KENNETH ALLEN RALEIGH, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Kenneth Raleigh was convicted of marijuana possession after police conducted a warrantless intrusion into his vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the officer's search of the car interior and trunk violated the Fourth Amendment because the initial intrusion to 'sniff' for marijuana was unlawful and the subsequent discovery of marijuana was fruit of that poisoned tree.
The court held that the officer's warrantless intrusion into the car to search for marijuana evidence was unlawful and violated the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of this unlawful search—including the marijuana residue from the interior and the entire trunk search—must be suppressed as fruit of the poisoned tree.
[1] A police officer may lawfully stop a vehicle to investigate suspected erratic driving that poses a risk on the highway.
[2] An officer's warrantless intrusion into a vehicle to search for evidence, without probable cause or consent, is unlawful.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 intrusion into the car in order to sniff around or otherwise search was a war-rantless and unwarranted intrusion by the officer into a place he had no right to be.”
Establishes the core holding that the officer's entry into the vehicle without warrant or consent was unlawful.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 1:00 A.M., a police officer stopped Raleigh based on a report he was driving erratically and suspected of being an intoxicated driver. During the s…
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 Odor Of Marijuana As Probable Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of more than 100 pounds of marijuana. The question is whether the court erred in refusing to suppress certain of the evidence.
At 1:00 A.M. the police officer was told by another officer the appellant was driving in a manner to make him a suspect intoxicated driver. The police officer stopped appellant and was of the opinion he was intoxicated but smelled no odors usually associated with alcoholic beverages. The officer noticed two other persons in appellant’s car and, after questioning appellant outside his car for a while, walked over to the car and asked the others to get out. After the others exited, the officer leaned into the car and detected an odor of burning marijuana. He arrested appellant for driving under the influence of a narcotic and began a search of the car which turned up burnt residue in the ash tray with a marijuana odor. He questioned appellant about the marijuana and asked for consent to search the trunk of the car. Appellant did not reply. The officer had found a key which appeared to be a Ford trunk key underneath a rubber mat on the driver’s side of the car. He opened the trunk to the appellant’s Ford and found a load of marijuana.
To justify this search it must be either a search pursuant to a warrant, a consent search, a search incident to a lawful arrest, a probable cause without warrant search or an inventory. There was no warrant and there was no consent. Mere acquiescence to apparent authority is not necessarily consent. Ingram v. State, 364 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Additionally, the officer testified he asked for permission to search the trunk and was not given consent. This is, of course, reasonable to believe since the trunk contained in excess of one hundred pounds of marijuana.
For us to analyze are the initial stop and detention; the officer’s intrusion into the appellant’s car by leaning into it and “sniff-searching;” the search and seizure of items from the interior of the car; and, finally the search and seizure in the trunk.
The officer properly stopped the appellant in his ear and detained him to determine if the errant driving was a risk on the highway. State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975).
The intrusion into the car in order to sniff around or otherwise search was a war-rantless and unwarranted intrusion by the officer into a place he had no right to be. St. John v. State, 356 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971). Had he detected the odor of marijuana outside the car and coupled with the unsteady behavior of the appellant together with appellant’s reported erratic driving then we might have reached a different conclusion. The officer did not have a right to go into the vehicle to search for evidence. He did not testify he was conducting an inventory of the car and in fact had not arrested appellant before entering his car. The seizure of the marijuana cigarette butts was a direct result of the unlawful intrusion and search and that evidence must be suppressed.
The seizure of the key from the interior of the car and the search of the trunk are a direct result of and directly follow the unlawful police actions and must also be disapproved both as “fruit of the poisoned tree” and as a search of the trunk on its own without consent or probable cause. The arrest did not justify the search of the trunk. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
The conviction, sentence and order denying the motion to suppress are reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, C. J., and BURNSTEIN, MIETTE, K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989)…on’t you need a warrant” when officers approached containers and luggage); Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (no consent when defendant allowed officers to look in camper but apparently denied access to containers); Raleigh v. State, 365 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (no consent where occupants acquiesced to warrantless search of vehicle’s trunk where officer opened trunk himself without asking permission). In the present case, the arresting officer plainly stated that he had no actual conse…
-
State v. Fuksman, 468 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…esults on similar, but at least arguably distinguishable, facts. Compare Carney; Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Raleigh v. State, 365 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (finding no consent) with Martin; Bannister v. State, 434 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Price, 363 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1979) (finding consent).…
-
Wilhelm v. State, 515 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…44 (Fla. [*1345] 1952); State v. Ogbum, 483 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Campbell, 438 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bascoy v. State, 424 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Gray, 366 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Raleigh v. State, 365 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Diggs v. State, 345 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. Turner, 345 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Porchay v. State, 321 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Kelly v. State, 321 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); State v. Holmes, 25…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Ingram v. State, 364 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- ST. John v. State, 356 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)