WILLIAM DOUGLAS BOND, 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.
William Douglas Bond appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle following a DUI arrest. The court held that the search of Bond's truck was valid as a search incident to lawful custodial arrest under New York v. Belton, and therefore affirmed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion and the resulting probation sentence.
The court held that Miller v. State does not apply to searches justifiable under traditional probable cause standards, and that the search was valid as a search incident to Bond's lawful custodial arrest under New York v. Belton, which permits complete searches of the passenger compartment including containers found therein.
[1] A search of a vehicle's passenger compartment incident to the lawful custodial arrest of an occupant is permissible, including the contents of any containers found therei…
[2] A search incident to arrest is not rendered invalid by the arresting officer's mistaken characterization of the search as an inventory search.
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“Miller, by its own terms, does not apply to searches which are justifiable under traditional probable cause standards.”
Establishes that the Miller inventory search requirement does not restrict searches that meet traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA deputy sheriff approached Bond's parked truck in a roadway median based on a BOLO report matching the vehicle description and license plate number p…
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 Passenger Compartment Search cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
William Douglas Bond appeals his placement on probation for three counts of possession of a controlled substance following his entry of a nolo contendere plea reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his motor vehicle following his arrest for driving while intoxicated. We hold that the trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to suppress, and we therefore affirm.
Appellant was approached by a deputy sheriff who had heard a radioed BOLO report based on a citizen’s report to another officer of a drunk driver. Appellant’s truck, which was parked in a roadway median strip with appellant inside when the deputy approached it, matched the vehicle description and license tag number given in the BOLO. Appellant smelled faintly of alcohol and admitted having had one beer. In addition, his eyes were dilated, and he failed all three of the field sobriety tests given him by the deputy. The deputy therefore arrested appellant and placed him in the patrol car. A search of appellant’s truck, which the deputy characterized as an inventory search although appellant was not offered an alternative to impoundment, was performed, leading to the discovery of the controlled substances in question in the cab of the truck.
Appellant argues that under Miller v. State, 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1981), which requires that, where feasible, the possessor of an automobile must be advised of his right to provide an alternative to impoundment before an inventory search may be performed, the search here was invalid. We disagree. Miller, by its own terms, does not apply to searches which are justifiable under traditional probable cause standards. Id. at 1310. The United States Supreme Court held in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), that a search incident to the custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile may include a complete search of the passenger compartment of the car, including examination of the contents of any container found therein.
We agree with the third district that the validity of the search here should not be affected by the fact that the deputy characterized the search as an inventory search. State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Higgins v. State, 422 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Stevens v. State, 412 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and Ross v. State, 428 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), are inapplicable here. In Higgins, the defendants were not arrested but were taken into protective custody under the Myers Act, Section 396.072, Florida Statutes (1981), and there was no probable cause to believe that the car contained contraband. Thus Higgins was correct in holding that Belton and United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), were not controlling under the circumstances in Higgins.
The Stevens and Ross v. State courts did not address, and we therefore assume did not consider, whether the search could have been justified as other than an inventory search, whereas here the state conceded below that the search of appellant’s vehicle was not a valid inventory search but argued that it was a valid search incident to arrest. Thus the issue before the trial court and the issue before this court here is whether Miller is applicable, as appellant argues, or whether Belton controls here, as the state argues. As stated above, we agree with the state that Miller is inapplicable here and that Belton is controlling.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress and the order placing appellant on probation are AFFIRMED.
RYDER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wilfredo Navarro and Roerme Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…nger compartment of that automobile even though the arrestee is no longer in it and no longer has ready access to it, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982); Bond v. State, 431 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Brock, 426 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the search of the vehicle which revealed a nine-millimeter MAC-10 and an…
-
Kuhn v. State, 439 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ch searches may not be legitimized as incident to arrest. See also, Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538 (1968). [*295] The second district court of appeal recently sustained a similar search, Bond v. State, 431 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), upon the premise that it was a search incident to arrest and therefore rested upon traditional probable cause requirements. A search incident to an arrest, however, need not be supported by probable cause to search, see United St…
-
Lothar Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. The court also held that the policeman may examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment. See also Bond v. State, 431 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). For the reasons outlined above, the order and judgment are affirmed. AFFIRMED. ORFINGER, J., concurs. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)
- Sims Crane Serv., Inc. v. Am-Cal Constr. Co., 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bevins v. State, 412 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- William v. Higgins, 422 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Ross v. State, 428 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)