JACK EVANS AND WILLIAM MARSHALL LONG, APPELLANTS,
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.
Two defendants challenged the warrantless search of their vehicle and home where marijuana was found, arguing that officers had time to obtain search warrants. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions, finding that unlike the personal luggage in United States v. Chadwick, the marijuana packed in garbage bags did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court held that the warrantless search was lawful and the house search was not tainted by it. The marijuana packaged in garbage bags did not demonstrate the same reasonable expectation of privacy that Chadwick protected for personal luggage, and the facts were distinguishable from Chadwick because the vehicle had been in movement.
[1] A warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible when officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, even if there was an opportunity to obtain…
[2] The expectation of privacy in personal luggage is distinct from the expectation of privacy in a vehicle, particularly when the contents are packaged in a manner suggestin…
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“since there existed ample opportunity for the officers to have obtained a search warrant before the seizure, the marijuana was illegally obtained”
Appellants' principal argument that warrantless search was unconstitutional despite probable cause when time existed for warrant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Evans and Marshall Long were arrested after their automobile was stopped and a warrantless search conducted. Officers discovered marijuana …
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 Expectation Of Privacy In Luggage cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellants entered pleas of nolo conten-dere to possession or conspiracy to possess more than 100 pounds of cannabis, while expressly reserving their right to appeal the denial of their motion to suppress. They argue that even though the searching officers may have had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of their vehicle, conducted immediately after the automobile was stopped and appellants were arrested, since there existed ample opportunity for the officers to have obtained a search warrant before the seizure, the marijuana was illegally obtained. They argue also that the prior taint of the vehicle’s warrantless search affected the later search by warrant of their house in which additional marijuana was seized.
Appellants rely primarily upon United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), in which the United States Supreme Court held that despite the existence of probable cause to believe marijuana was contained in defendant’s footlocker, which had been shipped by train from San Diego to Boston, the war-rantless search of the footlocker, conducted at a federal building an hour and a half after it had been taken by government agents from the open trunk of a parked automobile at the train station, was illegal because, in the absence of any exigent circumstances supporting the need for an immediate search, the persons had a reasonable expectation of privacy to contents within their personal luggage.
We conclude that the facts in Chadwick are sufficiently distinguishable from those involved here. In Chadwick, the vehicle searched had not been in movement; as a result the Supreme Court took special pains to note that the footlocker’s brief contact with the vehicle made inapplicable principles controlling warrantless searches carried out after moving vehicles had been stopped. The Court specifically distinguished the case from Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), which had sustained a warrant-less search of an automobile at the station house after officers had probable cause to, and did, arrest the vehicle’s occupants. More importantly, the focal point of Chadwick was that defendants, by placing their personal effects within a footlocker, had manifested an expectation that their contents would be free from public examination. The Court analogized the situation to the similar expectation of privacy of one who locks the doors of his home against possible intruders.
The marijuana involved here was loaded not into appellants’ luggage, but rather was placed in garbage bags — a method, one officer testified, which was consistent with the practice, common among dealers in narcotics, of packaging large quantities of marijuana. We conclude that appellants’ actions failed to show a similar manifestation of privacy as were those shown in Chadwick since here one could reasonably infer from the facts, i. e., the large amount of marijuana seized and the way it was packaged, that the marijuana was intended not for appellants’ personal use but rather for resale. Compare Mahoney v. State, 300 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
There being no error in the court’s denial of the motion to suppress both the evidence taken from the vehicle and the house, the convictions are
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. State, 373 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…in the trunk, and we note that it has been held [*403] that possession of a large quantity of marijuana in itself is sufficient to justify the inference that it was being held for distribution or resale, rather than for personal use. Evans v. State, 368 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We are inclined to agree with appellant’s contention that search of the briefcase inside the car was unlawful without a warrant. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) held that a locked…
-
K.J. v. State, 557 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…circumstantial evidence of the juvenile’s intent to sell the marijuana. The large amount of marijuana and the way it was packaged supports the inference that it was not intended for defendant’s personal use but rather for resale. See Evans v. State, 368 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (inference that marijuana was not for personal use but rather for resale arises from the way it was packaged); K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (packaging in addition to quan [*135] tity of drugs is circumstantial…
-
Carlton Wade Dennis v. State, 373 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…warrant, the evidence seized should be suppressed. However, in this case, once the contraband was legally discovered in the truck, consent or a search warrant was not required for the further inspection of the truck at the jail. See Evans v. State, 368 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Also compare Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), in which the court sustained a war-rantless search of an automobile at the station house after officers had probable cause to, and did, arrest…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977)
- Mahoney v. State, 300 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)