State v. Ashby
| Decision Date | 03 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 39304,39304 |
| Citation | 245 So.2d 225 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Wayne Thomas ASHBY, Respondent, (two cases). STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert David CAREY, Respondent, (two cases). . Jan, 6, 1971. Rehearing Denied |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
David W. Barrow, III, Pinellas, for Wayne Thomas Ashby.
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and James L. DeMoully, Asst. Public Defender, for Robert David Carey.
The question central to this case is whether the convictions of respondents, defendants below, resulting from the use of evidence which they contend was illegally searched for and seized by officers, can stand. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed the convictions, and held that the evidence was obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure. The District Court of Appeal also held that the defendants could conditionally plead nolo contendere. The opinion of the District Court of Appeal, reported at 228 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.2d, 1969), is in conflict with prior appellate decisions of this State, including the opinion of this Court in Falcon v. State, 226 So.2d 399 (Fla.1969), and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in City of Miami Beach v. Eason, 194 So.2d 652 (Fla.App.3rd, 1967). The State petitioned for certiorari to the District Court of Appeal. We have jurisdiction.
Two issues must be resolved. First, was the evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure? Second, may defendants plead nolo contendere, reserving for appeal the question of legality of seizure of the evidence against them?
The facts of this case are as follows: Police, seeking to arrest one Allen West for armed robbery, were told by an informant that West could be found in a tavern on a specified evening. West was found there, in the company of defendants. West was arrested. Defendants talked with officers, then were driven about 1:30 a.m. to the location which they said was their residence. Shortly after, police were told by their informant that defendants actually lived with West at another location, that a stolen red car and a stolen trailer and motor could be found in the yard of the house, and that a stolen boat and motor were in the garage on the premises. Officers from the street observed a trailer and motor in the yard, and saw a red car matching the description they had been given. Upon investigation, the red car proved to carry a license tag which had been issued to another vehicle; this reinforced the suspicion that the red car was stolen. With this information, officers went onto the premises to seize the evidence and to arrest the defendants. Before making the arrests, they looked about. They did not carry a valid search warrant. Without intruding into or opening the garage, officers looked in through a cracked door and observed a boat and motor. A deputy later testified the evidence all was seized because officers feared defendants would attempt to get rid of the property. It is noted that defendants knew their companion had been arrested, they had given false information to officers, officers had been told by their informant that property in the yard and garage was stolen, and the red car was known to be illegally tagged. In addition, all the items of evidence are by nature easily movable, if not by defendants then possibly by others. After their arrest, and after the evidence was seized, defendants gave incriminating statements. Subsequently, they recanted and objected to use of the evidence taken from their premises on grounds of improper search and seizure. They pleaded nolo contendere, reserving the question whether the evidence against them was seized as the result of an improper search.
The District Court of Appeal ruled the evidence inadmissible, relying on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). This decision was handed down almost one year after respondents were arrested in the case Sub judice. In Chimel v. California, Supra, officers arrested defendant at home, and incident to his arrest searched his house and adjacent premises; incriminating evidence was found in the house. The United States Supreme Court held the search invalid on grounds it was too broad to be incident to lawful arrest, after stating that prior decisions on the question of search incident to arrest were 'far from consistent, as even the most cursory review makes evident.' In Chimel v. California, Supra, the United States Supreme Court overruled numerous precedents and concluded that the search.
The conviction obtained in the California state courts was reversed.
We conclude Chimel is not controlling in the case Sub judice; no search of the premises was required.
As this Court observed, State v. Parnell, 221 So.2d 129 (Fla.1969),
'It is well settled that when an officer, while engaged in performing his lawful duties, observes contraband items or goods that he has probable cause to believe are stolen, such goods may be seized without a search warrant and are admissible in evidence.' (p. 131)
The principle is fundamental in the Parnell decision that a search and a seizure are separate and distinct legal actions. A search is generally accepted to be an inspection or examination of places closed from public or general view, and requires some measure of force or intrusion. A seizure is the act of taking custody of evidence or contraband.
The amount of intrusion or force required to constitute a search may be slight. Nevertheless, some minimum action is required. In Boynton v. State, 64 So.2d 536 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...Cir. 1973); Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1970); State v. Tully, 166 Conn. 126, 348 A.2d 603 (1974); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1971); Alcorn v. State, 255 Ind. 491, 265 N.E.2d 413 (1970); State v. Person, 34 Ohio Misc. 97, 298 N.E.2d 922 (1973); State v. Cundy,......
-
State v. Forshey
...F.2d 848 (3d Cir.1975); United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377 (2d Cir.1975); Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251 (Alaska 1974); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971); State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); People v. Reid, 420 Mich. 326, 362 N.W.2d 655 (1984); State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935 (U......
-
Commonwealth v. Gomez
...of court).12 See Ginn v. State, 894 So.2d 793, 801-804 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) ; Cooksey, 524 P.2d at 1255–1256 ; State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225, 228-229 (Fla. 1971) ; Crosby, 338 So.2d at 586–592 ; People v. Reid, 420 Mich. 326, 337, 362 N.W.2d 655 (1984) ; State v. Hodge, 1994-NMSC-087, ¶ 1......
-
State v. Hodge
...court rules or statutes authorizing such agreements. See, e.g., Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251, 1256-57 (Alaska 1974); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla.1971); State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 590 (La.1976); People v. Reid, 420 Mich. 326, 362 N.W.2d 655, 660-61 (1984); State v. Sery, ......