Farmer v. State, 67--736
| Decision Date | 19 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--736,67--736 |
| Citation | 208 So.2d 266 |
| Parties | Harold FARMER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Engel & Pollack and Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was charged in an information with possession of marijuana. He was tried without a jury, convicted and sentenced to three year's confinement. On appeal it is contended the court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence consisting of marijuana obtained by the police upon arresting him for public drunkenness. The search revealed a match box which, when examined, was found to contain marijuana. Appellant contends the search could not lawfully extend to opening the match box found in his possession, and therefore the search was not incident to the arrest, and the arrest was indicent to the search. We can not agree. On the facts disclosed the search was incident to his arrest for public drunkenness, and the subsequent charge and prosecution for possession of marijuana found on such search were proper under § 901.21(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Brown v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 479.
No reversible error having been made to appear the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gustafson v. State
...into consideration. This categorical approach has been used to uphold searches incident to arrests for public drunkenness (Farmer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 266), vagrancy (Donar v. State, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 145; Schuster v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 30; Hanks v. State, Fla......
-
State v. Gustafson
...Orlando, for respondent. DEKLE, Justice. Petition for certiorari is before us in this cause asserting conflict with Farmer v. State, 208 So.2d 266 (3rd DCA Fla.1968), and Smith v. State, 155 So.2d 826 (2nd DCA Fla.1963), regarding the question of proper search and seizure. We find conflict ......
- Barcelo v. Estate of Nelson
-
State v. Blanco, 76--705
...of an offense not contemplated at the time of the arrest. See generally Brown v. State, 46 So.2d 479 (Fla.1950); Farmer v. State, 208 So.2d 266 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Accordingly we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress REVERSED. McNULTY, C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur. ...