VASCO JOYNER AND JESSE JOYNER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction, holding that the search of a car was reasonable under the circumstances, even without a warrant, because the officers had probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
No, the search of the automobile was not unreasonable. The officers had probable cause to believe a felony had been committed, justifying the search without a warrant.
“The law does not prohibit all searches without a warrant. The constitutional prohibition is only against unreasonable searches.”
Establishes the legal standard for searches, distinguishing between all searches and unreasonable searches.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice observed a car parked with no occupant, then saw someone attempt to start it. When officers approached, one person fled. The officers searched …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unreasonable Searches And Seizures cases and more on FLexlaw
The record discloses that at an early hour of the morning two policemen of the City of Jacksonville observed a car parked, and apparently without an occupant. Shortly thereafter they noticed someone in the car attempting to start it. It had been raining and evidently the motor had drowned out. One of the policemen threw his flashlight on the car and when he did so a man ran from it. He chased the man but did not catch him, whereupon he returned to the car and the other policemen. In the meantime the other police approached the car, flashed his light on it and observed a quantity of loose coins, sacks, etc. Thereupon the two remaining occupants were arrested and the car was searched which revealed a pistol, ammunition, a safe tumbler, a large quantity of currency consisting of rolled change, silver, bills and checks. This caused the officers to think a robbery had been committed and that assumption soon proved to be correct. There can be no question of appellant’s guilt. The law does not prohibit all searches without a warrant. The constitutional prohibition is only against unreasonable searches. No other reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed upon authority of State ex rel. Stillman v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 So. 230, and Carroll v. United States, 267 P. S. 132, 45 Sup. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL AND BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gispert v. State, 118 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…felony had been or was being committed. The fact that the deputy flashed his light through the window is no different than if the same observations could have been made in daylight without a flashlight. In the case of Joyner v. State, 157 Fla. 874, 27 So. 2d 349, the Supreme Court of Florida upheld a conviction upon a set of facts similar to this case, with reference to the use of a flashlight and the subsequent search. The facts in the Joyner case were as follows: “The record discloses that at an early ho…
-
McCAIN v. State, 151 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…e, use of the Chevrolet by appellant and Boaz, knowledge that lottery receipts were being transported in it, and visibility of the lottery paraphernalia prior to the search and seizure. In this connection, compare the cases of Joyner v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 874, 27 So. 2d 349; Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 867. Over and beyond this, immunity to an unreasonable search and seizure is a privilege which is personal to the one whose right has been invaded. This immunity cannot be invoked to protect one…
-
Gaskins v. State, 89 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1956)…and just before the arrest and that therefore the evidence obtained as the result of the search should not be admitted. We have held numerous times that only unreasonable searches and seizures are condemned by the Constitution. See Joyner v. State, 157 Fla. 874, 27 So. 2d 349; Ellis v. State, 92 Fla. 275, 109 So. 622. Where the search itself is reasonable and is conducted within the limits prescribed by the organic law or applicable statutes, then obviously any evidence obtained during the course of such s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)