JEAN ZIRPOLO, A/K/A JEAN FREEMAN, A/K/A JEAN SULLIVAN, A/K/A JEAN HANSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jean Zirpolo appeals her conviction on drug and burglary tool charges, arguing the evidence was obtained through an illegal search following an unlawful arrest. The court reversed her convictions because the arrest violated Florida law and the evidence derived from it should have been suppressed.
The court held that the arrest was illegal because the vagrancy offense did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer, in violation of Florida law. Because the arrest was unlawful, all evidence obtained as a result of it should have been suppressed. Since no other evidence supported the convictions, they must be reversed.
“the evidence was insufficient to show a lawful arrest by the municipal officers because the offense for which the appellant was apprehended [to wit: vagrancy] did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer”
Establishes the basis for finding the arrest unlawful under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested without a warrant by Miami Beach municipal officers ostensibly for violating the city's vagrancy ordinance. The arresting offic…
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 Possession Of Burglary Tools cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, appeals several convictions which were based upon two informations filed by the State Attorney.1
The entire thrust of this appeal is that the evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was obtained as a result of an illegal search. Appropriate motions to suppress the evidence were made and same were duly objected to at the time of the trial. ' See: Sanchez v. State, 133 Fla. 160, 182 So. 645; Fuller v. State, Fla.1947, 31 So.2d 259. The appellant was arrested without a warrant, ostensibly because of the violation of the vagrancy ordinance of the City of Miami Beach. It is apparent from the record, as conceded by the State in its brief, that the evidence was insufficient to show a lawful arrest by the municipal officers because the offense for which the appellant was apprehended [to wit: vagrancy] did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer. In this connection, see: § 901.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Campbell v. County of Dade, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 708.
Therefore, the arrest not having been legal, the evidence obtained as a result of. *682said arrest should have been suppressed. See: Dickens v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 775; Brown v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d .348 ; 22 F.L.P., Searches & Seizures, § 12. There being no other evidence to support the convictions, they are hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 215 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…751 (1901). We recognize that the general statute on arrest, Section 901.15, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes a police officer to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor only when such offense is committed in his presence. Zirpolo v. State, 168 So. 2d 681 (Fla.App.3d 1964); Riddlehoover v. State, 198 So. 2d 651 (Fla.App.1967); City of Miami v. Newton, 13 Fla.Supp. 172 (1958). Although the cited statute and cases clearly require a warrant in instances where the misdemeanor is not committed in the pres…
-
Mills v. Louie Wainwright, 415 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1969)…21, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Collins v. Beto, 348 F. 2d 823 (5 Cir.1965); Bynum v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F. 2d 465 (1958); Zirpolo v. State, 168 So. 2d 681 (Fla.App., 1964) 4 Reversed. . Appellant Mills was not indicted for either the crime of rape as against Mary Davis, or the crime perpetrated against Dorina Davis. . Florida Statutes § 856.02: “Rogues and vagabonds, idle or dissolute persons who…
Authorities Cited
- Fletcher Fuller and Abner Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1947)
- Campbell v. Cnty. OF Dade, 113 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Sanchez v. State, 133 Fla. 160 (Fla. 1938)