Farmer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farmer v. State

208 So. 2d 266, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5739

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1968

DocketNo. 67-736

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 208 So. 2d 266 (Farmer 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

Farmer v. State, 208 So. 2d 266, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5739 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged in an information with possession of marijuana. He was tried without a jury, convicted and sentenced to three years’ confinement. On appeal it is contended the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence consisting of marijuana obtained by the police upon arresting him for public drunkenness. The search revealed a match box which, when examined, was found to contain marijuana. Appellant contends the search could not lawfully extend to opening the match box found in his possession, and therefore the search was not incident to the arrest, and the arrest was incident to the search. We can not agree. On the facts disclosed the search was incident to his arrest for public drunkenness, and the subsequent charge and prosecution for possession of marijuana found on such search were proper under § 901.21(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Brown v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 479.

No reversible error having been made to appear the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged in an information with possession of marijuana. He was tried without a jury, convicted and sentenced to three years’ confinement. On appeal it is contended the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence consisting of marijuana obtained by the police upon arresting him for public drunkenness. The search revealed a match box which, when examined, was found to contain marijuana. Appellant contends the search could not lawfully extend to opening the match box found in his possession, and therefore the search was not incident to the arrest, and the arrest was incident to the search. We can not agree. On the facts disclosed the search was incident to his arrest for public drunkenness, and the subsequent charge and prosecution for possession of marijuana found on such search were proper under § 901.21(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Brown v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 479.

No reversible error having been made to appear the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 2d 266, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmer-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack