Buggs v. State, 96-1039
| Citation | 693 So.2d 57 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1039,96-1039 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D864 Trod Okeka BUGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Steven G. Mason of Law Office of Steven G. Mason, Orlando, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Childs, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
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 on behalf of the search warrant alleged the following:
The victim described the assailant as a black male, approximately 6'2" tall, and approximately 30 to 40 years of age, wearing tan pants and a reddish-orange or drab brown T-shirt, having a distinctly slow pattern of speech. The affiant talked to friends of Trod Buggs who stated that about three hours before the crimes they saw Buggs about half a mile from the victim's home, by himself, wearing a red or reddish-orange T-shirt and tan pants. Those who know Buggs have stated that Buggs habitually speaks slowly. Buggs is a black male whose age and height match the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State
...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 here. Courts should not stret......
-
Buggs v. State, 5D02-521.
...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 1997). Buggs raises eight points on this appeal. Only one merits discussion. It is contended that he was denied effective assist......
- Buggs v. State