RUFUS HARRIS BEACHAM, 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.
Rufus Beacham appealed his marijuana possession conviction, arguing that marijuana debris discovered when he voluntarily attempted to produce identification fell unlawfully from his pocket. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, holding that the officer's discovery of marijuana that the defendant accidentally deposited was not an unlawful search because the defendant acted on his own volition.
The court held that the marijuana debris was not discovered by an unlawful search. The officer was within his authority to request the driver's license, and the defendant voluntarily offered to show further identification. When the defendant accidentally deposited marijuana debris in the officer's presence while attempting to comply with his own offer, this constituted voluntary disclosure of criminal activity, not a search by the officer. The ensuing arrest and vehicle search were therefore valid.
“Sergeant England was within his authority when he requested appellant to produce his driver's license. Appellant voluntarily offered to show further identification which the officer agreed to look at. Whereupon, appellant, in attempting to show the identification, accidentally deposited the marijuana debris onto Sergeant England's police car. We do not consider such happening to have constituted a search by Sergeant England.”
Establishes that the officer's initial request and the defendant's voluntary offer to show identification were lawful, and the accidental disclosure of marijuana was not a search.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 20, 1964, Sergeant England observed Beacham's car driving erratically on a narrow Miami street. England followed for five blocks without att…
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 Unlawful Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of his conviction by the criminal court of record for the crime of possession of marijuana.
Since the state has agreed to appellant’s statement of the facts we shall state them as found in appellant’s brief:
“On August 20, 1964, at about 3:00 p. m., Sergeant K. L. England of the Miami Police Department was on surveillance in an unmarked police car in Miami, Florida. He saw the defendant drive by in a car at a normal rate of speed. He followed the car for about five blocks to see where the defendant was going. The defendant drove somewhat erratically from one side of the road to another on a narrow street. However, Sergeant England did nothing to draw the defendant’s attention to him and did not waive [sic] the defendant to stop. He intended to remain anonymous to the defendant.
“The defendant then stopped his car at the side of the road of his own volition; Sergeant England did not stop him. England then stopped his car, walked up to the defendant’s car and asked the defendant for his drivers license. The defendant produced his license and England then asked the defendant to step out of his car. The defendant complied and then performed several roadside sobriety tests at England’s request. England considered the defendant’s performance on these tests to be borderline, but satisfactory. The defendant was not placed under arrest at this time. England then questioned the defendant about his employment, where he had been employed recently and his reason for leaving. The defendant stated that he was working at Porkey’s Hide-a-way in Fort Lauder-dale, and that he had a good reputation in the community. He said he had further identification and England agreed to look at anything the defendant could show him in this regard. The defendant then attempted to produce further identification when some marijuana debris fell from his pocket to the hood of England’s car. England put the marijuana debris in a piece of paper and advised the defendant that he was under arrest for possession of marijuana. England then searched the defendant’s car and seized a pipe containing marijuana under the front seat of the car.”
Appellant contends on appeal that the marijuana debris recovered by Sergeant England from the hood of the police car was discovered by an unlawful search of the appellant, thereby vitiating the arrest and subsequent search of appellant’s car, which search produced the other evidence upon which defendant was convicted. We disagree.
Sergeant England was within his authority when he requested appellant to produce his driver’s license. Appellant voluntarily offered to show further identification which the officer agreed to look at. Whereupon, appellant, in attempting to show the identification, accidentally deposited the marijuana debris onto Sergeant *798England’s police car. We do not consider such happening to have constituted a search by Sergeant England. Appellant, acting on his own, disclosed that he was committing a felony in the officer’s presence. The ensuing arrest and search were clearly valid.
The instant case is distinguishable from Ippolito v. State1 where evidence was uncovered when defendant had knocked from his pocket lottery tickets, defendant first having been tackled by police officers. Similarly, appellant can take no comfort from Kraemer v. State2 where officers had commenced an unlawful search prior to discovery and seizure of lottery tickets dropped by the defendant.
For the above reasons the judgment and sentence appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)…e existed probable cause for arrest of appellant pursuant to Section 901.15, Florida Statutes. State v. Perez, 277 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1973); State v. Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1969); Lindsey v. State, 184 So. 2d 437 (Fla.App.1966); Beacham v. State, 175 So. 2d 796 (Fla.App.1965); Cf. Alexander v. State, 108 So. 2d 308 (Fla.App.1959). [*501] We have carefully considered all other points raised by appellant in the instant cause and find them to be without merit. On appeal of a probation revocation, the questio…
-
State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…a.1955, 80 So. 2d 332; Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. [*35] 2d 867; Brown v. State, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 175; Cameron v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1959, 112 So. 2d 864; Smith v. State, Fla.App.2d 1963, 155 So. 2d 826; Beacham v. State, Fla.App.3d 1905, 175 So. 2d 796; Riddlehoover v. State, Fla.App. 3d 1967, 198 So. 2d 651; Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.3d 1968, 212 So. 2d 337; Smith v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So. 2d 613; Gustafson v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1971, 243 So. 2d 615. See also Brine-gar v. State, 1953, 97…
-
Marx Daniel Boim and Clorinda A. Boim v. State, 194 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…n, this, court stated: “ * * * The articles, which were received in evidence against the defendant, were not the fruit of an unreasonable search and seizure. The articles were-openly observed. No search was involved. Beacham v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 796. Under the circumstances-the officer was justified in deeming them-stolen goods, and impounding them.” (184 So. 2d 438) In Phillips v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 243, our sister court of the First District considered a case wherein beverage ag…
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
- Kraemer v. State, 60 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1952)
- Ippolito v. State, 80 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1955)