IVY PRESTON HUTCHINSON, 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 court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was not error because the arrest was lawful and the search was incident to that arrest.
Defendant was arrested on a warrant for sale of narcotics in the rear living quarters of his shoe parlor. Officers observed him through an open partit…
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 Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of possession of marijuana. Sentence of confinement in the state penitentiary for three years was imposed. Appealing, the defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by arresting officers, on the ground that the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful arrest.
The defendant was arrested by a City of Miami detective and a federal narcotics agent on a warrant for his arrest for sale of narcotics. The arrest took place in the rear section of his shoe parlor, used by the defendant as living quarters. That portion of the store was partially separated from the front portion by a partition extending three fourths of the width of the premises. Upon entering and proceeding to the rear of the (open) shoe parlor or store, the fact that the partition left the rear portion open *486to the extent of one fourth of the width of the premises enabled the officers to observe the defendant seated on a couch there. They then made the arrest, and upon search of the area found the marijuana which subsequently became the subject of the defendant’s motion to suppress.
The appellant relies on Benefield v. State, Fla. 1964, 160 So.2d 706. We do not consider that case applicable or controlling on the facts presented here. Nor was § 901.19 (1), entitled “Right of officer to break into building,” required to be invoked. This was not an instance of a closed premises, nor one where admittance was refused. The shop was open to the public, and the rear portion in which the storekeeper lived was not disconnected or separated by a door or other closure. On the facts disclosed by the record we are not persuaded that the trial judge committed error in denying the motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farrington v. State, 207 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…he possession of the lottery tickets prior to the search which revealed additional lottery paraphernalia. See Boynton v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 536; Joyner v. City of Lakeland, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 118; see also Hutchinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 485. Appellant’s third point which urges that the evidence is insufficient is likewise without merit. See Lopez v. State, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 807. The appeal from the conviction upon Count I is affirmed and this appeal is transferred to the circuit co…
-
Lillis v. State, 335 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hutchinson v. State, Fla. App.1967, 201 So. 2d 485 and United States v. Vargas, 9th Cir. 1971, 436 F. 2d 1280.…
Authorities Cited
- Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)