STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFF CHARLES CARGAL, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing evidence of marijuana and a pistol found in a duffel bag inside a van. The appellate court reverses, holding that Cargal's voluntary consent to search the van was not limited to specific areas, permitting officers to search the duffel bag and seize the contraband discovered therein.
The warrantless search of the duffel bag was proper. Cargal's voluntary, unlimited consent to search the van authorized officers to search the entire vehicle, including the duffel bag, and to seize any contraband found therein.
[1] A voluntary consent to search a given area cannot limit the fruits of a search thereof.
[2] Once consent is given to search an entire automobile, any contraband found therein is subject to seizure.
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“A voluntary consent to search a given area cannot limit the fruits of a search thereof. Once consent was given to search the entire automobile any contraband found therein was subject to seizure.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that unlimited consent to search a vehicle permits seizure of contraband found anywhere within it
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers, with permission to enter a motel room, observed marijuana residue in bathroom fixtures. Morrison admitted ownership of a parked van 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 Contraband Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
The state appeals from an order granting Cargal’s motion to suppress. Police officers, who had been given permission by Cargal to enter a motel room he was sharing with Morrison, observed marijuana residue in the toilet bowl, sink and bathtub. Miranda warnings were given and Morrison was questioned about a van parked outside. Morrison admitted the van was his and said the officers could search it but added that his wife had the keys. Cargal told another officer that the van was his and consented to its search.1 The officers discovered that a vent window was open and entered. A strong odor of marijuana was detected coming from a duffel bag in the back of the van. The texture of the bag’s contents was grassy in nature. The bag was seized and opened. Marijuana and an automatic pistol were found inside.
Miranda warnings were again given and Cargal and Morrison were arrested. The officers gave Morrison and Cargal a moment to speak to one another and Cargal then informed the police that the drugs and pistol were his.
We REVERSE the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress.
The transcript of the suppression hearing reveals that Cargal conceded that Morrison validly consented to the search of his (Morrison’s) van. Therefore the only issue is whether the warrantless search of Cargal’s duffel bag was proper. Cargal explicitly consented to the search of the van and the state presented clear and convincing evidence that this consent was freely and voluntarily given. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1980). No limitations were placed on the areas of the van to be searched by either Morrison or Cargal. As stated in State v. Custer, 251 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971);
A voluntary consent to search a given area cannot limit the fruits of a search thereof. Once consent was given to search the entire automobile any contraband found therein was subject to seizure.
251 So. 2d at 288-89. See also United States v. Ross, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).
REVERSED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . It was stipulated at the suppression hearing that Morrison did own the van.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. State, 492 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…mately authorize by warrant. If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. 102 S.Ct. at 2173. State v. Cargal, 417 So. 2d 811 (Pla. 5th DCA 1982), also relied on by the State, can be distinguished. In Cargal, the defendant gave the police permission to search his van. Upon entering the van, the officers detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from a duffel bag in the…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968)
- Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Custer, 251 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)