State v. Foust, 72--293
| Decision Date | 30 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--293,72--293 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Rodney FOUST, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Richard R. Snyder, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
David Goldman, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
The State of Florida instituted this interlocutory appeal after the trial court entered an order granting the appellee's motion to suppress evidence. 1 The evidence in question was seized when the appellee was arrested pursuant to the authority of two bench warrants.
On February 11, 1972, the defendant was charged by information with the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana. On March 2, 1972, the defendant filed his motion to suppress evidence. The motion was supported by the grounds that 'said evidence was illegally seized without a warrant and the defendant was aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure.' The arresting officer was called as a witness when the motion was heard before the trial court on March 7, 1972. No other witnesses testified.
The Supreme Court of Florida has set forth its most recent holdings on the scope of a search incident to an arrest in State v. Gustafson, Fla.1972, 258 So.2d 1. In discussing a search which occurred after a person had been arrested for failing to have a driver's license in his possession, the Court held:
'The district court opinion poses the query: 'May the search be for evidence of Any crime, or is it limited to fruits of the crime For which the person was arrested?' (emphasis ours) The district's answer would restrict the search to that relating to the Particular crime for which the actual arrest was made. It would even limit the search after arrest 'to a search for Weapons, which normally entails only "patting down" the suspect.' Further on, the opinion would limit custodial search 'to weapons and instrumentalities for escape.' This is contrary not only to all Florida authorities as cited above but actually would be in derogation of the statute, section 901.21.
(Emphasis as indicated.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frierson
...the decision in Frierson v. State, 851 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), which certified conflict with the decision in State v. Foust, 262 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. CONFLICT ISSUES In Foust, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a tri......
-
Jacobs v. State, F-2005-104.
...v. Lamaster, 652 S.W.2d 885, 886-87 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979); State v. Foust, 262 So.2d 686, 687-88 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1972); State v. Rothenberger, 73 Wash.2d 596, 440 P.2d 184, 186 (1968) (referring to suggestion that police could not mak......
-
Willingham v. City of Orlando
...See State v. Walkin, 802 So.2d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Wigfall v. State, 323 So.2d 587, 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); State v. Foust, 262 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Thus, we conclude that under these circumstances, there was no special duty owed to Mr. Willingham by either the City or t......
-
Jones v. State
...did anything other than to voluntarily cooperate with Officer Leizze and voluntarily provide the requested identification. State v. Foust, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 686, and see State v. Ecker, Fla.1975, 311 So.2d 104, and City of Miami v. Aronovitz, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 784. Officer Leizze's ......