THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOEL ADOLPH SCOTT, 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.
Florida's appellate court affirmed the suppression of cocaine found during an unlawful arrest, holding that a defendant may challenge a search incident to his own arrest on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal, regardless of vehicle ownership.
A defendant may challenge a search incident to his own arrest on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal, even if he does not own the vehicle searched.
[1] A defendant may challenge a search incident to his own arrest on the ground that the arrest was unlawful, even if he does not own the vehicle searched, because such chall…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it is necessarily the case that one may challenge a seizure incident to his own arrest on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal”
Court explaining that standing to challenge a search exists when the defendant challenges the legality of his own arrest, regardless of vehicle ownership
Scott was arrested without probable cause, and cocaine was discovered in a search of the car he was driving at the time of arrest.…
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 Standing To Contest Search cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Having concluded that Scott was unlawfully arrested in the absence of probable cause, the lower court suppressed cocaine discovered in the ensuing search of the car he was driving at the time. We affirm on the grounds that (a) the factual findings made below are amply supported • by the record considered in the light of the express credibility determinations of the trial judge with which we may not interfere, DeConingh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 995, 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984); and (b) contrary to the state’s contention, based on Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), that the defendant lacked “standing” to contest the search because he did not own the vehicle, it is necessarily the case that one may challenge a seizure incident to his own arrest on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal. Kersey v. State, 58 So. 2d 155 (Fla.1952); Hansen v. State, 385 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 392 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.1980); see State v. Conger, 183 Conn. 386, 439 A. 2d 381 (1981) (even driver of stolen car may challenge vehicle search on ground of illegality of stop or arrest, because such search follows violation of personal right to free movement; distinguishing Rakas as not involving any challenge to the constitutionality of the initial stop or arrest); LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3 (1978), and cases collected at 282-91 (Supp. 1985).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 523 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ndment to the United States Constitution.” 1 483 So. 2d at 435. Regardless of any expectation of privacy, Adams clearly has standing to object to the stop of the vehicle in which he was riding since that stop resulted in his seizure. State v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Beja, 451 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Whether a vehicle stop is lawful depends upon whether it is predicated on a founded or reasonable suspicion that requires further investigation to determine whether the occupant…
-
State v. Irvin, 483 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…cally, we express no opinion as to whether an invalid stop would have tainted the express consent to search allegedly given by the owner of the vehicle, who was a passenger at the time; see Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1980); State v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); or whether, even if it did, Irvin had standing to challenge the validity of the consent. Cf., State v. Scott, supra. . We have quite deliberately avoided putting the issue before us in the familiar terms of whether the stop was…
-
Nelson v. State, 578 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1991)…SHAW, Chief Judge. We review Nelson v. State, 546 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), based on conflict with State v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1335 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 931, 107 S.Ct. 402, 93 L.Ed.2d 355 (1986), and Wulff v. State, 533 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978)
- DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)
- Kersey v. State, 58 So.2d 155 (Fla. 1952)
- Hansen v. State, 385 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)