THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERROL HENRY, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence because the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage.
Police officers searched the defendant's suitcase at the airport and found marijuana. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, and the trial cour…
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 Voluntary Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the State of an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.1 The defendant purchased a ticket at the Miami International Airport for transportation to Los Angeles, California. Shortly thereafter two police officers approached him for questioning and subsequently searched his suitcase in which they found marijuana. Defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana was granted. The State appeals the suppression order. We reverse upon a holding that the order was error under the law as applied in Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and authorities cited therein.
The distinctive factor in this case is that at the suppression hearing the testimony of the two police officers2 as to the occurrences prior to, and at the time of, the search was uncontroverted. A great deal of argument is presented upon the question of whether the defendant was lawfully stopped and questioned. As we understand the issue here involved, the question of the stop and questioning is not relevant to our decision because it is the undisputed testimony of the police officers that the defendant freely and voluntarily consented to a search of his luggage after having been advised of his right to refuse permission for the search. See, State v. Parsons, 389 So. 2d 1207 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); State v. Champion, 383 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); compare, Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
There is no evidentiary basis for the trial judge’s finding that the search was unlawful, and we must conclude that he applied an erroneous rule of law. Therefore, the order granting defendant’s motion to quash the fruits of the search must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
. The appeal is authorized by Section 924.-071(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and Fla.R. App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(B).
. Only the officers testified at the hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ers asked to talk to him, Cavalluzzi v. State, 409 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), and that the trial court correctly ruled that defendant Jones voluntarily consented to the search after having been advised he had the right to refuse. State v. Henry, 390 So. 2d 92 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). Affirmed.…
-
State v. Milwood, 430 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ontext of several airport search cases that a search is lawful where the defendant freely and voluntarily consents to the search after being advised of his right to refuse permission. Jones v. State, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Henry, 390 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (trier of fact may find such warning breaks connection with any prior illegal police activity so as to render subsequent consent un-tainted, uncoerced and truly voluntary in char…
-
State v. Marcelino Gribeiro, 513 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…l right to refuse consent to search and nevertheless voluntarily does so. State v. Martinez, 459 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Milwood, 430 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Howard, 394 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Henry, 390 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Champion, 383 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see also United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). The application of this rule to the quoted findings below requires that the order under r…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Husted v. State, 370 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Champion, 383 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- State v. Parsons, 389 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)