LARRY DEAN ZAVAL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Zaval appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress marijuana seized during a vehicle stop. The court affirmed the denial, finding the stop lawful, consent valid, and the search scope appropriate.
The court held that the vehicle stop was lawful, Zaval's consent to the search was knowing and intelligent, and the scope of the search did not exceed the consent given. All three contentions were found to be without merit.
[1] An appellate court must accept a trial judge's findings of fact on a motion to suppress if the record contains evidence to support those findings.
[2] A police stop for investigation requires an objective, reasonable basis to believe a crime has been, will be, or is being committed.
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“the appellant allowed the deputies to look into the back of the van; whereupon a deputy saw what he believed to be marijuana. A strong odor of marijuana had been detected immediately upon making the stop and approaching the driver.”
Establishes the basis for the lawful stop and observation of marijuana, including the immediate detection of marijuana odor.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputies received information via dispatch that an individual had called reporting objects being loaded from a boat into a van. Based on a description…
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 Motion To Suppress Tangible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendant appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida denying a motion to suppress tangible evidence, i.e., marijuana, which was seized when defendant’s van was stopped by officers of the sheriff’s department of Monroe County.
The stop was based on information received by the deputies via communications with another deputy, who had been informed by the communications center that an individual had called concerning objects being loaded from a boat into a van. Based upon this information and a description of the van, the appellant was stopped by the deputies. Upon being stopped, the appellant allowed the deputies to look into the back of the van; whereupon a deputy saw what he believed to be marijuana. A strong odor of marijuana had been detected immediately upon making the stop and approaching the driver. Subsequently, a search of the van took place and marijuana packaged in burlap and plastic bags was seized.
Appellant’s contentions on appeal are (1) that the stop of the appellant’s vehicle was illegal and the evidence seized as a result of the stop should have been suppressed; (2) that the appellant did not knowingly and intelligently consent to the search of his vehicle and the contents thereof; and (3) that the scope of the search conducted by the deputies went beyond any alleged consent given by the appellant, and that the opening of the burlap bags itself warrants suppression of the marijuana.
We have reviewed the record and considered appellant’s contentions and have found them to be without merit. United States v. Ross, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d - (1982); Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1980); State v. Perera, 412 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Plant v. State, 407 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- State v. Barnabe I. Perera, 412 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Plant v. State, 407 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)