Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1956 |
| Citation | 91 So.2d 175 |
| Parties | Trave Lavell BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Carl C. Durrance, Tampa, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Brown, who was defendant below, seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction pursuant to a finding of guilt in a liquor law violation case.
The point to be determined is the legality of the search which produced ten 5-gallon jugs of moonshine from the back of appellant's ranch wagon.
Brown was driving a ranch wagon over U. S. Highway 301. A deputy sheriff followed him for some distance. He noticed the Brown automobile weaving from side to side within its proper traffic lane. It veered off the pavement twice although it did not cross the center line of the road. The officer stopped the car. He testified at the trial that Brown 'told me that he had had quite a bit to drink' and also that Brown had a bottle on the seat with him. Whereupon appellant was arrested for reckless driving. The beam of the headlights of Brown's car was exceptionally high suggesting that the back end of the ranch wagon was heavily loaded. The officer then flashed a light through the window and saw the suspicious jugs on the floor of the car. He inquired of the appellant and was advised, 'Well, I might as well tell you * * * I've got some 'shine' on there.' The back end of the ranch wagon was searched with the result that the ten 5-gallon jugs of moonshine were found.
At the trial for violation of the liquor laws, appellant moved to suppress the evidence. The judge denied the motion and permitted the illicit liquor to be placed in evidence. The cause was tried before the judge without a jury. The trial judge found appellant guilty and placed him on probation for two years. Reversal of this judgment is now sought.
Many times have we held that only unreasonable searches of an automobile are condemned by the Constitution Declaration of Rights, § 22, F.S.A. It is the responsibility of the trial court in the first instance to determine the validity of the search upon consideration of the circumstances and the manner under which the search was made. A search pursuant to a lawful arrest is perfectly legal. Admittedly the officer in this instance had been 'on the look-out' for appellant's automobile because of a 'tip' from a beverage agent. However, this record clearly indicates that the appellant himself invited his arrest and subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holmes
...James v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 699; Ippolito v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 332; Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 867; Brown v. State, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 175; Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1st 1959, 112 So.2d 864; Smith v. State, Fla.App.2d 1963, 155 So.2d 826; Beacham v. State, Fla.App.3......
-
Gustafson v. State
...weaving back and forth on the highway constitutes reckless driving has been discussed at length by the Florida Supreme Court. Brown v. State, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 175; Collins v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 61. In the instant case, however, the officer admitted and the trial court determined th......
-
State v. Sedacca
...supra, and cases cited therein at p. 35 of 227 Md., (28), at p. 14 of 175 A.2d. (11)' (234 Md. at 5, 197 A.2d at 843.) In Brown v. State, 91 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1956), a deputy sheriff in Florida was on the lookout for Brown's automobile because of a tip he had received. He followed the vehicle......
-
Dixon v. State, 76--1103
...not depend on the conviction or acquittal of the accused. . . .' Canney v. State, 298 So.2d 495, 496 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). See Brown v. State, 91 So.2d 175 (Fla.1956).5 Other jurisdictions have affirmatively ruled that the odor of burning marijuana emanating from an automobile provides suffici......