ORA ELLIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 quashed a writ of certiorari, upholding a conviction for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. The court found that evidence found during a warrantless search of the petitioner's automobile was admissible, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Yes, the evidence was admissible. The court quashed the writ of certiorari, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the search and seizure were lawful under the circumstances.
“Counsel for petitioner contend that the evidence was in [*277] admissible because the deputy sheriff had no warrant for the arrest of the defendant when the car was searched and had no search warrant authorizing him to search the automobile.”
This quote states the main argument raised by the petitioner challenging the admissibility of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA deputy sheriff, acting on a tip about someone transporting liquor, stopped the petitioner's car. The deputy observed the petitioner driving towards …
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 Vehicle Search cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted in the County Court of Pinellas County upon the charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. He was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and'serve four months in the county jail. An additional sentence of imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months was imposed in the event of default in the payment of the fine. A new trial was denied and the defendant took a writ of error from the Circuit Court which affirmed the judgment.
The case comes here on certiorari.
The facts in the case, as the evidence tended to establish, were that E. W. Plucker, a deputy sheriff of Pinellas County, was at Pass-a-Grille on February 28,1925, and was notified that a "party was off of the beach and was going to bring some liquor back in a Dodge touring car. ’ ’ On his way home, about 3:30 o’clock that afternoon, he met the defendant driving a Dodge touring car, the rear curtains up, going toward Pass-a-Grille. The deputy sheriff followed. "When the defendant stopped his automobile near the Casino the deputy sheriff then found the town marshal and deputy sheriff, Mr. Herrod. They both went to the defendant’s car and found in it two jugs of moonshine whiskey, several bottles and corks and whiskey labels.
When the two officers arrived at the place where the defendant’s automobile was standing near the Casino building the defendant had gone into the building. The deputy sheriff parted the curtains, looked in the automobile, and found the whiskey and other articles.
Counsel for petitioner contend that the evidence was in admissible because the deputy sheriff had no warrant for the arrest of the defendant when the car was searched and had no search warrant authorizing him to search the automobile.
The writ is quashed upon authority of the case of Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 South. Rep. 376. See also Carrol v. United States, 267 U. S. 132; 69 L. Ed. 543.
Certiorari quashed.
Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1938)…c. 48, p. 33. It seems' the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant may have committed a felony. Although that belief is based on what someone may have told them, the Court is of the opinion that is sufficient. Ellis v. State, 92 Fla. 275, 109 So. 622. The arrest may also have been justified because the defendant was then committing the misdemeanor of reckless driving. The ninth question is stated by defendant in his brief as follows: “Question No. 9. When it appears in the trial o…
-
Italiano v. State, 141 Fla. 249 (Fla. 1940)…en by the witnesses, strongly supported the State’s theory that gaming was in process at the time of the arrest. The situation here can hardly be said to be more favorable to the person searched than was the one discussed in' [*255] Ellis v. State, 92 Fla. 275, 109 South. Rep. 622. See also Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 South. Rep. 323. We have been interested in the argument presented that there is a real difference between the cases of Ellis v. State and Cortes v. State, supra, and the one at bar…
-
Gaskins v. State, 89 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1956)…e 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 search is admissible at a subsequent trial. I…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1921)