Fletcher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fletcher v. State

168 So. 2d 162

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 20, 1964

DocketNo. 64-269

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 So. 2d 162 (Fletcher 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

Fletcher v. State, 168 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

HORTON, Judge.

The appellants were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for the crime of breaking and entering and grand larceny.

On appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants’ sole ground for reversal is the alleged error of the trial judge in denying" appellants’ motion to suppress certain evidence. The evidence sought to be suppressed was allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search of a motel room rented by the appellant James Fletcher but occupied by both appellants who are brothers.

The appellants contend that their convictions were obtained as a result of the introduction of evidence seized incidental to an unlawful search. We have reviewed the testimony taken before the trial judge on appellants’ motion to suppress and find that the evidence (items of jewelry) sought to be excluded was found on the grounds of the motel underneath the window of a room allegedly occupied by appellants. When entrance was gained to the room by [163]*163the police officers, no one was found m the room and no evidence was seized from or in the room. In order to suppress evidence of a crime allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search, there obviously must have been some evidence secured during the course of the unlawful search. The constitutional protection, in this regard, is directed at the attempted use of incriminating evidence gained during the unlawful search of the premises occupied. Assuming, arguendo, that there was an unlawful entry, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion since it was evident nothing was seized as a result of the entry which was offered in evidence against appellants. See Mitchell v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 726. It appears that appellants or one of them threw the jewelry out of the motel window prior to making their exit and before the police officers entered the room.

The judgment of conviction and sentence appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HORTON, Judge.

The appellants were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for the crime of breaking and entering and grand larceny.

On appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants’ sole ground for reversal is the alleged error of the trial judge in denying" appellants’ motion to suppress certain evidence. The evidence sought to be suppressed was allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search of a motel room rented by the appellant James Fletcher but occupied by both appellants who are brothers.

The appellants contend that their convictions were obtained as a result of the introduction of evidence seized incidental to an unlawful search. We have reviewed the testimony taken before the trial judge on appellants’ motion to suppress and find that the evidence (items of jewelry) sought to be excluded was found on the grounds of the motel underneath the window of a room allegedly occupied by appellants. When entrance was gained to the room by [163]*163the police officers, no one was found m the room and no evidence was seized from or in the room. In order to suppress evidence of a crime allegedly obtained as the result of an unlawful search, there obviously must have been some evidence secured during the course of the unlawful search. The constitutional protection, in this regard, is directed at the attempted use of incriminating evidence gained during the unlawful search of the premises occupied. Assuming, arguendo, that there was an unlawful entry, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion since it was evident nothing was seized as a result of the entry which was offered in evidence against appellants. See Mitchell v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 726. It appears that appellants or one of them threw the jewelry out of the motel window prior to making their exit and before the police officers entered the room.

The judgment of conviction and sentence appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 2d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack