WILLIAM H. SEARS, 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.
William Sears was convicted of breaking and entering based on fingerprint evidence obtained after an arrest for voluntary intoxication. The court reversed, holding that the arrest was illegal because the state could not justify it under any valid Florida statute, requiring suppression of the fingerprints and reversal of the conviction.
The arrest was illegal and the fingerprints must be suppressed. Although the state attempted to justify the arrest retroactively under a different intoxication statute, the record lacked evidence that Sears was causing a public disturbance or endangering the safety of another person or property as required by that statute.
[1] An arrest for voluntary intoxication is illegal if the arrestee was not causing a public disturbance or endangering the safety of another person or property.
[2] Fingerprints obtained as a result of an illegal arrest must be suppressed.
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“the record is devoid of evidence that appellant was causing a public disturbance or endangering the safety of another person or property. Since the arrest cannot be justified under Fla.Stat. § 856.011, it was an illegal arrest.”
Establishes that without statutory justification for the arrest, it was unlawful
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSears was arrested in October 1974 on a charge of voluntary intoxication based on the odor of alcohol and his inability to walk without wobbling. He w…
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 Public Intoxication cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant was adjudged guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and sentenced to a term of from six months to two years with credit for time spent in the county jail. He appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress. We agree with appellant and reverse.
Appellant was arrested on a charge of “voluntary intoxication” and was fingerprinted by the police after his arrest. Subsequently, the state charged him with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Appellant pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the court’s denial of his motion to suppress. See State v. Ashby, Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 225. It was the fingerprints taken after his arrest which linked him to the break-in.
The arrest took place in October, 1974. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the arresting officer testified the arrest was made for “voluntary intoxication,” since appellant had an odor of alcohol on his breath and was unable to walk without wobbling.
Former Fla.Stat. § 856.01, which prohibited voluntary intoxication, was repealed effective July 1, 1973. Chapter-71-132, §§ 17 and 21, Laws of Florida, 1971.
Appellee now seeks to justify the arrest under Fla.Stat. § 856.011, which provides:
(1) No person in the state shall be intoxicated and endanger the safety of another person or property, and no person in the state shall be intoxicated or drink any alcoholic beverage in a public place or in or upon any public conveyance and cause a public disturbance.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.
Of course, the fact that the officer did not describe the offense with technical accuracy would not be a basis upon which to invalidate the arrest. Roberts v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 318 So. 2d 166. However, the record is devoid of evidence that appellant was causing a public disturbance or endangering the safety of another person or property. Since the arrest cannot be justified under Fla.Stat. § 856.011, it was an illegal arrest. Hence, any fingerprints taken as a result thereof must be suppressed. Davis v. Mississippi, 1969, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676; Russo v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 270 So. 2d 428.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lauxman v. State, 402 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…n to suppress. The record on appeal satisfies us that when arrested, appellant was intoxicated and was causing a public disturbance. State v. Holden, 299 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1974); see T.L.M. v. State, 371 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Sears v. State, 319 So. 2d 69 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The arrest was lawful, as was the search incident to the arrest. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). Appellant also contends on appeal that the condition in the order placing him on prob…
-
Cross v. State, 374 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1979)…ls. Finally, it was held to be free of overbreadth problems and confined to situations in which the state may penalize speech as it can other conduct. The two elements that justify application of the statute as limited are set out in Sears v. State, 319 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). It was held there that an arrest could not be justified on the basis of a violation of the disorderly intoxication statute because “the record is devoid of evidence that appellant was causing a public disturbance or endangering t…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (U.S. 1969)
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Russo v. State, 270 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Roberts v. State, 318 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)