understand the law of constructive possession in Florida (which ultimately led to the dropping of the charge for 1 reason - but its not PC). You would get bounced out of every court in America if you argued lack of PC.

[samit23]

So does this mean he has to live with a police record where it asks sometimes on a job application have you ever been arrested?

Is it removed from the record if charges are dropped?

No. He would have to undertake an entirely different process to get the record sealed or expunged. Plus he may not be eligible. Just b/c the State Attorney doesn't file a formal charge doesn't mean the arrest goes away.

While it is good for the player and program that the charges were dropped, it is clear that #15 was in the car, knew what was going on, and was likely participating. I don't think Muschamp is going to care too much when it comes to punishment. #15 needs to get his head out of his a**.

[WeWinWeEat]

I've never seen a job application that asks if you've been arrested. It usually asked if you've been convicted of a crime.

[HudsonGator]

At this point, Huntley should be in the Ring of Honor.

:laugh:

[qwghlmgator]

Read the report. Weed in plain sight, joint being tossed out window, weed on clothes, car smelled of weed smoke. The officer clearly had PC to stop the car and arrest all occupants.

If you don't think this is PC then you simply don't understand the legal concept. Plus, you don't understand the law of constructive possession in Florida (which ultimately led to the dropping of the charge for 1 reason - but its not PC). You would get bounced out of every court in America if you argued lack of PC.

Antonin Scalia is that you??

[gatorright]

At this point, Huntley should be in the Ring of Honor.

Yes he should...and it might be interesting to note that the attorney filling the same role as Huntley Johnson in Tallahassee is a Gator! No wonder nothing seems to stick to those criminoles!

[ValdostaGatorFan]

Loucheiz Purifoy's middle name is Deouncelonte. Say what?

[gator85jd]

Loucheiz Purifoy's middle name is Deouncelonte. Say what?

Pronounced Dee Ounce Alot?

[ValdostaGatorFan]

haha, your guess is as good as mine, bud.

[luciaboy]

Thank God for super huntley! his record as an attorney has to be amazing

[Claygator]

Read the report. Weed in plain sight, joint being tossed out window, weed on clothes, car smelled of weed smoke. The officer clearly had PC to stop the car and arrest all occupants.

If you don't think this is PC then you simply don't understand the legal concept. Plus, you don't understand the law of constructive possession in Florida (which ultimately led to the dropping of the charge for 1 reason - but its not PC). You would get bounced out of every court in America if you argued lack of PC.

This did get bounced out of court, friend. Almost immediately, and in favor of the accused. I think I know what that means.

[sec1]

Nice...

[OaktownGator]

No. He would have to undertake an entirely different process to get the record sealed or expunged. Plus he may not be eligible. Just b/c the State Attorney doesn't file a formal charge doesn't mean the arrest goes away.

While it is good for the player and program that the charges were dropped, it is clear that #15 was in the car, knew what was going on, and was likely participating. I don't think Muschamp is going to care too much when it comes to punishment. #15 needs to get his head out of his a**.
Two things...

I think you're right that Muschamp will inform Purifoy to get his head right and be more careful who he associates with.

I'll assume your legal knowledge of constructive possession (referenced in prior posts) is spot on... I'm no lawyer and in no position to question it. But if it is correct, that legal concept as applied here is complete crap and should be changed. There is no way in a free country that anyone should ever be arrested for "possession" when there is zero evidence of any real world possession... which was the case here.

This is a legal concept that begs for abuse and no doubt gets innocent people jailed on a regular basis.

[samit23]

This did get bounced out of court, friend. Almost immediately, and in favor of the accused. I think I know what that means.

I'm not sure you do. It means the State could not prove their case as a matter of law. It doesn't mean that the cop didn't have PC to arrest.

[Jaggator]

Where do these poor players from poor families get the money to pay Huntley's fees?

[Lawdog88]

Read the report. Weed in plain sight, joint being tossed out window, weed on clothes, car smelled of weed smoke. The officer clearly had PC to stop the car and arrest all occupants.

If you don't think this is PC then you simply don't understand the legal concept. Plus, you don't understand the law of constructive possession in Florida (which ultimately led to the dropping of the charge for 1 reason - but its not PC). You would get bounced out of every court in America if you argued lack of PC.


I completely understand the concept, and say that - even on the facts you allege - it is a bad arrest without probable cause to arrest a passenger in the rear seat, if the officer did not observe THAT passenger do something incriminatory, i.e., actually throw marijuana out the window, or otherwise, hold and control the weed in the console.

