Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A-162,A-162 |
| Parties | Ben ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wayne E. Ripley, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Affirmed.
Appellant was informed against and convicted of unlawfully possessing moonshine whiskey. He has appealed from the judgment and sentence, assigning eleven points in support of his contention that the judgment should be reversed.
Among the errors assigned in the admission of testimony that the arresting officer found four five-gallon cans of moonshine whiskey in an automobile parked on the premises occupied by defendant and described in the search warrant pursuant to which the search was made. A motion to quash the warrant and suppress the evidence was denied.
The evidence reveals that the search warrant in question described the premises to be searched as a one story frame dwelling located at a certain street address in Jacksonville, including the yard and all outhouses on the premises. While the arresting officers were in the process of making their search, an automobile parked in the yard of defendant's premises was inspected. When the car was rocked from side to side a gurgling sound emitted from the trunk. The arresting officers procured a set of automobile keys from the kitchen table inside defendant's house and with these they opened the trunk of the car and found therein the five gallon cans of moonshine whiskey testified to by the officer.
Appellant contends the automobile was not subject to search for the reason that no separate search warrant had been issued specifically describing the automobile. He therefore reasons that the search was illegal and his motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.
Our research fails to reveal that this question has ever before been squarely presented to or passed upon by our Supreme Court. It is for this reason we feel that a statement of the law disposing of the question should be made.
Appellant cites in support of his contention a decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois 1. An examination of that case reveals that the search warrant there considered described only the defendant's place of business located in the basement of a commercial building. After searching the premises described in the warrant, the officers travelled a considerable distance across town to defendant's boarding house where they found and searched his automobile. The evidence procured from the automobile was objected to on the ground that it was seized through an unlawful search in that no warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernhardt v. State
...129 (Fla.1969); Lindsey v. State, 184 So.2d 437 (Fla.App.1966); Beacham v. State, 175 So.2d 796 (Fla.App.1965); Cf. Alexander v. State, 108 So.2d 308 (Fla.App.1959). We have carefully considered all other points raised by appellant in the instant cause and find them to be without On appeal ......
-
People v. Juarez
...or other vehicles found in the yard or within the curtilage are proper subjects of search under the warrant. Alexander v. Florida, 108 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla.1959) (emphasis added). In Florida v. Haugee, 402 So.2d 1216 (Fla.App.1981), the warrant authorized search of a private dwelling "togeth......
-
State v. Reid
...outbuildings, places, and premises used or connected therewith'. Bowdry v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 119, 166 P.2d 1018 (1946); Alexander v. State, 108 So.2d 308 (Fla.App.1959); Lindley v. State, 294 P.2d 851 (Okl.Cr.1956). Similarly a search of a vehicle on the premises has been upheld where the s......
-
State v. Haugee
...So.2d 47 (Fla.1974), the trial court suppressed the contraband found in the briefcase in the truck. We reverse. In Alexander v. State, 108 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), where a search warrant did not specifically authorize the search of vehicles, the search of an automobile parked in the y......