Kersey v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1952 |
| Citation | 58 So.2d 155 |
| Parties | KERSEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Frank Clark, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In August 1950 agents of the Beverage Department secured information that appellant was handling moonshine whiskey. They spotted him traveling on Highway 27 in Broward County, pursued him into Dade County where they blocked the road in his front and rear, arrested him and searched his car without a search warrant. They found a quantity of contraband liquor in the car which they confiscated and filed an information charging him with removing and concealing moonshine whiskey on which the excise tax had not been paid.
At the trial defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the seizure was unlawful, that it was made without authority of law for the purpose of discovering contraband whiskey or to secure evidence on which to prosecute defendant in a criminal action. It does not appear what disposition was made of the motion to suppress the evidence but when the case came on for trial evidence was taken and defendant was found guilty of 'defrauding the State of Florida of an excise tax on moonshine whiskey in violation of Section 562.32, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A.,' and sentenced to six months in the State penitentiary. This appeal was prosecuted.
The only question we feel called on to consider is whether or not the trial court committed error in refusing to suppress the evidence.
The physical evidence was a sample of the contraband liquor taken from the quantity found in appellant's automobile at the time he was arrested. The officers who made the arrest and search testified as to the find, but it was affirmatively shown that no traffic laws were violated. The trial court apparently proceeded on the theory that appellant had a previous criminal record, that the Beverage Department had been tipped off that he was selling moonshine whiskey and would be on Highway 27 about the time he was arrested, that he was caught in the act and that his arrest, the search of his automobile and seizure of the contraband whiskey was under the circumstances in compliance with the statutes of this State and decisions of this court, particularly Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So.2d 818 and Brown v. State, Fla. 46 So.2d 479.
The Longo and Brown cases turn on the proposition of whether or not the search and seizure was an 'unreasonable' one as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The right to search a motor vehicle is distinct from the right to arrest the driver or other occupants and depends on probable cause. The governing law is embraced in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790, which was adopted as the law of Florida governing the search of automobiles without warrant....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holmes
...XIV.11 Other Florida cases involving 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 ......
-
Gustafson v. State
...v. Padilla, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 309. But a bare suspicion will not constitute reasonable grounds for the detention. Kersey v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 155; Carter v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 324. The suspicion, if it is to be the grounds for the detention, must be founded upon a ......
-
Carter v. State
...property in violation of' Section 22 of the Florida Declaration of Rights. Tillman v. State, 1921, 51 Fla. 558, 88 So. 377; Kersey v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 155. The late Justice T. Frank Hobson, in Byrd v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 694, and Mr. Justice Thomas in Collins v. State, Fla.19......
-
State v. Goodman
...traveling a public way and take him into custody on nothing more than a bare suspicion that he has * * * violated the law. Kersey v. State, Fla. 1952, 58 So.2d 155' (Cameron v. State, Fla.App., 122 So.2d 864, 867(1)), and '(t)he mere presence of an individual unknown to the police, in a sus......