FLOYD B. WARWICK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1932-03-03
104 Fla. 393 Florida Supreme Court (1932) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 140 So. 219
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for robbery, holding that evidence obtained from an illegal search of the defendant's home was inadmissible. The court emphasized the importance of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches.


Holding

No, evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a suspect's private dwelling, without a waiver of constitutional rights, is inadmissible if timely and proper objection is made.


Key Quotes

“Where a person who is suspected of having committed a crime, is arrested by police officers several blocks from his residence and confined in jail, may evidence obtained by a search of the prisoner’s private dwelling by police officers, without a search warrant and in the absence of a waiver by the prisoner of his constitutional rights, be used to convict him where timely and proper objection is made by him to the use of such evidence?”

This quote frames the central legal question the court was asked to decide.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was arrested for robbery and convicted based on evidence found during a search of his private residence. This search was conducted by po…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

—In this case the defendant was tried and convicted upon an Information charging robbery while being armed with a deadly weapon. The evidence, such as it was in the ease, is far from conclusive of the defendant’s guilt. It appears to be stated by plaintiff in error and conceded by the State that the question necessary for us to determine in this case is as follows:

“Where a person who is suspected of having committed a crime, is arrested by police officers several blocks from his residence and confined in jail, may evidence obtained by a search of the prisoner’s private dwelling by police officers, without a search warrant and in the absence of a waiver by the prisoner of his constitutional rights, be used to convict him *394where timely and proper objection is made by him to the use of such evidence?”

Under authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Gildrie et al. vs. State, and authorities there cited, 94 Fla. 134, 113 Sou. 704, this question must be answered in the negative and the judgment reversed. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J.J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1934)
    …s been unlawfully searched.” (Citing the Gildrie case, also 24 A. L. R. 1359, et seq., and 32 A. L. R. 383, et seq.) The samé rule would also apply to evidence obtained by an unlawful search conducted without a warrant.”' See also Warwick v. State, 104 Fla. 393, 140 So. 219, which involved the search of a prisoner’s private dwelling while he was confined in jail, without a search warrant, and the evidence thus obtained was held to be inadmissible. In-the case of Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, it was held t…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw