McCombs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCombs v. State

328 So. 2d 870, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13992

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1976

DocketNo. 75-680

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 328 So. 2d 870 (McCombs 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

McCombs v. State, 328 So. 2d 870, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13992 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property. Tangible evidence (i. e., the stolen property) introduced by the State over objection had been the subject of a pretrial motion to strike, hearing on which was held during trial. The tangible evidence was taken from the person of appellant while he was in custody as a result of a warrantless arrest for which the arresting officer did not have probable cause. The arrest was illegal and thus the tangible evidence was the fruit of an illegal search of appellant’s person. It was error to deny the motion to suppress. Upon remand such motion should be granted.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.

WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property. Tangible evidence (i. e., the stolen property) introduced by the State over objection had been the subject of a pretrial motion to strike, hearing on which was held during trial. The tangible evidence was taken from the person of appellant while he was in custody as a result of a warrantless arrest for which the arresting officer did not have probable cause. The arrest was illegal and thus the tangible evidence was the fruit of an illegal search of appellant’s person. It was error to deny the motion to suppress. Upon remand such motion should be granted.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.

WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 So. 2d 870, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccombs-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack