Dickens v. State
| Citation | 59 So.2d 775 |
| Parties | DICKENS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1952 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Oxford & Oxford, Lakeland, and Woods & Watson, Lakeland, Fla., for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted on an information charging her with having in her possession certain implements and devises for conducting a lottery, commonly known as bolita. A new trial was denied and defendant was sentenced to a term of one year at hard labor in the state penitentiary. This appeal is from that judgment.
When defendant was arrested in her home, some money, bolita tickets and pads were lying on the table in front of her. These articles were seized by the arresting officer and were offered in evidence at the trial. A motion to suppress this evidence was overruled. The only point in the case is whether or not the trial court committed error in overruling the motion to suppress.
Defendant was arrested Saturday morning, June 9, 1951. The deputy sheriff who made the arrest approached the premises from the back yard, opened the screen door to the back porch and entered the kitchen of appellant's home. Appellant was seated at the table with Margaret Ghent. Two other persons were in the room. The arresting officer had no search warrant but immediately informed defendant that she was under arrest. He then seized the articles on the table which were offered in evidence at the trial.
In this case the arrest preceded the search and seizure. This state admits that if the arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure were likewise unlawful. We think that both the arrest and the search and seizure were unlawful. When an arresting officer enters one's back door for the purpose of searching the premises and to make an arrest without a search warrant he is little more than a trespasser. Then there is a question whether he had a warrant authorizing him to make the arrest. It is charged that no such warrant with return thereon has ever been produced. DeLancy v. City of Miami, Fla., 43 So.2d 856, 14 A.L.R.2d 602; Gildrie v. State, 94 Fla. 134, 113, So. 704.
The trial court committed error in overruling the motion to suppress the evidence for which he must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vargas
...officer who enters a private residence without permission and without a warrant "is little more than a trespasser." Dickens v. State, 59 So.2d 775, 775 (Fla.1952). A person present within his or her home may decline to enter into a citizen-police encounter by not answering the door or, if t......
-
Titus v. State
...this court."). Our supreme court has been no less assiduous in protecting the home from warrantless entry by police. In Dickens v. State, 59 So.2d 775 (Fla.1952), our court flatly "When an arresting officer enters one's back door for the purpose of searching the premises and to make an arre......
-
Benefield v. State, 32506
...seeks review of the latter judgment by certiorari on the theory that it is in direct conflict with this court's decision in Dickens v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 775. It is clear from an examination of the opinions in the case at bar and the Dickens case that although both involve substantia......
-
Urquhart v. State, 67--216
...the meaning of Section 901.19(1). Cf. Benefield v. State, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 706; Boynton v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 536; Dickens v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 775. From his above-quoted testimony it is clear that Inspector Salla did not announce his purpose and he did not wait until he w......