MORRIS REUBEN EISENMAN, 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.
Appeal dismissed for failure to reserve the right to appeal the suppression ruling, though the court noted the search at airport security was lawful under Fourth Amendment doctrine.
An appeal does not lie when a defendant fails to specifically reserve the right to appeal a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress before entering a plea.
[1] A defendant who fails to specifically reserve the right to appeal a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress before entering a guilty or nolo contendere plea waives a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine after cocaine was found in his briefcase during an airport security inspection. He entered a…
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 Airport Security Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress certain incriminating evidence, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of unlawful possession of cocaine, was adjudicated guilty, sentenced, and then brought this appeal. A review of the record fails to reflect defendant’s specific reservation of his right to appeal the ruling on his motion to suppress. Accordingly, upon the authority of and for those reasons expressed in Jackson v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 114, the appeal does not lie.
However, it might be gratuitously observed that had the court reached the merits of this, appeal, namely, whether the cocaine found in defendant’s briefcase as a result of an airport security inspection was obtained through an illegal search and seizure, the judgment of conviction and sentence would have been affirmed. The search in question was proper under the particular facts and circumstances of this case in light of recent decisions recognizing the validity of pre-flight procedures used at airports to prevent hijacking of aircraft. 14 A.L.R. Fed. 286-297; United States v. Skipmith, 5 Cir. 1973, 482 F. 2d 1272.
Appeal dismissed.
MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., and BER-ANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nadeau, 395 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ed, and cocaine was discovered. We affirm. Initially, we confront a necessary question not previously addressed in courts of this state, see Leavitt v. State, 369 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979); Eisenman v. State, 320 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied 336 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1976), or in the United States Supreme Court: Is the preflight search process itself constitutionally permissible? Courts considering the question have uniformly found preflight screening system…
-
Howard v. State, 353 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ithout a reservation of the right to appeal the order denying his motion to suppress. Having failed to reserve the right to appeal, appellant is not entitled to the review he seeks. Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1976); Eisenman [*921] V. State, 320 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Jackson v. State, 294 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. AFFIRMED. CROSS, DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Jackson v. State, 294 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)