Jordan v. State, 79-219
| Decision Date | 11 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-219,79-219 |
| Citation | 384 So.2d 277 |
| Parties | Paul JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Bruce Zeidel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Russell S. Bohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of burglary, reserving the right to question on appeal from the judgment of guilty the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress.
Appellant did not appear at the hearing on his motion to suppress. The only two witnesses who testified were two police officers, one who first took the appellant into custody (Officer Stracuzza) and one who later took a statement from appellant at the police station (Detective Springman). At the suppression hearing, Officer Stracuzza testified that he and Officer Inglis received a call concerning a burglary which occurred at Chuck's Steak House in Plantation, Florida. They responded to the scene and were given a description of two individuals who were seen breaking into a parked automobile. Investigation revealed that an 8-track stereo had been removed therefrom. The two officers then drove to a pawn shop about two blocks from the Steak House and inquired of the proprietor regarding persons fitting the description of the suspects. They learned that two boys fitting the description had just left the shop. The officers departed but were very shortly thereafter notified that the two boys had returned to the pawn shop. As the officers were returning to the pawn shop they saw two boys, each carrying a paper bag, who matched the description furnished the police. The officers exited the car, approached the boys, and identified themselves. Stracuzza advised the boys that the police were investigating a burglary and that the boys fit the description of the suspects. He did not read them the Miranda litany at the time, but he specifically told them they were not under arrest. Stracuzza said the boys were very cooperative and upon request appellant gave him permission to look in the large bag which appellant was carrying. Therein Stracuzza found an 8-track stereo. The boys were then asked if they would accompany the officers back to Chuck's Steak House, which they did. There the victim identified the stereo as the one taken from his automobile. An eyewitness at the scene also identified the boys as the culprits, and in a statement taken later at the police station the crime was admitted. The record reflects that appellant was twenty years of age and had completed the tenth grade.
Appellant contends that consent to search was not voluntarily given, thus invalidating the search of the bag and tainting the subsequent confession given at the police station, since the search and the confession were all part of a continuous process.
A search is valid if consent thereto is freely and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. State
...and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 9.3(a) at 9-6 (2d ed. 1992). See United States v. Cepulonis, 530 F.2d at 243; Jordan v. State, 384 So.2d 277 (Fla.App.1980) (trial court's decision as to whether accused was consenting or was submitting to authority would not be disturbed unless clear......
-
Ex Parte Bridgett
...and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 9.3(a) at 9-6 (2d ed.1992). See United States v. Cepulonis, 530 F.2d at 243; Jordan v. State, 384 So.2d 277 (Fla.App.1980)(trial court's decision as to whether accused was consenting or was submitting to authority would not be disturbed unless clearly......
-
State v. Brady
...So.2d 1024 (La.1977); U.S. v. Sanchez, 635 F.2d 47 (2d Cir.1980); State v. Garcia, 216 Neb. 769, 345 N.W.2d 826 (1984); Jordan v. State, 384 So.2d 277 (Fla.App.1980); Ringel, Searches & Seizures Arrests and Confessions Sec. 9.3(a) (2d ed. In the present case, the trial court expressly found......
-
Martinez v. State
...and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 9.3(a) at 9-6 (2d ed. 1992). See United States v. Cepulonis, 530 F.2d at 243; Jordan v. State, 384 So.2d 277 (Fla.App.1980) (trial court's decision as to whether accused was consenting or was submitting to authority would not be disturbed unless clear......