On those facts, it was a bad arrest without probable cause based on any reasonably prudent observations of the officer. It is not against the law to be in the presence of marijuana, or those smoking marijuana . . . as long as you are not. On the facts stated, there was no PC to believe LP possessed or attempted to possess a controlled substance.

Do bad arrests happen all the time based on B.S. allegations of PC, such as in the case where a carload of kids are arrested for either a joint and / or a small amount of weed found somewhere in the car ? Unfortunately, in some burgs, that still happens. However, the "modern trend" in "progressive" policing is to only arrest the individual who can be alleged to have been in constructive possession, due to physical proximity, or on police observations of actual possession. Arresting a carload of folks just to "let the courts sort it out later," has been eschewed for years now, and the reason is . . . they are bad arrests, founded fundamentally without probable cause.

They are almost always dismissed later of course, because the State admits it can't prove its case, but that does not make the underlying arrest - as in this case against LP - valid as being founded on PC. Without more, and on the facts stated, it objectively was not.

[Claygator]

The lack of probable cause is further evidenced by how-and how quickly- the case was dismissed. Looking only at what the officer noted in his arrest report the SA dismissed it, meaning that they looked at the exact same facts as the arresting officer and tossed the case. BS arrest.

[Lawdog88]

The lack of probable cause is further evidenced by how-and how quickly- the case was dismissed. Looking only at what the officer noted in his arrest report the SA dismissed it, meaning that they looked at the exact same facts as the arresting officer and tossed the case. BS arrest.


That's true. Although they fancify the reasons and twist it up with legalize, i.e., such as, the State cannot make out a prima facie case of guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

Which means basically what you said.

To me, lawsuits for false arrest are possible in cases like these, and the underlying theory is that there was no reasonable basis, i.e., for the arrest.

I have filed more than several civil suits where the determinative issue was the existence of PC or not supporting the arrest, and have collected on every single one of them.

[PSGator66]

Now let's get Dunker out of his jam and we will be in good shape.

[samit23]

I completely understand the concept, and say that - even on the facts you allege - it is a bad arrest without probable cause to arrest a passenger in the rear seat, if the officer did not observe THAT passenger do something incriminatory, i.e., actually throw marijuana out the window, or otherwise, hold and control the weed in the console.

On those facts, it was a bad arrest without probable cause based on any reasonably prudent observations of the officer. It is not against the law to be in the presence of marijuana, or those smoking marijuana . . . as long as you are not. On the facts stated, there was no PC to believe LP possessed or attempted to possess a controlled substance.

I certainly respect your opinion here, but I can tell you that 12 years of experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney (including time heading up drug trafficking prosecutions) that the facts articulated in the probable cause affidavit do ABSOLUTELY establish probably cause for arrest. To say that a police office must observe a particular person in actual possession in order to establish probable cause is a complete mis-statement of well settled Supreme Court case law. This is really not up for debate. But lets be clear on the distinction that most here fail to make:

First, if the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress for lack of PC to arrest then I would feel 100% confident as a prosecutor. The standard to arrest on PC can be summed up as follows:

The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.

This is not a very high standard to overcome. Lets examine the facts observed in this case:
1. Violation of right of way (proper stop);
2. Witness passenger discard contraband from window as car pulled over;
3. Marijuana in plain sight;
4. Smell of marijuana readily recognizeable.

These facts present more than enough evidence to justify an arrest based on PC in the United States of America. This point is beyond debate.

Second, the case turns in favor of LP for 1 major reason. He invoked his 5th amendment rights and did not admit to ownership or knowledge of the marijuana in question. Unlike one of his former co-defendants who did admit.

The State of Florida recognizes 2 types of possession;

1. Actual Possession - means it is found on your person. That is not the case here.
2. Constructive Possession - stands for the proposition that since no single person had it on them, multiple people could constructively possess contraband at the same time. In order to prove constructive possession, the State has to prove 3 elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
a. The defendant knew of the existence of the contraband;
b. The defendant knew of the illicit nature of the contraband;
c. The contraband was within the dominion and control of the defendant.

Constructive possession case are very difficult to prove in Florida as they are entirely reliable on circumstantial evidence. So how do they prove these case? Simple - they get the defendant to admit to the crime.

