Case Name: COURINGTON v. STATE
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1954-07-30
Citations: 74 So. 2d 652
Docket Number: 
Parties: COURINGTON v. STATE.
Judges: TERRELL, THOMAS, MATHEWS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 74
Pages: 652–656

Head Matter:
COURINGTON v. STATE.
Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.
July 30, 1954.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1954.
T. C. Cork, Clermont, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and J. Ernest Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLEDGE, Associate Justice.
In November, 1952, the appellant was involved in an automobile accident in Lake County, Florida. Shortly after the accident, a deputy sheriff, en route to Tavares with a prisoner, appeared on the scene. The deputy, after observing the scene and the appellant, placed the appellant under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Subsequently, at the scene, certain witnesses to the accident advised the deputy, in effect, that the appellant put some papers in the trunk of his car.
The deputy then searched the trunk of the vehicle and found some punch boards, cash money in a paper sack and some tickets or slips of paper which it was claimed, on the basis of expert testimony, were lottery tickets.
The appellant was charged and convicted of possession of gambling implements. At the trial appellant sought unsuccessfully to suppress the evidence found in the trunk of his cár on the grounds that the search and seizure was unlawful.
In this appeal, appellant raises a number of questions. However, the only question we- feel called upon to consider is whether or not the trial court committed error in refusing to suppress the evidence.
The search of the trunk of appellant's car was made without a warrant. Hence its legality turns upon whethér or not it was incident to a lawful arrest and appropriate to the reasonable requirements for making effective a lawful arrest. State ex rel. Stillman v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 So. 230, 234; Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376, 378.
' We think that under the facts and circumstances of this case the search of the trunk of appellant's car was not appropriately incident to making effective a lawful arrest for driving while intoxicated. Our view is bolstered by the testimony of the deputy which' indicates that the search of the trunk would not have been made but for the statements of witnesses relating to appellant's putting some papers in the trunk.
In so- ruling, it ought well be added that the facts and circumstan'ces here reveal that it was not impracticable or impossible for the officer to obtain a search warrant if he possessed sufficient information to justify the issuance of one.
It follows that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
Reversed.
TERRELL, THOMAS, MATHEWS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
DREW, J., not participating.