State v. Joseph (593 So. 2d 594, 1992)

GERSTEN, Judge.

Appellant, State of Florida, appeals the suppression of evidence in a sale of cocaine prosecution against appellee, James Joseph. We reverse.

Appellee sold cocaine to an undercover police officer in a hand-to-hand transaction. The undercover officer paid appellee with a marked $20 bill.

Once the transaction was complete, the undercover officer radioed a very detailed physical description of appellee and his clothing, to the arresting officers waiting nearby. The arresting officers stopped ap-pellee and recovered $750 in currency from his pockets, including the marked bill.

Appellee moved to suppress all physical evidence. The trial court suppressed the $20 bill, but not the cocaine. The trial court ruled that the bill was inadmissible because it was the product of a pre-arrest search.

The issue of whether the money retrieved from appellee’s pockets is admissible depends on whether the search of ap-pellee was legal. The legality of the search depends on whether the officers who searched appellee had probable cause to arrest appellee.

The probable cause standard for a law enforcement officer to make a legal arrest is whether the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed a felony. Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 940, 83 L.Ed.2d 953 (1985); see also Robinson v. State, 556 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

A description provided in a police BOLO, coupled with proximity in time and place to the scene of crime, furnish reasonable grounds for an officer’s belief that appellant had committed a felony. See Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d at 523; see also United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990); Carroll v. State, 497 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987).

Finally, where probable cause exists, the validity of a search is unaffected by the fact that the search occurred before the arrest. T.M. v. State, 570 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Baggett v. State, 562 So.2d 359 (Fla.2d DCA 1990); State v. James, 526 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Acosta v. State, 431 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Moreland v. State, 552 So.2d 937; review denied, 562 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We find that in this case there was probable cause to arrest appellee for the sale of cocaine. Accordingly, the pre-ar-rest search and retrieval of the marked bill is admissible. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.