Nixon v. State
| Decision Date | 21 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-78,65-78 |
| Citation | 178 So.2d 620 |
| Parties | Walter Lee NIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ
Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions of the crimes of (1) possession of a narcotic drug, (2) possession of barbiturates, (3) breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony and (4) grand larceny.
On August 1, 1964, Officer Boyd of the Miami Police Department was called to a Miami address to quiet a disturbance. While the officer was in the process of quieting the disturbance, someone brushed against the appellant who was standing in the doorway of a nearby bar. The appellant stated the following words to the person who had brushed against him, 'M___ F___, get out of my way.' Officer Boyd heard the appellant make the remark and placed him under arrest for violation of Sec. 43-10(7), Code of the City of Miami, Florida, which provides:
Upon making the arrest Officer Boyd made a preliminary search of the appellant for weapons but found none. Shortly thereafter Officer Olson of the Miami Police Department arrived in a patrol wagon, and, after having been informed that a preliminary search for weapons had been made, conducted a second search of the appellant for concealed weapons. In the course of the second search a narcotic drug and barbiturates were found on appellant's person. The appellant was then taken to the Dade County Jail where he was interrogated by Miami Police Officer Tucker. After some forty-five minutes to one hour of interrogation, the appellant, a part time employee of the owner of a house which had been burglarized, orally confessed to participation in the breaking and entering.
At the appellant's trial by the court, the seized evidence as well as the oral confession were received in evidence over objection. The appellant was found guilty on all charges and sentenced. This appeal follows.
The appellant contends that:
(1) Section 43-10(7) of Code of The City of Miami, Florida is an unconstitutional restriction of the right of free speech and therefore his arrest for an alleged violation thereof was illegal. Moreover, the second search which uncovered the narcotic drug and barbiturates did not constitute as search incident to arrest, therefore, the seized evidence should have been excluded.
(2) His confession should have been excluded because it was:
(a) the fruit of an illegal arrest;
(b) elicited in violation of his right to counsel;
(c) elicited during a period of unnecessary delay between his arrest and presentment before a committing magistrate.
We find appellant's contentions lacking in merit. It has been well established that obscene speech is not guaranteed by either the Federal or Florida Constitutions, 1 and, we are unconvinced that the ordinance under scrutiny is unduly broad and thus unconstitutionally restrictive of the right of free speech. We note that it is not argued that the remark made by the appellant is not of the type prohibited by the ordinance. 2
Having determined the ordinance to be constitutional we further conclude that the appellant's arrest for violation thereof was lawful.
Appellant next takes the position that the second search for concealed weapons was not a search incident to arrest and cites as authority therefor Preston v. United States. 3
While it is true that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lieberman v. Marshall
...374 (Fla.1952); Tampa Times Co. et al. v. City of Tampa, 29 So.2d 368 (Fla.1947); In re Hayes, 72 Fla. 558, 73 So. 362 (1916); Nixon v. State, 178 So.2d 620 (Fla.App.3, 1965). Liberty of speech also must be balanced against other state constitutional policies, such as those involved in our ......
-
State v. Mayhew, 43575
...that obscene speech is not guaranteed by either the Federal or Florida Constitutions. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, Nixon v. State, 178 So.2d 620 (Fla.App.1965), the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari at 385 U.S. 853, 87 S.Ct. 97, 17 L.Ed.2d 81 (1966). In Chaplinsky,......
-
Gustafson v. State
...into custody the officer has a right to search for any hidden weapon which could be used against him to effect escape. Nixon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 620. Under the concept of incidental search as discussed above, then, a protective search is not actually 'incident' to the Even wit......
-
Severson v. Duff
...vagueness was tested by the Calbeck "standards." See also Matteson v. City of Eustis, 140 Fla. 591, 190 So. 558 (1939); Nixon v. State, 178 So.2d 620 (Fla.3d D.C.A.1965); City of Miami v. Kobley, 29 Fla.Supp. 142 (Fla.Cir.Ct.Dade Cty.1967).2 These decisions do not narrow the statutory tests......