State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 10 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. B-336,B-336 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Charles Donald SMITH, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gordon G. Oldham, Jr., State Atty., Leesburg, and James W. Kynes, Jr., Asst. State Atty., Ocala, for appellant.
John R. Godbee, Jr., De Land, for appellee.
The State of Florida seeks review by certiorari of a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Marion County acting in its capacity as an appellate court, by which it reversed a judgment of conviction entered against respondent in the County Judge's Court of Marion County. It is contended that the appellate court's judgment of reversal should be quashed for the reason that in arriving at its ultimate conclusion the court departed from the essential requirements of law. In response the respondent suggests that under the Constitution and settled law of Florida this court is without jurisdiction to review the questioned judgment by common-law writ of certiorari.
The power of the District Courts of Appeal to review by certiorari the judgments of circuit courts acting in their capacity as courts of final appellate jurisdiction is specifically conferred by revised Article V of the Constitution. 1 Based upon the foregoing authority the respondent's suggestion that this court is without jurisdiction to review by certiorari the judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County, acting as an appellate court, must be rejected.
Respondent, together with three of his companions, was charged in the County Judge's Court of Marion County with the offense of taking a doe deer contrary to law. The facts are that respondent and his companions were riding in an automobile owned by one of the occupants within the boundaries of the Ocala Wildlife Management Area when they were stopped by wildlife officers. Before placing any of the defendants under arrest, the officers searched the automobile and took from it certain equipment and paraphernalia belonging to the owner of the vehicle. A timely motion to suppress this evidence was made by all defendants, including respondent. The principal ground of the motion was that the search of the automobile was illegal in that it was made without a warrant, before arrest and without probable cause to believe that an offense against the laws of this state had been committed by defendants in the officers' presence. It was admitted that the officers making the search of the automobile did not have a search warrant, and that the search was made and the evidence seized prior to the time when the defendants were placed under arrest. The sole question presented to and passed upon by the trial judge was whether probable cause existed for belief on the part of the officers that defendants had committed a crime in their presence. Only the testimony of the officers was taken, the defendants having elected not to testify in support of their motion to suppress. From the evidence adduced the trial judge held that probable cause justifying a search of the automobile without a warrant did exist, and therefore denied the motion and admitted the equipment and paraphernalia in evidence over defendant's objection.
From a judgment of conviction, the owner of the automobile and respondent appealed. The sole question presented to the circuit court was whether or not the trial court erred in finding from the undisputed evidence that probable cause existed for searching the vehicle without a warrant and before arrest. Upon an analysis of the facts shown by the record, and in light of the applicable law, the circuit court held that the facts failed to establish that the officers had probable cause to believe that an offense under the laws of this state had been committed by defendants in their presence, and therefore the ensuing search was held to be illegal. Having arrived at this conclusion, the judgment of conviction was reversed.
By its petition for writ of certiorari in this court the State contends that although the appellate court's finding and determination with respect to the lack of probable cause rendering the search of the automobile illegal may be unassailable as to the defendant owner of the vehicle, that such determination departed from the essential requirements and settled principles of law when applied to the respondent who was only an occupant of the automobile at the time of the illegal search. In support of its petition the State invites our attention to the several decisions rendered by the appellate courts of this state in which it is held that immunity to an unreasonable search and seizure is a personal privilege to the one whose right has been invaded, and he only is entitled to invoke the constitutional guaranty against unlawful search and seizure. Generally an accused cannot protest a wrongful search and seizure of premises and property which he does not own or lease or lawfully occupy or possess or in which he has no interest. 2 The applicability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kluck v. State
...the owner, lessee, or lawful occupant of the premises searched, as held in Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190, 192; State v. Smith, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 792; McCain v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 841; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 29. Cf. State v. Leveson, Fla.1963, 1......
-
Fratangelo v. Olsen
...commission of an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the judgment and render it void") (quoting State v. Smith, 118 So.2d 792, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) ).There is nothing more fundamental than the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. "Procedural due pr......
-
State ex rel. Christian v. Rudd, W--313
...requirements of law which are deemed to be essential to the administration of justice.' (186 So.2d at page 43) (See also State v. Smith, Fla.App.1st 1960, 118 So.2d 792; and Townsend v. State, Fla.App.1st 1957, 97 So.2d In Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.2nd 1963, 155 So.2d 745, our sister court......
-
Haines City Community Development v. Heggs
...should be noted for their tight and lucid language in capturing the essence of the appropriate use of the writ. In State v. Smith, 118 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), Judge Wigginton Certiorari is a common-law writ which issues in the sound judicial discretion of the court to an inferior cou......