State v. Hinton, No. 74--340
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MAGER |
| Citation | 305 So.2d 804 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--340 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1975 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Michael Lee HINTON, Appellee. |
Page 804
v.
Michael Lee HINTON, Appellee.
Page 805
Gregory M. Wilson, Asst. State Atty., Orlando, for appellant.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Kenneth J. Scherer, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, and Elliot R. Brooks, Legal Intern, for appellee.
MAGER, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence alleged to have been illegally seized.
Defendant was charged with possession of cannabis, in violation of Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence alleged to have been illegally seized by the police 'from the defendant, his automobile or his premises'. The motion set forth three grounds upon which the defendant predicated his contention that the evidence was the result of an 'unreasonable search and seizure', such grounds being:
'1. Probable cause did not exist for the above-mentioned search.
2. The property was illegally seized without a warrant.
3. The search and seizure was the product of an illegal arrest. Spinelli v. U.S. (393 U.S.) 410 (89 S.Ct. 584), 21 L.ed.2d 637 (sic), Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (79 S.Ct. 329), 3 L.ed. 327.'
In addition, defendant's motion set forth a general statement of facts upon which the motion was based. 1
A hearing was held on defendant's motion to suppress at which time it was contended that the evidence was seized pursuant to a Warrantless arrest and search. In particular, the following colloquy sets forth the pertinent facts giving rise to the granting of the motion to suppress and the istant appeal:
'MR. WILSON: That's fine, Your Honor. One clarification, if I can. Where is the Court getting its evidence that there was no warrant?
THE COURT: I have asked whether there was a warrant or not. The defense counsel says there was not. The prosecution doesn't show me that there was, And the file doesn't show that there was, and I don't think that I have any reason to believe that there was a warrant.
MR. WILSON: And without the taking of testimony, the Court ruling is that there was no warrant; and, therefore, the arrest and the subsequent search is not a valid arrest or search?
THE COURT: Well, let me put it to you another way. Do you indicate to this Court that there was a warrant?
MR. WILSON: I'm not indicating anything, Your Honor. I am here to listen to what the defense has to say.
THE COURT: Well, I have no reason to believe that an Officer of this Court would lie. I don't think Mr. Horton is lying when he says there is no warrant. I believe there is no warrant, particularly if the file doesn't say that there is a warrant.
Page 807
MR. HORTON: I will say it this way, sir. To my knowledge there was no warrant, and my investigation has produced none. If there is one, I don't know about it.
THE COURT: And the motion speaks that there was no warrant, and you have been served with a copy of the motion so that if there were one, all you would have to do is show me that there was one.' (Emphasis ours.)
Essentially, it is the State's contention that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure set forth in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 3.190(h) sets forth the grounds for the motion to suppress, the contents of the motion, the hearing thereon, and the time for filing thereof. In particular, subsections (2) and (3) of Rule 3.190(h) relating to the contents and hearing provide:
'(2) Contents of Motion. Every motion to suppress evidence shall clearly state The particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.
(3) Hearing. Before hearing evidence, the court shall determine if the motion is legally sufficient. If it is not, the motion shall be denied. If the court hears the motion on its merits, The defendant shall present evidence supporting his position and the State may offer rebuttal evidence.' (Emphasis ours.)
It is the State's position that the court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress without requiring the defendant to 'present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gifford, No. 88-1910
...Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205, 1206-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also Raffield v. State, 351 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977); St. John v. State, 363 So.2d 862, 863-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978);......
-
Morales v. State, Nos. 80-248
...a reasonable one. Raffield v. State, 351 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla.1977); Andress v. State, 351 So.2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Bicking v. State, 293 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Mann v. St......
-
State v. Setzler, No. 94-2497
...matter, absence of a search warrant in the court file sufficed to shift the burden of going forward to the prosecution. State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also State v. Williams, 538 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The prosecution also had to demonstrate exig......
-
Phuagnong v. State, No. 96-4705
...matter, absence of a search warrant in the court file sufficed to shift the burden of going forward to the prosecution. State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also State v. Williams, 538 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The prosecution also had to demonstrate exig......
-
State v. Gifford, No. 88-1910
...Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dodd, 396 So.2d 1205, 1206-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 807-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also Raffield v. State, 351 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977); St. John v. State, 363 So.2d 862, 863-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978);......
-
Morales v. State, Nos. 80-248
...a reasonable one. Raffield v. State, 351 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla.1977); Andress v. State, 351 So.2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Bicking v. State, 293 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Mann v. St......
-
State v. Setzler, No. 94-2497
...matter, absence of a search warrant in the court file sufficed to shift the burden of going forward to the prosecution. State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also State v. Williams, 538 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The prosecution also had to demonstrate exig......
-
Phuagnong v. State, No. 96-4705
...matter, absence of a search warrant in the court file sufficed to shift the burden of going forward to the prosecution. State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also State v. Williams, 538 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The prosecution also had to demonstrate exig......