LEO JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Leo Jones appealed his jury conviction for possession of heroin, contending that the search leading to discovery of the drugs was illegal and that race discrimination affected his prosecution. The appellate court affirmed, finding the search lawful where the contraband fell voluntarily from the appellant's clothing during a lawful arrest.
The search was lawful because the contraband fell voluntarily from the appellant's clothing in the presence of officers without any personal search being conducted. The race discrimination argument was not supported by the record. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
[1] Probable cause to stop a vehicle exists when the driver engages in speeding, providing a lawful basis for an arrest.
[2] Contraband that falls from a defendant's clothing in the presence of officers is legally obtained without a search.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While the officers may have been over zealous at the beginning of the incident which led to the arrest for a traffic violation, insofar as the search of the appellant was concerned, the search was perfectly legal. The contraband fell from the appellant's clothing in front of the officers. No personal search was necessary.”
Establishes the holding that the search was lawful despite officers' initial overzealousness, because the contraband fell voluntarily from clothing without personal search.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice investigating a burglary saw a Dodge convertible leaving a seafood market and initiated pursuit. The driver sped to 85 m.p.h., giving officers …
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 Auto Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty of possession of narcotic drugs, to wit: heroin, the appellant’s counsel has injected a race issue which we think is not supported by the record.
The police officers were investigating a burglary of a seafood market in Jacksonville, Florida, and in seeing a Dodge convertible leaving a seafood market with three occupants therein, the officers started pursuit. While the officers did not have any probable cause to stop the Dodge at first, the driver of the Dodge started speeding, getting up to as much as 85 m. p. h., which gave the officers probable cause to stop the car and arrest the driver. After the arrest, the officers saw some shrimp in the trunk of the car and placed the appellant and the other occupant of the Dodge car under arrest for burglary and auto theft. About this time the appellant appeared to become excited and attempted to turn about, a struggle between the officers and the appellant ensued. A small matchbox fell from the appellant’s pants or belt, it was picked up by an officer and found to contain 14 decks of heroin.
Appellant contends that the search was illegal and that the trial court was in error in not suppressing the matchbox of heroin.
*551We cannot agree with the appellant. While the officers may have been over zealous at the beginning of the incident which led to the arrest for a traffic violation, insofar as the search of the appellant was concerned, the search was perfectly legal. The contraband fell from the appellant’s clothing in front of the officers. No personal search was necessary.
The other point raised by appellant was without merit.
The search being legal, the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pineda v. State, 332 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…a.1967, 195 So. 2d 550 and State v. Padilla, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 309; Moore v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 262; Riley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 266 So. 2d 173; Chavis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 544; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 550.…
-
Jones v. State, 280 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 276 So. 2d 550. ROBERTS, Acting- C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.…