JOSEPH WAYNE LOFTEN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering and grand larceny, holding that the search incident to arrest was reasonable and thus the motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.
Yes, the search incident to the appellant's arrest was reasonable under the circumstances, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
“The reasonableness of the search incident to a lawful arrest is a question for determination by a trial court.”
Establishes the standard of review for searches incident to arrest.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling and grand larceny based on a jury verdict. The primary issue on appeal concerned the d…
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.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse jury verdict and judgment of conviction thereon, finding the appellant guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling and of grand larceny.
The principal point relied on for reversal is that the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to suppress certain evidence. The reasonableness of the search incident to a lawful arrest is a question for determination by a trial court. See: Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376; Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So.2d 818; Starks v. State, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 788. Examining the record on appeal in the instant case in light of this principle, it is apparent that the search was reasonable under the circumstances. See: James v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 699; Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 867.
Therefore, the judgment and conviction here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loften v. State, 180 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 173 So. 2d 157.…
-
Gagnon v. State, 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…testimony of the officers is susceptible of only one interpretation, namely, that the arrest was lawful. The reasonableness of a search incident to a lawful arrest is a question for determination by the trial court. Loften v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 157. We hold that the testimony in the record is sufficient to support the trial judge’s finding that the evidence discovered was' not the product of an unreasonable search. Appellant’s second point is directed to a ruling of the trial court which per…
Authorities Cited
- Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1921)
- Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1946)
- Gaskins v. State, 89 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1956)
- James v. State, 80 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1955)
- Starks v. State, 108 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)