ROOSEVELT FRENCH, JERRY MILBROOK, APPELLANTS,
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.
Roosevelt French and Jerry Milbrook appealed their convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny following a bench trial. The court reversed their convictions because the trial court improperly admitted oral and written confessions that were derived from illegally seized tangible evidence.
The trial court erred in admitting the confessions. Once the court found the tangible evidence was obtained through unlawful search and seizure, it should have precluded introduction of oral and written confessions made after confrontation with that illegally seized evidence, as such confessions constitute 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'
“Evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible against one who has standing to complain.”
Establishes the foundational exclusionary rule applicable to the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Miami police sergeant stopped appellants, believing them to be in custody from previous juvenile court incarceration. Upon learning they had been re…
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 Illegal Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants seek review of their convictions and sentences, entered by the trial court pursuant to a non-jury trial, wherein they were found guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny and petit larceny. The instant appeals have been consolidated for appellate purposes.
The record reveals the following: that a sergeant of the City of Miami Police Department stopped the appellants because he was under the impression they were in custody, pursuant to a previous one-year incarceration by the juvenile court. Upon ascertaining they had been released, he offered to give them a ride home. They got into the car and the sergeant asked what was in a package the appellant [French] was carrying. He then took the package and when he did a camera fell out. He then pulled back the appellant’s [Milbrook] coat and took some boots that were in Mil-brook’s possession. Thereupon the appellants were arrested.
An information was filed against each appellant, charging them with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny, and grand larceny. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial and the trial court, pursuant to appellants’ motion, suppressed the introduction into evidence of the tangible evidence. However, the trial court permitted into evidence, over appellants’ objection, oral statements of the appellant Milbrook and written statements of both appellants. The trial terminated in the convictions and sentences appealed herein.
*669Under the circumstances, it appears that we are compelled to reverse these convictions. Once the trial court found that the tangible evidence, obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, could not be introduced into evidence it should have precluded the introduction into evidence of the oral and written confessions of the appellants, which were obtained after the police official confronted them with the tangible evidence which had been illegally seized. Evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible against one who has standing to complain. See: Gildrie v. State, 94 Fla. 134, 113 So. 704; Leveson v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 361; State v. Leveson, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 283; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933; Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726. Evidence which is located by the police as a result of information and leads obtained from illegally seized evidence, constitutes “the fruit of the poisonous tree” and is equally inadmissible in evidence. See: Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319; United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 69 S.Ct. 824, 93 L.Ed. 1042; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441. Statements made by a defendant when confronted by the police with the fruits of an illegal search constitute “the fruit of a poisonous tree” and are inadmissible in evidence. See: Wong Sun v. United States, supra; Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed. 2d 171; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840; People v. Bilderbach, 62 Cal.2d 757, 44 Cal.Rptr. 313, 401 P.2d 921 (1965); State v. Kitashiro, 48 Haw. 204, 397 P.2d 558; People v. Rodriguez, 11 N.Y.2d 279, 229 N.Y.S.2d 353, 183 N.E.2d 651. The trial court having concluded that the discovery of the tangible evidence was as a result of an unlawful search, the introduction into evidence of the oral and written confessions [which were forthcoming from the defendant within a very short time of the unlawful search and seizure of the tangible evidence] should have been precluded. See: Outten v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 594 (opinion filed March 17, 1967).
Therefore, the convictions, judgments and sentences here under review are hereby reversed, with directions to discharge the defendants from the cause.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. Rheiner, 297 So. 2d 130 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); State v. Neri, 290 So. 2d 500 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Betancourt v. State, 224 So. 2d 378, 381 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); French v. State, 198 So. 2d 668 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). The only exception recognized by the cases in which a prior illegal arrest or search would not render a subsequent consent, confession or admission involuntary is where there has been a clear and unequivocal break in the chain of…
-
Pomerantz v. State, 372 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…aining suitcases. “Evidence which is located by the police as a result of information and leads obtained from illegally seized evidence, constitutes ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree’ and is equally inadmissi [*111] ble in evidence.” French v. State, 198 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). As such, the search and seizure conducted by the police as to the second and third suitcases was unreasonable.4 IV The final issue in this case is whether the search of the defendant’s person was “unreasonable” within the…
-
D'Agostino v. State, 310 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1975)…ited States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319, 24 A.L.R. 1426 (1920) ; Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939) ; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) ; French v. State, 198 So. 2d 668 (Fla.App. 3d 1967). See Pitler, “The Fruit of The Poisonous Tree” Revisited and Shepardized, 56 Cal.L.Rev. 579 (1968). . Fla.Stat. § 901.15.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961)
- KER et ux. v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1963)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1920)
- Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1963)
- United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793 (U.S. 1949)
- Gildrie v. State, 94 Fla. 134 (Fla. 1927)
- State v. Harris Leveson, Jr., 151 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1963)
- Harris Leveson, Jr. v. State, 138 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Outten v. State, 197 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)