JERRY LEE GRIMES, 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.
Jerry Lee Grimes appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana, arguing the search of his van was unconstitutional. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because Grimes consented to the initial inspection and the officer had probable cause to open the bags based on the strong odor of marijuana.
The search was reasonable. Grimes consented to the opening of his van, and although he did not consent to opening the plastic bags, Deputy Pease had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the strong odor of marijuana and thus had authority to open the bags.
[1] A defendant's consent to open the back of a van can be inferred from an affirmative response to a request to see inside.
[2] An agricultural inspector's observation of burlap-wrapped bales in the back of a van, following a failure to stop at an inspection station, can establish reasonable suspi…
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“appellant consented to the opening of his van. Although he did not consent to opening one of the plastic bags, Deputy Pease, upon noticing the strong smell of marijuana, had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained marijuana.”
Establishes the two-part analysis: consent for initial inspection and probable cause for opening the bags
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Grimes drove his van past a Hamilton County Agricultural Inspection Station without stopping. When stopped at a gas station by a uniformed a…
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 Odor Of Marijuana As Probable Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction for possession of more than 100 pounds but less than 2,000 pounds of marijuana. Among other points raised on appeal, appellant con tends the trial court erred in not suppressing as evidence the marijuana found in his van. We affirm.
Appellant, driving his van, passed the Hamilton County Agricultural Inspection Station without stopping.1 Further down the highway, appellant had stopped to buy gasoline when a uniformed agricultural inspector driving an official car with a blue flashing light pulled up behind him. The inspector identified himself and told appellant he had come through the inspection station without stopping and asked appellant if he could see in the back of his van. Appellant then responded affirmatively, opening the back door of the van. The inspector testified that when the door was opened, “I saw bales of something wrapped up in burlap bags and plastic all up in back of the van.” (It later developed that these were 24 bales or packages of marijuana.) The inspector testified that he then examined appellant’s driver’s license and asked him to drive back to the inspection station, which appellant did. At the station, appellant again opened the back of the van upon request, and Deputy Sheriff Pease was called. Pease testified that upon approaching the van, he detected a very strong odor of marijuana and that the cargo area of the vehicle was for all purposes full of these large bags. He was qualified as to his familiarity with the odor of marijuana, testifying that he had previously had occasion to view marijuana in excess of 45 times. Inspector Pease then slit one of the bags with a knife, removed a green, grassy-like substance which he smelled, and advised appellant he was under arrest for possession of marijuana.
Appellant contends the search of his van and the opening of one of the bags of marijuana was an unreasonable search. We disagree. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling of the trial court, which we must do, appellant consented to the opening of his van. Although he did not consent to opening one of the plastic bags, Deputy Pease, upon noticing the strong smell of marijuana, had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained marijuana. Having probable cause to search the vehicle for marijuana, the officer had authority to open the plastic bags contained therein. United States v. Boss, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d -; State v. Zimmerman, 413 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), 7 F.L.W. 1023.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and SHIVERS, J., concur. . Section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1979), makes it a misdemeanor of the second degree for any truck to pass any official road guard inspection station without first stopping for inspection.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Stafford, 433 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ful review of the record reveals that the search and seizure were amply warranted either on the basis of consent, U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), State v. Custer, 251 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), Grimes v. State, 416 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) or on the basis of probable cause and the plain view doctrine. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964), State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971);…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- State v. Zimmerman, 413 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)