Zirpolo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zirpolo v. State

168 So. 2d 681

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 10, 1964

DocketNo. 64-226

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 So. 2d 681 (Zirpolo 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

Zirpolo v. State, 168 So. 2d 681 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, appeals several convictions which were based upon two informations filed by the State Attorney.¹

The entire thrust of this appeal is that the evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was obtained as a result of an illegal search. Appropriate motions to suppress the evidence were made and same were duly objected to at the time of the trial. ' See: Sanchez v. State, 133 Fla. 160, 182 So. 645; Fuller v. State, Fla.1947, 31 So.2d 259. The appellant was arrested without a warrant, ostensibly because of the violation of the vagrancy ordinance of the City of Miami Beach. It is apparent from the record, as conceded by the State in its brief, that the evidence was insufficient to show a lawful arrest by the municipal officers because the offense for which the appellant was apprehended [to wit: vagrancy] did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer. In this connection, see: § 901.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Campbell v. County of Dade, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 708.

Therefore, the arrest not having been legal, the evidence obtained as a result of. [682]*682said arrest should have been suppressed. See: Dickens v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 775; Brown v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d .348 ; 22 F.L.P., Searches & Seizures, § 12. There being no other evidence to support the convictions, they are hereby reversed.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, appeals several convictions which were based upon two informations filed by the State Attorney.¹

The entire thrust of this appeal is that the evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was obtained as a result of an illegal search. Appropriate motions to suppress the evidence were made and same were duly objected to at the time of the trial. ' See: Sanchez v. State, 133 Fla. 160, 182 So. 645; Fuller v. State, Fla.1947, 31 So.2d 259. The appellant was arrested without a warrant, ostensibly because of the violation of the vagrancy ordinance of the City of Miami Beach. It is apparent from the record, as conceded by the State in its brief, that the evidence was insufficient to show a lawful arrest by the municipal officers because the offense for which the appellant was apprehended [to wit: vagrancy] did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer. In this connection, see: § 901.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Campbell v. County of Dade, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 708.

Therefore, the arrest not having been legal, the evidence obtained as a result of. [682]*682said arrest should have been suppressed. See: Dickens v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 775; Brown v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d .348 ; 22 F.L.P., Searches & Seizures, § 12. There being no other evidence to support the convictions, they are hereby reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zirpolo-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack