JACK SLATER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jack Slater was convicted of unlawful lottery operations based on evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his automobile. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that Slater's consent to the search was valid and effective, thereby waiving any constitutional protection against the warrantless search.
The court held that Slater validly consented to the search, thus waiving his constitutional protection against the warrantless search. His affirmative statements that he did not mind the officers searching the car, combined with his voluntary act of unlocking the trunk, constituted sufficient evidence of consent to uphold the conviction.
“The only issue remaining, and the controlling issue in this case, is whether or not the appellant waived the constitutional right here involved by consenting to the search which was made.”
Establishes that consent to search is the dispositive issue, as the court conceded the search was not incidental to arrest and there was no probable cause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSlater was apprehended by a deputy sheriff of Broward County, purportedly for a traffic violation. During the stop, the deputy and another officer sea…
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 Probable Cause For Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully engaging in lottery operations, on the basis of lottery materials which were found in his possession. He contends that the search whereby the evidence against him' was obtained was unreasonable and that the evidence should have been suppressed, timely motion therefor having been made.
Appellant was apprehended by a deputy sheriff of. Broward County, purportedly for a traffic violation, after which his automobile was searched by the deputy sheriff and another officer who was called in to give assistance. If the arrest was lawful, a point which we need not decide, the State concedes that the search was not incidental, to it. See Courington v. State, Fla., 74 So. 2d 652. There was also no probable cause to search for lottery materials, Collins v. State, Fla., 65 So. 2d 61.
The only issue remaining, and the controlling issue in this case, is whether or not the appellant waived the constitutional right here involved by consenting to the search which was made. If he did, the case must he affirmed on authority of Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So. 2d 818; James v. State, Fla., 80 So. 2d 699; and Townsend v. State, Fla, 80 So. 2d 701.
The evidence upon this issue is in sharp conflict. Since the trial judge was authorized to discredit the testimony of the appellant in its entirety, it will not he considered here. The two officers who conducted the search were consistent in their testimony, the substance of which was that appellant posed no objection to the search whatever, stated that he did not mind if the officers looked in the car, and personally took the keys from the ignition of the car and unlocked the trunk, in which was found the evidence sought to be suppressed. Appellant then sought to disassociate himself from ownership of this material.
The case is to be distinguished from Dunnavant v. State, Fla., 46 So. 2d 871, in which we held that consent had not been established where the officers pretended to be acting under a warrant which authorized the search, although the warrant did not cover the whole premises actually searched. There was thus an element of misrepresentation in the case whereby the defendant’s consent was in effect fraudulently induced. This element is lacking from the instant case.
In Sagonias v. State, Fla., 89 So. 2d 252, opinion filed March 14, 1956, the evidence of consent was equivocal, vague and inconsistent. Although in that case the defendant voluntarily unlocked the trunk of the car, this was only to demonstrate that it was empty, as in fact it was. In the instant case, the trunk which the appellant unlocked contained the unlawful materials.
Although the case here presented is an extremely close one, and by no means free from difficulty, we think it is sufficiently similar to James v. State, supra, 80 So. 2d 699, to be controlled thereby. The full facts relied upon in the James case for waiver are not stated in the opinion, but see Sagonias v. State, supra, 89 So. 2d 252, in which the James case is discussed.
It follows that the judgment appealed from must be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
James v. State, 223 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…h is made pursuant to consent is not unreasonable and, therefore, not in violation of state or federal constitutional rights. James v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 699; Longo v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So. 2d 818; and Slater v. State, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 453. The facts surrounding the search in question are sufficiently similar to those before the court in Slater v. State that the present situation should be governed by that case. There the defendant said he had no objection to the arresting officer loo…
-
Gustafson v. State, 243 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…52, the Florida Supreme Court determined that “the search of the trunk of appellant’s car was not appropriately incident to making effective a lawful arrest for driving while intoxicated.” The court similarly determined in Slater v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 453, that the search of an automobile revealing lottery tickets was not incidental to an arrest for a traffic violation. See also Brown v. State, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 175; State v. Simmons, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 879; Collins et al. v. State, Fla.1953, 65 S…
-
Rinehart v. State, 114 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…and Brown v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So. 2d 479. In addition to the search without a search warrant upon the defendant’s arrest, the same can be fortified by defendant’s consent. Blake v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So. 2d 391; Slater v. State, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 453, and cases cited therein. True, he was under arrest at the time he gave his consent, but being under arrest does not in and of itself deprive his consent of the free and voluntary quality which is essential. In the case of Shay v. State, Fla. 1954,…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Collins v. State, 65 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1953)
- Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1946)
- Dunnavant v. State, 46 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1950)
- Townsend v. State, 80 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1955)
- Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1956)
- James v. State, 80 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1955)
- Hunter v. Solomon, 74 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1954)