STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN D. ALLEN, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1981-12-18
No. 81-876
SCHEB, A. C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
407 So. 2d 369 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that deputies were not required to obtain a search warrant to open a purse found in the passenger compartment of a vehicle after a lawful arrest.

Facts & Procedural History

Deputies had probable cause to arrest a passenger and search a van. They discovered a small change purse in the passenger compartment.…

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.

Topics
Automobile Exception To Warrant Requirement Automobile Exception Warrant Requirement Search Incident To Lawful Arrest

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Automobile Exception To Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
HOBSON, Judge.

HOBSON, Judge.

The State of Florida appeals orders granting appellee’s motions to suppress evidence and to suppress confession or admissions. We reverse.

The record shows, and the trial court was aware that the deputies had probable cause to arrest appellee’s passenger and search appellee’s van. The issue before us is whether, after discovering a small change purse in the floor of the passenger compartment, the deputies were required to obtain a search warrant in order to open the purse and examine its contents. The trial court held that “the better procedure would have been the lesser intrusion of seizing [the change purse] and then obtaining a warrant.”

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court decision in New York v. Belton, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) is controlling.1 The Belton court held:

... [W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.

It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment.

101 S.Ct. at 2864.

The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress confession or admissions based on its decision that the evidence was illegally seized.

We reverse the orders granting the motions to suppress evidence and to suppress confession or admissions. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

SCHEB, A. C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the Belton opinion when it granted appellee’s motion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
    …contemporaneous incidents of the lawful custodial arrest of the defendant, a recent occupant of the vehicle, notwithstanding the defendant’s removal therefrom, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); State v. Allen, 407 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Chapas v. State, 404 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); and (2) contrary to the trial court’s belief, the validity of the search as incident to the arrest is unaffected by the fact that the police officers classified their actions a…
  • State v. Moore, 619 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
    …ound opened. In the instant case, Moore’s purse was closed at the time it was discovered. That fact makes no difference, however, since Belton applies to both opened and closed containers. 453 U.S. at 461, 101 S.Ct. at 2864. See also State v. Allen, 407 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (wherein the search of a closed purse discovered on the floor of the passenger compartment of the defendant’s car was found to be proper). Upon arrest of Henderson in the instant case, the deputy had a right to search Henderson’s…
  • State v. Barth, 434 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
    …ch be conducted with a warrant, two exceptions are especially applicable here. One concerns a search incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Allen, 407 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also Jenkins v. State, 426 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The arrest in this case was lawful. The second exception concerns an inventory search conducted in accordance with standard police procedure. See State v. Forbes, 419…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw