LARRY FLETCHER AND JAMES FLETCHER, APPELLANTS,
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.
Larry and James Fletcher were convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny. They appealed on the grounds that evidence was obtained through an unlawful search of their motel room, but the court affirmed their convictions, finding that even if the search was unlawful, no evidence was actually seized from the room itself.
The trial judge correctly denied the motion to suppress because no evidence was actually seized from or in the motel room during the alleged unlawful search. Constitutional protections against unlawful searches protect against the use of incriminating evidence gained during the unlawful search of premises occupied by the defendant.
“In order to suppress evidence of a crime allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search, there obviously must have been some evidence secured during the course of the unlawful search.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that evidence must actually be seized during an unlawful search for suppression to apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants Larry and James Fletcher, who are brothers, rented and occupied a motel room. Police officers entered the room and found it unoccupied.…
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 Breaking And Entering cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for the crime of breaking and entering and grand larceny.
On appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants’ sole ground for reversal is the alleged error of the trial judge in denying" appellants’ motion to suppress certain evidence. The evidence sought to be suppressed was allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search of a motel room rented by the appellant James Fletcher but occupied by both appellants who are brothers.
The appellants contend that their convictions were obtained as a result of the introduction of evidence seized incidental to an unlawful search. We have reviewed the testimony taken before the trial judge on appellants’ motion to suppress and find that the evidence (items of jewelry) sought to be excluded was found on the grounds of the motel underneath the window of a room allegedly occupied by appellants. When entrance was gained to the room by *163the police officers, no one was found m the room and no evidence was seized from or in the room. In order to suppress evidence of a crime allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search, there obviously must have been some evidence secured during the course of the unlawful search. The constitutional protection, in this regard, is directed at the attempted use of incriminating evidence gained during the unlawful search of the premises occupied. Assuming, arguendo, that there was an unlawful entry, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion since it was evident nothing was seized as a result of the entry which was offered in evidence against appellants. See Mitchell v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 726. It appears that appellants or one of them threw the jewelry out of the motel window prior to making their exit and before the police officers entered the room.
The judgment of conviction and sentence appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brant v. State, 349 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…s he (or she) is legally there. Sheff v. State, 301 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1st DCA 1974). However, areas which are outside of a hotel room, such as hallways, which are open to use by others may not be reasonably considered as private. See Fletcher v. State, 168 So. 2d 162 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); State v. Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla.4th DCA 1970). A search is generally accepted to be an inspection or examination of places closed from public or general view and requires some measure of force or intrusion, however slight; ne…
-
Cleveland Lee Johnson v. State, 252 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1971)…ing specially with dissenting opinion of BOYD, J. . Williams v. State, Fla.App., 243 So. 2d 215; F.S.A. Section 924.33; Salter v. State, 152 Fla. 284, 10 So. 2d 809. . Vol. 29 Fla.Jur. 226, “Search & Seizure”, § 12; Fletcher v. State, Fla.App., 168 So. 2d 162; Boim v. State, Fla.App., 194 So. 2d 313; Blake v. State, Fla.App., 112 So. 2d 391; State v. Smith, Fla.App., 193 So. 2d 23. . Williams v. State, Fla.App., 243 So. 2d 215; Tootle v. State, 100 Fla. 1248, 130 So. 912.…
-
Fletcher v. State, 174 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1965)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 168 So. 2d 162.…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 60 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1952)