KERSEY
v.
STATE
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 held that evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a vehicle, conducted after blocking the highway and arresting the driver based on mere suspicion, was illegally seized. This ruling established that such actions violate the Fourth Amendment and state statutes, requiring suppression of the evidence.
Yes, the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence. The warrantless search and seizure were unreasonable and violated the appellant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Florida statutes, as the officers lacked probable cause beyond mere suspicion.
“We are conscious of the law authorizing police officers to arrest one without a warrant who commits a crime in his presence, but we do not understand that such a law authorizes him to block the highway in front of one who is lawfully traveling it and take him in custody on nothing more than a bare suspicion that he is violating the law.”
Establishes the principle that suspicion alone does not justify stopping and arresting someone on a public highway without a warrant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAgents of the Beverage Department, acting on a tip, pursued and stopped appellant's car on a public highway. They blocked the road, arrested him witho…
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
TERRELL, Justice.
In August 1950 agents of the Beverage Department secured information that appellant was handling moonshine whiskey. They spotted him traveling on Highway 27 in Broward County, pursued him into Dade County where they blocked the road in his front and rear, arrested him and searched his car without a search warrant. They found a quantity of contraband liquor in the car which they confiscated and filed an information charging him with removing and concealing moonshine whiskey on which the excise tax had not been paid.
At the trial defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the seizure was unlawful, that it was made without authority of law for the purpose of discovering contraband whiskey or to secure evidence on which to prosecute defendant in a criminal action. It does not appear what disposition was made of the motion to suppress the evidence but when the case came on for trial evidence was taken and defendant was found guilty of "defrauding the State of Florida of an excise tax on moonshine whiskey in violation of Section 562.32, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A.," and sentenced to six months in the State penitentiary. This appeal was prosecuted.
The only question we feel called on to consider is whether or not the trial court committed error in refusing to suppress the evidence.
The physical evidence was a sample of the contraband liquor taken from the quantity found in appellant's automobile at the time he was arrested. The officers who made the arrest and search testified as to the find, but it was affirmatively shown that no traffic laws were violated. The trial court apparently proceeded on the theory that appellant had a previous criminal record, that the Beverage Department had been tipped off that he was selling moonshine whiskey and would be on Highway 27 about the time he was arrested, that he was caught in the act and that his arrest, the search of his automobile and seizure of the contraband whiskey was under the circumstances in compliance with the statutes of this State and decisions of this court, particularly Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So. 2d 818 and Brown v. State, Fla. 46 So. 2d 479.
The Longo and Brown cases turn on the proposition of whether or not the search and seizure was an "unreasonable" one as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The right to search a motor vehicle is distinct from the right to arrest the driver or other occupants and depends on probable cause. The governing law is embraced in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790, which was adopted as the law of Florida governing the search of automobiles without warrant. Chapter 12257, Acts of 1927, Section 933.19, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A. We are conscious of the law authorizing police officers to arrest one without a warrant who commits a crime in his presence, but we do not understand that such a law authorizes him to block the highway in front of one who is lawfully traveling it and take him in custody on nothing more than a bare suspicion that he is violating the law. This court is committed to the doctrine that an officer without a search warrant or warrant of arrest, has no right to stop one on the public highway, particularly in the night time, and demand that he surrender what he has in his possession. Tillman v. State, 81 Fla. 558, 88 So. 377; Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426, 156 So. 484; Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652.
In addition to the foregoing cases, other State and Federal decisions support this rule. It is accordingly our view that the arresting officers exceeded the allowable *157 liberty of authority vested in them account of which the evidence was illegally secured and the arrest was unreasonable. It follows that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
Reversed.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN, HOBSON and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., dissents.
ROBERTS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…law enforcement officers are not authorized to arrest without warrant one who is lawfully traveling a public way and take him into custody on nothing more than a bare suspicion that he has, or might have violated the law. Kersey v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 155. We also recognize that if the existing facts do not justify the arrest, it matters not that a search and seizure made as an incident to that arrest produces ample evidence to support what at the time of the arrest was nothing more than a mere suspi…
-
Coladonato v. State, 348 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1977)…is cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Coladonato v. State, reported at 335 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), which allegedly conflicts with Kersey v. State, 58 So. 2d 155 (Fla.1952), Richardson v. State, 291 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and other decisions standing for the principle that a policeman may not stop a vehicle to question its occupants on a bare suspicion that the law has been violated. Jurisdiction ve…1 / 2
-
Mullins v. State, 366 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1978)…ff. 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); Wilson v. Porter, 361 F. 2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966), it is equally well recognized that he may not do so arbitrarily or on a bare suspicion that the occupants are violating the law. Kersey v. State, 58 So. 2d 155 (Fla.1952); Gustafson v. State, supra; State v. Ebert, 251 So. 2d 38 (Fla.App. 2nd 1971); Wilson v. Porter, supra; see, Fla. Stat. § 901.151(2) (1975). 335 So. 2d at 317. Petitioner’s actions here were clearly insufficient to give rise to anything…
Previewing 3 of 19 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)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1914)
- Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1921)
- Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1946)
- Brown v. State, 46 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1950)
- Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1934)
- Will Tillman v. State, 81 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1921)
- Kersey v. State, 58 So.2d 155 (Fla. 1952)