K. J. B., A CHILD, 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.
K.J.B. was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia seized from her vehicle during an inventory search following her arrest for driving without a license. The court reversed her adjudication of delinquency, holding that the impoundment and search were unlawful because police failed to advise her that the vehicle would be impounded unless she could provide a reasonable alternative.
The impoundment and subsequent warrantless search were unlawful because the officers failed to advise K.J.B. that the vehicle would be impounded unless she could provide a reasonable alternative. The seizure of evidence must therefore be excluded from trial under the Florida Constitution.
[1] An arresting officer who intends to impound a vehicle must first advise a present owner or possessor of that vehicle that the vehicle will be impounded unless a reasonabl…
[2] A warrantless search of a vehicle conducted pursuant to an unlawful impoundment is an unreasonable search and seizure.
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“It is now settled that, except in certain extraordinary circumstances, an arresting officer who intends to impound a vehicle must first advise a present owner or possessor of that vehicle that the vehicle will be impounded unless the owner or possessor can provide a reasonable alternative to impoundment.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard requiring officers to advise of impoundment intentions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSt. Petersburg police lawfully stopped K.J.B.'s vehicle for having an expired license tag and arrested her for having no driver's license. Without pro…
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.
K.J.B. challenges the denial of her motion to suppress drug paraphernalia seized from the glove compartment of the vehicle she was operating. She reserved her right to appeal the denial of her motion when she entered a plea of no contest and was subsequently adjudicated delinquent on the charge of possession of the paraphernalia. We reverse.
St. Petersburg police officers lawfully stopped the car appellant was driving because it had an expired license tag. The officers then arrested appellant for having no driver’s license, and, at the scene and without probable cause to do so, they searched the interior of the vehicle pursuant to impoundment and inventory search procedures authorized by city ordinance and routinely practiced by the police department. The officers did not have probable cause to believe there was contraband in the vehicle, and no contention was made at the trial that the search was made incident to appellant’s arrest. The standard impoundment and warrantless inventory search procedures by which the officers were guided in this case do not include police advice to the owner or possessor of a vehicle that the vehicle would be impounded unless a reasonable alternative could be provided. The officers did not announce their intention to impound the car and offered no such advice to the appellant prior to the impoundment and search. Despite the appellant’s argument that the impoundment of the car and inventory search were unlawful, the trial court denied the motion to suppress “on the grounds that the impoundment was legal.”
It is now settled that, except in certain extraordinary circumstances, an arresting officer who intends to impound a vehicle must first advise a present 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). These cases control our disposition of this case.
Because the officers failed to advise the appellant of their intention to impound the vehicle unless the appellant could provide a reasonable alternative, the impoundment was improper. Therefore, the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle and seizure of the physical evidence constituted an unreasonable search and seizure requiring exclusion from evidence at the appellant’s trial as required by Section 12 of Article I of the Florida Constitution.
REVERSED.
GRIMES, A. C. J., and SCHEB and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLENDON v. State, 476 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…could provide a reasonable alternative to impoundment, the trial court erred in finding that the impoundment of the automobile was lawful, reasonable, and necessary. Miller; Sanders; Long v. State, 422 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); K.J.B. v. State, 420 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Stevens v. State, 412 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The subsequent search of the vehicle without a warrant and the seizure of cocaine therefore constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, requiring exclusion of the contraban…
-
Long v. State, 422 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…ller inquiry. Because the officer failed to advise Long of his intention to impound the vehicle unless Long could 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 unrea…
-
William v. Higgins, 422 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…81), the court stated that an arresting officer must advise an arrestee of possible alternatives to impoundment. The officers did not do so here, and because they did not, the subsequent inventory search of the car was improper. See K.J.B. v. State, 420 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Therefore, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.…
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)