THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LUZ PIEDAD JIMENO AND ENIO JIMENO, APPELLEES
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.
Consent to search a vehicle for narcotics does not automatically extend to the search of a closed container found within the vehicle.
An officer obtained consent to search a vehicle for narcotics. During the search, a closed paper bag was found on the passenger floorboard. The trial …
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 Closed Containers cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order granting defendants’ motion to suppress physical evidence. We affirm.
The question presented in this appeal is whether a concededly valid consent to search a motor vehicle for narcotics permits a search of a closed paper bag found on the front floor of the passenger side of that car. The trial court found that even though the officer advised defendants that he wanted to search the vehicle for illegal drugs, defendants never specifically consented to a search of the rolled-up bag. Based on that finding, the trial court concluded that the scope of the consent given did not extend to the search and seizure of the bag.
This court has held that consent to a general search for narcotics does not extend to “sealed containers within the general area agreed to by the defendant.” Shelton v. State, 549 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We decline to depart from the holding and rationale of Shelton;
we certify to the Florida supreme court the same question certified in Shelton.
Affirmed.
. As in Shelton, here, viewing the totality of the circumstances, "the record is devoid of any facts which would have justified the opening of the sealed container at issue.” Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Walton, 565 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…rder and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1989), affirmed, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); State v. Jimeno, 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); and Shelton v. State, 549 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) are distinguishable from the facts presented here. In those cases, no actual consent to search the contents of the vehicle or the area had been obtained. In contrast, here,…
-
State v. Jimeno, 564 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1990)…[*1084] GRIMES, Justice. We accepted jurisdiction1 to review State v. Jimeno, 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), wherein the district court of appeal certified as being of great public importance a question concerning the lawfulness of searching a closed container after consent has been given to search a motor vehicle for narcotics. We agr…
-
State v. Hester, 618 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1993)…SEARCH OF A BROWN PAPER BAG FOLDED-OVER, WITHIN THE VEHICLE, WHICH IS NEITHER LOCKED NOR SEALED? We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. A similar question was certified to this Court in State v. Jimeno, 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We originally responded to the question in the negative. State v. Jimeno, 564 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1990), cert. granted, 498 U.S. 997, 111 S.Ct. 554, 112 L.Ed.2d 561 (1990). However, our deci [*1366] sion was reversed by the United S…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frazier v. State, 549 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)