HAROLD FARMER, 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.
This case reviews whether a search incident to an arrest for public drunkenness, which uncovered marijuana in a matchbox, was lawful. The court held that the search was a valid incident to the arrest, and the subsequent possession charge was proper.
Yes, the search of the matchbox was a lawful search incident to the arrest for public drunkenness. The subsequent prosecution for marijuana possession was therefore proper.
“On the facts disclosed the search was incident to his arrest for public drunkenness, and the subsequent charge and prosecution for possession of marijuana found on such search were proper under § 901.21(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the search and subsequent charge.
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 arrested for public drunkenness. During the arrest, police found a matchbox in his possession. Upon opening the matchbox, they disco…
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 Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged in an information with possession of marijuana. He was tried without a jury, convicted and sentenced to three years’ confinement. On appeal it is contended the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence consisting of marijuana obtained by the police upon arresting him for public drunkenness. The search revealed a match box which, when examined, was found to contain marijuana. Appellant contends the search could not lawfully extend to opening the match box found in his possession, and therefore the search was not incident to the arrest, and the arrest was incident to the search. We can not agree. On the facts disclosed the search was incident to his arrest for public drunkenness, and the subsequent charge and prosecution for possession of marijuana found on such search were proper under § 901.21(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Brown v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 479.
No reversible error having been made to appear the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…DEKLE, Justice. Petition for certiorari is before us in this cause asserting conflict with Farmer v. State, 208 So. 2d 266 (3rd DCA Fla.1968), and Smith v. State, 155 So. 2d 826 (2nd DCA Fla.1963), regarding the question of proper search and seizure. We find conflict which vests jurisdiction under [*2] Fla.Const. art. V, § 4, F.S.A., to review the Fourth District Court…
-
Gustafson v. State, 243 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…preceded the search with little or no indication that other relevant circumstances were taken into consideration. This categorical approach has been used to uphold searches incident to arrests for public drunkenness (Farmer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 266), vagrancy (Donar v. State, Fla.App.1970, 236 So. 2d 145; Schuster v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 30; Hanks v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 49), and minor traffic violations (Self v. State, supra; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 826,…
-
State v. Blanco, 339 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…presence of an officer. Section 901.15, Florida Statutes. The evidence at issue here is admissible in the prosecution of an offense not contemplated at the time of the arrest. See generally Brown v. State, 46 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1950); Farmer v. State, 208 So. 2d 266 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Accordingly we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress evidence. REVERSED. McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 46 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1950)