State v. Ebert, 71--160
| Decision Date | 30 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--160,71--160 |
| Citation | 251 So.2d 38 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Edmond G. EBERT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank Schaub, State Atty., Sarasota, and Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim D. Syprett, of Crabtree, Butler, Syprett & Meshad, Sarasota, for appellee.
The State of Florida appeals from a trial court order which granted the motion of the appellee (defendant) to suppress certain evidence.
While on routine patrol in Sarasota County in the early morning hours of March 15, 1970, Deputy Sheriff John Walsh observed the appellee driving his automobile very slowly across a bridge. The appellee was leaning over the passenger side and was apparently attempting to talk with a young lady who was walking across the bridge in the same direction as appellee was driving. Deputy Walsh, after having passed the appellee, determined to investigate this setting further. He drove his patrol car off the bridge, turned around, and proceeded back toward the appellee. He then observed that the young lady was no longer walking; instead, she had disappeared into the car with the appellee. Deputy Walsh then stopped the car and ordered appellee to the rear of the vehicle. He then requested to see appellee's driver's license. At this time, Deputy Walsh detected alcohol on appellee's breath and also noted appellee acting in a manner consistent with intoxication. Deputy Walsh then arrested appellee for driving while intoxicated. Following this arrest, Deputy Walsh searched the person of appellee and found on him a quantity of marijuana.
On April 22, 1970, appellee was informed against and was charged with possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, appellee moved to suppress the evidence, i.e., the seized marijuana. The trial court granted the motion and the State of Florida brought this appeal.
Having examined the law and the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the evidence seized was not seized as a result of an invalid search and seizure. At no stage does the chain of events which led to the seizure of the evidence present any violation of the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 12 of the Florida Declaration of Rights which secure the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
First, the initial stop and detention of the appellee was not unreasonable. A thorough discussion of the law applicable to detentions, short of formal arrest, was made in Gustafson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 615. The court was there, as here, concerned with the validity of stopping a vehicle to interrogate the occupants pursuant to a routine investigation. It was there noted that Florida courts have recognized the validity of the use of detentions which fall short of technical arrest. 1 The objective standard which governs the validity of such a detention is a test as to the reasonableness of the detention. The Gustafson case stated that one test to be applied is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kehoe
...officer is required. Lewis v. State, 337 So.2d 1031 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); State v. Othen, 300 So.2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); State v. Ebert, 251 So.2d 38 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). A "founded suspicion" is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when t......
-
State v. Miller
...be valid. The Florida courts have recognized the validity of the use of detentions which fall short of technical arrest. State v. Ebert, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 38, citing Gustafson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 615, quashed in part State v. Gustafson, Fla., 258 So.2d 1, opinion filed J......
-
Coladonato v. State
...that the occupants are violating the law. Kersey v. State, 58 So.2d 155 (Fla.1952); Gustafson v. State, supra; State v. Ebert, 251 So.2d 38 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1971); Wilson v. Porter, supra; see, Fla.Stat. § 901.151(2) (1975). I cannot agree that the arresting officer's opinion that the vehicle......
-
State v. Stevens
...officer is required. Lewis v. State, 337 So.2d 1031 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); State v. Othen, 300 So.2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); State v. Ebert, 251 So.2d 38 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). A "founded suspicion" is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when t......