Case Name: Willie Doyle WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee; Ennis Lee KIMBRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee; Thomas Edward BASSHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-03-01
Citations: 210 So. 2d 497
Docket Number: Nos. 67-112, 67-113, 67-114
Parties: Willie Doyle WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Ennis Lee KIMBRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Thomas Edward BASSHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 210
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
Willie Doyle WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Ennis Lee KIMBRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Thomas Edward BASSHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 67-112, 67-113, 67-114.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.
March 1, 1968.
Rehearings Denied June 13, 1968.
Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant, Kim-brell.
Lee R. Horton, Jr., Public Defender, and Robert L. Trohn, Asst. Public Defender, Lakeland, for appellants, Williams and Bassham.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendants contend that certain items which were admitted into evidence over their objections were the product of a search and seizure made subsequent to an unlawful arrest and therefore were inadmissible at trial.
Several times before this court has upheld arrests made pursuant to Florida's vagrancy statute. See Echols v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 89; Sutherland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 236; Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487. We find that the facts in the instant case place it within the realm established by the above-mentioned cases, and that the defendants' arrest for vagrancy was lawful. Since the arrest was legal then the seizure made incident thereto was also legal and the items seized were admissible. Ball v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 56.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.