Dixon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dixon v. State

98 So. 2d 397

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1957

DocketNo. A-107

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 2d 397 (Dixon 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

Dixon v. State, 98 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

MURPHREE, JOHN A. H., Associate,’ Judge.

Appellant' was convicted-' of possession' and transportation of' moonshine whiskey.' He seeks reversal on the ground .'that •> the arrest without warrant was illegal hence the search of his automobile, incidental thereto, invalid.

Starry, a district supervisor of the state beverage department, in company with two other supervisors, around, five in the afternoon discovered 5 gallons-' of moonshine whiskey in a burlap bag hidden in a palmetto clump three miles West of Ocala at the end of a dirt road about a quarter mile pff !state highway-tyenty sqyent;. He drove to Ocala fbr"‘radio:'equipment and other assistance. Returning around six P.M., he secreted two of. his,supervisors^ within .sight of, the. bag' of whiskeyana took his stand on the paved highway np^r-by. Around 7:30 he received’ by-rqdio.othe prearranged signal of-,the approach of an automobile. Shortly thereafter he was advised by radio' that- a-- man: had- picked up the bag of whiskey and-was returning to the main highway in a black 1950 Chevrolet. A few minutes later a car of that description entered the main highway from the dirt road.'- Starry: trailed :him;a-:short distance, 'stopped and- arrested the- driver-) and forcibly searched -his yéldele, finding what" appeared to be the-.s’ame bag/pfrnoqn~; shine whiskey. he: had ¡located: earlier, ■•th^.t; afternoon. Starry had no warrant for the arrest or search. !

The circumstances related were ample to justify a reasonable beliéf oh Starry’s'part that- a- felony was being committed in his presence, which, gave him the right, and-imposed upon him the duty to arrest without warrant and search the vehicle as an incident thereto. It cannot be said that [398]*398Starry acted on mere suspicion under the facts of this case.

, Appellant also .contends that Starry, as a beverage supervisor, was clothed only with the authority of a private citizen in making the arrest, but Section 561.07, F.S. A., expressly ■ provides “Such supervisors shall have all the power of deputy sheriffs in the enforcement of the beverage laws íjí * »

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting Chief Judge, and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge, concur.

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

MURPHREE, JOHN A. H., Associate,’ Judge.

Appellant' was convicted-' of possession' and transportation of' moonshine whiskey.' He seeks reversal on the ground .'that •> the arrest without warrant was illegal hence the search of his automobile, incidental thereto, invalid.

Starry, a district supervisor of the state beverage department, in company with two other supervisors, around, five in the afternoon discovered 5 gallons-' of moonshine whiskey in a burlap bag hidden in a palmetto clump three miles West of Ocala at the end of a dirt road about a quarter mile pff !state highway-tyenty sqyent;. He drove to Ocala fbr"‘radio:'equipment and other assistance. Returning around six P.M., he secreted two of. his,supervisors^ within .sight of, the. bag' of whiskeyana took his stand on the paved highway np^r-by. Around 7:30 he received’ by-rqdio.othe prearranged signal of-,the approach of an automobile. Shortly thereafter he was advised by radio' that- a-- man: had- picked up the bag of whiskey and-was returning to the main highway in a black 1950 Chevrolet. A few minutes later a car of that description entered the main highway from the dirt road.'- Starry: trailed :him;a-:short distance, 'stopped and- arrested the- driver-) and forcibly searched -his yéldele, finding what" appeared to be the-.s’ame bag/pfrnoqn~; shine whiskey. he: had ¡located: earlier, ■•th^.t; afternoon. Starry had no warrant for the arrest or search. !

The circumstances related were ample to justify a reasonable beliéf oh Starry’s'part that- a- felony was being committed in his presence, which, gave him the right, and-imposed upon him the duty to arrest without warrant and search the vehicle as an incident thereto. It cannot be said that [398]*398Starry acted on mere suspicion under the facts of this case.

, Appellant also .contends that Starry, as a beverage supervisor, was clothed only with the authority of a private citizen in making the arrest, but Section 561.07, F.S. A., expressly ■ provides “Such supervisors shall have all the power of deputy sheriffs in the enforcement of the beverage laws íjí * »

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting Chief Judge, and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 2d 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-state-fladistctapp-1957.