The most common police tactic in order to illicit an admission in a similar scenario is to arrest everybody in the car. They split everybody up and they tell them "admit that its yours or everybody goes to jail tonight. If you take the blame then I'll let your friends go. If you don't have any priors I'll issue a notice to appear and you don't have to go to jail." This is a very effective tactic and widely used by all law enforcement. There is nothing wrong with it inasmuch as it does not violate anybody's constitutional rights. The PC exists to arrest everybody in the car and police can lie to illicit an admission.

LP's case was dismissed because the State knew that without his admission they could not prove "dominion and control" as a matter of law. Thus if this case went before a jury, the State could establish the 2 knowledge elements thru circumstantial evidence, i.e, the weed in the car in plain sight and the smoke. But, dominion and control is a legal concept that they had no evidence to support, i.e, the weed was scattered and anybody in the car could have exerted such control. Thus the judge would have dismissed the case after the State rested their case in chief.

The reality is that the State here did a good job of weeding thru their cases (no pun intended). But, if this were a young black male in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Dade, Broward, etc., they would have arrested, charged him and tried to con him into taking a plea rather then dismissing their own case. The State knows that Huntley was going to make short order of it and they weren't going to give him the camera time to do so.

[gatorr4life]

At this point, Huntley should be in the Ring of Honor.

Lol

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

Oooh, lawyer fight!

[Lawdog88]

I certainly respect your opinion here, but I can tell you that 12 years of experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney (including time heading up drug trafficking prosecutions) that the facts articulated in the probable cause affidavit do ABSOLUTELY establish probably cause for arrest. To say that a police office must observe a particular person in actual possession in order to establish probable cause is a complete mis-statement of well settled Supreme Court case law. This is really not up for debate. But lets be clear on the distinction that most here fail to make:

First, if the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress for lack of PC to arrest then I would feel 100% confident as a prosecutor. The standard to arrest on PC can be summed up as follows:

The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.

This is not a very high standard to overcome. Lets examine the facts observed in this case:
1. Violation of right of way (proper stop);
2. Witness passenger discard contraband from window as car pulled over;
3. Marijuana in plain sight;
4. Smell of marijuana readily recognizeable.

These facts present more than enough evidence to justify an arrest based on PC in the United States of America. This point is beyond debate.

Second, the case turns in favor of LP for 1 major reason. He invoked his 5th amendment rights and did not admit to ownership or knowledge of the marijuana in question. Unlike one of his former co-defendants who did admit.

The State of Florida recognizes 2 types of possession;

1. Actual Possession - means it is found on your person. That is not the case here.
2. Constructive Possession - stands for the proposition that since no single person had it on them, multiple people could constructively possess contraband at the same time. In order to prove constructive possession, the State has to prove 3 elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
a. The defendant knew of the existence of the contraband;
b. The defendant knew of the illicit nature of the contraband;
c. The contraband was within the dominion and control of the contraband.

Constructive possession case are very difficult to prove in Florida as they are entirely reliable on circumstantial evidence. So how do they prove these case? Simple - they get the defendant to admit to the crime.

The most common police tactic in order to illicit an admission in a similar scenario is to arrest everybody in the car. They split everybody up and they tell them "admit that its yours or everybody goes to jail tonight. If you take the blame then I'll let your friends go. If you don't have any priors I'll issue a notice to appear and you don't have to go to jail." This is a very effective tactic and widely used by all law enforcement. There is nothing wrong with it inasmuch as it does not violate anybody's constitutional rights. The PC exists to arrest everybody in the car and police can lie to illicit an admission.

LP's case was dismissed because the State knew that without his admission they could not prove "dominion and control" as a matter of law. Thus if this case went before a jury, the State could establish the 2 knowledge elements thru circumstantial evidence, i.e, the weed in the car in plain sight and the smoke. But, dominion and control is a legal concept that they had no evidence to support, i.e, the weed was scattered and anybody in the car could have exerted such control. Thus the judge would have dismissed the case after the State rested their case in chief.

The reality is that the State here did a good job of weeding thru their cases (no pun intended). But, if this were a young black male in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Dade, Broward, etc., they would have arrested, charged him and tried to con him into taking a plea rather then dismissing their own case. The State knows that Huntley was going to make short order of it and they weren't going to give him the camera time to do so.


Again, having kicked many prosecutor's butts in stupid cases with facts like this one, I politely disagree.

And for the record, I never said anything about a motion to dismiss based on no PC, and neither did anybody else. Further, I never said a policeman had to make personal observations of a crime in progress in order to make an arrest, as you implied. In fact, I have never seen a motion filed on the basis of no PC that I can recall, and virtually every judge from the dawn of time (all ex-prosecutors, of course, except for two, perhaps), would laugh at any such motion. Last time I read the case law, arrests without PC proceed just like the ones with PC in criminal court, but are usually ferreted out prior to trial on various and sundry motions. That does not mean that such arrests are not civilly actionable, as you no doubt know.

