MARTIN D. GRAY, 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.
Martin Gray appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny and petit larceny. The court affirms his conviction, holding that the search of the automobile incidental to his lawful arrest was valid and that the seized evidence was properly admissible at trial.
Even assuming Gray had standing to object to the search under the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Jones and Ker, the search of the automobile was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest, making the seizure of evidence proper and admissible at trial.
“the search of the automobile herein was incidental to a lawful arrest; therefore, any search and seizure which followed was valid and proper”
Establishes the court's holding that searches incidental to lawful arrest do not require standing analysis and are automatically valid
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was a passenger in an automobile stopped by Miami police for driving without lights. Officers noticed a typewriter and adding machine on the back…
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 With Intent To Commit Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant below, seeks review of a judgment entered pursuant to jury verdicts finding him guilty on two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny and petit larceny, for which he was sentenced to two concurrent five year prison terms.
The appellant was a guest in an automobile which was stopped by City of Miami Police Officers for driving at night without lights. While a traffic citation was being issued to the driver, one of the officers noticed a typewriter and adding machine on the back seat of the car and questioned the men about the ownership of these items. The answers aroused the officers’ suspicions and after conducting a further investigation the officers determined that the information given was improper, incorrect and misleading. The driver and appellant were then placed under arrest for violation of Miami City Code Section 43-30, which provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to obstruct or oppose any police officer of the city or other legally authorized person in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, or to knowingly furnish, give, or make any false, misleading or unfounded report to a police officer which interferes with or hinders the proper operation of a police officer’s duty or his investigation. (Code 1945, ch. 35, § 19; Ord. 5112, § 1, 9-1-54.)”
Following the arrest, the police impounded the automobile, searched it and seized the typewriter, adding machine and an assortment of dentist’s tools as evidence. Appellant’s motion to suppress this evidence was denied.
The driver of the car admitted the commission of the crime and testified for the State in the trial of the appellant. The jury found the evidence sufficient to convict the appellant.
The appellant argues that the law in Florida, as enunciated in Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190, which holds that the defendant must have some proprietary interest in the premises searched in order *869to have standing” to object to the search, has been changed by the United States Supreme Court in two landmark decisions, Ker v. State of California, 1963, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 and Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697.
Assuming, arguendo, that appellant has “standing” to object to the search, there is no reason for us to decide if the Jones and Ker cases, supra, should be followed in the instant matter, inasmuch as the search of the automobile herein was incidental to a lawful arrest; therefore, any search and seizure which followed was valid and proper, Section 901.21, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Pegueno v. State, Fla. 1956, 85 So.2d 600; Herring v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 807; and the evidence resulting from the search was admissible in the present case.
For the reasons stated herein, the order of the trial court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…s reference, the only such time to our knowledge that this has been done. . See also, Fletcher v. State, 65 So. 2d 845 (Fla.1953); Gibson v. State, 180 So. 2d 685 (3d DCA Fla.1965); Chippas v. State, 180 So. 2d 355 (3d DCA Fla.1965); Gray v. State, 177 So. 2d 868 (3d DCA Fla.1965); Lyons v. Town of Lake Park, 153 So. 2d 21 (2d DCA Fla.1963); Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (1st DCA Fla.1959); Bozeman v. State, 102 So. 2d 648 (2d DCA Fla.1958).…
-
State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…7 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730. Cf. Preston v. United States, 1964, 376 P.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777. . E. g., Self v. State, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 333; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.3d 1966, 192 So. 2d 78. See also Gray v. State, Fla.App.3d 1966, 177 So. 2d 868. . Annot., 10 A.L.R.3d 314, 322. . “A purpose or motive alleged, or an appearance assumed, in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs ; excuse; pretense; cover; semblance.” Webster’s Now International Dictionary of the English Langua…
-
Gustafson v. State, 243 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…ense cheek, but because there was no subterfuge, he concurred in the result. . Fletcher v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 845; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 685; Ohippas v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So. 2d 355; Gray v. State, Fla. App.1965, 177 So. 2d 868; Lyons v. Town of Lake Park, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 21; Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 864; Bozeman v. State, Fla. App.1958, 102 So. 2d 648.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960)
- KER et ux. v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1963)
- Mixon v. State, 54 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1951)
- Herring v. State, 121 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Pegueno v. State, 85 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1956)