STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK STEVEN STARKE, 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 State of Florida appealed a trial court's suppression of cocaine seized during a traffic stop, arguing the drugs were lawfully observed before any detention occurred. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer's observation of cocaine through the car window before any seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The appellate court reversed the suppression order, holding that observing contraband through a vehicle window prior to any detention or seizure does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, and that shining a flashlight into the interior of a vehicle violates no constitutional rights.
[1] A police officer's observation of contraband in plain view inside a vehicle from a location not protected by the Fourth Amendment does not constitute an unlawful search.
[2] Shining a flashlight into the interior of a vehicle does not violate Fourth Amendment rights.
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 contraband was lawfully observed prior to any detention or seizure”
Establishes that the court's key distinction is the timing of observation relative to detention, not merely the method of observation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 1:00 a.m., Officer Thickens observed a Volkswagen in a well-lit public parking lot behind an open restaurant and bar. After the appellee and anothe…
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 Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant, the State of Florida, seeks review of the trial court order granting appellee/defendant, Mark Steven Starke’s, motion to suppress cocaine seized as the result of an alleged unlawful search. We reverse.
At 1:00 a.m. on April 8, 1988, Officer John Thickens of the Tampa Police Department was on patrol. He observed a Volkswagen parked in the parking lot behind a restaurant and bar that was still open. One person was sitting in the car, arousing Thickens’ suspicions. Thickens circled the block and took up a concealed vantage point behind a broken fence adjacent to the parking lot. The Volkswagen had driven off, but the officer stayed to see if any crime was afoot relating to the Volkswagen.
A couple of minutes later, Thickens saw appellee and another male drive into the parking lot, park and enter the bar. Five minutes later, appellee exited the bar with a girl. The couple got into the car. The parking lot was well lighted and Thickens had a clear view through the back window of the car so that he could see the backs of their heads from about thirty feet away. Appellee and the girl sat in the parked car without turning on the lights or the engine. Thickens saw appellee pass something to the girl, but could not make out what it was. Based on his experience and the fact that his area of patrol had a high incidence of drug use, Thickens suspected the occupants were engaged in drug use. He walked up to the car, knocked on the driver’s side window, identified himself as a police officer and shined his flashlight into the front seat of the car. Appellee, sitting in the driver’s seat, refused to roll down the window.
When Thickens shined his flashlight into the car, he saw the girl in the passenger’s seat with a knife blade underneath her nose. She appeared to be snorting cocaine. The girl started to get out of the car, so Thickens went to the passenger’s side and took her into custody. Appellee began to get out of the driver’s side, so Thickens took the girl with him to the driver’s side to prevent appellee from leaving. Thickens arrested both appellee and the girl for possession of cocaine and found cocaine residue on the knife blade and a little over two grams of cocaine under the driver’s seat. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress the cocaine seized by Thickens, and appellant/state filed this appeal. Appellant argues that the trial court improperly relied on Spence v. State, 525 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We agree with appellant that Spence does not apply here for the reasons set forth in State v. Billingsly, 542 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
The Billingsly court distinguished Spence, 525 So. 2d at 442, on the grounds that in Spence, the drugs were observed after the police officer had illegally detained the occupants of the vehicle. In this case, as in Billingsly, the contraband was lawfully observed prior to any detention or seizure. See also State v. Flores, 305 So. 2d 292 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 189 (Fla.1975).
The facts in this case are almost identical with those in Billingsly. The fifth district there noted that a deputy located in a nonprotected area, such as a parking lot open to the public, looking inside a constitutionally protected area, a vehicle, does not violate any fourth amendment rights. Similarly, the act of shining a flashlight into the interior of a vehicle violates no rights. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983).
We agree with Billingsly and accordingly reverse the trial court’s order to suppress.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ecker, 550 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…t believed that Carter required this result. Assuming Mr. Ecker is correct that his initial position in the car did not create a founded suspicion, he overlooks the fact that the deputy’s mere approach to the car was not a seizure. State v. Starke, 550 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Mr. Ecker had no reason to believe that he was not free to leave and, consequently, was not seized until the deputy opened the vehicle door and announced that he was under arrest. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 108 S.Ct.19…
-
Sierra v. State, 568 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
-
State v. Sowers, 571 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…al it. A subsequent search produced an additional baggie of white powder, a razor blade with powder on it, and a marijuana cigarette. The use of the flashlight, under these circumstances, infringes upon no Fourth Amendment rights. State v. Starke, 550 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Ecker, 550 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Once he had shined the light, and observed the box, powder, and straw, the officer had probable cause to arrest. See, e.g., State v. Hall, 376 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Flores, 305 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Billingsly, 542 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Spence v. State, 525 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Flores v. State, 315 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1975)
- Gray v. State, 315 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1975)