So it should appear patently weird and some sort of anomaly to any casual observer of the workings of the mechanism of "justice," that on the same underlying facts, the case is dismissed because the State cannot establish the elements of the charge sufficiently to get to the jury, much less prove to the case to the satisfaction of every reasonable doubt, on the very same "facts" which are the same elements of the crime that the officer allegedly had probable cause to arrest somebody on.

This distinction between no PC and a dismissal (for either failure to state a prima facie case, or whatever other cheap exit the State takes), is simply legalese B.S. gymnastics that any seasoned defense practitioner knows, or should know. The cop in this case may have had, at best, a reasonable suspicion (the threshold for detention and investigation) . . . that LP might have been doing something illegal, but he had no probable cause - based on personal observations, objective facts, placement of the occupants in the vehicle, or admissions from any occupant incriminating LP - which you know or should know, is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion.

So if the cop has to make an improbable leap of (cop) logic (may be an oxymoron in that one) to get to the probable cause that LP was the one jointly controlling the marijuana (with no cop observations, it fails the smell test under the instant facts), it was nothing more than a "let the court's sort it out later" over-arrest. Without PC.

These technical distinctions are not legal niceties or subtle nuances for the academic crowd; the differences in them and how they work out on the street determine how we value and protect our 4th Amendment freedoms, and how we control the police.

But then again, maybe my fault is that I think the law is supposed to make sense.

[Speedofsand]

I certainly respect your opinion here, but I can tell you that 12 years of experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney (including time heading up drug trafficking prosecutions) that the facts articulated in the probable cause affidavit do ABSOLUTELY establish probably cause for arrest. To say that a police office must observe a particular person in actual possession in order to establish probable cause is a complete mis-statement of well settled Supreme Court case law. This is really not up for debate. But lets be clear on the distinction that most here fail to make:

First, if the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress for lack of PC to arrest then I would feel 100% confident as a prosecutor. The standard to arrest on PC can be summed up as follows:

The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.

This is not a very high standard to overcome. Lets examine the facts observed in this case:
1. Violation of right of way (proper stop);
2. Witness passenger discard contraband from window as car pulled over;
3. Marijuana in plain sight;
4. Smell of marijuana readily recognizeable.

These facts present more than enough evidence to justify an arrest based on PC in the United States of America. This point is beyond debate.

Second, the case turns in favor of LP for 1 major reason. He invoked his 5th amendment rights and did not admit to ownership or knowledge of the marijuana in question. Unlike one of his former co-defendants who did admit.

The State of Florida recognizes 2 types of possession;

1. Actual Possession - means it is found on your person. That is not the case here.
2. Constructive Possession - stands for the proposition that since no single person had it on them, multiple people could constructively possess contraband at the same time. In order to prove constructive possession, the State has to prove 3 elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
a. The defendant knew of the existence of the contraband;
b. The defendant knew of the illicit nature of the contraband;
c. The contraband was within the dominion and control of the defendant.

Constructive possession case are very difficult to prove in Florida as they are entirely reliable on circumstantial evidence. So how do they prove these case? Simple - they get the defendant to admit to the crime.

The most common police tactic in order to illicit an admission in a similar scenario is to arrest everybody in the car. They split everybody up and they tell them "admit that its yours or everybody goes to jail tonight. If you take the blame then I'll let your friends go. If you don't have any priors I'll issue a notice to appear and you don't have to go to jail." This is a very effective tactic and widely used by all law enforcement. There is nothing wrong with it inasmuch as it does not violate anybody's constitutional rights. The PC exists to arrest everybody in the car and police can lie to illicit an admission.

LP's case was dismissed because the State knew that without his admission they could not prove "dominion and control" as a matter of law. Thus if this case went before a jury, the State could establish the 2 knowledge elements thru circumstantial evidence, i.e, the weed in the car in plain sight and the smoke. But, dominion and control is a legal concept that they had no evidence to support, i.e, the weed was scattered and anybody in the car could have exerted such control. Thus the judge would have dismissed the case after the State rested their case in chief.

The reality is that the State here did a good job of weeding thru their cases (no pun intended). But, if this were a young black male in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Dade, Broward, etc., they would have arrested, charged him and tried to con him into taking a plea rather then dismissing their own case. The State knows that Huntley was going to make short order of it and they weren't going to give him the camera time to do so.



