Title: State Ex Rel. Carty v. Purdy
Citation: 240 So. 2d 480
Docket Number: 40211
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 1970

240 So. 2d 480 (1970)
STATE of Florida, On the Relation of Autley CARTY, by His Mother, Eudean Carty, On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner,
v.
E. Wilson PURDY, As Sheriff and Director of Public Safety of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, His Agents, Servants and Employees, Respondent.
No. 40211.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 7, 1970.
Rehearing Denied November 24, 1970.
Bruce S. Rogow, Miami, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner here seeks to compel respondent sheriff, his agents, servants and employees to comply with the mandatory requirements of Fla. Stat. §§ 901.06 and 901.23 (1969), F.S.A. requiring that persons arrested with or without a warrant be presented before a magistrate "without unnecessary delay" for a hearing as authorized by Fla. Stat. Ch. 902, F.S.A. Petitioner, a minor, through his mother purports to represent a class composed of all persons arrested by respondent Purdy and his agents who, upon arrest, are not being presented to a magistrate in violation of the above statutes.
The pleadings establish that the petitioner was arrested August 20, 1970, taken into custody, booked into the Dade County jail, and released into his mother's custody at a special bond hearing on the following day. On the day of filing for issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, he had not yet been presented to a magistrate pursuant to the aforementioned statutes.
On the 21st day of September, 1970, the day of the oral presentation of this cause, the petitioner through his attorney filed here an affidavit advising the Court that a preliminary hearing had been accorded petitioner September 17, at which time the charges against petitioner were dismissed and that he was no longer in custody. Under such circumstances, there is no purpose to be served by this Court ordering the issuance of the alternative writ. The application therefor is hereby denied.
*481 This case again brings to this Court's attention the failure of the law enforcement officers of this state to observe the requirements of these statutes which have been part of the statutory law of this state for many decades. The sanctions we have heretofore imposed and the pointed criticism that we  and the Attorney General of Florida  have made of law enforcement officers for failure to comply with these statutes have obviously been ineffective. Therefore we now approve and adopt as the views of this Court the following excerpt from the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Drew in Dawson v. State, 139 So. 2d 408, 422 (Fla. 1962):
In the specially concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Thornal in Dawson v. State, supra, the McNabb-Mallory Rule [See McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S. Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819 (1942)] was discussed, and he pointed out that such rule was not applicable to confessions obtained by Florida law enforcement officers. We deem it appropriate  and timely  to observe here that we can no longer countenance a continual and, it seems, deliberate course of conduct designed to frustrate not only the clear legislative mandate but the decisions of this Court in this area. We could, of course, adopt the McNabb-Mallory Rule, or even expand it. Such action may be compelled by a continuance of this conduct. If it is and if the courts are then required to order the release of obviously guilty criminals, the responsibility will then be on those who have failed in their duty to enforce the laws as written by the Legislature and interpreted by this Court.
We further point out that violation of the law or misconduct in office may well warrant drastic action by the Chief Magistrate of this State.
ERVIN, C.J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.