Buggs v. State, No. 96-1039

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtHARRIS
Citation693 So.2d 57
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D864 Trod Okeka BUGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 96-1039
Decision Date04 April 1997

Page 57

693 So.2d 57
22 Fla. L. Weekly D864
Trod Okeka BUGGS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-1039.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
April 4, 1997.
Rehearing Denied May 15, 1997.

Steven G. Mason of Law Office of Steven G. Mason, Orlando, for Appellant.

Page 58

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Childs, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

HARRIS, Judge.

Trod Okeka Buggs was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with an assault, three counts of sexual battery on one victim, and the commission of a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a minor. He appeals his conviction; we affirm.

Of the points raised by Mr. Buggs, two warrant discussion.

Mr. Buggs contends that on the same day the information was filed in this cause, the State sought and obtained an order permitting it to seize hairs and blood from him. He reasons, therefore, that since he was in custody an evidentiary hearing with him present was required before such order could be properly entered. For this proposition, he relies on Jones v. State, 343 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). Although it is true that in Jones an adversarial hearing was conducted, the court does not speak to the issue of whether a hearing is required. Further, in Jones, the hearing was held long after Jones was arrested and was appointed counsel. Such are not the facts in this case.

Here, the record reflects that the information and the affidavit of probable cause were both filed on January 26. The challenged search warrant was entered ex parte the morning of January 27 and executed on Mr. Buggs immediately after he was taken into custody at around 11:30 a.m. on January 27. Mr. Buggs was not finally "booked in" until 6:00 p.m. on that date and did not make his first appearance until the following morning.

This search and seizure issue is controlled by Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), which held that since the extraction of blood [and hair] did not involve "testimonial compulsion" or "enforced communication," one's Fifth Amendment rights are not implicated. Therefore, since defendant had no privilege to assert, he had no right to have counsel assert it. Buggs, however, did have a right not to be subjected to an intrusive body search unless and until sufficient probable cause was shown to justify the search warrant. We find such probable cause was shown.

The affidavit submitted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Morris v. State, No. 1D99-4286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 29, 2001
    ...perpetrated on a third party in the presence of a child. See Simmons v. State, 722 So.2d 862, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Buggs v. State, 693 So.2d 57, 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brinson v. State, 574 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Nothing of the kind is alleged Courts should not stretch a p......
  • Buggs v. State, No. 5D02-521.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 7, 2003
    ...for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Buggs' conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Buggs v. State, 693 So.2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 840 So.2d 1100 Buggs raises eight points on this appeal. Only one merits discussion. It is contended that he was denied effectiv......
  • Buggs v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 21, 1997
    ...684 700 So.2d 684 Trod Okeka Buggs v. State NO. 90,865 Supreme Court of Florida. Oct 21, 1997 Appeal From: 5th DCA, 693 So.2d 57 Disposition: Rev....
3 cases
  • Morris v. State, No. 1D99-4286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 29, 2001
    ...perpetrated on a third party in the presence of a child. See Simmons v. State, 722 So.2d 862, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Buggs v. State, 693 So.2d 57, 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brinson v. State, 574 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Nothing of the kind is alleged Courts should not stretch a p......
  • Buggs v. State, No. 5D02-521.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 7, 2003
    ...for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Buggs' conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Buggs v. State, 693 So.2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 840 So.2d 1100 Buggs raises eight points on this appeal. Only one merits discussion. It is contended that he was denied effectiv......
  • Buggs v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 21, 1997
    ...684 700 So.2d 684 Trod Okeka Buggs v. State NO. 90,865 Supreme Court of Florida. Oct 21, 1997 Appeal From: 5th DCA, 693 So.2d 57 Disposition: Rev....

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT