STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD BRIAN SCHNEIDER, CARL SEAMAN SCHNEIDER, AND LISA ANN HARWOOD, APPELLEES
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 from a trial court order suppressing marijuana seized during the arrest of three individuals observed unloading bales from a boat at a residence. The appellate court reverses, holding that officers had reasonable cause to believe they were witnessing a felony in progress and therefore had grounds to arrest and seize the contraband.
The court held that officers had reasonable cause to believe marijuana was visible in plain view based on the totality of circumstances, which furnished probable cause that a felony was in progress. Officers therefore had grounds to arrest the individuals under Florida law and could properly seize the marijuana bales pursuant to that arrest.
[1] An anonymous tip, combined with corroborating observations of suspicious activity, can establish probable cause for an arrest.
[2] The "open view" doctrine permits law enforcement to seize contraband observed in plain sight without a warrant.
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“The police officers observed what they had reasonable cause to believe was marijuana by virtue of a legally permissive "open view."”
Establishes the legal basis for the officers' warrantless observation and probable cause determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Roberts received an anonymous tip about a boat being used to smuggle marijuana and surveilled the residence where it was docked. When the boat…
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 Anonymous Tip cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
The state appeals from a non-final order granting a motion to suppress certain contraband. We reverse.
Officer Marvin Roberts of the Hollywood, Florida, Police Department received an anonymous telephone call describing a boat which was being used to bring marijuana into the country and the residence where it was located. With the permission of a neighboring landowner the officer set up surveillance of the residence. The described boat was docked at the residence, but subsequently put out to sea, returning two days later. On the evening of its return Officer Roberts observed a white van back up to the front door of the residence. At about 10:45 p.m. the rear light of the house was turned on and three men came out. Richard Schneider boarded the boat and began throwing large rectangular bales covered in a dark shiny plastic substance wrapped with white tape to Carl Schneider and Thomas Eleagar. Officer Roberts concluded that these bales contained marijuana because of their size, the manner in which they were wrapped, the sound as they hit the ground, the boat’s low position in the water, its return from the ocean that day, and the tip on the telephone. After observing ten bales being unloaded, Officer Roberts notified the other units to move in. Roberts proceeded to the back of the house where he observed that some of the bales had ripped open spilling marijuana.
The subjects were placed under arrest. Because marijuana was seen in plain view on the deck and in the cabin of the boat, the officers boarded the vessel. Ultimately eighteen bales of marijuana were seized.
The police officers observed what they had reasonable cause to believe was marijuana by virtue of a legally permissive “open view.” State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (1982). The totality of circumstances furnished probable cause for the officers to conclude that they were witnessing a felony in progress. Accordingly, they had grounds to arrest the individuals involved. § 901.15(3), Fla.Stat. (1981). Pursuant to that arrest they could properly seize the marijuana bales. Rizzo v. State ex rel. City of Pompano Beach, 396 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Trepany, 409 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
We therefore reverse the order granting the motions to suppress and remand for further appropriate proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deguster Blake Zeigler v. State, 471 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…he same basic question before us in this case and concluded that stipulations as to dispositiveness are binding on the appellate courts. In Finney, ,the court granted rehearing en banc to resolve a conflict between the Finney case and Furr v. State, 420 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In both cases, the defense and state had stipulated that a motion to suppress denied by the trial court would be disposi-tive on appeal from the defendant’s nolo contendere plea. In Finney, the court reexamined the issue raised,…
-
Martinez v. State, 425 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…d permit the state to proceed to trial, the questions presented are not dispositive, and we may not accept review. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Baskin, J., dissenting); Furr v. State, 420 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Baskin, J., dissenting). The stipulation falls within the Brown prohibition. I would therefore decline review, permit Martinez to withdraw his plea, and allow the cause to proceed.…
-
Aracelio Morejon and Ramon Casal v. State, 431 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…DCA 1980). Once Deputy Leiter had probable cause to believe that the boat was indeed the one under surveillance by Customs, and did have marijuana aboard, he was further justified in searching the boat and arresting the suspects. State v. Schneider, 420 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Jackson, 368 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979); cf. State v. Casal, 410 So. 2d 152 (Fla.1982), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 50, 74 L.Ed.2d 56 (1982). The Fourth Amendment does not re…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rickard, 420 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1982)
- Anthony Rizzo & 1978 Sea Ray v. State, 396 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Trepany, 409 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)