STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY MARK FILTER, 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 evidence seized during an inventory search of a vehicle must be suppressed if the owner was not offered alternatives to impoundment.
Police searched a vehicle after arresting the driver and found illegal drugs. The officer conducted the search as a standard inventory procedure follo…
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 Inventory Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order suppressing physical evidence seized from appellee’s vehicle. We affirm.
After stopping appellee’s vehicle and arresting appellee, police searched the interior of the vehicle. The officer described the search as a standard inventory procedure pursuant to impoundment, and further testified that he did not advise appellant that there were alternatives to impoundment. The inventory produced methylphenidate, for which appellee was charged with illegal possession under chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979).
When an arresting officer intends to impound a vehicle, the police must advise the owner or possessor of that vehicle that the vehicle will be impounded unless the owner or possessor can provide a reasonable alternative to impoundment. Miller v. State, 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1981); Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla.1981). On appeal, the state argues that the search may be justified as pursuant to appellee’s arrest. Chapas v. State, 404 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We hold that the facts below support the lower court’s finding that the search was an inventory search pursuant to impoundment and that no alternatives to impoundment were permitted. The resulting contraband must thus be suppressed, pursuant to Miller v. State, supra, and Sanders v. State, supra.
AFFIRMED.
RYDER, A. C. J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Long v. State, 422 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…ld provide a reasonable alternative, the impoundment was improper. See also Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla.1981); K.J.B. v. State, 420 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2d DCA 1982); Judge v. State, 419 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.2d DCA 1982); and State v. [*74] Filter, 414 So. 2d 1127 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). Therefore, the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle and seizure of the physical evidence constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, requiring exclusion from evidence that contraband so seized. The failure of the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Sims Crane Serv., Inc. v. Am-Cal Constr. Co., 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1980)
- Vince Alan Chapas v. State, 404 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1981)