Kishel v. State, 73--4
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MAGER |
| Citation | 287 So.2d 414 |
| Parties | John R. KISHEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 73--4,73--4 |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1974 |
Page 414
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Louis Vernell, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Thomas M. Carney and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
MAGER, Judge.
Defendant appeals convictions of possession of marijuana and resisting an officer with violence to his person. The conviction came as a result of a warrantless search of a building owned by defendant's father located some 30 feet from the building in which defendant and his father occupied as a residence.
We are of the opinion under the circumstances and facts of this case, that the building in question, although not occupied as a 'residence' was part of the curtilage included within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Ashby v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 400. Furthermore, the evidence not having demonstrated any exemption from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant was necessary. Ashby v. State, supra. See also State v. Hetzko, Fla.App.1973, 283 So.2d 49. In addition, we hold that the defendant, as a member of the family of the owner of the building, was legally on the premises which was subject to the search and therefore had the standing to attack the validity of the search under the decision in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). See also State v. Leveson, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 283; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 29; Russell v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 462; Godbee v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 441; McCain v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 841; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 630; Ashby v. State, supra; 78 A.L.R.2d 246,
Page 415
267; cf. Moore v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 262.The evidence which was illegally seized should have been suppressed; defendant's arrest having been predicated upon an illegal search and seizure such arrest was unlawful thereby rendering defective the charge of resisting an officer. State v. Rameriz, Fla.App.1973, 284 So.2d 241; Kirby v. State, Fla.App.1969, 217 So.2d 619. See also 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § 94.
The convictions appealed from are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Saunders
...293 So.2d 105 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Smith v. State, 292 So.2d 69 (Fla.3rd DCA 1974) cert. den. 297 So.2d 570 (Fla.1974); Kishel v. State, 287 So.2d 414 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). The rule was stated in Phillips v. State, 314 So.2d 619, 620 (Fla.4th DCA 1975), as follows:(I)f a person . . . is to be ......
-
State v. Byrne, 74--948
...is the validity of its seizure. State v. Brown, 257 So.2d 263 (3rd D.C.A.1973). Appellee's reliance upon our decision in Kishel v. State, Fla.App., 287 So.2d 414 (1974) is misplaced. In that case, Kishel's arrest was predicated entirely upon an illegal search. In the case Sub judice the arr......