THEODORE STEWART, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
  …t court to obtain a search warrant for the premises. The warrant was properly issued and, upon the attendant search, the remaining contraband was lawfully seized. See, e. g., State v. Hutchins, 269 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); and Ludwig v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). There is no question in our mind about the legality of the search and seizure of the contraband in this case. However, a more difficult problem arises in regard to appellant’s conviction for possession of the contraband. None of…
• State v. Bell, 249 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
  …would have been justified. If entry under those circumstances was proper we fail to see where such entry is rendered invalid if it later turns out that some other crime is found to have been committed. See for example Ludwig v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 898. It would seem to be an unreasonable deterrent to the effective and reasonable crime prevention process to have required officer McCarthy to knock on the door of a business establishment at 3:30 in the morning, after he had observed a light burning…
• State v. Lewis, 225 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
  …n my view, as giving full import to the constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches. I would affirm the Order appealed from. . Jones v. United States (1960), 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Ludwig v. State (Fla.App.3d 1968), 215 So. 2d 898; and Treverrow v. State (Fla. App.1st 1966), 184 So. 2d 473; id., on cert., (Fla.1967), 194 So. 2d 250. . E. g., Constitution of Florida Decl. of Rights, § 22, F.S.A. . In Florida, the development appears to begin with a misconstruction, I believe…

  ← 1 / 2 →