WAYNE R. DENEHY AND MICHAEL S. PITOSCIA, APPELLANTS,
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.
Appellants Denehy and Pitoscia were convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to sell after a search at an agricultural inspection station. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the agricultural inspection statute and affirmed their convictions, finding the search was valid based on voluntary consent.
The Court held that section 570.15 does not violate equal protection because the classification distinguishing between agricultural trucks and passenger vehicles has a rational basis. The Court also held that the trial judge properly concluded the appellants voluntarily consented to the search of the truck based on the totality of circumstances, and no coercive factors were present.
[1] A statute providing for agricultural inspection access to trucks but not passenger vehicles, and requiring trucks and vehicles pulling trailers to stop for inspection, ha…
[2] The voluntariness of consent to a search is a question of fact determined from the totality of the circumstances.
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“We hold that the distinctions drawn by the statute, providing for inspection access to trucks used in agriculture but not to passenger vehicles, and requiring trucks and vehicles pulling trailers to stop for inspection, have a rational basis.”
Establishes that the agricultural inspection statute satisfies constitutional equal protection requirements under rational basis review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 16, 1978, Denehy and Pitoscia passed an agricultural inspection station in a pickup truck with a camper without stopping. An inspection off…
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 Cannabis With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before the Court on appeal from judgments of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County. The court passed upon the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(bXl), Fla.Const. The appellants were jointly informed against and convicted of the crime of possession of more than one hundred pounds of cannabis with intent to sell, a felony proscribed by section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1977).
On January 16, 1978, Wayne Denehy and Michael Pitoscia, travelling in a pick-up truck with a camper mounted on the bed, passed an agricultural inspection station without stopping for inspection as required by section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1977).
An inspection officer pursued and stopped them about two miles north of the station. The inspector asked Pitoscia, who was driving, for a look inside the truck. Denehy got out and opened the rear hatch. The officer looked in with a flashlight, seeing a box with a plastic covering. He told the appellants they would have to return to the inspection station, which they did. At the inspection station, the inspection officer asked if he could further inspect the truck. One of the appellants opened the truck and the inspector stepped up on the bumper and looked under the plastic covering. He saw some burlap-covered bundles and smelled cannabis. The officer arrested Pitoscia for failure to stop for inspection and called a sheriff’s deputy. The deputy sheriff found cannabis in the truck and arrested the appellants for possession.
The appellants moved to dismiss the information and to suppress evidence, contending that they were stopped on the authority of an unconstitutional statute, section 570.15, and that the warrantless search of the truck was unlawful. At the hearing on the motions, the testimony was in conflict on the issue of consent. The judge believed the officer rather than the appellants, and denied the motions.
After the denial of their motions, the appellants entered pleas of nolo contendere to the charge of possession in excess of one hundred pounds, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motions.
The appellants contend that section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), denies equal protection by establishing a classification having no rational basis. We hold that the distinctions drawn by the statute, providing for inspection access to trucks used in agriculture but not to passenger vehicles, and requiring trucks and vehicles pulling trailers to stop for inspection, have a rational basis. Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980).
The appellants contend that the motion to suppress should have been granted because the evidence in question was obtained through an illegal search. After hearing testimony, the trial judge concluded that the appellants consented to the search. The question of whether the consent was voluntary “is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 92 S.Ct. 1168, 31 L.Ed.2d 230 (1973).
Under ordinary circumstances the voluntariness of the consent to search must be established by preponderance of the evidence. See McDole v. State, 383 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973).
Since there was no evidence of coercion such as prolonged detention or a threat to obtain a search warrant, Seuss v. State, 370 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), or repeated requests for consent, Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Sarga v. State, 322 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), the trial judge under the applicable standard of proof, could properly conclude from the officer’s testimony that the appellants voluntarily consented to the search of the truck. Dennis v. State, 373 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
We therefore affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (48 total)
-
Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1992)…uct of the illegal police action. Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643, 647 (Fla.1980); Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22, 28-29 (Fla.1975). Otherwise, the voluntariness of the consent must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216.(Fla.1980); Elsleger v. State, 503 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 511 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1987). The only fact in favor of finding Reynolds’ consent to the search voluntary is the report of one of the police officers, introduced into evidence,…
-
Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003)…atements to Noble. Furthermore, to the extent that Taylor’s argument can be construed as an attack on his consent to the searches or the voluntary nature of his statements to Noble, we conclude that he is not entitled to relief. In Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla.1980), we held that “[u]n-der ordinary circumstances the voluntariness of the consent to search must be established by preponderance of the evidence.” In analyzing whether a defendant’s consent to a search is voluntary, a court should con…
-
Saavedra v. State, 622 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1993)…v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2797, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ("The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits the warrantless entry of a person’s home, whether to make an arrest or to search for specific objects.”). . In Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla.1981), we held that ”[u]nder ordinary circumstances the voluntariness of the consent to search must be established by preponderance of the evidence." Because the issue in the instant case addresses the question of a minor granting consent…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980)
- Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Sarga v. State, 322 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Seuss v. State, 370 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Carlton Wade Dennis v. State, 373 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)