Blake v. State, 786
| Decision Date | 29 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 786,786 |
| Citation | 112 So.2d 391 |
| Parties | Maurice L. BLAKE, alias Bubba Blake, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank Ragano, Tampa, and Finch, Mosley & Ware, Clearwater, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of violating the lottery laws of the State of Florida and seeks a reversal on the ground that the evidence used against him was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.
The two arresting officers, experienced members of the Sheriff's Department, had had appellant under surveillance for about three months prior to his arrest because of information that he was engaged in a lottery operation. They were unable, however, to obtain sufficient evidence to secure a search warrant.
Finally, the officers obtained a warrant for appellant's arrest for vagrancy. That evening they located his automobile at a tavern and waited nearby until he came to his car and hurriedly drove away. The officers followed in close pursuit.
As appellant approached an intersection, where an emergency vehicle was standing with its red light blinking, the officers saw him take a roll of papers from his pocket and place them behind the sun visor of his car. Appellant was thereupon stopped and arrested upon the warrant for vagrancy.
After the arrest appellant was asked if the roll of papers, partly visible behind the sun visor, were 'bolita', and he readily admitted that they were. The papers were then seized and proved to be lottery paraphernalia, and were subsequently used in evidence against him.
Appellant contends that the seizure of the papers was unlawful as violating his right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures as guaranteed by section 22 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. He takes the position that the vagrancy warrant was nothing but a ruse to secure evidence of a lottery without a search warrant; and that even if the arrest for vagrancy was lawful, the accompanying search and seizure was irregular because it was not necessary nor appropriately incident to making effective a lawful arrest for vagrancy.
To support his first contention appellant cites the Florida cases of Graham v. State, 60 So.2d 186; Collins v. State, 65 So.2d 61 and Burley v. State, 59 So.2d 744. In each of these cases, however, the arrests upon which the seizure of contraband goods were predicated were held to be unlawful, therefore the evidence so obtained was quite properly suppressed. The record in this case reveals that appellant was actually tried and convicted on the charge of vagrancy, so it certainly cannot be said that his arrest for vagrancy was unlawful.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...a legal right to be. State v. Parnell, supra, (Fla., 221 So.2d 129); Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762 (1940); Blake v. State, 112 So.2d 391 (Fla.App.3rd, 1959). In application of the 'open view' doctrine, it is not an unreasonable search without warrant for an officer to move to a......
-
State v. Smith
...Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 845, Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 867, and by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Blake v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 391. The respondent, Joseph Candy Smith, was arrested by two patrolmen of the Dade County Sheriff's Office when he returned to h......
-
Sheff v. State
...officer Who is where he has a right to be. State v. Parnell, supra; Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762 (1940); Blake v. State, 112 So.2d 391 (Fla.App.3rd, 1959). In application of the 'open view' doctrine, it is not an unreasonable search without warrant for an officer to move to a ......
-
Rinehart v. State, 1096
...of his automobile was a lawful one. That it was is sustained by a long list of cases decided by the courts of this state. Blake v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 391; Pegueno v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 600; Rodriguez v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 164; Zygula v. State, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 28......