State ex rel. Carty v. Purdy
| Decision Date | 07 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 40211,40211 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, on the relation of Autley CARTY, by his mother, Eudean Carty, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff and Director of Public Safety of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, his agents, servants and employees, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bruce S. Rogow, Miami, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner here seeks to compel respondent sheriff, his agents, servants and employees to comply with the mandatory requirements of Fla.Stat. §§ 901.06 and 901.23 (1969), F.S.A. requiring that persons arrested with or without a warrant be presented before a magistrate 'without unnecessary delay' for a hearing as authorized by Fla.Stat. Ch. 902, F.S.A. Petitioner, a minor, through his mother purports to represent a class composed of all persons arrested by respondent Purdy and his agents who, upon arrest, are not being presented to a magistrate in violation of the above statutes.
The pleadings establish that the petitioner was arrested August 20, 1970, taken into custody, booked into the Dade County jail, and released into his mother's custody at a special bond hearing on the following day. On the day of filing for issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, he had not yet been presented to a magistrate pursuant to the aforementioned statutes.
On the 21st day of September 1970, the day of the oral presentation of this cause, the petitioner through his attorney filed here an affidavit advising the Court that a preliminary hearing had been accorded petitioner September 17, at which time the charges against petitioner were dismissed and that he was no longer in custody. Under such circumstances, there is no purpose to be served by this Court ordering the issuance of the alternative writ. The application therefor is hereby denied.
This case again brings to this Court's attention the failure of the law enforcement officers of this state to observe the requirements of these statutes which have been part of the statutory law of this state for many decades. The sanctions we have heretofore imposed and the pointed criticism that we--and the Attorney General of Florida--have made of law enforcement officers for failure to comply with these statutes have obviously been ineffective. Therefore we now approve and adopt as the views of this Court the following excerpt from the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Drew in Dawson v. State, 139 So.2d 408, 422 (Fla.1962):
'The right of a free man to be presented to a sworn judicial officer promptly upon his arrest is not a technical or trivial right. Such rights are the bedrock of our liberties and have grown out of mankind's experiences over hundreds of years. These rights are so fundamental in our concept of justice that they are embodied in the written laws of every state in this nation. I cannot accept the proposition that the lawmakers, in enacting statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beasley v. State
...the intent to kill [the victim] and that he did form and carry out this design"), criticized on other grounds, State ex rel. Carty v. Purdy, 240 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla.1970). In our view, record evidence clearly supports the verdict based upon premeditated Beasley also argues that the evidence......
-
Pugh v. Rainwater
...So.2d 633 (Fla.1967); Montgomery v. State, 176 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1965); Baugus v. State, 141 So.2d 264 (Fla.1962). 5 State ex rel. Carty v. Purdy, 240 So.2d 480 (Fla.1970); Milton v. Cochran, 147 So. 2d 137 6 F.S. § 908.01. "Arraignment of defendant; how made. — When an indictment has been fo......
-
Pugh v. Rainwater
...(1971), F.S.A. (originally enacted as Law of June 12, 1939, ch. 19554, §§ 6, 23, 1939 Fla. Laws 1300); see e. g. State ex rel. Carty v. Purdy, 240 So.2d 480 (Fla.1970); Milton v. Cochran, 147 So. 2d 137 Upon hearing oral argument on October 18, 1972, in the appeal, the Fifth Circuit entered......
-
Karz v. Overton
...forbid discretionary allowance of a hearing prior to that time. We note with approval our Supreme Court's opinion in State ex rel. Carty v. Purdy, 1970, 240 So.2d 480, adopting Mr. Justice Drew's dissent in Dawson v. State, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 408. We share the view that no American citizen......