ROBERT D. LUBASH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant challenged his conviction for cocaine possession, arguing that the cocaine was obtained through an illegal search following an unlawful arrest for obstructing traffic at an airport. The court affirmed, holding that the arrest was lawful because the traffic obstruction was a continuing offense committed in the officer's presence, making the subsequent custodial search legal.
The arrest was lawful because willful obstruction of traffic is a continuing offense that was committed in the officer's presence, where the officer could detect the offense through sight and hearing. The custodial search performed after the lawful arrest was therefore also legal, and the cocaine evidence was properly admitted.
[1] A misdemeanor offense is committed in the presence of an officer if the officer can detect the offense by sight and hearing, even if the offense is continuing in nature.
[2] A custodial search conducted after a lawful arrest is legal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The offense of willful obstruction of traffic was continuing in nature and therefore was committed in the officer's presence where the officer could detect the offense by use of his sight and his hearing.”
Establishes that continuing offenses satisfy the 'in the officer's presence' requirement for warrantless arrest, making the arrest lawful.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested without a warrant at Miami International Airport for willful obstruction of traffic, a misdemeanor. An officer spotted appellan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of cocaine. The trial court accepted the plea, entered a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and placed the appellant on probation for eighteen months.
The appellant seeks review of the court’s finding and the order of probation, an appealable order. See, Delaney v. State, Fla. 1966, 190 So. 2d 578.
It is contended by the appellant that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure of the appellant which followed an unlawful arrest.
Appellant was arrested, without a warrant, at the Miami International Airport on a charge of willful obstruction of traffic, a misdemeanor. The arresting officer testified that he spotted Lubash and a woman walking at the downstairs ramp at the airport near the car rental booths. Behind them was a car parked about five or ten feet away in such a manner as to obstruct traffic.
The officer testified that he recognized the couple from an incident thirty or forty minutes earlier on the upstairs ramp at the airport at which time he had written a traffic citation on the same automobile. The officer stated that Lubash had crum pled the ticket up and thrown it at the officer as he drove the car away.
After placing the appellant under arrest for the second offense, the officer walked him to the police substation at the airport and then searched him. The officer discovered a small bottle in Lubash’s coat which turned out to contain cocaine.
Appellant argues that the evidence was illegally obtained due to the fact that the arrest for obstructing traffic was not lawful because the offense was not committed in the presence of the officer. See, Fla.Stat. § 901.15(1) and (5), F.S.A. (1973). We find little merit to this point. The offense of willful obstruction of traffic was continuing in nature and therefore was committed in the officer’s presence where the officer could detect the offense by use of his sight and his hearing. See, Kirby v. State, Fla.App.1969, 217 So. 2d 619.
The arrest therefore was lawful and the custodial search made thereafter by the officer was likewise legal. For the reasons stated, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lubash v. State, 304 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 296 So. 2d 565. ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Framil v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & Officer Douglas Stephenson, 414 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1979); Weissman v. K-Mart, 396 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lubash v. Stale, 296 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).…
-
Castillo v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Kirby v. State, 217 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Googe v. Publix Super Mkt., Inc., 190 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1966)