HERMAN M. RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Herman Rodriguez appeals his cocaine trafficking conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an unlawful vehicle search. The court agrees that Rodriguez's limited consent to search the car's interior did not extend to opening a sealed box or trunk, and reverses the conviction.
The court held that Rodriguez's consent was limited to the interior of the vehicle and did not include consent to open the sealed box or search the trunk. Both searches violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence should have been suppressed.
[1] Consent to search a vehicle does not automatically extend to the search of closed containers within that vehicle.
[2] The scope of consent to search a vehicle is limited to what a reasonable person would understand the consent to encompass.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A general consent to search an area does not automatically give a police officer the right to cut into or destroy any container located in the area.”
Establishes the legal principle that consent to search a general area does not extend to sealed containers within that area.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 20, 1987, Rodriguez was stopped by highway patrolmen for a dim taillight and weaving. After verifying his license, registration, and sobriet…
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 Scope Of Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Herman M. Rodriguez appeals from his judgment and sentence for trafficking in cocaine and argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.
On the night of August 20, 1987, the appellant was driving down the highway .with a passenger in his car when he was stopped by three highway patrolmen for having a dim taillight and for weaving within the lane. After finding that the appellant had a valid driver’s license and car registration and after determining that the appellant was not intoxicated, one of the troopers asked the appellant if he could “look” into the car. The appellant asked the trooper why he wanted to look, but then said it was okay. The troopers searched the car, found a box wrapped in paper lying on the rear floor board, and upon cutting open the box, discovered cocaine. Subsequently, they used the car keys to open the trunk and therein found more cocaine in a paper bag.
The appellant was charged with trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.-135, Florida Statutes (1987). Subsequently, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained against him on the ground that the search was unlawful. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
The appellant contends his consent was limited to the interior of the vehicle and did not include consent to search the sealed box or the trunk of the vehicle. We agree.
The search of the sealed box found on the rear floor board was unlawful since the troopers were not given actual consent to open the box nor did they have probable cause to open the box based on knowledge that the appellant was engaged in criminal activity. “A general consent to search an area does not automatically give a police officer the right to cut into or destroy any container located in the area.” State v. Cross, 535 So. 2d 282, 284 (Fla.3d DCA 1988). See also State v. Wells, 13 F.L.W. 686 (Fla. Dec. 1, 1988); Hutchinson v. State, 505 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2d DCA 1987), review dismissed, 519 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1988); State v. Fuksman, 468 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); and Horvitz v. State, 433 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
In Wells, the Florida Supreme Court stated:
When the police are relying upon consent to conduct a warrantless search, they have no more authority than that reasonably conferred by the terms of the consent. If that consent does not convey permission to break open a locked or sealed container, it is unreasonable for the police to do so unless the search can be justified on some other basis. Our own courts generally have agreed on this principle. [Citations omitted.]
13 F.L.W. at 687.
The search of the trunk was also impermissible since it too was beyond the scope of the appellant’s consent and not based on probable cause. Therefore, the evidence found therein should have been suppressed as well.
We hold that the trial court erred in failing to grant the appellant’s motion to suppress and, accordingly, reverse the appellant’s judgment and sentence.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Abrams, 548 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…t have actual consent to open the satchel, the trunk, or the package found in the trunk. However, the one distinguishing factor in this case is that although the satchel was closed, it was neither locked nor sealed.* The case of Rodriguez v. State, 539 So. 2d 513 (Fla.2d DCA 1989) is also similar. In Rodriguez, an officer asked Rodriguez if he could “look” in the car. The officer found a box wrapped in paper lying on the rear floorboard and discovered cocaine when he cut open the box. This court held that Ro…
-
Oliver v. State, 642 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…nclude that his general consent to search the vehicle included the trunk. Further, the loaded gun was in plain view in the trunk, not in an additional closed or locked container within the trunk. Compare Moreland. We distinguish Rodriguez v. State, 539 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) from the case at bar because of the more limited nature of the request and corresponding consent in that case. In Rodriguez, the trooper had asked the driver if he could “look” into the car. The issue was whether the consent to se…
-
J.J.V. v. State, 17 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…rs gained access with a key removed from the car’s ignition without defendant’s consent ...” (emphasis added). The court held that consent to the search of the inside of the car did not authorize the search of the trunk. See also Rodriguez v. State, 539 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that officer’s request to “look” into car did not justify use of car keys to open trunk). The state argues that it was objectively reasonable for the deputy to believe that appellant’s general consent to search extended…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Fuksman, 468 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Horvitz v. State, 433 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Hutchinson v. State, 505 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- State v. Cross, 535 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Hutchinson, 519 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1988)