Eisenman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eisenman v. State

320 So. 2d 34, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15396

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 1975

DocketNo. 74-1459

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 320 So. 2d 34 (Eisenman 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

Eisenman v. State, 320 So. 2d 34, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15396 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [35]*35used 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.

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

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 [35]*35used 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 So. 2d 34, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenman-v-state-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack