WILLIAM PAUL HENDRIX, 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 trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an automobile.
Appellant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and trafficking in cocaine. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppres…
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 Automobile Exception To Warrant Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and trafficking in cocaine, violations of sections 790.02 and 893.-135, Florida Statutes (1983), respectively. He entered a nolo contendere plea to the charges, specifically reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an automobile. Appellant appeals only his conviction of trafficking. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion which was dis-positive of his trafficking charge.
The police clearly had probable cause to believe the automobile contained, and was being used to transport, contraband. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Adoue v. State, 408 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1981); State v. Gillum, 428 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 933.19(1), Fla. Stat. (1983) (specifically adopting, as the law of Florida, the law set forth in Carroll v. United States).
We disagree with appellant’s argument that the automobile was not “movable” and therefore did not meet the exigent circumstances requirement of Chambers. The mere fact that the automobile was in a garage being repaired did not preclude the trial court’s apparent determination that there were exigent circumstances. The record shows that the repairs were about to be completed and that a friend of appellant was arriving shortly to take possession of the car. Therefore, we affirm appellant’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, C.J., and CAMPBELL and LE-HAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vessel Described AS ONE 36 Foot Mirage v. State, 487 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…a recovered was a misdemeanor amount and therefore the boat is not subject to forfeiture under Section 932.703(1), Florida Statutes (1983). We find no merit in the appellant’s contentions, Adoue v. State, 408 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1981); Hendrix v. State, 456 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Williams v. Miller, 433 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); In Re Forfeiture of 1979 Lincoln Continental, 405 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gomez v. State, 402 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and therefore the final judgment of forfe…
-
State v. Waterman, 638 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…r seizure of it once probable cause exists. See, e.g., Adoue v. State, 408 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1981) (warrantless seizure of marijuana in airplane in “open view” circumstances proper notwithstanding plane parked and secured by police); Hendrix v. State, 456 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (car had ready mobility even when in garage being repaired, where repairs about to be completed and friend of defendant arriving shortly to take possession of it); State v. Hicks, 579 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (ready mobility…
-
Ewing v. State, 461 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…three grounds on appeal, only one of which merits comment. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an automobile. We have previously rejected this argument in Hendrix v. State, 456 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), a case [*967] involving the same automobile and evidence as in this case. We have examined the other grounds raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- Nile M. Marriott, Jr. v. Venetian Cove Club, Inc., 408 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Gillum, 428 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)