BURLEY
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 reversed a conviction for possessing lottery tickets, holding that evidence obtained from an illegal search following an unlawful arrest could not be used against the defendants. The case emphasizes the importance of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
No, the arrest was not lawful because the traffic violation did not occur in a "no-passing zone" and the deputies lacked a search warrant. Therefore, the search was illegal, and the evidence obtained from it could not be used against the appellants.
“Since the curve was not in a "no-passing zone" and the deputies were not armed with a search warrant, the arrest was illegal, and being so, the search was was illegal.”
Establishes the core legal flaw in the arrest and search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were arrested for a traffic violation (passing on a curve) and subsequently searched, leading to the discovery of lottery tickets and cash.…
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 Traffic Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellants were tried and convicted for having lottery tickets in their possession contrary to Section 849.09, F.S.A. They were sentenced to pay a fine of $750 each and costs or in default thereof to be imprisoned at hard labor in the State penitentiary for a term of six months.
This appeal is from that judgment.
The point for determination is whether or not the arrest of appellants was such as to permit a search of their person and automobile for lottery tickets.
The evidence shows that on March 17, 1951 a deputy sheriff and a road patrolman parked their automobile on Highway Number one, South end of Dade County, to wait for a black Pontiac, license unknown.
Presently the black Pontiac driven by appellant, Sam Burley, came along.
The deputies watched the said Pontiac till they saw it pass a car and a truck on a curve.
When they saw this traffic violation they pursued the automobile until they overtook it, and ordered Burley to stop.
They had no reason to arrest Burley except for the traffic violation.
Burley was searched and lottery tickets were found in his pockets.
While searching Burley, Walker, the passenger with Burley, was seen putting lottery tickets in his pockets, whereupon he was arrested and searched and lottery tickets found in his pockets.
The deputies then searched the car and found $938.30 in cash in the glove compartment, also some lottery tickets.
The deputies had no search warrant.
One of the deputies varied this story in that he testified that when the black Pontiac passed them they, the deputies, pulled out of their parked position and pursued it, that they were in hopes that it would violate the traffic laws.
When it had traveled about one-quarter of a mile it passed a car and a truck on a curve, whereupon the occupants Burley and his companion were arrested and searched.
It developed that the arrest was without authority of law because the curve on which the appellants passed the car and truck was not in a "No-passing zone" as defined by Section 317.31, F.S.A., and that the State Road Department had not so designated it.
Since the curve was not in a "no-passing zone" and the deputies were not armed with a search warrant, the arrest was illegal, and being so, the search was was illegal.
Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376; Mixon v. State, Fla., 54 So. 2d 190.
The deputy who made the arrest proceeded on the assumption that *745 passing on any curve is illegal.
The trial judge appears to have taken the position that so long as Burley was under arrest for traffic violation, a search was in order regardless of the legality of the arrest.
To so hold would nullify the constitutional inhibition against unreasonable search and seizure.
The makers of the Constitution were realists.
Their knowledge of mankind was drawn from experience and the democracy promulgated by them was the product of persistent reason and logic.
They knew man's proneness to abuse power, hence the limitations they imposed on those designated to govern the governed.
To them our system of checks and balances, the doctrine of the separation of powers and the constitutional guarantees were absolutes.
Human nature is like the multiplication table; it refuses to change with the times.
We have exemplified in this case the very same proneness to override individual rights that the personal guarantees were placed in the constitution to preserve.
There is nothing more distressing to the individual than being picked up by an officer of the law and searched.
It should not be permitted except as provided by the constitution.
It was not done that way in this case so the judgment must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
SEBRING, C.J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Collins v. State, 65 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1953)…ficial, authorized to search, probable cause [*64] for 'believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.” Plainly, the appellants were not committing a traffic violation in the officers’ presence. Burley v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 744. Having concluded that there was no valid arrest, we approach the last phase of the question, that is, the justification by the facts of a search without either a warrant, or a legal arrest. We preface our discussion of the point with the pronounc…
-
State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…S.Const. amend. XIV. .Other Florida cases involving seizure following traffic .arrest: Longo v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 668, 20 So. 2d 818; Kersey v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 155; Graham v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 186; Burley v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 744; Collins v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 61; Brown v. State, Fla.1953, 02 So. 2d 348; Byrd v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 094; James v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 699; Ippolito v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 332; Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. [*35]…
-
Byrd v. State, 80 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1955)…to stop a vehicle and search it for evidence of violation of other laws. Ippolito v. State, Fla., 80 So. 2d 332; Collins v. State, Fla., 65 So. 2d 61; Brown v. State, Fla., 62 So. 2d 348; Graham v. State, Fla., 60 So. 2d 186; Burley v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 744. And courts adjudicating the question have also applied this rule to cases wherein the privilege of stopping vehicles to check licenses ór conduct an inspection for minor defects in equipment was similarly abused. See, e. g., People v. Roache, 237 M…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1921)
- Mixon v. State, 54 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1951)
- Burley v. State, 59 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1952)