Farmer v. State, 67--736

Decision Date19 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 67--736,67--736
Citation208 So.2d 266
PartiesHarold FARMER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida 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.

PER CURIAM.

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
4 cases
  • Gustafson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 1971
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1972
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1997
  • State v. Blanco, 76--705
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1976
    ...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. ...

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