LEO LEE ARENA, 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 affirmed a burglary conviction, holding that the officer had probable cause to search the appellant based on knowledge of the burglary and the appellant's bizarre behavior at the scene, and that the warrantless search of the automobile was valid based on the girlfriend's consent.
The seizure of evidence from the appellant at the burglary scene was supported by probable cause based on the officer's knowledge of the burglary and the appellant's bizarre behavior, and the warrantless search of the automobile was valid based on the girlfriend's consent.
[1] Probable cause to search an individual may be based on an officer's knowledge of a recently committed crime and the suspect's bizarre behavior at the scene.
[2] A warrantless search of an automobile is valid when a person with apparent authority over the vehicle consents to the search, even if ownership is later disputed.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of burglary. Police seized evidence from the appellant at the scene and conducted a warrantless search of an automobile th…
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 Seizure Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for burglary. We affirm.
We believe there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress concerning the seizure of evidence from appellant at the scene of the burglary. Specifically the evidence would support a finding that the police officer who seized the evidence had probable cause to arrest and search the appellant at the time. This probable cause could have been predicated both on the officer’s knowledge of the burglary that had just taken place and the appellant’s bizarre behavior at the scene. Cf. State v. Williams, 34 Wash.App. 662, 663 P. 2d 1368 (1983) and Commonwealth v. Williams, — Pa.Super. —, 464 A. 2d 411 (1983). We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to inval idate the warrantless search of an automobile which, according to the evidence, appeared at the time to be owned by appellant’s girlfriend who opened the automobile for the police, fully consented to a search thereof, and then drove off in the same vehicle. Although ownership of the automobile was later disputed, there was evidence presented that the vehicle was registered in the girlfriend’s name.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.