MICHAEL ROBERT BANNISTER, 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.
The court held that the appellant consented to the initial inspection of his vehicle by the officer.
A Road Guard Officer stopped appellant for bypassing an agricultural station and requested to look in the back of his vehicle. Appellant opened the ve…
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 Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant was stopped by a Road Guard Officer Haskell for bypassing an agricultural station driving a vehicle which the officer reasonably could believe was required to stop for a determination of whether it was a motor vehicle subject to inspection, pursuant to Section 570.15(1)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1981), Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1980). Officer Haskell told appellant he was from the inspection station and said if appellant would not mind, he would like to look in the back of appellant’s vehicle, or that he needed to look in the back of the vehicle. In response, appellant walked to the back of his vehicle, removed an exterior tire, and opened the window and tailgate. Appellant did not say anything until Haskell began to reach into the back of the vehicle and handle the boxes located there, at which time appellant told Haskell that the contents were personal property, indicating Haskell should go no further. At that time, Haskell stopped and directed appellaht to close up the vehicle.1
We disagree with appellant’s argument that he did not consent to have Officer Haskell examine the contents of the vehicle by looking into the back of it. See Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1980), Bagocus v. State, 359 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
We find no reversible error with regard to any of the other issues raised by appellant.
AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . Haskell stated that when the back of the vehicle was opened, he immediately detected a strong odor of marijuana. Based on his afflda-vit to that effect, a search warrant was issued for the further search and seizure of the contents of appellant’s vehicle.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fuksman, 468 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Raleigh v. State, 365 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (finding no consent) with Martin; Bannister v. State, 434 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Price, 363 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1979) (finding consent).…
Authorities Cited
- Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980)
- Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980)
- Bagocus v. State, 359 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)