STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOAN BARTH, 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 State of Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing a loaded .22 caliber Derringer found during a routine inventory search of the defendant's purse at a police station. The appellate court reversed, holding that the search was permissible as both a search incident to lawful arrest and a standard police inventory search.
The court held that the search was lawful under two recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) as a search incident to a lawful arrest for DUI, and (2) as a routine inventory search conducted in accordance with standard police procedure. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to suppress.
[1] A search of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
[2] An inventory search conducted in accordance with standard police procedure is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
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“Of the general recognized exceptions to the requirement that a search be conducted with a warrant, two exceptions are especially applicable here. One concerns a search incident to a lawful arrest.”
Establishes the first basis for permitting the search—that searches incident to lawful arrest are an established exception to the warrant requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 9, 1982, defendant Joan Barth was identified as the driver of a vehicle involved in a minor traffic accident that fled the scene. When a po…
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
LEHAN, Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant Joan Barth’s motion to suppress. We reverse.
On October 9,1982, defendant was identified as the driver of a vehicle which had been involved in a minor traffic accident and had fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, the police officer who investigated the accident observed defendant driving her car in reverse down the highway. When he stopped her, he noticed that she appeared to be intoxicated. After defendant failed a field sobriety test, she was placed under arrest for DUI and placed in the officer’s patrol car. The officer then returned to defendant’s car and retrieved defendant’s purse and other portable effects from the car. At the police station, defendant asked for her purse so she could take some medication. At that time defendant’s purse was searched and inventoried pursuant to routine police procedure. A .22 caliber fully loaded Derringer was found, and defendant was placed under arrest for carrying a concealed firearm.
Subsequently, defendant filed a motion to suppress the revolver on the grounds of an unreasonable search and seizure. At the suppression hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion.
Of the general recognized exceptions to the requirement that a search be conducted with a warrant, two exceptions are especially applicable here. One concerns a search incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Allen, 407 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also Jenkins v. State, 426 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The arrest in this case was lawful. The second exception concerns an inventory search conducted in accordance with standard police procedure. See State v. Forbes, 419 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The search in this case was pursuant to such procedure.
We find that under the facts of this case and the principles expressed in the foregoing authorities, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayhew v. State, 452 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ossession of cannabis and phentermine. She reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. [*1135] We find that the inventory search of defendant’s purse, which yielded the contraband, was proper. See State v. Barth, 434 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Forbes, 419 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reject the points raised by defendant. Judgment and sentence affirmed. SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Allen, 407 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State v. Forbes, 419 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Jenkins v. State, 426 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)