GUY G. HOLEC, 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.
A vehicle owner was arrested for driving a truck past an agricultural inspection station without stopping, and a subsequent search of the vehicle revealed marijuana. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that even if the vehicle was not technically a truck, the inspector had probable cause to believe it was, making the arrest lawful and the consent to search valid.
The arrest was lawful and the subsequent search was valid because the inspector had probable cause to believe the vehicle was a truck subject to inspection, regardless of whether it actually was a truck as a matter of law. The validity of the arrest does not depend on the vehicle's actual classification.
[1] An arrest is lawful if the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred, even if the defendant is ultimately not guilty of the off…
[2] A lawful arrest does not vitiate a defendant's consent to a subsequent search.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Regardless of whether the vehicle was in fact and law a truck, so that appellant was guilty of driving a truck past the inspection point in violation of Section 570.15(2), there was probable cause for the inspector to believe it was a truck, and that appellant violated Section 570.15(2). The arrest therefore was lawful and it did not vitiate appellant's consent to the subsequent search.”
This establishes the core holding that probable cause, not actual guilt, determines whether an arrest is lawful and valid for consent searches.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant drove a Chevrolet Suburban vehicle past an agricultural inspection station without stopping. An inspector chased and stopped the vehicle, di…
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 Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
Driving a Chevrolet vehicle tradenamed “Suburban,” appellant passed an agricultural inspection station without stopping for inspection. The inspector chased and stopped the vehicle, directed appellant to return to the station for inspection, arrested appellant for the misdemeanor of driving a truck past an inspection station, without stopping for inspection, Section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1977), and, with appellant’s consent — so found by the trial court on competent evidence — searched the vehicle, finding a quantity of marijuana for the possession of which appellant was here convicted and sentenced on his plea of nolo contendere, reserving suppression issues for appeal. Conflicting evidence was submitted to the trial court on the question of whether the vehicle was a truck, “designed or used principally for carrying things other than passengers,” Section 320.01(14), or rather a station wagon designed and used as a passenger vehicle. Noting that General Motors classified the vehicle as a truck, the trial court found it was a truck.
The testimony and photographs reveal that the sturdily constructed vehicle had all appearances of a “truck” from the front seat forward but that the rear area is susceptible to use both for carrying passengers, on conventional bench seats, or alternatively for carrying cargo. This latter area, in the case of appellant’s vehicle, was curtained all around. The relatively heavy construction of the vehicle, its square front end appearance, and its shrouded passenger/cargo space gave the inspector probable cause to believe, as the vehicle passed the station, that it was “designed or used” principally to carry cargo, i. e., that it was a truck.
We need not decide whether, as a matter of law, the vehicle was a truck. Nor must we decide whether there was competent evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the vehicle was a truck. Appellant was not on trial for a violation of Section 570.15(2).
Regardless of whether the vehicle was in fact and law a truck, so that appellant was guilty of driving a truck past the inspection point in violation of Section 570.15(2), there was probable cause for the inspector to believe it was a truck, and that appellant violated Section 570.15(2).
The arrest therefore was lawful and it did not vitiate appellant’s consent to the subsequent search. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); see also Michigan v. DeFillippo, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979).
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and MITCHELL, HENRY CLAY, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State, 388 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)….01(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), and therefore excluded from agricultural inspection under Section 570.-15(l)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (1977). The inspector had probable cause to believe the pick-up truck with a camper was a truck. Holec v. State, 376 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). As to the sufficiency of the inspector’s affidavit that he smelled marijuana to support a search warrant for marijuana, Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1st DCA 1979), is distinguishable. There the search warrant was issue…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Michigan v. DeFILLIPPO, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979)