BETTY JONES, 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.
Betty Jones appeals the denial of her motion to suppress a handgun discovered during her detention in county jail. The court affirmed the suppression denial, holding that Jones voluntarily disclosed and surrendered the gun, and that the subsequent illegality of her detention did not require suppression as fruit of an illegal search.
The court held that the gun should not be suppressed because: (1) Jones voluntarily informed the matron of the gun and surrendered it, meaning no search occurred; (2) assuming arguendo a search did occur, Jones voluntarily consented to it; and (3) the subsequent illegality of her detention did not require suppression because the county judge ordered the detention in good faith, not as a pretext to search.
[1] Evidence voluntarily surrendered by a defendant to authorities is not the product of an illegal search or seizure.
[2] A defendant's voluntary consent to a search negates any claim that the evidence obtained was the fruit of an illegal detention.
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“Ms. Jones having informed the jail authorities and then having turned over the pistol to them, we only can conclude that there was no search of her person in either the legal or vernacular sense of the word.”
Establishes that voluntary disclosure and surrender of the firearm by Jones negated any search
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 12, 1974, Jones appeared in county court and was ordered to 10 days detention in county jail. While in the holding cell, she voluntarily infor…
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 Voluntary Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Betty Jones, appeals an order denying her motion to suppress.
On June 12, 1974 defendant appeared in county court and after giving her responses to several questions asked by the trial judge, was ordered to 10 days detention in the county jail. While in the holding cell of the county jail, Ms. Jones called one of the matrons and informed the matron that she (Betty Jones) had a gun in her purse and thereupon turned it over. Ultimately, defendant was released from detention because she had been illegally incarcerated. Subsequent to her release, defendant was charged by information with (1) carrying a concealed firearm, and- (2) introducing contraband into jail based upon the incident cited hereinabove. In response thereto, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence (the gun) as being the product of an unreasonable search and seizure in that her detention subsequently was determined to be illegal. After a hearing was held thereon, the trial judge denied the motion. Thereafter, defendant Jones entered a plea of nolo contendere to count I of the information and the prosecution announced a nolle prosequi as to count II. The trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the defendant on probation for two years.
Defendant-appellant argues that the motion to suppress the pistol taken from the defendant should have been granted as the evidence was the fruit of an illegal detention.
First, Ms. Jones having informed the jail authorities and then having turned over the pistol to them, we only can conclude that there was no search of her person in either the legal or vernacular sense of the word. See United States v. Bailey, 447 F. 2d 735 (5th Cir. 1971). Assuming arguen-do that this occurrence could be categorized as a search, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Ms. Jones initiated the search by informing the matron that she had a gun in her possession and, therefore voluntarily consented thereto. See United States v. Bailey, supra; Moss v. State, Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 327; State v. Custer, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 287.
Last, it does not necessarily follow that because defendant’s incarceration in the county jail subsequently proved to be illegal that the subject pistol should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal detention. For in the cause sub judice, the county judge ordered in good faith that defendant be incarcerated for 10 days in the county jail and thus it cannot be said that this detention was patently a pretext on which ta make a search and seize the pistol. Cf. Shaffer v. State, Fla.App.1974, 295 So. 2d 677.
Accordingly, the order denying the motion to suppress must be and hereby is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M. J. v. State, 399 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…s the question open as to whether the appellant voluntarily “invited” or consented to the search herein. This question is appropriate because an invitation to search is essentially [*998] the equivalent of consenting to a search. See Jones v. State, 313 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The appellant’s invitation came after ten minutes of questioning and just before the cannabis cigarette was produced. Questioning continued while the appellant repeatedly denied possessing cannabis. He was threatened with a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Custer, 251 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- United States v. Bailey, 447 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Moss v. State, 247 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Shaffer v. State, 295 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)