TERRY MILLER, A/K/A TERRY DALE MIERS, 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.
Terry Miller was convicted of marijuana possession after a warrantless search of his RV-tagged camper vehicle at an agricultural inspection station. The court reversed his conviction, holding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because officers lacked statutory authority to search RV-tagged vehicles and failed to obtain a warrant despite having ample opportunity to do so.
The warrantless search was illegal and violated the Fourth Amendment. Although the statute at the time purported to grant inspection officers access to motor vehicles, RV-tagged vehicles were explicitly exempted from the inspection requirement. Even assuming officers had authority to stop the vehicle, the complete absence of exigent circumstances required them to obtain a search warrant, which they failed to do despite having ample time and proximity to the courthouse.
[1] A warrantless search of a vehicle is presumed to be illegal in the absence of exigent circumstances.
[2] Agricultural inspection statutes must be strictly construed, and officers cannot exceed the authority granted by the legislature.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In such situation, a warrantless search is presumed to be illegal.”
Establishes the presumption that warrantless searches violate the Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller drove his RV-tagged camper past an agricultural inspection station in Suwannee County, Florida, where he was stopped by a road guard inspection…
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 Exigent Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
MELVIN, Judge.
The parties will be referred to as they were positioned in the court below. Defendant has perfected his appeal from the final judgment and sentence imposed upon him based upon a jury verdict finding him to be guilty of possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis as charged in the information. Prior to trial, the defendant timely filed his motion to suppress any evidence as to any contraband found in the vehicle being driven by him and to which was at tached an RV license tag. Following a warrantless search of such vehicle, a quantity of marijuana was found which was the subject matter of the prosecution.
The defendant drove the motor vehicle in question past an agricultural inspection station in Suwannee County, Florida, was chased and apprehended by a road guard inspection officer, who demanded the privilege of looking and inspecting the inside of such camper vehicle. This request was denied. Other officers were called to the station; one or more of the officers smelled outside the areas of the camper and perceived that they detected the odor of marijuana. Permission to search having been again refused, the back door of said camper was broken open and was searched. The contraband referred to was found.
At the time of the occurrences referred to, the applicable law of Florida with reference to the right of inspection officers to have access to motor vehicles was stated in Section 570.15(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), wherein it is provided that the Commissioner and his various designated officers and agents:
“. . . shall have full access at all reasonable hours to all:
7. Motor vehicles, other than private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow or any vehicle bearing an RV license tag',” (emphasis supplied)
Section 570.15(l)(b) provides, in substance, if the owner or person in charge of a vehicle subject to such inspection shall refuse the officer the right to inspect, then the officer may apply for a search warrant as is provided by law relating to the obtaining of search warrants in other cases or that he may conduct a search of such vehicle without a warrant pursuant to Section 933.19, Florida Statutes. The provisions of Section 933.19 are not applicable as there was a complete absence of any probable cause to suspect that the motor vehicle apprehended was carrying any contraband. We note that the RV license tag vehicle referred to in subsection (7) was wisely eliminated from the provisions of Section 570.15 by Florida Statutes (1978). This case, however, must be decided by the law in effect at the time of the alleged assertion of right on the part of the agricultural inspection agent to stop and ultimately bring about the warrantless search of the exempt vehicle.
If through some process it may be concluded that the agricultural inspection agent had the right to stop the defendant and require him to return to the inspection station, there is a complete absence of exigent circumstances that would relieve the officers of their duty to obtain the search warrant that the inspection statute contemplates. They did not even attempt to obtain one. In such situation, a warrantless search is presumed to be illegal. Approximately two hours intervened between the time of defendant’s apprehension and the warrantless search of his RV tagged vehicle. See Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1977). At all times pertinent, this vehicle was detained at an inspection station which, the court was advised at oral argument, is less than ten miles from Live Oak, the county seat of Suwannee County.
We emphasize here that we do not have for consideration a statute in which the State of Florida has asserted its police power to conduct agricultural inspections of all vehicles capable of transporting any agricultural product and through such type agricultural inspection preserve the State’s interest in maintaining a high quality agricultural product offered to the general public. Such subject is one that is ripe for legislative consideration. It is, however, not a matter proper for judicial creation.
The order of the trial court denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence relating to contraband found and removed from his vehicle is reversed, and the judgment and sentence here reviewed are reversed with directions that the defendant be discharged.
McCORD, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980)…th amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures as well as unreasonable searches. Detaining a driver and his vehicle for an inordinate amount of time is an unreasonable seizure. Cf., Seuss v. State, 370 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Miller v. State, 368 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). If the inspector is unsure of whether sufficient probable cause exists, he may detain the vehicle and seek assistance as was done in this case. The seizure in this case was not unreasonable. Although close to two hours had pass…
-
Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…the highway proceeded with the search at the station without asking appellant’s further permission. Further, appellant here implicated himself in no way on the return trip to the inspection station. As this court recently noted in Miller v. State, 368 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the agricultural inspection station statute, Section 570.15, is “ripe for legislative consideration.” In the absence of further legislative guidance, however, we believe that the warrantless search of the contents of the vehicle…
-
Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…2d 635 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). In the past, this court has impliedly recognized that the probable cause standard intended by Section 570.-15(l)(b) is one of traditional probable cause. Seuss v. State, 370 So. 2d 1203 (Fla.lst DCA 1979); Miller v. State, 368 So. 2d 943 (Fla.lst DCA 1979); Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, we are bound to interpret the warrant requirement contained in Section 570.15 in accordance with the statute’s clear meaning. Although it may be constitutionally p…
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
- Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1977)