*elicit

[gatordee]

The reality is that the State here did a good job of weeding thru their cases (no pun intended). But, if this were a young black male in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Dade, Broward, etc., they would have arrested, charged him and tried to con him into taking a plea rather then dismissing their own case. The State knows that Huntley was going to make short order of it and they weren't going to give him the camera time to do so.

This!!! I was thinking the same thing. They may not have taken this all the way, but they damn sure would not have dropped it this fast. And bothe prosecuter and public defender would have told him he would not win the case and it would be in his best interest to plead out. Plus if by chance he had a prior, they just might have tried it.

[geauxgator1]

That's true. Although they fancify the reasons and twist it up with legalize, i.e., such as, the State cannot make out a prima facie case of guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

Which means basically what you said.

To me, lawsuits for false arrest are possible in cases like these, and the underlying theory is that there was no reasonable basis, i.e., for the arrest.

I have filed more than several civil suits where the determinative issue was the existence of PC or not supporting the arrest, and have collected on every single one of them.

Go get'em Law.. You need set up an office next door to the GPD, give them something to think about.

[NorthCaptivaGator]

Where do these poor players from poor families get the money to pay Huntley's fees?

"Pro-bono". Hoping for later portion of "pro-bonus"

[Brewski]

There is no case law with similar facts on drug arrests and probable cause? You both make compelling arguments, but what does the precedent hold?

[gatorev12]

There is no case law with similar facts on drug arrests and probable cause? You both make compelling arguments, but what does the precedent hold?

There is ample case law on point...and, as LD mentioned, there's good reasons why Purifoy was released...

Simply put: the law was not in the favor of the prosecution in this matter since this was a case where the cop applied the "arrest everyone and let the courts sort it out" mentality...which courts (and juries) have consistently not been a big fan of and prosecutors know that well.

[theologator]

I've never seen a job application that asks if you've been arrested. It usually asked if you've been convicted of a crime.

Usually a felony.

[theologator]

Counselor, I stipulate I'm not a lawyer.

You didn't say there was no PC, but at least one other poster did.

I appreciate the rationale you present re: protection of the 4th Amendment.

On the other hand, if the perpetrators' solution to imminent arrest for possession of illegal drugs or other contraband were to simply toss it out of the car window and clam up, then the law wouldn't make sense either. In this case, a little weed doesn't strike me as that big a deal. But I can easily envision harder drugs perhaps in greater quantity, or other contraband, that would be quite worthy of police interest and investigation (not misconduct.)

It frustrates me that these sort of matters get all knotted up in court at all. Judgment gets replaced by legalities. Here, I'll assume we eventually paid for 2-4 cops to investigate the scene, transport these kids to jail, house, feed and process them, prosecutors, judge, files, etc. etc. etc. It's an expensive process. And for what, here?

LP has an accountability structure (Muschamp) that will hopefully reinforce the proper boundaries, hold him accountable and gain a positive result for LP and society.

And "back in the day" a cop could exercise the judgment to remand a young person to the discipline of their family for something minor. Now, the cop has much less latitude to make that decision and it is much less likely that the young people have (or accept) that family-level correction. The substitute is an expensive phalanx of legalities surrounding the 4th Amendment.

[JerseyGator01]

What a stupid system. College football is becoming a joke.

[northgagator]

don't think Muschamp is going to care too much when it comes to punishment. #15 needs to get his head out of his a**.

I totally agree!!!

Hopefully this is a wake up call for the young man.

[rounds]

There's always N. Alabama.

[OaktownGator]

What a stupid system. College football is becoming a joke.
Hmmm... exactly how does overzealous policing leading to dropped charges mean college football is becoming a joke?

[SkyChimp]

The arrests are not questionable. The officer is working under a probable cause standard. The prosecutor is looking at likelihood of success at trial. These are 2 different things, The system works best when cops do cop jobs and lawyers do lawyer jobs. This was absolutely the right result.

Well said. Besides, the weed wasn't in a close proximity to Purifoy and he wasn't the only one on the car. You can prove it was his in this case. Back to Special Teams for him!! :yes:

[Allanon]

There's always N. Alabama.

Not anymore. Bowden is gone. They hired the coach that won 3 straight National Championships for them several years ago. He won't put up with that kind of stuff. And he is once again taking a lot of local kids which Bowden would not do. They could follow Bowden to Akron.