Graham v. State
| Decision Date | 05 August 1952 |
| Parties | GRAHAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Sam E. Murrell, Orlando, and F. G. Janes, Lakeland, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This case comes to this Court on appeal from the Criminal Court of Record in and for Polk County, Florida.
Appellant was informed against by the County Solicitor on two counts, each charging a different offense under statutes.
Motion to quash each count of the information was interposed by the defendant and denied by the Court. Whereupon, trial was had and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on each count of the information. Motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment were made and denied. Judgment and sentence were made and entered and an appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Twenty-one grounds of appeal are assigned upon which appellant poses four questions. Passing, but not deciding, question number one, we will dispose of question number two at this point. This question challenges the legality of certain evidence secured by two deputy sheriffs by search of appellant's automobile. Deputy Sheriff Williams gives as his cause for arrest that he saw appellant drive across the center line of the road between Fort Meade and Bartow two or three times as he followed her down the road. He does not claim that she was speeding. His claim is that after seeing her cross the line three times he blew his siren for her to stop and had to blow the third time before appellant finally stopped and he placed her under arrest for reckless driving. At another time in his testimony Williams stated that he was sitting on the side of the road when he first blew his siren. There is no claim by the deputy that traffic was heavy or that the appellant by crossing the center line endangered herself, her automobile or that she endangered any other person or the property of any other person. There is no claim that she was driving on a curve or over a hill. The only act advanced as an element of reckless driving was that she crossed the center line. Whether she crossed the line with one wheel or with more than one wheel is not stated. Reading Deputy Williams' testimony in its most favorable light to sustain the arrest for reckless driving, there is no escaping the conclusion that he was waiting beside the road for this particular appellant to come by and he used reckless driving as an excuse and not for a lawful cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holmes
...seizure following traffic arrest: Longo v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So.2d 818; Kersey v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 155; Graham v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 186; Burley v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 744; Collins v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 61; Brown v. State, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 348; Byr......
-
Gustafson v. State
...to be unreasonable where a person is arrested for an alleged traffic violation only as a pretext for a warrantless search. Graham v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 186. Such searches are considered to be merely exploratory in nature and not truly incident to the arrest, since the search is the p......
-
Smith v. State
... ... Gause v. State, 203 Miss. 377, 34 So.2d 729; Contee v. U. S., 94 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 215 F.2d 324; Graham v. State, ... Fla., 60 So.2d 186; 4 Am.Jur., Arrest, Sec. 121, p. 76 ... In the case of Butler v. State, 135 Miss. 885, 101 So. 193, an officer saw a colored boy walking down the street. While following along behind the boy, the officer commanded him to stop. The boy began to ... ...
-
U.S. v. Maslanka
...the initial arrest of Maslanka was proper. United States v. Saunders, 476 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1973).Nor does the cited case of Graham v. State, 60 So.2d 186 (Fla.1952) hold to the contrary for in that case not only were there grave doubts whether appellant, who had been arrested for reckless d......