ALBERTO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Alberto Gonzalez appealed his conviction for unlawful cannabis possession, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a strip search conducted in prison. The court affirmed, holding that the strip search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the serious justification of missing cell block keys and the proper manner of execution.
The strip search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although strip searches require a more substantial justification than ordinary searches, the strong justification here—missing keys presenting danger of mass prison escape and the defendant's presence in the area—combined with the private setting, non-abusive manner, and presence of two officers rendered the search constitutional.
[1] A prisoner retains Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
[2] The reasonableness of a strip search of a prisoner is determined by balancing the scope of the intrusion, the manner in which it was conducted, the justification for init…
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“a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime”
Establishes that prisoners retain constitutional rights including Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 23, 1988, correctional officers at a Dade County prison detention facility discovered that a ring of keys to a cell block housing 280 inmates…
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 Unlawful Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Alberto Gonzalez from a judgment of conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of cannabis. This conviction and sentence was based on a nolo contendere plea entered below in which the defendant specifically reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the cannabis for which he stands convicted. We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress and affirm.
The sole witness who testified below on the motion to suppress was a prison correctional officer employed in a prison detention facility in Dade County. This officer testified that on March 23, 1988 between 10:00 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. another correctional officer misplaced a ring of keys to a block of cells housing 280 inmates at the prison; the lost key ring contained three or four small keys and one large brass key approximately 4-5 inches long. The defendant was one of a group of inmates who at the time had been working as trustees in the area where the keys had disappeared. The above officer sought out the defendant who was in a different area of the prison and asked if the defendant had found the keys; the defendant denied any knowledge of the lost keys. This officer and another correctional officer then took the defendant into a bathroom and conducted a strip search of the defendant. During this search, the officers discovered and seized a quantity of marijuana from the defendant’s pants pocket.
We agree that “a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime,” that “[t]here is no iron curtain drawn between the constitution and the prisons of this country,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 950 (1974), and that one of the constitutional rights retained by a prisoner, at least to some minimal extent, is the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). With respect to searches, of the person of a prisoner, the court balances four factors in determining whether such searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment: (1) the scope of the intrusion, (2) the manner in which it was condúcted, (3) the justification for initiating it, and (4) the place in which it was conducted. Bell; Vera v. State, 400 So. 2d 1008, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Applying these standards, it seems clear to us that “a more substantial showing should be necessary to justify a search of the person [of a prisoner] when it involves a strip search or an intrusion into the body.” 4 W. La Fave, Search and Seizure § 10.9(b), at 110 (2d ed. 1987).
The search in this case satisfies the above Fourth Amendment standards. Although the scope of the intrusion herein was considerable as it involved a strip search, the . justification for doing so was particularly strong: (a) the keys to a cell block housing 280 prisoners had disappeared, thereby presenting an obvious danger of a mass prison escape, and (b) the defendant had been previously working in the area where the keys had disappeared. Moreover, the strip search was conducted in a private place, a bathroom, in the presence of two officers under non-abusive circumstances. This being so, we conclude that the search was a reasonable one under the Fourth Amendment.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.F. v. State, 682 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…titution and, more explicitly, under the Florida Constitution. See Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. It is the manner in which the search is conducted in a given case which may violate the Fourth Amendment. As the third district stated in Gonzalez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1354, 1355-56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), a case dealing with the strip search of a prisoner: [O]ne of the constitutional rights retained by a prisoner, at least to some minimal extent, is the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and…
-
State v. Augustine, 724 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…press, the search here — for which, as the trial court found, there was pre-arrest probable cause to conduct — was no more intrusive than any other routine strip search and was otherwise no more intrusive than it needed to be. See Gonzalez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(Fourth Amendment involves consideration of four factors in determining the reasonableness of a search: namely, the scope of the intrusion; the manner in which the search was conducted; the justification for initiating it; and the…
-
State v. Brown, 586 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…if he had been formally arrested, for the sale, prior to the search. See generally Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Gonzalez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We also note that the appellee was not simply one suspect among many, or the object of an anonymous tip, or a misdemeanant. Rather, the police had direct evidence that he committed the felony prior to taking him into custody. The…
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
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979)
- Vera v. State, 400 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)