MICHAEL W. GREEN, 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.
Green challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from an inventory search of his impounded vehicle. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that police officers have discretion to impound vehicles and are not required to offer alternatives to impoundment before conducting inventory searches.
The officer was not compelled to provide Green with alternatives to impoundment and was entitled to make a discretionary decision to impound the vehicle. The seizure of evidence as an incident of the proper impoundment was permissible, and the trial court properly denied Green's motion to suppress.
[1] An inventory search of an impounded vehicle is permissible when conducted incident to a proper impoundment.
[2] Law enforcement officers are not compelled to provide alternatives to impoundment when impounding a vehicle.
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“the police officer in the instant case was not compelled to provide Green with an alternative to impoundment but was instead entitled to make a discretionary decision to impound the vehicle or not to do so”
Establishes that officers have discretion regarding impoundment and need not offer alternatives
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer stopped Green's automobile after observing him driving on the wrong side of the road. The vehicle was obstructing traffic. Green exhi…
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 Reasonableness Of Search cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The original opinion of this Court was filed July 14, 1988, and reported at 528 So. 2d 1233, wherein the judgment of the Circuit Court of Bay County denying Green’s motion to suppress evidence was reversed. However, the opinion was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida based on express and direct conflict with its recent decision in State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1989). See State v. Green, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1989). In its decision in Green, the supreme court noted that we had expressly relied on the holding of Miller v. State, 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1981), which was superseded by Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987), as recognized in State v. Wells. Accordingly, the supreme court quashed the opinion of this Court and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wells.
Upon reconsideration, we must affirm the trial court’s denial of Green’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an inventory search of his automobile following its impoundment. In Wells, the supreme court held that
... [ujnder the analysis in Bertine, we believe the [Florida Highway] Patrol is not compelled to provide an alternative to impoundment, as we held in Miller and Sanders [v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla.1981)]. Thus, we believe the officer in this instance acted reasonably by choosing to impound an automobile containing several thousand dollars in cash rather than leave it unprotected at the roadside.
539 So. 2d at 469 (emphasis added).
The sole point on appeal in Green was whether an inventory search of Green’s vehicle conducted without the police officer’s advising him of alternatives to impoundment was an illegal search. However, as is obvious from the above-quoted language in Wells, the police officer in the instant case was not compelled to provide Green with an alternative to impoundment but was instead entitled to make a discretionary decision to impound the vehicle or not to do so. As was true in Wells, we hold that the officer in the instant case acted reasonably by choosing to impound the automobile given the fact that he originally stopped Green’s automobile after observing Green driving on the wrong side of the road, after which stop the car was obstructing traffic. Significant also was the fact that Green exhibited signs of intoxication and his attempts to complete several sobriety tests were not altogether successful.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the seizure of the evidence in this instance was permissible as an incident of a proper impoundment and the trial court did not err in denying Green’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989)
- Sims Crane Serv., Inc. v. Am-Cal Constr. Co., 403 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1980)
- Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. City OF W. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. OF Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Green, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989)
- Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1981)
- Green v. State, 528 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)