SHAY
v.
STATE
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.
Milton Shay appeals his conviction for violating Florida's narcotics law, challenging both the legality of the search of his automobile and the sufficiency of evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that consent to search given to one police officer is sufficient to authorize other officers to conduct the search, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
The court held that permission to search an automobile given to one police officer is sufficient to authorize any other police officer on the force to conduct the search. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as Shay admitted ownership of the shaving kit containing the marijuana cigarettes, there were other admissions about the cigarettes, and the jury found the officers' testimony credible regarding whether Shay was permitted to use the phone.
“permission given one police officer to search an autombile is sufficient for any. other police officer on the force to do so.”
The court's holding on whether consent given to one officer authorizes searches by other officers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton Shay was arrested late Friday night without a warrant for peddling narcotics in the presence of a police officer. He was taken to jail and sear…
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 Possession Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
[*364] TERRELL, Justice.
Milton Shay was informed against, tried and convicted for. violating the narcotics law. Sections 398.21 and 398.22, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $1500 or in default thereof to he confined in the State Penitentiary at hard labor for a period of eighteen months. We are confronted with an appeal from that judgment
Two questions are presented for deter-minátion. (1) Was the search of Shay’s automobile legal ? (2) Was • the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment?
In answer to the first question' it is sufficient to say that Shay was arrested without a warrant for peddling in the presence of a police officer. He was conducted to the jail where he was searched. Evidence was found which made the officers suspicious'that he possessed flárcotics. Permission was requested and given to search his automobile'. ' Two other officers searched it on Sunday morning and found a number' of marijuana cigarettes.
Appellant contends that permission given the first police officer to search his automobile was not sufficient to authorize two other police officers to search it. In our view, permission given one police officer to search an autombile is sufficient for any. other police officer on the force to do so. The delay complained of in this case is not material. Appellant was arrested late Friday night. The-next day was November 11th, a holiday. , The officer who made the arrest was on night duty. The car was searched Sunday morning. The consent was not withdrawn and there is no suggestion that the automobile was tampered with or “loaded.” So far as the record discloses the consent was free ánd voluntary. We have examined Judd v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 190 F. 2d 649 relied on by appellant, but we do not think it concludes the case.
. As to sufficiency of the< evidence to support the verdict, appellant says that ownership of the automobile and possession of the • cigarettes was. not conclusively shown. Appellant admitted ownership of the shaving kit in which some of the cigarettes were found. There were other admissions about the cigarettes that supported the verdict. Appellant also contended that he was not permitted use of' the phone to interview a lawyer from Friday to Tuesday, but the arresting officers flatly contradict this and the jury believed their story. No constitutional rights are shown to have been invaded.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS,' JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Range v. State, 156 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…by an officer without a warrant cannot later complain that a search and seizure violated his constitutional rights. 29 Fla.Jur., Search and Seizure, section 38, page 200; see also Escobio v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 766; Shay v. State, Fla. 1954, 70 So. 2d 363; James v. State, Fla. 1955, 80 So. 2d 699. We reiterate that sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not questioned. No testimony was given on the issue under consideration except that of the two police officers; this, therefore, stan…
-
Rinehart v. State, 114 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…, and cases cited therein. True, he was under arrest at the time he gave his consent, but being under arrest does not in and of itself deprive his consent of the free and voluntary quality which is essential. In the case of Shay v. State, Fla. 1954, 70 So. 2d 363, our Supreme Court approved as voluntary the consent to search an automobile while accused was under arrest. The fifth question has to do with possession of burglarious tools, and defendant urges that no burglary having been committed and the defen…
-
Bretti v. State, 192 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…officers in searches following arrest was properly denied. The searches were made with con [*7] sent. Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So. 2d 818. It was not made to appear that appellant’s consent to search was coerced. See Shay v. State, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 363. Appellant contended the consent which he gave to search his car and apartment for the stolen jewels and furs did not operate as a consent to search otherwise, and that the court should have suppressed the evi-dentiary item represented by another pe…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Judd v. United States, 190 F.2d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1951)