EWUAL JAMES JONES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF DADE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Jones sought certiorari review of his traffic conviction, arguing he was illegally arrested without a warrant and claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that an illegal arrest does not divest a court of jurisdiction when the defendant submits to the court's authority.
An illegal arrest does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to hear charges when the defendant submits to the court's authority by being present during proceedings. The suppression of evidence obtained from an illegal arrest would not affect the court's jurisdiction, and a motion to quash charges does not properly raise the validity of the arrest as an issue.
“If there had been any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal arrest (none has been pointed out in this record) certainly it would have been subject to suppression, but the suppression of such evidence would not have, nor could it have, decided the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the charges.”
Establishes that suppression of illegally obtained evidence does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was arrested without a warrant by a Metropolitan Dade County police officer for an alleged traffic ordinance violation that the officer did not …
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 Illegal Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner seeks review by certio-rari of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the Metropolitan Court of Dade County.
Petitioner was allegedly arrested without a warrant by a police officer of Metropolitan Dade County and charged with a violation of a traffic ordinance of Dade County. The alleged violation admittedly was not committed in the presence of the arresting police officer.
After two continuances, one by the petitioner and the other by the respondent, the petitioner filed a written motion to suppress evidence on the sole ground that he had been illegally arrested. The respondent noticed the motion to suppress for hearing before the Metropolitan Court at the same time and place as the trial of said cause had been scheduled. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the Metropolitan Court denied the motion, relying upon the opinion of this court in Campbell v. Dade County, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 708, and particularly the fact that the petitioner was physically present in the courtroom. The record of the proceedings transmitted to this court discloses the presence of the petitioner in the Metropolitan Court at the time of the hearing on the motion to suppress. An oral motion to quash the summons and charges was also made and denied after which the petitioner stood mute. The court entered a plea of not guilty for the petitioner, heard the evidence on the charge, adjudged him guilty and imposed a fine. Upon appeal, the Circuit Court of Dade County affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence and in so doing, observed that although petitioner’s arrest was invalid, nevertheless he had thereafter submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The circuit court further pointed out the misapplication of the Campbell case by the Metropolitan Court as a basis for a denial of the petitioner’s motion to suppress, but concluded that since no objection had been made during the course of the trial to any objectionable evidence, the matter was not preserved for appellate review.
The petitioner here contends first that he was not physically present before the trial court and second, that this court should overrule its decision in the Campbell case. Neither of these grounds is sufficient to warrant a review by this court of the appellate judgment of the circuit court. Nowhere has it been made to appear that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law or acted without jurisdiction. In substance, the petitioner complains that the trial judge should have granted his motion to suppress because of the invalidity of his arrest. If there had been any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal arrest (none has been pointed out in this record) certainly it would have been subject to suppression, but the suppression of such evidence would not have, nor could it have, decided the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the charges. See Campbell v. Dade County, supra. Likewise, the motion to quash the charges could not properly raise the issue of the *387validity of the petitioner’s arrest for whether the charges were subject to quashal would not depend upon the validity or invalidity of the petitioner’s arrest. See Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 47 S. Ct. 250, 71 L.Ed. 505.
Concluding as we have that certiorari does not lie to review the judgment complained of, it follows that the petition should be and is hereby denied.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barton v. State, 193 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…unty warrant on March 23, 1965, and charged with homicide. This was the legal process by which jurisdiction was obtained over the person of the appellant. Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal arrest is subject to suppression. Jones v. State, 123 So. 2d 385 (Fla.App.3rd Dist. 1960). It does not appear from the record that any evidence used at the trial was obtained from appellant prior to his arrest on March 23, 1965, and his return to Florida. Therefore, the legality of his arrest by the Pennsylvania…
-
State v. Joiner, 17 Fla. Supp. 84 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1961)…pus delicti of the offense by the admission or confession of the defendant.” The second assignment of error is without merit and has been already disposed of by the cases of Campbell v. County of Dade, 113 So. 2d 708, and Jones v. State of Florida, 123 So. 2d 385. The main point, and the one most strongly urged by the defendant, is that her extra-judicial admission that she had been driving was not admissible against her until such time as the state had proved the corpus delicti of the offense. The facts a…
-
State v. Chapman, 21 Fla. Supp. 161 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1963)…rt did not commit any error in denying the appellant’s motion to quash and dismiss the charges, for a motion to quash does not raise the issue of the validity of the defendant’s arrest. Jones v. State of Florida, County of Dade (Fla. App. 3rd 1961), 123 So. 2d 385. On the third point, an examination of the record shows that there was no timely objection to the questioned testimony. The trial court did not commit reversible error on any of its rulings questioned upon appeal. Therefore, it is considered, order…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1927)
- Campbell v. Cnty. OF Dade, 113 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)