JEFFREY LUXENBURG, 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.
Jeffrey Luxenburg appealed his conviction for drug possession, challenging the legality of a search that discovered marijuana in a plastic bag inside a box in his truck. The appellate court reversed, finding that the inspector's search of the bag exceeded the limited consent given by Luxenburg to open only the truck and box.
The search was illegal because Luxenburg's consent was limited to opening the truck and the box, and his actions in no way authorized the inspector to grab and tear open the bag. The inspector did not obtain permission, did not smell marijuana, and lacked probable cause to justify the warrantless search of the bag.
[1] Consent to search is limited to the scope of the consent given.
[2] A search conducted beyond the scope of consent is illegal.
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“Appellant's consent was limited each time to opening the truck and the box; his actions in no way authorized Shope to grab the bag and tear it open.”
Establishes the core holding that consent is strictly limited to the specific acts authorized and does not extend to additional intrusive searches.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1978, an agricultural inspector stopped Luxenburg's truck at a Hamilton County inspection station for failure to have the vehicle inspected. …
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 Waiver Of Fourth Amendment Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal, to a charge of possessing more than 100 pounds of cannabis with the intent to sell. Only one of his points merits discussion, and on that point we reverse.
In April 1978 appellant passed a Hamilton County agricultural inspection station. Inspector R. M. Shope pursued and stopped him for failure to have his vehicle inspected. Shope asked appellant to open the rear of the truck and to open one of a number of boxes in the back. Appellant voluntarily did so, and Shope saw a black plastic bag in one of the boxes.
On Shope’s instructions, appellant returned to the inspection station. While paperwork related to appellant’s failure to stop for inspection was being filled out, Shope once again asked appellant to open the truck and the same box. Shope testified at the suppression hearing that appellant said something to the effect that the boxes contained electronic equipment; after opening the box, appellant “shuffled the paper [inside the box] around . . . .” At that point, Shope said “let’s quit dillydallying around,” reached in and grabbed the bag, slit it open with a knife, and found marijuana inside the bag. The inspector never indicated at the hearing that he smelled marijuana or otherwise had probable cause to believe the bag contained contraband. Appellant testified he opened the truck and box because he thought he was being required to by “an officer of the law.”
Appellant contends the search of the bag was illegal because he did not consent to it, and we agree. Appellant’s consent was limited each time to opening the truck and the box; his actions in no way authorized Shope to grab the bag and tear it open. Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1st DCA 1978). Shope did not smell marijuana; see Flynn v. State, 374 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). The inspector did not ask for permission to take the bag out of the box or to examine it. In Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1st DCA 1979), the defendant refused a request to inspect boxes contained in his truck, but a supervisor, without further request, reached inside one of the boxes, discovering marijuana. As we said in Rose, at 448, “[w]hile it is true that appellant was cooperative in opening the camper top to his truck, it is equally true that he had indicated his lack of consent to a further search of the closed boxes.”
Although the refusal of consent in this case is not as explicit as in Rose, Gonterman, and Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla.1st DCA 1979), we nevertheless find the search improper. Appellant’s actions by no means suggested he voluntarily allowed Shope to tear into the plastic bag. As we said in Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla.1st DCA 1976), waiver of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures must be clearly established:
A distinction is recognized . . .between submission to the apparent authority of an officer and unqualified consent. Mere acquiescence in a search is not necessarily a waiver of a valid search warrant. That the consent was limited is inferable from appellant’s actions after opening the box the second time. By his order to “stop dilly-dallying around” and by his immediate seizure of the bag without permission and without probable cause to do so, the inspector effectively gave appellant no time to object and went beyond the consent to search he had been granted.
REVERSED.
MILLS, C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989)…1980) (no consent where defendant opened tote bag for airport officer to look in, but where officer spontaneously reached in ■ and [*468] grabbed a nasal inhaler containing contraband), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (opening vehicle to agricultural inspector did not authorize him to slit open bag with knife); Moorehead v. State, 378 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (consent for officer to look at pool cue did not authorize unscrewing of cue to…
-
State v. Thompson, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1981); State v. Carney, 423 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Moorehead v. State, 378 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
-
State v. Fuksman, 468 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…determination is fact-bound, the cases reach varied results 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.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Rosier v. State, 374 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)