ROBERT RICHARDSON, 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 the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle searched pursuant to a valid search warrant that authorized search of the premises, yard, curtilage, and all vehicles thereon.
A search warrant authorizing search of premises together with yard, curtilage, and all vehicles thereon validly authorizes the search of a vehicle located in the yard.
[1] A search warrant authorizing search of premises together with yard, curtilage, and all vehicles thereon validly authorizes search of vehicles located in the yard.
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 intelligenceOfficers executed a valid search warrant authorizing entry and search of specified premises, yard, curtilage, and all vehicles thereon for controlled …
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 Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of nolo contendere after having reserved the right to appeal his motion to suppress evidence. Although not clearly recited in the transcript of the plea hearing, it is obvious that at some time this right had been reserved, because at sentencing, the trial court advised the defendant that “your attorney has reserved the right to appeal on your behalf the suppression hearing.” The motion was found to be dispositive. The State has not challenged the appellant’s right to appeal.
The trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed. The facts in this case are almost identical to those in State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982). Here, in executing a valid search warrant which authorized entry upon and a search of the specifically described premises “together with the yard and curtilage thereof, and all vehicles thereon ...” for “controlled substances [and] narcotics paraphernalia ...” the officers searched the appellant’s vehicle which was in the yard at the time, and discovered the contraband which appellant sought to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
DANIEL, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Quillis Lee Freeman, Jr., 673 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…n any vehicle found on the property and the alleged illegal activity when the search warrant authorizes the police to search any vehicle within the curtilage of the premises. State v. Booream, 560 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Richardson v. State, 547 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. den., 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982); but see Miller v. State, 516 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Given that the authority to search the vehicle was explicitly within the…
-
State v. Booream, 560 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…upholding the search of the vehicle in Haugee was that the warrant expressly authorized search of any vehicles within the yard and curtilage of the dwelling. More recently, the fifth district reaffirmed its decision in Haugee in Richardson v. State, 547 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), under virtually identical circumstances. In neither Haugee nor Richardson did the court require any reasonable connection between the search of the vehicle and the association of the vehicle's owner with the illicit activity wit…
-
Lowe v. State, 751 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…n any vehicle found on the property and the alleged illegal activity when the search warrant authorizes the police to search any vehicle within the curtilage of the premises. State v. Booream, 560 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Richardson v. State, 547 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. den., 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982); but see Miller v. State, 516 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Given that the authority to search the vehicle was explicitly within the…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Haugee, 402 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)