Chavis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chavis v. State

274 So. 2d 544, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7155

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1973

DocketNo. 72-1032

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 So. 2d 544 (Chavis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chavis v. State, 274 So. 2d 544, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7155 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of possession of a narcotic drug, the appellant contends it was error to deny his motion to suppress the evidence, consisting of a quantity of heroin, which it is argued was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure.

The appellant was stabbed by a known person. The wound was substantial. [545]*545While he was in the emergency room of a hospital being treated therefor, lying on a cot or treatment table, a police officer investigating the crime arrived at the hospital. Certain of the victim’s clothing, which had been removed from him, and which was bloodied, was lying at his feet in a plastic bag. The police officer impounded the bloody clothing as evidence. Upon making an inventory search thereof the officer found a package of heroin, which then became the basis of the charge imposed.

In the circumstances presented the trial court ruled correctly in denying the motion to suppress. The action of the police was properly regarded by the court to have been in the course of valid procedure in the investigation of a crime, for the preservation of material evidence, justifying the inventory search of the (clothing) evidence without warrant. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067; Godbee v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 441.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of possession of a narcotic drug, the appellant contends it was error to deny his motion to suppress the evidence, consisting of a quantity of heroin, which it is argued was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure.

The appellant was stabbed by a known person. The wound was substantial. [545]*545While he was in the emergency room of a hospital being treated therefor, lying on a cot or treatment table, a police officer investigating the crime arrived at the hospital. Certain of the victim’s clothing, which had been removed from him, and which was bloodied, was lying at his feet in a plastic bag. The police officer impounded the bloody clothing as evidence. Upon making an inventory search thereof the officer found a package of heroin, which then became the basis of the charge imposed.

In the circumstances presented the trial court ruled correctly in denying the motion to suppress. The action of the police was properly regarded by the court to have been in the course of valid procedure in the investigation of a crime, for the preservation of material evidence, justifying the inventory search of the (clothing) evidence without warrant. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067; Godbee v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 441.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 So. 2d 544, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavis-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack