GWENDOLYN ROGERS HICKS, 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.
Gwendolyn Rogers Hicks appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of valium following a no-contest plea, challenging the warrantless searches of her purse and a brown leather pouch found in her car. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed her conviction, holding that the searches violated her Fourth Amendment rights because they lacked proper justification under the inventory search exception and infringed upon her superior expectation of privacy in personal luggage.
The court held that both searches violated the Fourth Amendment because they did not satisfy the requirements for valid inventory searches and infringed upon Hicks's superior expectation of privacy in personal luggage. The inventory search exception requires reasonable searches conducted pursuant to standardized procedures, not as a pretext for invalid searches; here neither requirement was met, and the searches were pretextual.
[1] Inventory searches of vehicles are permissible exceptions to the warrant requirement only if they are reasonable and conducted in accord with standardized police procedur…
[2] A warrantless search of personal luggage found within a vehicle is unreasonable when the owner has a superior expectation of privacy in the luggage, absent exigent circum…
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“Inventory searches are generally approved as an exception to the warrant requirement only if they are reasonable and are conducted in accord with standardized police procedures, and not as a pretext for otherwise invalid searches.”
Establishes the legal standard for valid inventory searches under the Fourth Amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice arrested Hicks for driving while intoxicated and transported her and her purse to jail. While a trooper secured her car for towing, he discover…
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 Protective Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hicks appeals a judgment of conviction following a no contest plea to a charge of unlawful possession of valium, reserving the right to appeal the court’s denial of her motion to suppress controlled substances found during warrantless searches of her purse and a brown leather pouch in her car. Denial of the motion to suppress was error, and we reverse.
Florida Highway Patrolman Cranford arrested Hicks for driving while intoxicated, handcuffed her, and transported her and her purse to the county jail. Meanwhile, Cranford called trooper Horne to stay with appellant’s car until it could be towed off the interstate highway to a service station near the jail. As he approached the car to roll up a window and shut the door tightly, Horne spotted a bank deposit bag on the floor in front of the driver’s seat. He looked in it to see if it contained anything valuable and when he found coins inside, thought'it reasonable to open and search a brown leather pouch or “purse” next to the bag. This pouch contained some loose capsules. Horne relayed his findings to Cran-ford at the jail, and Cranford then searched appellant’s purse, which contained valium, pentobarbital and methaqualone.
The state attempts to justify these searches as valid “inventory” or “protective” searches for which no warrant is required under the state and federal constitutions. Inventory searches are generally approved as an exception to the warrant requirement only if they are reasonable and are conducted in accord with standardized police procedures, and not as a pretext for otherwise invalid searches. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Chuze v. State, 330 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
These searches did not meet those requirements. There is no indication in this record that either search, particularly the purse search at the station, was conducted pursuant to standard highway patrol procedures. Moreover, the searches were unreasonable in a constitutional sense because though the police may have had a legitimate interest in securing the car for towing and inventorying its contents, Hicks had a countervailing and superior expectation of privacy in her personal luggage, such as the leather pouch searched within the car. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Cobb v. State, 378 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Cf. Knight v. State, 298 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Trooper Horne did not even complete an inventory list of the car’s contents, belying the inventory rationale offered here by the state.
Corresponding or perhaps greater privacy rights existed in the contents of appellant’s purse. Ulesky v. State, 379 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). The inventory basis for this search at the jail also was pretextual: trooper Cranford admitted that one reason he decided to search the purse was his belief, based on the news from trooper Horne, that it contained contraband. See also Benton v. State, 329 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
The search of appellant’s purse was very different from the protective jailhouse search of a defendant’s travel bag upheld in Delatte v. State, 384 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In Delatte, the police had reason to believe the bag, to which the defendant would have access, contained a weapon. Here trooper Cranford testified he had no reason to think appellant’s purse contained a weapon; and appellant, still handcuffed, had no control over the contents of the purse. See Ulesky, supra, 379 So. 2d at 126. Absent these considerations, there was no reason the purse could not have been sealed, inventoried and stored, if necessary, as a unit.
REVERSED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McLAUGHLIN, 454 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…n of the motion to suppress in light of this opinion and that of the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. .See Lovett v. State, 403 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Hicks v. State, 398 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Agnew v. State, 376 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); G.B. v. State, 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Tolbert v. State, 348 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). . Chimel v. Californi…
-
State v. Forbes, 419 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…s a recognized exception to the requirement of a warrant as long as it is conducted in accordance with standard police procedure. Where such a search is used as a pretext to seize evidence illegally, that evidence will be suppressed. Hicks v. State, 398 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, unlike Hicks, the record discloses nothing indicating a pretextual search proscribed by the fourth amendment. In Carl v. State, 160 Ga.App. 464, 287 S.E. 2d 379 (Ct.App.Ga.1981), the police arrested Angela Carl following…
-
Roche v. State, 447 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…s search of the flight bag conducted by Deputy Pease at the station was unconstitutional pursuant to Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.3d 744 (1981), Knight v. State, 398 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and Hicks v. State, 398 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).1 We disagree. In Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), this court recognized that it is “constitutionally permissible for the Legislature to impose an administrative probable cause standard for a warrant.” Shor…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976)
- Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1979)
- Felda Douglas Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Ulesky v. State, 379 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Chuze v. State, 330 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Benton v. State, 329 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Cobb v. State, 378 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Delatte v. State, 384 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)