TOM KENDALL, ET AL.,
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 because the evidence used against the defendants was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, violating their constitutional rights.
No, evidence obtained by deputy sheriffs without a search warrant is inadmissible, as it violates constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
“We have repeatedly held that evidence obtained by unlawful search is inadmissible.”
Establishes the court's long-standing precedent regarding the inadmissibility of evidence from unlawful searches.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs in error were convicted of violating a state statute based on evidence procured by deputy sheriffs. This evidence was obtained without …
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 Unconstitutional Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review a judgment of conviction of the plaintiffs in error under an information charging the violation of Section 5499 R. G. S., 7657 C. G. L.
*272The conviction is based upon evidence procured by deputy sheriffs under purported authority of Section 5505 R. G. S., 7664 C. G. L., without which evidence there was not sufficient proof of the offense charged to warrant conviction.
This section of our statute was construed by' this Court in the case of Solomon, et al., v. State, opinion filed February 27, 1934, reported in 156 Sou. 401, wherein we held that the section did not authorize searches to be made by deputy sheriffs without search warrants.
Later in the case of Thurman v. State, opinion filed September 10, 1934, reported 156 Sou. 484, we held the statute to be unconstitutional on the grounds therein set forth.
We have repeatedly held that evidence obtained by unlawful search is inadmissible. See Jeffcoats v. State, 103 Fla. 460, 138 Sou. 385; Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 Sou. 217; Carnagio v. State, 106 Fla. 222, 143 Sou 164; and cases cited in these opinions.
It, therefore, follows that judgment must be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Limar Realty Corp. v. Cain & Bultman, Inc., 104 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…umstances, and it has not been demonstrated on this appeal that the construction he-placed thereon was in error. See Helie v. Wickersham, 103 Fla. 254, 137 So. 226; Williams v. Ray, 107 Fla. 327, 329, 144 So. 679; Thomson v. Goldstein, 117 Fla. 272, 157 So. 569; Clark v. Clark, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 426. Affirmed. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Harrison v. Simpson, 106 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1932)
- Elvin E. Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1931)
- Thurman v. State, 116 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1934)
- Solomon v. State, 115 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1934)
- Carnagio v. State, 106 Fla. 222 (Fla. 1932)