Haverty v. State, 71--375
| Citation | 258 So.2d 18 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--375,71--375 |
| Parties | Kevin D. HAVERTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maynard F. Swanson, Jr., Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Kevin D. Haverty was informed against in the Pinellas County Circuit Court on February 1, 1971, for the offense of unlawfully possessing a narcotic drug, to-wit: marijuana. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and upon a jury trial was found guilty of the ofeense. On April 6, 1971, he presented himself before the Court, at which time the Court withheld adjudication of guilt and released him on probation for a term of three years. From that disposition and order he appeals to this Court.
The sole contention of Haverty here is that the trial Court erred in denying his pre-trial motion 'to suppress all tangible evidence . . . for the reason that such tangible evidence was seized without a warrant as a result of an illegal arrest'.
The factual background, though partially in conflict, presents a not-unusual situation. During the evening of December 15, 1971, Haverty and another man were in a doughnut shop in Largo and while there had a dispute with the owner or proprietor of the shop, the nature of which was at variance. It seemed like the shop manager looked upon Haverty and his companion as so-called hippies and there was a considerable 'ruckus' among all concerned. As might be expected, a Largo police officer soon arrived on the scene as the trouble was quieting down. After talking with the manager, the officer arrested Haverty for 'disorderly conduct' based on what had happened prior to the officer's appearance and because, in the officer's presence, Haverty refused to leave the premises when told to do so. During the search of his person following his arrest, the officer found a small quantity of marijuana on him and added possession of marijuana to the reasons for the arrest.
Haverty challenges the legality of his arrest upon numerous grounds, namely, that he was arrested without warrant or other good cause, that he was unlawfully searched which resulted in the seizure of marijuana, that the disturbance was precipitated largely by the manager's own conduct, and that the local municipal ordinance of Largo under which the arrest was made and the marijuana seized, pursuant to which the Circuit Court charge was made, resulting in the trial and conviction, was unconstitutional. The principal ground upon which illegality of the arrest and seizure was claimed in the Circuit Court, and now here, was that the Town ordinance under which Haverty was arrested is invalid.
It is unnecessary, however, to consider the legality of the local Town ordinance. This is so because this Court cannot reach such question. No assignment of error was filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conklin v. Hurley
... ... court, holding that the doctrine of implied warranty of fitness, previously extended in this state to purchasers of new homes, should not be extended to protect purchasers of residential lots on ... ...
-
Lakeview Reserve Homeowners v. Maronda Homes, Inc., 5D09-1146.
... ... Supreme Court upheld the Fourth District ruling, and established it as the law in this state. Gable v. Silver, 264 So.2d 418 (Fla.1972).A decade later, in Conklin, the case mainly relied upon ... ...
-
Lester v. State
...not before us for construction"); Nicholas v. First Interstate Dev. Corp., 315 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Haverty v. State, 258 So.2d 18, 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Applied Research Lab. of Fla. v. Homer, 249 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); City of Opa-Locka v. Trustees of the Plumb......
-
Pethtel v. State
...Because it was neither raised nor argued at trial or on appeal, we are precluded from resolving it here. See Haverty v. State, 258 So.2d 18, 19–20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (holding that questions can only be heard and considered by an appellate court if properly reserved in lower court and assign......