Legal Question in Criminal Law in Florida

Roth v. State

Email me if you need more help. Case is too long to post.

Casey Ebsary

Toll Free 1-877-793-9290

Dennis Allen ROTH, Appellant,

v.

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

On the morning of February 21, 1977, believing there was a violation of the Laws of Florida pertaining to seafood quality control, Florida Marine Patrol Officers approached The Dudley, a shrimp boat at anchor in Charlotte Harbor, boarded it, conducted a search without a warrant and seized a large quantity of marijuana from the hold. Several individuals on board The Dudley, including appellant, were arrested.

Thereafter, appellant was charged by a two count information with feloniously bringing cannabis into Florida and felonious possession of cannabis in excess of 100 pounds, violations of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. Appellant pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress all evidence on the ground that it was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. An evidentiary hearing on appellant's motion to suppress was held on June 20, 1977. In sum, the Florida Marine Patrol Officers testified they believed at the time they boarded The Dudley that shrimp or other seafood was unlawfully on board and/or that there was a violation of seafood quality control. The officers also testified as to their reasons for arriving at this belief. Testimony was also given regarding the seizure of the quantity of marijuana from The Dudley's hold.

At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial judge stated, "Gentlemen, I don't know why we even had this hearing. The statute gives the officer the authority to go in. . . . I think there is no question they were obligated to search that boat. The statute gives them the power to do so. And to differ with the attorneys, it doesn't say 'probable cause' at all. Those words are not used in the statute. It says they have the authority without a search warrant to enter if they believe that fish or any saltwater products are taken or kept on board they have that authority. . . . I will deny your motion." Subsequently, a written order denying the motion to suppress evidence was entered.

Appellant then changed his plea of not guilty to nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the issue of the denial of his motion to suppress. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to a term of 365 days in the Lee County Jail.

...........

In view of this disposition of this cause, we need not address the other arguments raised by appellant.

Page 797

Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment and sentence appealed from and REMAND this cause for a new hearing on appellant's motion to suppress in accord with the standards set forth in this opinion.