RUSSELL A. RIZZO, 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.
Russell Rizzo was arrested during a traffic stop, and his vehicle was subjected to an inventory search that revealed bolt cutters allegedly used in a burglary. The court held that the inventory search was invalid because the arresting officer failed to inform Rizzo that his vehicle would be impounded only if he could not provide a reasonable alternative to impoundment.
The court held that the inventory search was invalid because Deputy Hauck failed to advise Rizzo that his vehicle would be impounded unless he could provide a reasonable alternative, as required by Miller v. State. When the owner or possessor of a vehicle is present at the time of arrest, the arresting officer must provide such notice.
[1] An inventory search of a vehicle is invalid if the arresting officer fails to advise the arrestee that the vehicle will be impounded unless a reasonable alternative is pr…
[2] The requirement to inform an arrestee of alternatives to vehicle impoundment does not apply when the vehicle is unattended, the owner is not reasonably available, or the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when the owner or possessor of a motor vehicle is present, the arresting officer must advise the arrestee that the vehicle will be impounded unless the arrestee can provide a reasonable alternative to impoundment”
Establishes the core legal requirement from Miller v. State that applies to this case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 10, 1980, Deputy Hauck stopped Rizzo's vehicle based on suspicion of burglary. When Rizzo could not produce his driver's license, he was arrest…
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 Well-Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Chief Judge.
Appellant Russell Rizzo contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized during an inventory search of his automobile. We agree and reverse.
On May 10, 1980, Deputy Hauck of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office stopped appellant’s vehicle on the suspicion that appellant had committed a crime. When appellant was unable to produce his driver’s license as requested, the deputy arrested him. He then conducted an inventory search of appellant’s vehicle, and discovered a pair of bolt cutters which were later identified as belonging to the victim of the burglary which Deputy Hauck was investigating. Hauck did not inform appellant that his vehicle would be impounded unless he could provide a reasonable alternative.
The state prosecuted Rizzo for burglary; however, the trial court granted Rizzo’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle on the ground that the initial stop was not justified. The state appealed and this court reversed finding that Deputy Hauck had a well-founded suspicion that appellant had committed a burglary. State v. Rizzo, 396 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). On remand appellánt sought to suppress the evidence revealed by the inventory search on the ground that Hauck failed to advise him that impoundment would not occur if he could provide a reasonable alternative.1 The trial court refused to suppress this evidence, and appellant filed this appeal.
In Miller v. State, 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1981), the supreme court held that when the owner or possessor of a motor vehicle is present, the arresting officer must advise the arrestee that the vehicle will be impounded unless the arrestee can provide a reasonable alternative to impoundment. There are some exceptions, i.e., when a vehicle is unattended, its owner is not reasonably available or is mentally incapacitated. None of the exceptions are involved here.2
Therefore, as it is undisputed that the deputy failed to advise Rizzo that his vehicle would be impounded unless he could provide a reasonable alternative, the search was invalid. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur. . Appellant attacked the inventory search in his initial motion to suppress but, because of its initial order, the court did not review the legality of the search until after our remand.
. In Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla.1981), the supreme court elaborated on its holding in Miller v. State noting that Miller does not mandate that an arrestee must be advised of all available options to impoundment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Judge v. State, 419 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…rth in Miller requires the police to advise an accused that unless a reasonable alternative is offered, his car would be impounded. This was admittedly not done here. This court has adopted the Miller holding in two recent decisions—Rizzo v. State, 412 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) and Stevens v. State, 412 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In Rizzo, we held that inventory search is invalid where police do not advise an arrestee that his vehicle will be impounded unless he can provide a reasonable alternative.…
Authorities Cited
- Sims Crane Serv., Inc. v. Am-Cal Constr. Co., 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1980)
- Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rizzo, 396 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)